Why was Delta Air Lines flight 745 stuck on the tarmac 392 minutes?

Two things I don’t understand about this.

1. Airlines are not a police/law-enforcement agency. Thus, they cannot force you to do anything that you do not want to do. Thus, if you’re at 35,000 feet and say, “I want to get off.”, they cannot force you to stay on the plane. They have to land, let you off, and start over. Refusing the request would be imprisonment, and only a court may order an imprisonment. So, when passengers say, on the ground, “We want to get off”, why aren’t the airlines being charged with false imprisonment.

2. Of all the delayed flights, only ONE PASSENGER has realized the solution? Open the emergency exit door. Don’t leave the plane, but after 3 hours, open the emergency exit door. Tarmac wait is over.

The airlines have had ample opportunity to prove that they can address this problem on their own, without government regulation or oversight. Now that they’ve shown that they’re either incapable of or uninterested in addressing it (beyond ignoring it and lobbying against regulation), I think it’s time for Congress and/or the DOT to start doing its job.

But I wouldn’t set specific standards. Rather, I would require each airline to develop and PUBLICIZE their own standards and procedures, to which regulators (and customers) would hold them accountable. If passengers get “imprisoned” on a plane due to a violation of the airline’s published standards and procedures, they then are subject to fines along with compensation of the affected passengers. This approach, I think, would provide airline executives with incentives to address the problem, but without “excessive government interference.” Currently, they have no such incentive, and thus prefer to let passengers suffer and even subject themselves to adverse publicity rather than do anything that might cost them money.

Joking, but out of ideas too. The government needs to start punishing airlines for locking people in metal tubes for hours. Perhaps locking an airline exec in solitary for one day/passenger or something.

I like the idea of letting the airlines set their standards, but only if they get no outs. If the airline wants to say, “max 18 hours tarmac delay”, then people can decide not to fly with them.

Hapgood September 8, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Rather, I would require each airline to develop and PUBLICIZE their own standards and procedures, to which regulators (and customers) would hold them accountable. If passengers get “imprisoned” on a plane due to a violation of the airline’s published standards and procedures, they then are subject to fines along with compensation of the affected passengers.
==================================================

Sureeeeeeeee, enact the above nonsense and there will come a day where it’s cheaper to just CANCEL EVERYTHING on a weather related delay. Like that $89 dollar fare to Florida is going to “cover” fines and compensation, LET ALONE the expense of operating the flight.

OK, Frank. Since any regulation would unduly harm airline operation, what do YOU suggest as an appropriate solution to this problem?

Maybe airline lawyers could solve everything by burying this text in the the contract of carriage. “Passenger acknowledges and accepts the possibility of indefinite aircraft delays on the tarmac prior to departure or following scheduled or unscheduled landing, for as long as the airline deems appropriate for operational necessity and efficiency. Passenger agrees to accept such delays as an inevitable consequence of airline operation, and in the event of such a delay agrees to sit quietly in the assigned seat until the airline authorizes deplaning or other action that they, at their sole discretion, deem appropriate. Passenger agrees to fully cooperate with all orders of airline personnel during such delays, and acknowledges that the failure to cooperate or engaging in any behavior that airline personnel, at their sole discretion, deem inappropriate shall constitute the Federal Offense of Interfering With A Flight Crew and be subject to such penalties as the United States Justice Department deems appropriate. Passenger agrees to hold the airline harmless for any consequences or sequelae of tarmac delays, and agrees that no compensation shall be due or requested. Passenger further agrees to not make any public remarks or comments that the airline, at their sole discretion, deems disparaging, derogatory or inflammatory regarding any incidents of tarmac delays or other specifics of airline operation.”

James May at the Air Transport Assn. (ATA) thinks its OK to be stuck on a plane for more than 7 hrs. ATA main phone # (202) 626-4000

Keith September 8, 2009 at 8:56 pm
If frustrated. It seems to me that it’s unreasonable to expect people to sit in an aluminum tube which reeks of overflowed toilets for 7 hours.
—————————————————————————-
Hapgood September 9, 2009 at 12:01 am
OK, Frank. Since any regulation would unduly harm airline operation, what do YOU suggest as an appropriate solution to this problem?

=================================================

Trust me, so do I, Keith. I’ve done it several times, my delays were over 4 hours on the ramp.
It’s a COMPLEX issue. Return to the gate seems to be the most logical answer to allow passengers the freedom to decide if they still want to travel, cancel for the day and/or rebook. Some destinations have low frequencies, though. You may not be able to get on another flight for hours or even days. That happened with Jetblue in JFK. Those stranded passengers couldnt understand why they werent getting on OTHER flights when they had been waiting for days. (Because other passengers HELD a reservation on it, that’s why). Mobs at JFK had to be restrained by Port Authority Police. Is that a good solution to tarmac delays? Yes and No.
Look at why it happens in the first place. It’s the number of flights that depart the airport per hour. That’s on a GOOD weather day and BAD weather day. Should the government cap the number of flights at all airports? More re-regulation. Less choice by the consumer.
In all of these cases, the big problem with returning to the gate is that there was NO GATE space available. Remember, the airline is the TENANT of the airport. In most cases, they LEASE gate space. If those gates are filled with delays, these tarmac situations usually happen in severe weather. Where do they go? I usually see the solution: Bus them back to the terminal. Ok. Good answer, but who’s got buses sitting at every airport in this country to accomodate that “solution”? And, who’s responsible? should the government be responsible for the safety of passengers, the airlines or the airport, should they have contingency plan during inclement weather? They should when they caused those passengers to remain onboard a flight in the Washington State area, because it was an international flight and no immigration/customs agents were there to clear them late into the night.
Ok, you go back to the gate and now what? That plane was scheduled to do probably 3 or 4 more flights that day. What happens to those passengers when the aircraft returned to the gate two thousand miles away? I can already hear the fists hitting the counters in frustration. And, the mantra, I WANT A FREE…………WE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED. WHERE’S OUR HOTEL ROOM?
I think Government sits by, silently, because they know they are responsible for the ATC system. The infrastructure of the airports. etc. Yet, LITTLE has been done to accomodate the increase of air travel over the decades.
Aircraft size is also an issue, but competition allows Regional jets competing with larger aircraft. Should they change that to reduce congestion? By doing so, it puts employees out of a job.

Tarmac delay solution? Figure out the gate space situation for inbound and delayed flights. Allow return of flights, but, also, look into why these flights were allowed to leave the gate in the first place. They needed ATC clearance….somehow, cap that in a severe weather situation. Keep the planes at the gates or on the ramp area instead. And, most importantly, this will cause impatience with the traveling public as well. WHEN WE GONNA BOARD???? for hours.
The plane is parked. That means you’re NOW STRANDED AT THE AIRPORT. You havent even started your travel yet. And, lets not forget the crew legalities. I wont work over 15 hours. That’s an FAA regulation. Your flight may be at an airport that does not have the means of getting you a replacement crew.

Many, many variables to decide when you want to fix this situation.

It is going to take government regulation to prevent this from happening, because the airlines will not make this right voluntarily.

Either that or someone becoming serious ill or dying on a flight stuck on the tarmac will force airlines to do the right thing.

I like Keith’s sentiment, but opening the emergency doors without there being an emergency is asking for more problems than you’re solving.

To me the clear solution is to institute a system of escalating fines. After two and a half hours, the customer gets $200. Add $200 for each hour after that. The airlines will make the economic decision to let passengers off rather than than hold them. Currently, it’s cheaper for them to wait on the tarmac. A 7-hour wait would be worth $1000 apiece to the passengers, and I think that would be a satisfactory solution.

Hapgood September 9, 2009 at 11:11 am
In other words, Frank, it’s just SOOOO complicated that really the only thing an airline can do is nothing.
Hapgood September 9, 2009 at 11:11 am
In other words, Frank, it’s just SOOOO complicated that really the only thing an airline can do is nothing.
It’s good to see that despite all the cutbacks and sacrifices airline employees are being forced to make so their executives can continue to receive every penny of their entitled compensation, some employees still have enough natural bovine fertilizer to enjoy luxuriant front lawns.

==================================================

Hapgood, just wait until the legislation comes out. WE’LL SEE how it’s worked out. I simply EXPLAINED the variables involved.

Lets hear YOU fix the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank, I did propose a solution. My response was to your dismissal of it. Since you’re the expert, and since you’re dismissing everything anyone proposes as “complicated” or “impossible,” what is YOUR solution– besides the current one of doing nothing?

A flight dispatcher should be a licensed job if it’s not. Any flight dispatcher who tells a fully loaded plane to push back from a gate in the middle of a blizzard should lose their license. It’s a blizzard. You’re not going anywhere soon.

If you have to make room for incoming planes, that’s understandable. On the other hand, you don’t have to seat passengers on the plane pushing back. Just push it back empty.

The standby situation can be resolved by redefining a ticket. A ticket should not be for “Flight 123 leaving at 3pm on Tuesday” (cause it’s not, that’s our whole debate here. They can leave when they please.). A ticket should be for “The first flight with seats available leaving at or after 3pm on Tuesday.” Thus, if a large series of cancellations occur due to weather, the displaced passengers are transported first, then so on and so forth until operations are normal again. Thus, no confused mobs at airports. Just have a hotline to call before leaving for the airport, and newly ticketed passengers would get a recording, “All available seats are filled with denied boarding passengers until… Friday … at… 5…30…pm”.

I still believe an inventive carrier may start a solution. Some years ago smoking on airplanes was contentious issue. Fights broke out regularly. Government “help” made it worse. Then Herb Kelleher, a chain smoker himself, declared Southwest Airlines to be smoke free. They lost a few smokers but gained a solid following of non-smokers.

A carrier today bold enough to promise they will return to a gate after some period could seize enough additional share to more than offset the expense of that policy. That successful policy would then force other carriers to follow.

The question then is, does any carrier have leadership with the vision Rollin King and Herb Kelleher showed then?

Seems I crossed up the history a bit. Thanks for catching this. Actually it was Lamar Muse, when he left Southwest and started Muse Air in 1982, who created a no-smoking carrier. When Southwest bought out Muse a few years later, Southwest revoked Muse’s smoke free policy.

Interestingly enough, Northwest Airlines alone went beyond the federal requirements that became effective April 23, 1988. Federal rules banned smoking on all flights of two hours or less. On the same day NWAL adopted a company policy making all its domestic flights 100% smoke free.

I did remember some of the fights over smoking correctly. Frank correctly notes the efforts by Flight Attendants to end smoking on airplanes. LA Times reports some details here http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-30/travel/tr-1974_1 . My favorite was the Eastern Shuttle that barely got the wheels up leaving DCA before dropping them again to land at BWI. I was living in D.C. at the time and remember the incident.

Seems the vision part did not really help Muse. They only survived a few years. Hard to tell 20 years later if any benefit accrued to NWAL for going beyond regulations.

I still would like to see a carrier pledge to return passengers to a terminal after some reasonable period of ground delay. Aside from the vision issue, there comes the very real question of how many passengers can or would patronize this carrier in return for their policy. Many business travelers have little choice of carrier, being assigned to flights by a corporate travel agent/department. At the same time, the price shopping leisure travelers seem to show little or no product differentiation. Would a “no prisoners” policy be likely to sway the corporate agents or the price conscious leisure travelers to this enlightened carrier?