Well intentioned law stuck down

[Globaliser]

Your posts are so pro-airline and anti passenger that I believe you work for and have a big stake in one or more of the airlines.

I wish. The only big stake I have is on my dinner plate.

 

But, hey, if taking any view other than kicking the airline for anything a passenger thinks it's done wrong is "anti-passenger", then so be it. Kick away!

[Globaliser]

Why were these people left on planes for so long with no help?

Because the plans went wrong, as they sometimes will, particularly if there are changing and variable conditions that are different minute-by-minute. (But maybe I'm being too subtle; maybe the weather really is a simple black-and-white dichotomy between "there is a snowstorm today" and "there is no snowstorm today".)

 

But I think I'm repeating myself.

[Cuizer2]

It's certainly not an unknown airport. It shouldn't take very long to work out which one it is.

It would take even less time for you to just say which airport it is, rather than attempting to inflate your ego by pretending you know more about airplanes and airlines then anyone else.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

It would take even less time for you to just say which airport it is, rather than attempting to inflate your ego by pretending you know more about airplanes and airlines then anyone else.

 

I have been kicking around on this particular board for a while and this guy has always come across as arrogant and condescending. He loves to use the word ignorant to describe other people who know a little less than he does.

 

My definition of ignorant would be to put down others who have different points of view or who are not as "knowledgeable" as others on certain topics.

 

Nothing worse than trying to have a mature conversation with someone who is "always right" and cannot refrain from calling other people names in order to make his point. How sad.

[greatam]

It would take even less time for you to just say which airport it is, rather than attempting to inflate your ego by pretending you know more about airplanes and airlines then anyone else.

 

A simple Google search would have told you it is Heathrow. And by the way, Flightstats reports that BA142 from Delhi to LHR departed late by 75 minutes. So that means that the plane will most likely WAIT for a gate at LHR. The gate space should have been available for the SCHEDULED arrival-6:38AM. . A lot of other SCHEDULED planes arrived about the same time as the late plane-7:25AM. Where would you suggest they put the late arriving plane???? And where would you suggest they put the planes ARRIVING in Delhi around 3:30AM, when the gate BA142 SHOULD have vacated is still occupied. It is a ripple effect. Happens every day.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

A simple Google search would have told you it is Heathrow. And by the way, Flightstats reports that BA142 from Delhi to LHR departed late by 75 minutes. So that means that the plane will most likely WAIT for a gate at LHR. The gate space should have been available for the SCHEDULED arrival-6:38AM. . A lot of other SCHEDULED planes arrived about the same time as the late plane-7:25AM. Where would you suggest they put the late arriving plane???? And where would you suggest they put the planes ARRIVING in Delhi around 3:30AM, when the gate BA142 SHOULD have vacated is still occupied. It is a ripple effect. Happens every day.

 

I agree. And of course its the fault of the air traffic controllers.

 

Airlines love to blame those guys for delays and everything else.

 

It doesnt take a message board expert to know that the airlines schedule too many flights in and out of an airport that cant handle the traffic.

[greatam]

I really want to hear from Cuizer2, Cruisin' Ron VA, and cruzegirl how they would implement plans for situations such as the JetBlue situation. Not something so simple as give people food/water/bring out the buses and take them off the plane. I want to hear how you would IMPLEMENT the food/water/bus situation given the OSHA rules, UNION rules and AIRPORT/ATC rules. In your plans, you CANNOT cause untold liability to airlines or airports. Don't forget, most airports are public facilities, paid for by YOUR local tax dollars and any lawsuit can affect YOUR property/sales taxes. Even the piece posted by Cuizer2 makes note of the liability of unloading pax from planes.

 

I am really interested in ideas. I do this for a living (global logistics planning), so I only have a couple of ideas, because the rest of the ideas are already in airlines'/airport plan. PLEASE enlighten me what YOU would do in these situations.

[greatam]

I agree. And of course its the fault of the air traffic controllers.

 

Airlines love to blame those guys for delays and everything else.

 

It doesnt take a message board expert to know that the airlines schedule too many flights in and out of an airport that cant handle the traffic.

 

Look at the other side of the coin. Between the environmentalists and the people who live around airports, there is NO place to expand most airports that does NOT get tied up in a lawsuit for a bazillion years. LAX has been trying to get more space for YEARS. Hasn't happened in the 28 years since I moved out of Los Angeles. And if they cut flights to the TRUE capacity an airport can handle (a couple of empty gates ALL the time-space for EVERY plane), the prices will go up appreciably. Quite a few airlines would LIKE to park some of their domestic capacity in the desert to increase prices. But they would then have a public revolt on their hands. You can't have it both ways. And how do you stop a new airline from starting up??? Given enough money, ANYONE can be in the airline business.

 

I VERY rarely, except in inclement weather conditions, hear airlines laying blame on ATC. Those guys are overworked and stressed out. It will only get worse as the "older guys" retire and the newer employees do NOT have the experience to deal with some of the problems faced today.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Globalizer has the answer to that but he refuses to give it. He claims the airlines have a plan in place yet they dont actually use it. How odd.

 

Get a plow truck to make a path to the plane. Get the service truck out there and load some water and food onto the plane and empty the toilets. Its not hard. I dont care what the unions think. The unions cry about everything. Lets face it, Unions run the company and sometimes drive it right into the ground. But thats another story. If their people were stuck on a plane for hours and hour in such conditions all hell would break loose.

 

The airline employees are there to serve the paying passengers. So give some basic service.

 

If the conditions were so bad the plane shouldnt have been loaded in the first place or it should have gone to a different airport. Despite what a certain person would like us to believe, snow storms do not sneak up on airports.

 

 

Airline employees work in the snow all the time. If they dont think they should have to help passengers being held hostage on a plane because of some snow on the ground then maybe they should shut down when the first flake hits the ground.

 

If it really is too dangerous to remove people from the plane then at least make them comfortable!

 

Personally I think the airlines just dont want the expense of paying for use of a gate or other things related to this type of situation.

 

I guess its better to ask forgiveness than permission right?

[Cuizer2]

A simple Google search would have told you it is Heathrow. And by the way, Flightstats reports that BA142 from Delhi to LHR departed late by 75 minutes. So that means that the plane will most likely WAIT for a gate at LHR. The gate space should have been available for the SCHEDULED arrival-6:38AM. . A lot of other SCHEDULED planes arrived about the same time as the late plane-7:25AM. Where would you suggest they put the late arriving plane???? And where would you suggest they put the planes ARRIVING in Delhi around 3:30AM, when the gate BA142 SHOULD have vacated is still occupied. It is a ripple effect. Happens every day.

I realize a simple Google search would ID the airport. The ID of the airport was unimportant. I was just pointing that Globaliser was playing another one of his little games.

 

As to where to put the plane, my suggestion would be one of the many empty gates that are available. If you look at the photo below (of Heathrow) you will see that there are many empty gates available for late arriving planes ...

 

 

And now that you have identified one plane waiting for a gate, please ID the other 19, since Globaliser used the number twenty.

 

Perhaps they could divert the plane to Gatwick, which as can be seen, also has several empty gate available for late arriving planes ...

 

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

I VERY rarely, except in inclement weather conditions, hear airlines laying blame on ATC. Those guys are overworked and stressed out. It will only get worse as the "older guys" retire and the newer employees do NOT have the experience to deal with some of the problems faced today.

 

Then you arent listening. Airlines blame delays not weather related to ATC. And when asked about scheduling to many flights they come back and say well we just schedule when and where people want to fly. Hmmm..

 

Its so much easier to blame someone who cant fight back.

 

This business of an on time departure meaning pushing back from the gate on time is a crock. What good is that if you have to sit on the runway waiting your turn for an hour?

[Cuizer2]

I really want to hear from Cuizer2, Cruisin' Ron VA, and cruzegirl how they would implement plans for situations such as the JetBlue situation. Not something so simple as give people food/water/bring out the buses and take them off the plane. I want to hear how you would IMPLEMENT the food/water/bus situation given the OSHA rules, UNION rules and AIRPORT/ATC rules. In your plans, you CANNOT cause untold liability to airlines or airports. Don't forget, most airports are public facilities, paid for by YOUR local tax dollars and any lawsuit can affect YOUR property/sales taxes. Even the piece posted by Cuizer2 makes note of the liability of unloading pax from planes.

 

I am really interested in ideas. I do this for a living (global logistics planning), so I only have a couple of ideas, because the rest of the ideas are already in airlines'/airport plan. PLEASE enlighten me what YOU would do in these situations.

I defer to the wise legislators of New York who enacted the law that was struck down. I am sure they had a solution that was workable.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

I realize a simple Google search would ID the airport. The ID of the airport was unimportant. I was just pointing that Globaliser was playing another one of his little games.

 

 

I agree with that.

 

Does anyone remember the days when planes used stairs to offload passengers? Oh wait! This still happens.

 

Not all planes use gates at the airport. Rain, snow and sun. Never been a problem before. Why now?

[Cuizer2]

I wish. The only big stake I have is on my dinner plate.

That would be steak, like this ...

 

 

What you should have referred to is a large stake, like this ...

 

 

I mean if you are going to be a wise guy, at least do it right! :)

[Cuizer2]

BTW - most of the aircraft on that list probably cannot be unloaded in 20 minutes using a single set of stairs. They're too big.

If the stairs are too big, then they can use a step ladder.

 

See, I can be a wise guy too. :)

 

You really want to start a wise guy battle of wits - I'm game. Check out my post history, you will see I'm quite good at being a wise guy.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

If the stairs are too big, then they can use a step ladder.

 

Now you are just being silly! A step ladder? Too dangerous!

 

Why not deploy the emergency slides! You can offload a plane in under 2 minutes that way!

[Cuizer2]

If the stairs are too big, then they can use a step ladder.

 

See, I can be a wise guy too. :)

 

You really want to start a wise guy battle of wits - I'm game. Check out my post history, you will see I'm quite good at being a wise guy.

 

Now you are just being silly! A step ladder? Too dangerous!

 

Why not deploy the emergency slides! You can offload a plane in under 2 minutes that way!

Of course I was being silly. Look at the next line in my post (the one in red above). :)

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Of course I was being silly. Look at the next line in my post (the one in red above). :)

 

I was being silly because you were being silly.

 

Look at the last line of my last post lol!

 

Besides it can be fun to use the slide.

[greatam]

I defer to the wise legislators of New York who enacted the law that was struck down. I am sure they had a solution that was workable.

 

Did you ever REALLY read what this piece of legislation entailed???

 

NO getting off planes via stairways, NO taking the plane back to the gate. Just because it was called the New York Airline Passenger Rights bill doesn't mean you got much in the way of "passenger rights".

 

You got food/water/sanitation services IF the plane was on the tarmac for 3 or more hours. But NO provision on how to IMPLEMENT these services during ground holds/stops when OSHA/Union/Airport rules contravene this legislation. There was a fine of $250-1000 PER passenger. IF the airlines paid the penalties, those fees would just be added on to the next tickets. What did you REALLY gain????

 

Clean bathrooms would be nice during a ground stop. As my VERY cynical friend in NYC just emailed "you should hope for a long ground hold at JFK-freebie airline food is better than anything in the airport".

 

Summary:

 

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08406

 

Entire bill:

 

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08406&sh=t

 

I'm still waiting for your ideas on implementation. Evidently, the NY legislators didn't have a clue!!!

[Cuizer2]

Did you ever REALLY read what this piece of legislation entailed???

 

NO getting off planes via stairways, NO taking the plane back to the gate. Just because it was called the New York Airline Passenger Rights bill doesn't mean you got much in the way of "passenger rights".

 

You got food/water/sanitation services IF the plane was on the tarmac for 3 or more hours. But NO provision on how to IMPLEMENT these services during ground holds/stops when OSHA/Union/Airport rules contravene this legislation. There was a fine of $250-1000 PER passenger. IF the airlines paid the penalties, those fees would just be added on to the next tickets. What did you REALLY gain????

 

Clean bathrooms would be nice during a ground stop. As my VERY cynical friend in NYC just emailed "you should hope for a long ground hold at JFK-freebie airline food is better than anything in the airport".

 

Summary:

 

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08406

 

Entire bill:

 

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08406&sh=t

 

I'm still waiting for your ideas on implementation. Evidently, the NY legislators didn't have a clue!!!

If the NY legislators left it up to each individual airport/airline on how to implement the the requirement, then it is up to each airport/airline to do so. Show me where in the vehicle code it says how to implement the laws. Show me in the criminal code where it says how to implement the laws. That job is left up the the people/agencies responsible for implementing the laws. Judges don't dictate which jail cell a person will be assigned. Judges don't dictate what the prisoners will eat or when.

 

Have you every heard of VFR rules. They require pilots to maintain separation by looking around. They don't say how the pilots must maintain the separation, only that they are responsible for doing so.

 

So don't sit there so smug and think you've got me because I am not the manager of some big city airport. The rule and laws are to be followed. Implication of the rules and laws is the responsibility of others.

[musicgirl63]

Balanced view??? You've got to be kidding. Your posts are so pro-airline and anti passenger that I believe you work for and have a big stake in one or more of the airlines.

 

Bravo!!!

 

Why is it that some people have to always be right????

[greatam]

The rule and laws are to be followed. Implication of the rules and laws is the responsibility of others.

 

That's the point and EXACTLY why the law was ruled against. OSHA-federal agency which controls SAFETY and has some pretty strict rules about operating equipment on ice/snow, during thunderstorms, etc. The fines can be astronomical

 

Unions-some airlines have them, some airlines don't. There are two separate pilot's unions. Whose RULES would you like to apply???

 

Individual airports-as I posted earlier, JFK has VERY strict rules about loading cargo when it is wet/sleeting/snowing. NO ONE can operate equipment to load cargo on the tarmac. If I did a little research (like call my AA cargo rep), I would almost bet those same AIRPORT rules apply to the plane tugs, the baggage handlers' tractors and probably to GateChef, operating their food lifts.

 

So you tell me how you can IMPLEMENT a State law that runs counter to Federal and local laws??? How do you get the food/water/sanitation to people stuck on the tarmac at JFK with the current rules in place???

 

If this law had not been overruled, it would have been tied up in courts forever. And your ticket prices just go up and up to pay legal expenses for the 3000 or so people that this MAY effect yearly.

 

PS: Quite a few laws include implementation. Just look at the mess that has been created with the new "Real ID"-driver's license law. There are people with valid driver's licenses from some states that WILL NOT be able to fly domestically NOR enter a Federal building. A VERY good example of federal law that contravenes state/local laws. The reverse is also true-state drug/gun laws contavening Federal laws.

[Cuizer2]

That's the point and EXACTLY why the law was ruled against. OSHA-federal agency which controls SAFETY and has some pretty strict rules about operating equipment on ice/snow, during thunderstorms, etc. The fines can be astronomical

 

Unions-some airlines have them, some airlines don't. There are two separate pilot's unions. Whose RULES would you like to apply???

 

Individual airports-as I posted earlier, JFK has VERY strict rules about loading cargo when it is wet/sleeting/snowing. NO ONE can operate equipment to load cargo on the tarmac. If I did a little research (like call my AA cargo rep), I would almost bet those same AIRPORT rules apply to the plane tugs, the baggage handlers' tractors and probably to GateChef, operating their food lifts.

 

So you tell me how you can IMPLEMENT a State law that runs counter to Federal and local laws??? How do you get the food/water/sanitation to people stuck on the tarmac at JFK with the current rules in place???

 

If this law had not been overruled, it would have been tied up in courts forever. And your ticket prices just go up and up to pay legal expenses for the 3000 or so people that this MAY effect yearly.

 

PS: Quite a few laws include implementation. Just look at the mess that has been created with the new "Real ID"-driver's license law. There are people with valid driver's licenses from some states that WILL NOT be able to fly domestically NOR enter a Federal building. A VERY good example of federal law that contravenes state/local laws. The reverse is also true-state drug/gun laws contavening Federal laws.

The law was stuck down over a procedural issue. The judges said the law was well intentioned, but that the state did not have the authority to enforce it.

 

It would be no different than a city trying to enforce a vehicle code that was not set by the state.

 

The law was not struck down because it didn't comply with some other rules and regulations.

 

And just because "quiet a few laws" include implementation does not mean (and in fact confirms) that many don't include implementation. Thus, I can believe a law is a good one without having to determine how to implement it.

 

Nothing you or Globaliser have said has convinced me that the law was not a good one. It is too bad that the state of New York lacked the jurisdiction to enforce it. However, I sure do hope the two of you get the opportunity to experience the thrill of sitting on a plane going nowhere for ten hours, as you both seem to believe that it is just part of the joy of flying.

 

By the way, did you notice where even Jetblue admitted that what happened was unacceptable? Even the airline responsible for the problem admits that it was unacceptable. Notice the airline did not say it was unavoidable. Notice the airline did not say it was all part of the joy of flying. Jetblue said it was unacceptable. I agree.

 

I notice that both you and Globaliser have been avoiding any reference to that post. I can post it again if you like.

[Globaliser]

It would take even less time for you to just say which airport it is, rather than attempting to inflate your ego by pretending you know more about airplanes and airlines then anyone else.

I'm sure there will be people who will say that my ego doesn't need any more inflating. ;)

 

I was playing this little game with you to make a point about your earlier post:-

Show me one airport where flights are scheduled this closely. In other words, stop making these wild, unrealistic out of the blue statements, and back it up with some real facts.

 

I have spent plenty of time at airports and I know they don't schedule things so closely that as soon as a plane leaves a gate another plane takes its place.

So, maybe you haven't been to many big and busy airports? If our discussion has gone as far as it's going to go, other readers can decide whether I am in fact talking BS about this; or about full airports with no spare gates; or about how, in marginal conditions, weather can change from minute to minute between "can fly" and "can't fly".

As to where to put the plane, my suggestion would be one of the many empty gates that are available. If you look at the photo below (of Heathrow) you will see that there are many empty gates available for late arriving planes ...

Because it's a fine sunny day, and there are no weather problems. And, I believe that picture was taken mid-morning on a Sunday morning, which is one of the quieter times at Heathrow.

 

But if you knew Heathrow, you'd also know that even in these conditions, it is still common for arriving aircraft to have to sit around on the tarmac for 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes or more after landing, just waiting for a gate or even a remote stand to come free - even though all the flights are regularly scheduled flights. As I've said, I spend quite a lot of my life doing exactly that. This is how Heathrow works - living on the edge every day. And the same goes for the busy airports which have got catastrophically snarled up in bad weather. (Fortunately, Heathrow very seldom has it that bad.)

Perhaps they could divert the plane to Gatwick, which as can be seen, also has several empty gate available for late arriving planes ...

It's a fine sunny day with no weather problems. If the weather had killed Heathrow, the idea that Gatwick would miraculously be able to take all the diversions is one of the funniest things I've read on this thread. Have you seen what Gatwick is like in bad weather?

By the way, did you notice where even Jetblue admitted that what happened was unacceptable? Even the airline responsible for the problem admits that it was unacceptable. Notice the airline did not say it was unavoidable. Notice the airline did not say it was all part of the joy of flying. Jetblue said it was unacceptable. I agree.

 

I notice that both you and Globaliser have been avoiding any reference to that post. I can post it again if you like.

I haven't avoided it, nor have I said anywhere that these things are OK. I have actually said this (in a post which was a reply to cruzegirl):-

But I don't see any of the airlines involved, or any other airlines, pretending that there was nothing wrong in the first place. Each airline that's become involved has been mortally embarrassed by the incident, and they've gone on record apologising for the fact that things got screwed up. As you recognise, not every plan can go right every time. Most of the time, the plan goes right, because most of the time nobody gets trapped on aircraft, even though the weather outside is atrocious. The very small handful of incidents in which many passengers have been trapped for hours have been when the plans haven't worked as they should, and something has gone unexpectedly wrong.

 

Things shouldn't go wrong like this. But it's unreasonable to say that it's easy - or even possible - for airlines to guarantee that they will never go wrong, particularly in a bad weather situation when every operation and move is constantly balancing on the knife edge of "yes we can", "no we can't", "yes we can", "no we can't".

Almost all of the time, the airlines' plans work - even if they fact that they cause passengers to complain about them anyway ("Why did you cancel my flight just because it was snowing?"). To an individual passenger, it may seem inexplicable why the airline can't do something for their flight or their aircraft. But if you look at the whole of the complex three-dimensional ballet that is a modern airline's operations, you will see how close to the edge all airlines now live (and have to live). Once in a blue moon, something will go catastrophically wrong, people will complain, and the airline's bosses will be out there apologising.

 

But can you make it any better by passing a blanket law? Will you achieve anything, other than to give people another basis for claiming their com-pen-say-shun? Will you actually make matters worse by disrupting air travel more, and more often? At least if the federal government was looking at what sort of law to pass, these questions would get looked at more seriously than by a bunch of grand-standing local legislators.

[Globaliser]

It doesnt take a message board expert to know that the airlines schedule too many flights in and out of an airport that cant handle the traffic.

Rain' date=' snow and sun. Never been a problem before. Why now?[/quote']But this is where we get back to the beginning. These things happen now because this is the only way in which the airlines can provide us with air travel for the peanuts we now pay for it.

 

If the airlines and airports are forced back into having so much margin that the catastrophic snarl ups never happen, you'll find that air fares will go up to pay for the extra costs, and there will probably be more disruption because airlines will do things like cancel all flights at the first sign of a snowstorm, wrecking more travel plans, "just in case".