Other than debating health care proposals these days, Washington D.C. seems to be asleep at the switch. But the airline travel front and efforts to legislate a maximum three-hour tarmac-delay rule as part of the FAA Reauthorization bill is moving forward.
Take the Consumer Travel Alliance Tarmac-Delay Poll
Since the double August fiascos of the Continental Express flight delayed five-and-a-half hours overnight in Rochester, Minn. and the Sun Country six-hour tarmac delay on a flight from JFK to Minneapolis, many travel organizations have united behind the three-hour tarmac-delay rules proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Olympia Snow (R-Me.).
Are these proposed rules a good thing?
At the same time as the Sun Country flight was sitting on the tarmac in JFK a flight operated by Northwest decided to turn back to the terminal and deplane. That flight was eventually canceled and most of the passengers were forced to unexpectedly spend the night in New York at their own expense. Most had problems finding open flights to Minneapolis the next day.
The Sun Country passengers were “stranded” for six hours, but they arrived at their destination that same day. The Northwest passengers returned to the terminal and faced added expenses and uncertainty and did not get to their destination until the next day. Who was better off?
Take the Consumer Travel Alliance Tarmac-Delay Poll
Bad weather will always be considered an act of God. Under any legislation under consideration airlines will not be financially responsible for hotel costs and food costs during any delay.
If a delayed flight returns to the the terminal after three hours, should the baggage be off-loaded so that those who decide to not take the flight can get their checked luggage returned, or will they have to do without until they eventually arrive at their destination?
As with any legislation and regulation, there are unintended consequences. Getting aircraft off the runway after an extended delay is easy to legislate. The problems arise when the airlines have to deal with the problems with resulting cancellations, checked luggage, and rebooking that will be created by the proposed law.
What do you think? Take the Consumer Travel Alliance Tarmac-Delay Poll. Register your vote.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Here’s an idea … how about airlines don’t board people until there’s a reasonable chance that the flight will depart. That way the crews hours won’t start (they start at push back) and the flight can depart when the weather clears. This would keep crew hours from being an issue (if the crew can’t take off after the delay, then they wouldn’t have been able take off after sitting on the tarmac).
Of course, the crews won’t like this since they don’t get paid until the flight pushes back. If fact, I’ve had crew members tell me that they shut the door in situations like this so they can go “on the clock.”
Of course, the crews won’t like this since they don’t get paid until the flight pushes back. If fact, I’ve had crew members tell me that they shut the door in situations like this so they can go “on the clock.”
====================================================
You’re confusing two issues. There’s DUTY TIME and FLIGHT TIME. Two ways the crew has issues with being on duty.
A crewmember can work up to 15 hours in one day. You’re duty day starts when you arrive at the airport for a scheduled flight. If the flight is delayed, you STILL ACCRUE duty time.
A crewmember can FLY UP to domestically, 8 hours in one day. You’re flight time begins when the plane leaves the gate.
Some airports have 70 departures PER HOUR. Wait to board until there is a reasonable chance the flight may depart. ADD bad weather and the wait and number of planes keeps adding up. Fix that one.