Why Can't This Be Retroactive? Airlines Spanked for Tarmac Waits

http://www.freep.com/article/2009122...wait-on-tarmac

Finally. Get these abusers back for their crimes against humanity! [[heh)



Two weeks before September 11th, a United plane I was on from LA to NYC La Guardia was grounded in Buffalo due some odd weather...and since I knew two people on the fabled Northwest Airlines flight that spent nearly 12 hours at Metro [[they now incorrectly say 8) during that huge snowstorm...I recognized the potential trouble, requested the flight crew make accommodations, and perhaps warded off a riot on the plane with an impromptu game of "Who'll play us in the made-for-tv-movie?".

We were on the ground for something like five or six hours, after our previous night's plane had been cancelled due mechanical difficulties [[and they couldn't find another to replace it, at the end of the day...for a plane FULL of red-eyers). MOST of our frustrations were due the poor handling the night before, when they ONLY cancelled the flight because they couldn't legally hold the flight crew any longer...there was NO consideration for the paying passengers one whit.

United couldn't have handled the situation any worse, and if I hadn't forgotten the legal pad with everyone's contact info...and all of their business cards...at my friend's apartment two blocks from the WTC, we'd have filed a huge class-action suit against them. My friend found it all when he was finally able to return to his place a few months later...but by then everyone was pretty happy we were still alive so we passed on punishing United any more than they'd already been.


Without that extraordinary event, though, there was a sure suit. I will never, ever fly United again, even if it ends up being the last airline in the country.


But this new law is way past overdue. There was NO excuse for United not being able to get a stairway to the plane to get us offloaded in Buffalo, nor any reason why they didn't order the bathrooms emptied the moment we knew we weren't going anywhere. It was really amazingly disgusting, and it almost went nuclear until the pilot acquiesced to open the front doors so the smokers could get their nicotine fix.

If my seatmate hadn't been Pamela Anderson's hand and foot double, I'd have had a worse time...but sharing our stories and having a few dozen Pentax employees on board cutting up and documenting everything digitally...then finally sharing cell phones for those who were without...made it bearable...

...and bound us together so the airline couldn't divide and conquer us when we finally arrived. It almost got ugly at La Guardia, the airport police were all around expecting a riot. I cannot remember ever being more angry in my life.


Wow...sorry for the run-on...this obviously hit a nerve.


Now, when we see how quickly the airlines accommodate these new rules, we'll see how they've been lying to us all these years of extreme tarmac abuse.


Cheers, boy was that cathartic. I feel like a new man. I still want my $27,500 from United, though. Retroactive, with interest.

Watch how this makes prices go up...government regulations always do.

Not price regulations.

How do you think this will alter pricing? All they have to do is MANAGE their flow better, and make reasonable accommodations during emergencies and bad weather.

They have to park all these planes somewhere, and all airports must have portable stairs...and rolling commode maintenance and food service.

There is NOTHING in this that should make pricing go up, as long as they start to behave and treat people humanely.

I didn't say "price regulations"...I said "regulations". Compliance will cost money, the costs get translated to increased prices.

I merely corrected your GROSS mis-statement of extremely incorrect generalities.

Whacko right-wing conspiracy theorist you are...heh.

And it is obvious again that you place money above people.

This is a pathology...a true and deep sickness that you share with other greedy individuals who want to hide behind someone else's justifications of bad behavior.

But you misquoted me in this supposed "correction"...illogical.

Hey, I'm still in my shock of cathartic rage here...I've got some latitude.


Doesn't make you any less wrong.

I didn't misquote you...you made it too general, and I was able to glibly find fault.

You think they do this just to antagonize people? CC is correct. The costs to accomodate even the slightest chance of delays like this will be passed on to you Gannon.

It costs nothing to send the ramp to the door, and let people off into the terminal. Any costs would be a punitive measure by the wealth interests who own the airlines.

That industry needs a complete overhaul.

Have you ever read all the unnecessary fine print on those airline tickets? Copious unnecessary paperwork is a sure sign of a bureaucracy run amok. I understand that their overall scheduling problems are enormous but their passengers only want to get from point A to point B ASAP. What's so difficult about giving them that service for which they've paid?

Pile on all that post-9/11 security overkill inconvenience and I'll just drive instead, thank you very much.

Sincerest thanks to Detroit for making products that can be used as an alternative to the arrogant airlines.

I'm not sure this will lead to price increases but, given the way that the whole air travel system is connected today, it is pretty certain that will be a greater number of cancelled flights.

Like jimaz, I'll drive anywhere within 1,400-1,500 miles of here whenever time is not of the essence.

Another alternative we've been exploring is to enlist a relative with a pilot's license to fly us around in a small private plane. General aviation planes face far less bureaucracy [[so I've been told). Technically, it should be far less efficient than an airline but if the airlines' bureaucracy already absorbs their economy-of-scale savings, what's the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

It costs nothing to send the ramp to the door, and let people off into the terminal. Any costs would be a punitive measure by the wealth interests who own the airlines.

---

It cost money to buy or lease a gate that has a ramp that can be sent to the door. An "wealth interests" who own the airlines? The same ones who went bankrupt over the past decade?

Quote:

---

Have you ever read all the unnecessary fine print on those airline tickets?

...Pile on all that post-9/11 security overkill inconvenience...

---

Thank the lawyers for the fine print and the costs of complying with it. And thank the American public and your congressman who were outraged that pre-9/11 security let the hijackers through, even though they weren't carrying any banned weapons. The private security contractors were fired, the government federalized the secuity force then hired the same people back, with a big pay raise, and made the airlines pay for it.

JiminNM is correct; there will be more cancelled flights. The airlines could avoid the problem by scheduling fewer flights, but that will cause fares to increase. Or they could aquire more aircraft, gates, and employees to wait around for the odd time or two that Gannon gets stuck in Buffalo and raise fares to pay for it. Or the government could modernize the air traffic control system, and airports could expand their facilities, and pass the expense along to the consumer through higher fares.

I can't wait until to see a five hour flight to the west coast get a two and a half hour delay before it departs, while a one hour flight to Chicago cancels because it it has a three hour delay.

Sorry, but that lease doesn't stipulate how many times they can run the ramp to the plane, and it would only be once in a while, not constantly, so no fees involved. Only the punitive ones levied by the airlines.

People don't want to travel, especially on shorter flights when you have to get to the airport two hours early, deal with the police not allowing you to offload, ushering you along, having to circle to park for god knows how long, extra fees for bags, and for bags that weigh a certain amount, and now talking about charging clients who weigh too much.

Taking off your shoes does it for me.

A woman I know had an air cannon shot up her skirt looking for who knows what, probably weapons of ass destruction.

Sorry, but crammed into a plane without any room, smaller seats, no food, no pillows or blankets that you don't have to pay for, etc.

No wonder they are all in financial trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

People don't want to travel...

---

But they are more and more each year, more than before 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

...especially on shorter flights when you have to get to the airport two hours early, deal with the police not allowing you to offload, ushering you along, having to circle to park for god knows how long, extra fees for bags, and for bags that weigh a certain amount, and now talking about charging clients who weigh too much.

Taking off your shoes does it for me.

---

Sounds like the airports can't handle the ever increasing passenger numbers. You want security or don't you? Make up your mind. And quit complaining about the seats, they haven't changed size in decades. Quit drinking so many frappuccinos if you can't fit into one, or pay for first class cheap bastard.

Lorax wrote: " Any costs would be a punitive measure by the wealth interests who own the airlines."

Then Lorax wrote: "The airlines are all in bankruptcy for a reason."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

Sorry, but that lease doesn't stipulate how many times they can run the ramp to the plane, and it would only be once in a while, not constantly, so no fees involved.

---

If you have six gates at LaGuardia with six airplanes parked at them, and six more waiting to park, it doesn't matter what the lease stipulates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Lorax wrote: " Any costs would be a punitive measure by the wealth interests who own the airlines."

Then Lorax wrote: "The airlines are all in bankruptcy for a reason."

---

And what is inconsistent in either of those statements?

Both are true, so what's the real reason behind the mocking tone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeM

If you have six gates at LaGuardia with six airplanes parked at them, and six more waiting to park, it doesn't matter what the lease stipulates.

---

Assumption based on nothing.

Bottom line, there is no cost unless they choose to impose one. Just like blankets, baggage, pillows, and food. If they can't build it into the ticket, then just don't bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeM

But they are more and more each year, more than before 9/11.

Sounds like the airports can't handle the ever increasing passenger numbers. You want security or don't you? Make up your mind. And quit complaining about the seats, they haven't changed size in decades. Quit drinking so many frappuccinos if you can't fit into one, or pay for first class cheap bastard.

---

No name calling, Mikey.

Where do you get your travel figures?

Sorry, but travelers are down- alot. Sure, I want security, I just don't think it's necessary to remove my shoes.

However, in your case removing shoes may cause the masks to drop from the ceiling and the hazmat team called in, further delaying any flight.

Seats on international flights have been reduced in coach/business class. No empty seats on any flights domestic or international. Seats are oversold to pump up the numbers as well, doesn't reflect reality, much like your bathroom mirror.

You want another round with me? :eek:

No assumption. Gates are full, no place to park an airplane. Need more gates? Pay up.

Gates full at a half dozen airports two or three times a year. No money to add gates, no one's doing it in this economy.

Quote:

---

Sorry, but travelers are down- alot.

---

Revenue passengers:

2000 665,513,000
2001 622,131,000
2002 612,872,000
2003 646,523,000
2004 702,921,000
2005 738,629,000
2006 744,242,000
2007 768,849,000
2008 651,669,046

Down last year, but according to you, that's because of security. It wouldn't have anything to do with the economy.

Quote:

---

Sure, I want security, I just don't think it's necessary to remove my shoes.

---

So you only want partial security. You don't want a gun onboard, but a shoe filled with C-4 is okay.

Quote:

---

No empty seats on any flights domestic or international. Seats are oversold to pump up the numbers as well

---

Really? Is that why load factors are running around 61%? Or are you telling me than passenger numbers are up?