The Senate Commerce Committee last week approved the FAA reauthorization bill containing the bipartisan Boxer-Snowe Airline Passengers Bill of Rights which, among other protections, allows passengers the option to return to the terminal after sitting on the tarmac for three hours.
As one who was locked inside a sealed aircraft for nine hours in 2006, I know this legislation is long overdue. With no food, no water and overflowing toilets, it was a dreadful experience — and no way for the airline to treat its customers.
The airlines’ reaction?
Air Transport Association spokesman David Castelveter has called the three-hour limit “a hard-and-fast inflexible timeframe” that will result in “more cancellations and inconvenience.”
Since when do the lobbyists for commercial airlines care about passenger inconvenience?
“More” cancellations? As one who’s been through it, I can assure you that after nine hours on the tarmac, most of us could care less if our flight counted against cancellation statistics — nor were we in any mood to remain seated for the flight to our destination. Most of us just wanted to go back into the terminal so we could relieve ourselves, eat and book hotel rooms.
In any event, a September 2008 DOT Regulatory Impact Analysis concluded that, far from increasing cancellations, airlines’ awareness of deplaning costs for delayed flights could instead result in better flight management and improved operations overall.
As for the notion that three hours is a “hard-and-fast inflexible timeframe,” I’ll resist the easy temptation to challenge Mr. Castelveter to sit that long in the middle seat in coach without drinkable water or usable toilets.
The fact is, this bipartisan legislation gives maximum flexibility to airports and the airlines alike: Passengers will only be permitted to deplane if it can be done safely, and pilots may extend the time for 30 minutes if there’s a likelihood of immediate departure. Passengers may even choose to remain onboard — but if they do, they’ll be given the chance to change their minds every three hours.
ATA’s Castelveter has also claimed “great progress in reducing lengthy tarmac delays and improving service while on board as reflected in Transportation Department statistics.”
The operative words are “as reflected in Transportation Department statistics.” Those numbers don’t include the 1 million international flights originating in or departing from the U.S. each year, nor any of the smaller carriers that account for one domestic flight out of every four.
Yet setting aside all the flights the DOT excludes, passengers were still stranded on the tarmac for more than three hours on 1,232 flights in 2008 alone. That may represent progress to the airlines, but to their customers, it proves the need for an enforceable time limit.
Kate Hanni
Napa, Calif.
Full story: http://thehill.com/letters/three-hours-on-the-tarmac-legislation-finally-taking-off-2009-07-27.html
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Wow. Who is forcing you to fly? If you don't like it, don't fly. Not rocket science. Or if you think you can do a better job at running our nation's airports, how about stop complaining and give it a go. It is not an ordeal to sit on a tarmac for 3 hours. An ordeal is when your loved ones are off fighting in Iraq for our freedoms...at least there is pride in that. We are so obscenely spoiled in this country and this "issue" is a perfect illustration of that.
The previous comment about not needing to fly is incorrect. People fly for a variety of reasons, such as if they don't, they don't have a job. Industries' hesitation in accepting legislation reminds me of the Seat Belt Laws and the Air Bag Laws. Each of them would save lives, but the auto industry were sure they were the way to wreck and ruin. As long as the industry is not held to account, which is currently happening, nothing will happen. This is the normal operation of capitalism, as regulation effects profits. What the industries always miss in this process is the unintended consequences of a regulation, such as air travel gets better and more people do it. Unfortunately in the short term (50 years) this is a dying industry due to fuel costs and they will fight anything tooth and nail.
Who is forcing me to fly? No one, although I would have to change jobs if I chose not to fly. And, I agree that in the great scheme of things in life, this is not a huge issue compared to having family members risk their life fighting for our freedom.
However, if your point is that nothing should be legislated unless it is more important than loved ones risking their lives in the armed forces, then Congress might as well disband (hmm....now there's an idea).
I happen to believe that some common sense legislation setting bare minimum standards of treatment of passengers by airlines is long overdue. Prisoners have more rights than airline passengers. Do a better job running the airports? The airports aren't the problem - it's the airlines, and given their frequent appearance in bankruptcy court, I could hardly do worse.
Michael surely means "affects" profits, not "effects.". I hope.
July 28th, Delta flight from Charlotte, NC to Atlanta, GA. We were kept on the runway for 5 hours. We even returned to the gate to get more fuel. Delta said you could get off, but you could not get back on or get your luggage. We need legislation now because the airlines will only change when they are forced to change.
I just wonder when the airlines lost perspective on how to care for their customers? To me it seems ridiculous that there needs to be a law on how to take care of people. The airlines of course cannot be held responsible for the weather. But they can be held responsible for how they treat people. You don't treat people like dirt if you want them to fly with you again. If you imprison people for no good reason, then there should be a criminal penalty. The airlines captain should be taken to a court of law to establish if he unjustly imprisoned his passengers. If there was not a good reason other than airline profit, then there should be a criminal penalty. Something like one day in prison for every passenger held against their will.
To Anonymous-you are a complete idiot. Airlines make money because we fly. It is not an issue of being forced. As they are a business and make money from us, they need to manage their affairs more efficiently. It is their problem if a flight is delayed, NOT the passengers.
It is an ordeal to sit on a tarmac for three hours on a filthy plane, overflowing toilets, and vomiting children. Obviously you have never dealth with feeling like an animal trapped in a cage.
As a person who has loved ones in Iraq, how the hell do you equate the two issues above? They have nothing to do with each other!!! You are a complete idiot.
This is starting to look familiar. In the early 1970s, the railroads were experiencing similar events. Their equipment was getting old, taking the train has lost it's luster and the new airlines were cleaning up.
Now the airlines are in the same problem. Taking a plane is nothing more than flying Greyhound. You pay good money to get pushed around by security, treated poorly by the flight crews of most airlines, and worst of all they want you to believe that they (the airlines) are doing you a favor.
This bill of rights is a joke. Congress knows they have to do something, but they don't want to do much since it would take more effort to do it right. How about compensating passengers for being stuck in the plane, on the ground for longer than one hour? How about a refund, in cash, at the gate, if you are kept on the ground for longer than one hour? I would suggest 10% per hour for the first three and then 20% for the next three, and finally 50% per hour for everything over six hours. Passengers would then get paid to sit on the tarmac. Now we're talking about change that will work. I'd bet that the airlines will either get the planes off the ground or passengers off the plane quickly.
To anonymous... have you spent 3 hours sitting on the tarmac with an infant or young child (whether yours or someone else's in the plane)? You are given a limited amount of items that you can bring on an airplane, and they are continually trying to decrease that amount or charge more for it. Kids need diapers, food, drinks... but I guess we can just put the hungry kids with dirty diapers next to you. After all, if you don't like it, don't fly.
And let's look at your argument that if someone doesn't like it, don't fly. That option is taken away from people once they are on the aircraft and the airline refuses to let them deplane. So while you may want to pretend to be righteous here and say it's all a matter of personal choice, it's not. The airlines are taking that choice away from people when they force them to stay on an aircraft on the tarmac.
It is a sad state of affairs in this country when citizens can be treated like this and not rise up. After three hours on a plane, I would have no problem whatsoever rallying the other passengers into a situation whereby we could 'persuade' the flight crew to have mercy on us and let us go. In fact, there are many ways to get off a plane - force is only a last resort. But the fact that people endured this kidnapping at the hands of a moronic flight crew tells me that we have become a nation of sheep. As such, we have no one to blame when the bell finally tolls and America goes away forever.
Michael, you are wrong... The public often forgets that flying is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE.
Granted, when you board a flight, you shouldn't drop all rights as a human...but you must remember there is only so much an airline can do. For instance, all of you complain about lack of drink and food service during a delay, please remember that there is not an infinite supply of food on a flight...on top of that, it is not free. If you want more food on the flight, pay for it.
When you fly, you should always be ready for a delay. People complain that they don't have their medication...#1 rule of flying with medication is that you never, ever, put it in your checked bag.
The airlines can't be blamed for everything, and it is wrong to demonize airlines and their employees, considering what they are paid. Working for an airline is not the glamour job like PanAm back in the 70s...the airlines can barely afford to pay employees, but they still have some of the greatest work ethic.
If you really want your $59 dollar ticket cross country, my best advice is to sit in your seat and be happy with what you get.
I think it is something to do with gate charges. If they delay at the gate, they have to pay a fine for the time they are still docked at the gate. Pushing away from the gate on time is recorded as an "ontime departure." I am a frequent flier through out the US and I have started noticing this pattern increasing over the past year. It almost seems too casual and rehearsed to be real late breaking news..ie you push away from the gate, you taxi for a bit and then the captain comes on and says "oh we were just notified of bad weather..or congestion.., so we are going to pull into the hangar and shut our engines down for a bit"
Post a Comment