Well intentioned law stuck down

[Cuizer2]

We can't allow good ideas to step on federal authority ...

 

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down a state law requiring airlines to give food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers stuck in delayed planes, saying the measure was well-intentioned but stepped on federal authority.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_re_us/passenger_rights

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

We can't allow good ideas to step on federal authority ...

 

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down a state law requiring airlines to give food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers stuck in delayed planes, saying the measure was well-intentioned but stepped on federal authority.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_re_us/passenger_rights

 

I guess its better to let people sit on a plane for 8 hours and piss in their pants and get so ill an ambulance has to be called.

 

Don't try to demand to get off the plane or you will be arrested. What are we coming to when people can legally be held hostage on a plane for hours and hours and it isnt even being hijacked!

 

I guess its ok as long as the CEO gets on the Today show the next morning and apologizes and promises to do better next time.

[paul929207]

We can't allow good ideas to step on federal authority ...

 

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down a state law requiring airlines to give food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers stuck in delayed planes, saying the measure was well-intentioned but stepped on federal authority.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_re_us/passenger_rights

 

You may not like it, but the United States Constitution clearly gives the Federal Govenment control over interstate commerce.

[Cuizer2]

You may not like it, but the United States Constitution clearly gives the Federal Govenment control over interstate commerce.

And so our Federal Government is more concerned about treating the people shooting at us well then they are about its own citizens who would not be doing anything wrong if they could just go to the bathroom, get some fresh air and something to eat or drink.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

And so our Federal Government is more concerned about treating the people shooting at us well then they are about its own citizens who would not be doing anything wrong if they could just go to the bathroom, get some fresh air and something to eat or drink.

 

Pretty much.

[cruzegirl]

That's really crummy that the legislation was struck down. If the Airlines did this on their own, the humane/right thing to do, no one would have to try to legislate this. We, are human beings, are entitled to basic necessities, i.e. fresh water, clean toilets, fresh air and food. Not asking for gourmet water, or gold toilets, or mountain air or lobster. Basic necessities folks.... And we pay to be treated like this.... Let the lawsuits begin.......

[JPEvans]

Is it only me? I have not been on a flight in the past few years that had gone on without out an issue. Up till a few years ago, I had pretty good luck with my flights leaving and arriving on time. But now everyone I've taken has been a mess.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

No its not only you. The airlines are struggling to make a profit. Employees have poor attitudes and continue to bleed the payroll.

 

Customer service went away years ago and now its get them on get them off and if we cant screw you too bad! The rules are always in the favor of the airlines now. They can pretty much do what they want and if you dont like it too bad fly someone else. Never mind you may be stranded in a strange place a thousand miles from your destination.

 

Is it so hard to ask that food and water be brought onboard to people who are not allowed to leave the plane under threat of arrest? I mean really.

[Globaliser]

I guess its better to let people sit on a plane for 8 hours and piss in their pants and get so ill an ambulance has to be called.

No' date=' it's simply better (as well as being in accordance with constitutional principle and federal law) that this be done on a federal basis, not a state basis. Is that so hard to understand?

And so our Federal Government is more concerned about treating the people shooting at us well then they are about its own citizens who would not be doing anything wrong if they could just go to the bathroom, get some fresh air and something to eat or drink.

See above: The whole problem is that this was not a federal government initiative.

 

In any case, how would you expect airlines to fulfil an obligation to bring food and water to an aircraft that is stuck in a remote location on the airfield when the entire airport is gridlocked because of a fierce snowstorm that means that nobody can go anywhere?

 

And (unless you take the view that the airline has an absolute obligation to do even that which is impossible to do), how are you going to define the force majeure/Act of God exceptions to a rule like this?

 

Or should this be in place simply so that passengers can, after the event, claim their com-pen-say-shun?

[LEtue]

In any case, how would you expect airlines to fulfil an obligation to bring food and water to an aircraft that is stuck in a remote location on the airfield when the entire airport is gridlocked because of a fierce snowstorm that means that nobody can go anywhere?

 

I would expect that they wouldn't leave the gate and that all passengers would get off until it was time to re-board and leave.

 

Simple really.....load plane, taxi, take off. If the plane can't take off go back to the gate.

[Globaliser]

I would expect that they wouldn't leave the gate and that all passengers would get off until it was time to re-board and leave.

 

Simple really.....load plane, taxi, take off. If the plane can't take off go back to the gate.

If it were that simple, the airlines wouldn't have had any problems.

 

But the fallacy in this suggestion lies in the common assumption of airline passengers that their flight is the only flight in the system, simply because it's the only flight that they're on and the only one that they're interested. Which is an entirely self-centred, if understandable, view of their predicament.

 

After all, why can't "we" just go back to "our" gate?

 

And why can't "we" just sit at "our" gate indefinitely?

 

The answer is that it isn't "our" gate any more, right from the moment the aircraft leaves it. At many airports, the gate will be used by another aircraft within minutes - so if you sit there for a few extra minutes, someone else's flight will be stuck out on the tarmac. There are aircraft landing all the time, and more aircraft committed to landing. Many aircraft will have landed between the time that "our" flight leaves the gate and reaches the runway, or something goes wrong like a mechanical breakdown, or a sudden deterioration in the weather that takes the airport below limits. With a finite number of gates, the airline is inevitably either going to strand the aircraft that's just departed, or strand the aircraft that's just arrived. You can't have two aircraft occupying the same space at one gate.

 

The problems that this law is intended to address only occur in extreme situations, especially when incoming aircraft have gone short of viable alternates because the weather has turned unexpectedly bad. And there is a substantive difficulty: it is exactly in those extreme situations that it is difficult to provide what the law demands.

 

Of course, there is another solution: take the pressure off the system. Schedule fewer flights. Build more gates. Make sure that personnel and equipment stand idle between flights, for margin and breathing space, and so that they can be deployed when things go wrong (as things will inevitably do, from time to time).

 

And, of course, cancel all flights at the first flake of snow or the first rumble of thunder.

 

Does the travelling public want this to happen? Of course not: it wants lower fares, and the pressure on the system is a product of the astonishingly low fares that we still have.

 

And what about the cancellations? Yup: everyone will want their com-pen-say-shun!

 

But there will always be those who say "I don't care about anyone else's flight, so long as my flight is looked after". Well, there are descriptions of people like that.

[cruzegirl]

I would expect that they wouldn't leave the gate and that all passengers would get off until it was time to re-board and leave.

 

Simple really.....load plane, taxi, take off. If the plane can't take off go back to the gate.

 

Exactly...... It's inhumane to keep these people on the plane for 10 hours, as Jet Blue did, while "hoping" to take off soon. Ridiculous.

[cruzegirl]

If it were that simple, the airlines wouldn't have had any problems.

 

But the fallacy in this suggestion lies in the common assumption of airline passengers that their flight is the only flight in the system, simply because it's the only flight that they're on and the only one that they're interested. Which is an entirely self-centred, if understandable, view of their predicament.

 

After all, why can't "we" just go back to "our" gate?

 

And why can't "we" just sit at "our" gate indefinitely?

 

The answer is that it isn't "our" gate any more, right from the moment the aircraft leaves it. At many airports, the gate will be used by another aircraft within minutes - so if you sit there for a few extra minutes, someone else's flight will be stuck out on the tarmac. There are aircraft landing all the time, and more aircraft committed to landing. Many aircraft will have landed between the time that "our" flight leaves the gate and reaches the runway, or something goes wrong like a mechanical breakdown, or a sudden deterioration in the weather that takes the airport below limits. With a finite number of gates, the airline is inevitably either going to strand the aircraft that's just departed, or strand the aircraft that's just arrived. You can't have two aircraft occupying the same space at one gate.

 

The problems that this law is intended to address only occur in extreme situations, especially when incoming aircraft have gone short of viable alternates because the weather has turned unexpectedly bad. And there is a substantive difficulty: it is exactly in those extreme situations that it is difficult to provide what the law demands.

 

Of course, there is another solution: take the pressure off the system. Schedule fewer flights. Build more gates. Make sure that personnel and equipment stand idle between flights, for margin and breathing space, and so that they can be deployed when things go wrong (as things will inevitably do, from time to time).

 

And, of course, cancel all flights at the first flake of snow or the first rumble of thunder.

 

Does the travelling public want this to happen? Of course not: it wants lower fares, and the pressure on the system is a product of the astonishingly low fares that we still have.

 

And what about the cancellations? Yup: everyone will want their com-pen-say-shun!

 

But there will always be those who say "I don't care about anyone else's flight, so long as my flight is looked after". Well, there are descriptions of people like that.

 

Too flippin bad...... THE AIRLINES need to figure out how to get them back. Or, don't leave the gate for any possible delay over 2 hours. Something has to be done. And I'm tired of the attitude that commerce can do what they want and the passenger or whoever, has to just take it. You have unsafe environments when waiting long times and we shouldn't have to just take it.

[Globaliser]

THE AIRLINES need to figure out how to get them back. Or, don't leave the gate for any possible delay over 2 hours. Something has to be done.

So come on, can you work out how? You're intelligent enough to criticise, so presumably you've worked out some way of doing it better?

 

"Don't leave the gate." Great one! What are you going to do with the landing flights? Leave them out on the tarmac because they now haven't got a gate because you're sitting on it? Remember: they can't take off again for the same reason you can't take off - so don't think of suggesting that as a solution.

 

Doesn't matter when it's someone else's flight does it? As long as you're alright.

 

Armchair quarterbacks have such a cushy life. They can just sit there and say "the airline can do better" while being absolutely clueless as to how to can be done better - yet at the same time, saying that the airline is lying when it says it can't.

[jagoffee]

In my opinion it would be good to have some kind of regulation about this because the situtation has gotten out of hand and I am convinced that airline and airport policies have contributed. But it cannot be a state by state regulation, it must be a standard federal regulation. NYC was just playing politics because they knew that it was not within their authority to have this kind of regulation for only their state/airport. Can you imagine needing to follow this particular type of regulations on a airport to airport basis with each one being a little different? It is fair to allow on location to decide what the rule should be for every one in the U.S. at all airports?

 

The airlines have enough trouble trying to make a reasonable profit given the cost of fuel and the irony of the consumer. On one hand we complain about the "good old days" of great service and are willing to fly on low end airlines for the cheap airfares. If the main airlines do not cut back and compete they will go out of business. A lot of them are going out of business. Personally it is not a business that I would like to own. And I will take the low airfares over the services at a higher cost. It is a choice that I make everytime I make a plane reservation.

 

Just wanted to vent a little. An example of a pretty good idea not being implemented correctly due to politics.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Maybe it will take a Congressman (or someone who doesn't even have voting power here in the US such as our neighbors across the "pond") sitting on a plane with no food, water or means to relieve himself for 10 hours to see that a change needs to be made. Some people don't care about a problem until it happens to them.

 

When the first reports of bad weather approaching start coming in then get a plan in place for just in case.

 

How long is too long to sit on a plane? 5 hours? 10 hours? 24 hours? Have a plan together for these situations.

[Globaliser]

When the first reports of bad weather approaching start coming in then get a plan in place for just in case.

Do you think the airlines don't already have these?

 

And do you think that the weather can be accurately predicted?

 

If the airlines played it safe every time, there'd be far more complaints about flights that didn't operate when they could have done. I mean, look at all the complaints that there already are when airlines take pre-emptive measures and the weather isn't as bad as it was forecast to be. Look at all the complaints that ignorant passengers make about ground holds because of weather at destination (which they can't see), ground holds because of tail winds, and - most stupid of all - ground holds because of poor en route weather even though both departure and arrival airports have good weather.

 

Too many passengers think they know it all and know how to do it better than the airlines can.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Obviously then don't have a plan that works or people wouldnt be sitting on a plane for 10 hours with no food, water or means to relieve him/herself. If they do have plan then its not working is it? Are you saying that the plan that airlines have in place now are adequate and no room for improvement?

 

And yes accurately predicting the weather is a possible. If the weatherman says Chicago is going to get 10 inches of snow tomorrow morning should the airlines just say...naw it aint gonna happen. That couldnt possibly be accurate. Weather guessing is not 100% but its darn near close.

 

There have been many cases where the airline knew that the destination weather was bad and still let a plane take off anyway! What happens then? The plane is diverted far away from the destination. Sometimes its better not to load a plane at all than to have it take off and play games with people.

 

Passengers sometimes do know a better way of doing things. Sometimes you need someone from the outside looking in to tell you whats right in front of your face! The airlines sure as hell cant get it right. If they could they would have a far better product than they do now. How many went bust or are in bankruptcy now? Dont blame fuel prices. A lot of the US carriers were in trouble before the huge spike in fuel prices.

[Cuizer2]

So come on, can you work out how? You're intelligent enough to criticise, so presumably you've worked out some way of doing it better?

 

"Don't leave the gate." Great one! What are you going to do with the landing flights? Leave them out on the tarmac because they now haven't got a gate because you're sitting on it? Remember: they can't take off again for the same reason you can't take off - so don't think of suggesting that as a solution.

 

Doesn't matter when it's someone else's flight does it? As long as you're alright.

 

Armchair quarterbacks have such a cushy life. They can just sit there and say "the airline can do better" while being absolutely clueless as to how to can be done better - yet at the same time, saying that the airline is lying when it says it can't.

A plane does not have to be at a gate to embark or disembark passengers. I have embarked and disembarked several times on portable stairs, and at least twice after having taken a shuttle from the terminal to the plane or from the plane to the terminal.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

A plane does not have to be at a gate to embark or disembark passengers. I have embarked and disembarked several times on portable stairs, and at least twice after having taken a shuttle from the terminal to the plane or from the plane to the terminal.

 

Sometimes the "experts" just lack common sense! LOL. I am with you Cuiser2.

[cruzegirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuizer2

A plane does not have to be at a gate to embark or disembark passengers. I have embarked and disembarked several times on portable stairs, and at least twice after having taken a shuttle from the terminal to the plane or from the plane to the terminal.

 

 

Sometimes the "experts" just lack common sense! LOL. I am with you Cuiser2.

 

I agree with you both...... It's amazing how "some" people can have such tunnel vision. We all understand that weather isn't 100% predicted or unforseen things happen. But if you seriously think there aren't alternative ways to handle this' date=' something is major wrong. Or if you think it's ok waiting on a tarmac for 10 hours once on a plane or after coming in, again, something is wrong. [/color']

As the others have said, you don't have to be at a gate to disembark. There are buses that come to planes, or disembark to the ground and go to the airport. There are many alternatives. But to hold passengers hostage, to withhold water or food or not have a proper place to relieve themselves, it's inhumane. It's wrong and it should be illegal.

And before criticising my thoughs, maybe go get on a plane and sit there for 10 hours, without food, water or a toiled or a toiled that's going to overflow if used or it's backing up because it's full. I would like to see how you like it. Not to be nasty, but until you do it or someone who care about, maybe it will mean more after that... Just a thought......

[Globaliser]

And yes accurately predicting the weather is a possible. If the weatherman says Chicago is going to get 10 inches of snow tomorrow morning should the airlines just say...naw it aint gonna happen. That couldnt possibly be accurate. Weather guessing is not 100% but its darn near close.

 

There have been many cases where the airline knew that the destination weather was bad and still let a plane take off anyway! What happens then? The plane is diverted far away from the destination. Sometimes its better not to load a plane at all than to have it take off and play games with people.

Well' date=' this then just shows how little you know about weather and airlines.

 

Weather forecasting, as it affects airlines, is not about anything so crude as whether there's going to be a few inches of snow tomorrow. It's about things like whether, at the time of landing, the cloud base is going to be at 400 feet or 600 feet; whether the 40 knot wind is going to be blowing from 240 degrees or 280 degrees; whether the visibility is going to be 1700 feet or 2200 feet. These things are not accurately predictable far in advance. They can, and do, change from minute to minute.

 

That's why airlines sometimes have weather diversions when the weather at the destination in a few hours' time turns out not to be as forecast, or turns out not to have improved as much as the forecasters thought. That's why aircraft sometimes have to land short to take on extra fuel, when the en route winds are different from predicted. And that's why - very occasionally - an airport that's functioning well according to that day's plan for the expected bad weather can suddenly seize up at a time when no aircraft can move anywhere.

A plane does not have to be at a gate to embark or disembark passengers. I have embarked and disembarked several times on portable stairs, and at least twice after having taken a shuttle from the terminal to the plane or from the plane to the terminal.

As the others have said, you don't have to be at a gate to disembark. There are buses that come to planes, or disembark to the ground and go to the airport. There are many alternatives.

You have both overlooked two points.

 

First, the airport has to be equipped with enough sets of stairs of the right type and size to assist all the stranded aircraft, and enough buses to transport passengers. Airports that don't normally do this very much obviously don't have very much of this equipment. And every airport has a finite number of stairs and buses, even those that rely on them. Have you forgotten what Kai Tak was like? Perhaps the best example of an airport where, on a bad day, dozens of 747s could sit around waiting for stairs and buses, even though it was an airport that relied almost exclusively on stairs and buses for all its operations.

 

Second, they might not be usable anyway in the extreme weather conditions that cause the incidents that everyone's referring to. If the weather is so bad and the tarmac condition is so poor that aircraft can't even taxi from one place to another, how are you expecting heavy vehicles to drive around safely on the tarmac?

But if you seriously think there aren't alternative ways to handle this, something is major wrong. Or if you think it's ok waiting on a tarmac for 10 hours once on a plane or after coming in, again, something is wrong.

...

But to hold passengers hostage, to withhold water or food or not have a proper place to relieve themselves, it's inhumane. It's wrong and it should be illegal.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is right. But this law was not the way to go about it. Quite apart from the legal and constitutional reasons why this should have been done at a federal level, if it was done at a federal level then there would have been input from the FAA, which (unlike armchair quarterbacks) at least understands what is feasible and what is not, what the real life business of running an airline is like, and what happens when things go unexpectedly wrong - which they can do through no fault of anyone's.

 

And the FAA would (unlike armchair quarterbacks) at least understand what the consequences would be of imposing requirements like this even in inappropriate circumstances - consequences which armchair quarterbacks would also criticise from their luxurious position of ignorance: There would be more cancelled flights "just in case", even when there was no need to cancel flights. Airport operations would be shut down more often "just in case", even when there was no need to do so. And, of course, air fares would rise to pay for the extra costs of putting all the contingency plans in place - after all, if airports have to buy lots of portable stairs and lots of buses that will sit around being unused 95% of the time, someone's got to pay for it. Guess who that is?

 

So if it is done at federal level, the FAA can at least properly consider whether and in what circumstances there should be a carve-out or exception so that these requirements are not unreasonably imposed on airlines in circumstances in which they can't be expected to comply with them.

 

However, there will always be those passengers who - despite only paying a couple of hundred dollars to fly thousands of miles - take the view that they want it perfect, or they want their com-pen-say-shun. It's actually probably better that these people don't fly.

 

And - seeing as you all ask - yes, I have done my fair share of being stuck on aircraft on the tarmac for hours when something has gone wrong, sometimes unable to go back to the gate because there aren't any open gates any more and unable to be disembarked by stairs and buses because there aren't any of them. You fly often enough, it'll happen.

[Copper Lanterns]

Thanks for the voice of reason-:)

 

Connie

[Cuizer2]

First, the airport has to be equipped with enough sets of stairs of the right type and size to assist all the stranded aircraft, and enough buses to transport passengers. Airports that don't normally do this very much obviously don't have very much of this equipment. And every airport has a finite number of stairs and buses, even those that rely on them. Have you forgotten what Kai Tak was like? Perhaps the best example of an airport where, on a bad day, dozens of 747s could sit around waiting for stairs and buses, even though it was an airport that relied almost exclusively on stairs and buses for all its operations.

All the airport needs is one set of stairs and one set of buses. So it takes twenty minutes to unload one airplane. Then they move to the next one. People can wait twenty or thirty minutes to disembark a lot easier than then can wait ten hours sitting on an airplane going nowhere.

 

Second, they might not be usable anyway in the extreme weather conditions that cause the incidents that everyone's referring to. If the weather is so bad and the tarmac condition is so poor that aircraft can't even taxi from one place to another, how are you expecting heavy vehicles to drive around safely on the tarmac?I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is right. But this law was not the way to go about it. Quite apart from the legal and constitutional reasons why this should have been done at a federal level, if it was done at a federal level then there would have been input from the FAA, which (unlike armchair quarterbacks) at least understands what is feasible and what is not, what the real life business of running an airline is like, and what happens when things go unexpectedly wrong - which they can do through no fault of anyone's.

Your answer lacks all common sense, and is simply a response made hoping that no one realizes how fundamentally flawed it is.

 

"If the weather is so bad and the tarmac condition is so poor that the aircraft can't even taxi from one place to another" - then how did the airplane leave the gate to begin with???

 

No kidding it is not right. It is not even human.

 

What about the real life business of being human? There is no reason an airline cannot come up with a plan to deal with situations like these. You totally ignore the fact that at any given time not all the gates are being used. Several times I have been at the airport where a gate change announcement is made to accommodate a plane that has not left its gate for one reason or another.

 

Also, if the weather is so bad that the airplanes cannot taxi, then we can be sure none are landing either, since if the airplane cannot taxi, it cannot clear the runway, and as I am sure you are well aware, the landing plane must COMPLETELY clear the runway before the next plane can land.

 

Your answers conveniently claim all the points that you can think of to support your position, while also conveniently ignoring the fact that several of your points are mutually exclusive.

 

I am sure if the Federal Government mandated that the airline must return the passengers to the terminal after two hours, that the airlines would be able to comply, even if they didn't like it.

 

No decent human being would allow a business to treat people like animals just because it is more convenient for the business to do so. Your total lack of sympathy for people's basic rights is very clear in your posts on this thread.

[cruzegirl]

All the airport needs is one set of stairs and one set of buses. So it takes twenty minutes to unload one airplane. Then they move to the next one. People can wait twenty or thirty minutes to disembark a lot easier than then can wait ten hours sitting on an airplane going nowhere.

 

Your answer lacks all common sense, and is simply a response made hoping that no one realizes how fundamentally flawed it is.

 

"If the weather is so bad and the tarmac condition is so poor that the aircraft can't even taxi from one place to another" - then how did the airplane leave the gate to begin with???

 

No kidding it is not right. It is not even human.

 

What about the real life business of being human? There is no reason an airline cannot come up with a plan to deal with situations like these. You totally ignore the fact that at any given time not all the gates are being used. Several times I have been at the airport where a gate change announcement is made to accommodate a plane that has not left its gate for one reason or another.

 

Also, if the weather is so bad that the airplanes cannot taxi, then we can be sure none are landing either, since if the airplane cannot taxi, it cannot clear the runway, and as I am sure you are well aware, the landing plane must COMPLETELY clear the runway before the next plane can land.

 

Your answers conveniently claim all the points that you can think of to support your position, while also conveniently ignoring the fact that several of your points are mutually exclusive.

 

I am sure if the Federal Government mandated that the airline must return the passengers to the terminal after two hours, that the airlines would be able to comply, even if they didn't like it.

 

No decent human being would allow a business to treat people like animals just because it is more convenient for the business to do so. Your total lack of sympathy for people's basic rights is very clear in your posts on this thread.

 

Ditto.