Comments on: DOT rulemaking — here’s our take on expanded tarmac delay rules http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/dot-rulemaking-on-final-stretch-%e2%80%94-heres-our-take-on-expanded-tarmac-delay-rules/ The last honest travel site Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joel Wechsler http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/dot-rulemaking-on-final-stretch-%e2%80%94-heres-our-take-on-expanded-tarmac-delay-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-25422 Joel Wechsler Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:03:48 +0000 http://www.consumertraveler.com/?p=30702#comment-25422 It seems to me that there is some room for dialogue between the pilot and ATC during which questions as to availability of CBP personnel, ground suppoprt etc. could be asked. My guess is that VA flight crew are probably unfamiliar with BDL and therefore had no idea what they were getting into. It seems to me that there is some room for dialogue between the pilot and ATC during which questions as to availability of CBP personnel, ground suppoprt etc. could be asked. My guess is that VA flight crew are probably unfamiliar with BDL and therefore had no idea what they were getting into.

]]> By: John Baker http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/dot-rulemaking-on-final-stretch-%e2%80%94-heres-our-take-on-expanded-tarmac-delay-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-25310 John Baker Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:05:23 +0000 http://www.consumertraveler.com/?p=30702#comment-25310 My only concern with this regulation is that it puts the onus for compliance on the airline even when they might not be responsible for the delay or the inability to deplane passengers. The perfect example was the recent VA flight 001 that ATC diverted to Bradley International due to weather in the NYC area (Ned’s entire story here: http://www.consumertraveler.com/columns/should-the-tarmac-delay-rule-be-extended-to-international-flights/). The short version of this sad story is that by the time the flight landed at Bradley it was basically out of food and water, for some reason the plane couldn’t be refueled, the air conditioning didn’t work on the ground, VA does have any operations at Bradley so the flight did have any ground support, and CBP doesn’t operate the Customs check point at night. All of this combined to a lengthy tarmac delay for those on the flight (unfortunately after a lengthy delay in London reportedly due to some issues with the heating and cooling issues). This is the one case where I can’t find that the airline did anything wrong and the new regulation would penalize the airline. From everything I’ve read, ATC not the airline chose the divert airport but the airline would now be held responsible for ATC choosing to divert a plane to an airport without an operating CBP checkpoint or ground staff for the airline. The airline had no reasonable means to resupply the aircraft and couldn’t legally deplane because the CBP checkpoint was manned. The way I read the new regulation, an airline would have to have contingency plans to use any divert airport. In the Northeast a lot of small airports have CBP facilities due to flights from Canada that means contingency planning for any airport large enough to handle your aircraft. This is further compounded by the requirement that the CBP checkpoint be manned to deplane passengers. An airline can have on the contingency plans in place but if the government fails to follow its portion, the airline not the government gets punished and that just doesn’t seem fair. I’m all for holding airlines accountable for circumstances that they can control (mainly the decision on when to board the aircraft and taxi away from the gate). I don’t think it’s right to hold the airlines accountable for decisions made by government entities. This is further compounded by the DOT not being able to establish rules that mandate or govern actions by either the TSA or CBP since, as part of DHS, they fall outside the DOT area of responsibility. My only concern with this regulation is that it puts the onus for compliance on the airline even when they might not be responsible for the delay or the inability to deplane passengers.

The perfect example was the recent VA flight 001 that ATC diverted to Bradley International due to weather in the NYC area (Ned’s entire story here: http://www.consumertraveler.com/columns/should-the-tarmac-delay-rule-be-extended-to-international-flights/).

The short version of this sad story is that by the time the flight landed at Bradley it was basically out of food and water, for some reason the plane couldn’t be refueled, the air conditioning didn’t work on the ground, VA does have any operations at Bradley so the flight did have any ground support, and CBP doesn’t operate the Customs check point at night.

All of this combined to a lengthy tarmac delay for those on the flight (unfortunately after a lengthy delay in London reportedly due to some issues with the heating and cooling issues).

This is the one case where I can’t find that the airline did anything wrong and the new regulation would penalize the airline.

From everything I’ve read, ATC not the airline chose the divert airport but the airline would now be held responsible for ATC choosing to divert a plane to an airport without an operating CBP checkpoint or ground staff for the airline. The airline had no reasonable means to resupply the aircraft and couldn’t legally deplane because the CBP checkpoint was manned.

The way I read the new regulation, an airline would have to have contingency plans to use any divert airport. In the Northeast a lot of small airports have CBP facilities due to flights from Canada that means contingency planning for any airport large enough to handle your aircraft. This is further compounded by the requirement that the CBP checkpoint be manned to deplane passengers. An airline can have on the contingency plans in place but if the government fails to follow its portion, the airline not the government gets punished and that just doesn’t seem fair.

I’m all for holding airlines accountable for circumstances that they can control (mainly the decision on when to board the aircraft and taxi away from the gate). I don’t think it’s right to hold the airlines accountable for decisions made by government entities. This is further compounded by the DOT not being able to establish rules that mandate or govern actions by either the TSA or CBP since, as part of DHS, they fall outside the DOT area of responsibility.

]]>