Well intentioned law stuck down

[G'ma]

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.

 

Well, that would solve the problem with YOUR plane and it's passengers.... It would do nothing for the other 50 planes sitting on the tarmac at an airport that only has 25 gates.

[G'ma]

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.

 

Unless there are 50 planes and only 25 portable stairs, of course. If the plane you are on is number 26, guess what? SOL - again.

[greatam]

Wow. After what happened today with Taca airlines at Ontario, California, one can only hope the officials are revisiting that law or proposition to help protect passengers. Unbelievable.

 

Has anyone heard the latest on that Bill?

 

Here you go again!!!

 

DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS encountered in Ontario with the TACA flight??? Please tell us how you would handle them. You are constantly criticizing the airlines for "holding passengers hostage", but you never have any ideas how to solve the problems. Now is your chance. These are the problems:

 

1. THIS WAS AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT. All passengers needed to go through immigration and customs. There is NO immigration and customs in Ontario. It was Sunday, so getting extra people from ICE to the airport WITH THE PROPER EQUIPMENT would be problematic in the best case scenario and most likely COULD NOT be accomplished with any expediency any time.

 

2. Due to the international nature of the flight, NO ONE could leave the plane until they were cleared. There was a ground stop at LAX, so the plane landed in Ontario. NO ONE from the airline to the FAA thought the weather problems would continue at LAX as long as they did. And landing at any other airport, other than maybe San Diego/San Francisco, would have presented the same problem of clearance.

 

3. Due to the long ground stop at LAX, the crew ran out of hours and had to be relieved of duty. TACA had to find another flight crew, trained on THEIR aircraft, with proper paperwork and cleared by the FAA. Not the easiest thing to do when your home base is in El Salvador and you don't have very many flights per day into the USA.

 

PLEASE solve the problems. ESPECIALLY problems involving a FOREIGN airline. We're all listening.

[G'ma]

Forget it. Globaliser has made it clear that Globaliser doesn't care about the passengers stuck on the planes. All Globaliser wants to do is bring up impossible situations that support Globaliser's point of view and hope no one actually analyzes the scenarios to see that they are either impossible or involve two things that are mutually exclusive.

 

What Globaliser is doing is speaking from obvious experience and knowledge. He seems to have much experience - either hands on or otherwise and makes perfect sense.

 

What folks here aren't liking is the truth he is telling. Too many people spout off at the mouth without thinking. They engage the mouth way before the brain has thought it out. Globaliser has the knowledge and the intelligence to speak thoughtfully on this subject. Most others just rant and rave....it's always "all about me, me, me" with too many folks.

 

Use your brains........think!!!!!

[happy cruzer]

A government legislation is not a silver bullet. How would it be enforced and regulated when there are many parties involved - airlines, unions, airports, immigration, etc.

 

After all we have government legislation providing for a fence on the southern border and to prohibit online gambling.

 

We currently have courts and laws enough to be enforced. I would guess that if a passenger's safety is threatened then there is already legal recourse with no new legislation required.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

What Globaliser is doing is speaking from obvious experience and knowledge. He seems to have much experience - either hands on or otherwise.

 

In Europe perhaps. But by his own admission he has little experience with flying here in the U.S.

 

I don't know or really care how they run things in Europe as I rarely feel a need to go there anyway.

 

What I do care about is how I am treated as a paying customer here in the U.S. I won't be pushed around and have to take abuse from some mickey mouse airline because they cant get their act together. PERIOD.

 

I could care less if the major airlines shut down. It's their own darn fault.

 

Lately I find myself driving more than flying. I don't mind driving or riding a train to NY or anyplace else on the East Coast. I am getting used to it and it suits me just fine.

[cruzegirl]

Here you go again!!!

 

DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS encountered in Ontario with the TACA flight??? Please tell us how you would handle them. You are constantly criticizing the airlines for "holding passengers hostage", but you never have any ideas how to solve the problems. Now is your chance. These are the problems:

 

1. THIS WAS AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT. All passengers needed to go through immigration and customs. There is NO immigration and customs in Ontario. It was Sunday, so getting extra people from ICE to the airport WITH THE PROPER EQUIPMENT would be problematic in the best case scenario and most likely COULD NOT be accomplished with any expediency any time.

 

2. Due to the international nature of the flight, NO ONE could leave the plane until they were cleared. There was a ground stop at LAX, so the plane landed in Ontario. NO ONE from the airline to the FAA thought the weather problems would continue at LAX as long as they did. And landing at any other airport, other than maybe San Diego/San Francisco, would have presented the same problem of clearance.

 

3. Due to the long ground stop at LAX, the crew ran out of hours and had to be relieved of duty. TACA had to find another flight crew, trained on THEIR aircraft, with proper paperwork and cleared by the FAA. Not the easiest thing to do when your home base is in El Salvador and you don't have very many flights per day into the USA.

 

PLEASE solve the problems. ESPECIALLY problems involving a FOREIGN airline. We're all listening.

 

Ok, and I know you'll have a field day with this, I could care less. But I am not all knowledgeable about the airline industry. And just because I'm not, doesn't mean I don't have a right to NOT be treated the way these airlines are treating passengers. They do not have a right to hold people for those lengths of time. It's unreasonable.

What would I propose they do? For one, they need to figure that out. It's their business, their expertise. But they should have thought about these possiblities way before. They could bus Immigration officials to Ontario to at least check their documents and then bus these folks to LAX to finish their immigration check in and get them on their way. And I'm sure they could get them to the Ontario airport within the 9+ hours that these people were stuck in the airplane.

Regardless if I have the right answer, which I'm sure I don't according to you and you'll find fault with my theories but it's the airline's job to take care of their passengers. We, as passengers, have the right to be treated fairly and taken care of. They sure seemed to get replacements for the airline's crew over there? So it's not like the freeways weren't operational!

Is it a pain to bus the officials there? Sure it is. It's not ideal. But neither is keeping people trapped in an airplane for over 9 hours with toilets not working either. They sure seemed to bring them "snacks/water". Thank God.

[cruzegirl]

In Europe perhaps. But by his own admission he has little experience with flying here in the U.S.

 

I don't know or really care how they run things in Europe as I rarely feel a need to go there anyway.

 

What I do care about is how I am treated as a paying customer here in the U.S. I won't be pushed around and have to take abuse from some mickey mouse airline because they cant get their act together. PERIOD.

 

I could care less if the major airlines shut down. It's their own darn fault.

 

Lately I find myself driving more than flying. I don't mind driving or riding a train to NY or anyplace else on the East Coast. I am getting used to it and it suits me just fine.

 

Exactly. These airlines need to take care of these issues better than they are doing at this time. THEY need to think ahead.

[FlyerTalker]

Let's see....

 

1) It was a government regulation that required the passengers to stay aboard the aircraft.

 

2) It was additional governmental regulations that caused the need for new crew.

 

3) It was further governmental regulations that caused the need for the new crew to come from TACA.

 

4) So you now want to have additional governmental regulations to supercede the original ones that caused this situation.

 

 

This is the kind of dream that only tort attorneys wish for......

[FlyerTalker]

Exactly. These airlines need to take care of these issues better than they are doing at this time. THEY need to think ahead.

Right....TACA, which doesn't operate at ONT, needs to "think ahead" for every possible airport that exists in the western hemisphere. They need to disobey governmental regulations and ATC directives. And it is all their fault. It's all the fault of those evil airlines. And the government will be there to make everything right.

 

We now return you to your original, unrealistic, anti-airline diatribe. (Interesting how you went back to an almost 8 month dead thread to beat that same horse)

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Ok, and I know you'll have a field day with this, I could care less. But I am not all knowledgeable about the airline industry. And just because I'm not, doesn't mean I don't have a right to NOT be treated the way these airlines are treating passengers. They do not have a right to hold people for those lengths of time. It's unreasonable.

 

What would I propose they do? For one, they need to figure that out. It's their business, their expertise. But they should have thought about these possiblities way before. They could bus Immigration officials to Ontario to at least check their documents and then bus these folks to LAX to finish their immigration check in and get them on their way. And I'm sure they could get them to the Ontario airport within the 9+ hours that these people were stuck in the airplane.

 

Regardless if I have the right answer, which I'm sure I don't according to you and you'll find fault with my theories but it's the airline's job to take care of their passengers. We, as passengers, have the right to be treated fairly and taken care of. They sure seemed to get replacements for the airline's crew over there? So it's not like the freeways weren't operational!

 

Is it a pain to bus the officials there? Sure it is. It's not ideal. But neither is keeping people trapped in an airplane for over 9 hours with toilets not working either. They sure seemed to bring them "snacks/water". Thank God.

 

It is a shame it took passengers calling 911 just so they could get a drink of water. I guess the airline with it's magnificent plan forgot to include the basics? Or perhaps the union has rules against working on a sunny day. Lord knows they raise a fuss about having to work in rain and snow. :confused:

 

How pathetic!

 

I hope more people start calling 911 if it gets them off of the plane or in the least a drink of water after sitting for hours and hours on a sardine can. Darn skippy I would!

[cruzegirl]

It is a shame it took passengers calling 911 just so they could get a drink of water. I guess the airline with it's magnificent plan forgot to include the basics? Or perhaps the union has rules against working on a sunny day. Lord knows they raise a fuss about having to work in rain and snow. :confused:

 

How pathetic!

 

I hope more people start calling 911 if it gets them off of the plane or in the least a drink of water after sitting for hours and hours on a sardine can. Darn skippy I would!

 

And' date=' not just that but what about the lady with High Blood Pressure. Did you hear about that one? They refused to get her medical care. She has a history of high blood pressure and I'm sure got anxious or panicked. She felt ill. She had to call 911 while on the plane to get help and get evaluated. That's absurd and pathetic. [/color']

[cruzegirl]

Right....TACA, which doesn't operate at ONT, needs to "think ahead" for every possible airport that exists in the western hemisphere. They need to disobey governmental regulations and ATC directives. And it is all their fault. It's all the fault of those evil airlines. And the government will be there to make everything right.

 

We now return you to your original, unrealistic, anti-airline diatribe. (Interesting how you went back to an almost 8 month dead thread to beat that same horse)

 

 

Exactly. Finally, he gets my thought process. lol. The airlines DO need to think ahead. Contrary to what you or others might think. The world is not black/white. For the most part, it's grey. And alternatives need to be planned in case plan A doesn't work. Or plan B. Airlines are not evil. They just don't always think of the passengers. As we've seen many times. You/airlines can't do this to living people.

And as far as going back to this thread to comment on this latest occurrence. I could of started a new thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I'm sure you would have commented about how I was too stupid to start a new one as there was already a thread on this subject. I hate multiple threads on the same subject. :D

[greatam]

It is a shame it took passengers calling 911 just so they could get a drink of water. I guess the airline with it's magnificent plan forgot to include the basics?

 

Pray tell' date=' how would YOU have planned for the "basics"???? You are inbound LAX, there is a ground hold/stop due to EXTREMELY HEAVY fog. ATC tells you to go to Ontario. I guess you could probably circle until you ran out of fuel. Or maybe try another airport. But at the time you entered LAX airspace, you would have been under control of LAX ATC. MAYBE you should have turned around before you cleared the US border???? What would YOU have done to alleviate the problem???? I REALLY want to hear YOUR solution.

 

 

 

Or perhaps the union has rules against working on a sunny day. Lord knows they raise a fuss about having to work in rain and snow. :confused:

 

How pathetic!

 

I hope more people start calling 911 if it gets them off of the plane or in the least a drink of water after sitting for hours and hours on a sardine can. Darn skippy I would!

 

When there is ground stop/ground hold, NOTHING moves. Not only are there union rules, but there are FAA rules, airport rules and OSHA rules. And those OSHA rules are VERY strict and incur HUGE fines if violated. So which government agency rules-FAA, airport or OSHA-are you going to ignore to get your plane on the ground and provide full services for your passengers??

 

A few of you think the airlines DELIBERATELY stick passengers on runways for hours on end. They REALLY have few choices most of the time. I'm still waiting for some of you who think the airlines are heartless to put forth your ideas. Calling 911 is just plain lame and offers no solution to the problem.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

Pray tell, how would YOU have planned for the "basics"???? You are inbound LAX, there is a ground hold/stop due to EXTREMELY HEAVY fog. ATC tells you to go to Ontario. I guess you could probably circle until you ran out of fuel. Or maybe try another airport. But at the time you entered LAX airspace, you would have been under control of LAX ATC. MAYBE you should have turned around before you cleared the US border???? What would YOU have done to alleviate the problem???? I REALLY want to hear YOUR solution.

 

 

 

 

 

When there is ground stop/ground hold, NOTHING moves. Not only are there union rules, but there are FAA rules, airport rules and OSHA rules. And those OSHA rules are VERY strict and incur HUGE fines if violated. So which government agency rules-FAA, airport or OSHA-are you going to ignore to get your plane on the ground and provide full services for your passengers??

 

A few of you think the airlines DELIBERATELY stick passengers on runways for hours on end. They REALLY have few choices most of the time. I'm still waiting for some of you who think the airlines are heartless to put forth your ideas. Calling 911 is just plain lame and offers no solution to the problem.

 

Someone is NOT paying attention.

 

Answer to your first question:

 

Airline: Hello Ontario airport? Could you get some water together and maybe some light snacks and take them to our airplane? We have passengers that have been sitting on the plane for a few hours.

 

Ontario airport: We will see what we can get together for you.

 

THAT IS MY PLAN!

 

THERE WAS NO GROUND STOP IN ONTARIO. If there were the plane wouldn't have been able to land there in the first place. Duh.

 

So why couldn't someone make a decision to drain the friggin toilets and get some water to those people?

 

THATS MY PLAN.

 

YOU KEEP ASKING ME THAT SAME STUPID QUESTION. I KEEP ANSWERING IT AND YOU OFFER NO SOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

 

So I will ask you what plan you have? HU?!

 

Its not rocket science.

 

So answer the question. What is YOUR plan? Just sit there indefinately with no way to relive yourself? No food and no drink just because the airline says so? Yea government rules have to be followed but the airline has the responsibility to make their passengers comfortable. THATS PRETTY DARN BASIC.

 

Ontario airport is 45 mikes from LAX the original destination.

 

The airline could have loaded up some supplies and driven to Ontario to deliver supplies. That would have been the other option.

 

So since your plan, which you refuse to share, is so much better lets hear it.

[cruzegirl]

Someone is NOT paying attention.

 

Answer to your first question:

 

Airline: Hello Ontario airport? Could you get some water together and maybe some light snacks and take them to our airplane? We have passengers that have been sitting on the plane for a few hours.

 

Ontario airport: We will see what we can get together for you.

 

THAT IS MY PLAN!

 

THERE WAS NO GROUND STOP IN ONTARIO. If there were the plane wouldn't have been able to land there in the first place. Duh.

 

So why couldn't someone make a decision to drain the friggin toilets and get some water to those people?

 

THATS MY PLAN.

 

YOU KEEP ASKING ME THAT SAME STUPID QUESTION. I KEEP ANSWERING IT AND YOU OFFER NO SOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

 

So I will ask you what plan you have? HU?!

 

Its not rocket science.

 

So answer the question. What is YOUR plan? Just sit there indefinately with no way to relive yourself? No food and no drink just because the airline says so? Yea government rules have to be followed but the airline has the responsibility to make their passengers comfortable. THATS PRETTY DARN BASIC.

 

Ontario airport is 45 mikes from LAX the original destination.

 

The airline could have loaded up some supplies and driven to Ontario to deliver supplies. That would have been the other option.

 

So since your plan' date=' which you refuse to share, is so much better lets hear it.[/quote']

 

 

Bravo, Bravo. Common sense has prevailed. How hard is to get them to drain the toilets at Ontario just like Ontario would for any other airplane??? Maybe that was the ground hold. Wait, wait, No toilet service for the Taca airlines. Ridiculous. Absurd.

If they indeed can't move, have to stay in one place, can't go to another airport, then at least provide the basics for these folks. I can't even imagine how miserable it was for the kids. As well as the stagnant air going around.

[vjmatty]

...it's always "all about me' date=' me, me" with too many folks.[/quote']

 

I don't think "all about me, me, me" is quite the right sentiment here. That is what you say to the spoiled rich kid who doesn't get a Porsche, or the brat who wants a pony, or the business man who is told first class is filled up. The ability to relieve one's bladder, get medical attention in an emergency or hydration after several hours in an enclosed space is not an extravagance, nor is someone wanting these things in the selfish "me, me, me" category.

 

That being said, I admit I do not work for airlines, airport security or hold a government office. However, do I really need to have the knowledge of greatam or Globaliser before I am permitted to have the opinion that hours and hours on a plane without the basic human necessities is unreasonable?

 

I have been flying for almost all 40 years of my life. We all know that snow and other inclement weather conditions are not a new thing, if anything climate has become milder over the years. I realize as Globaliser mentioned at the start of this thread that the number of flights has incresed over time, but so has the size of most airports, hasn't it? And if not, why not? When demand gets bigger, services get bigger and I would think that everything required to maintain these services grow exponentially to match these needs. Yes, I understand that as Americans we are organically incapable of moderation and must have everything here, now and bigger than life itself, but I just don't understand how these situations were not anticipated, given the way we as a nation always over-regulate, overcompensate and overinvestigate everything to the nth degree before we will approve any product, service or legislation.

[greatam]

Someone is NOT paying attention.

 

Answer to your first question:

 

Airline: Hello Ontario airport? Could you get some water together and maybe some light snacks and take them to our airplane? We have passengers that have been sitting on the plane for a few hours.

 

Ontario airport: We will see what we can get together for you.

 

THAT IS MY PLAN!

 

THERE WAS NO GROUND STOP IN ONTARIO. If there were the plane wouldn't have been able to land there in the first place. Duh.

 

So why couldn't someone make a decision to drain the friggin toilets and get some water to those people?

 

THATS MY PLAN.

 

YOU KEEP ASKING ME THAT SAME STUPID QUESTION. I KEEP ANSWERING IT AND YOU OFFER NO SOLUTION WHAT SO EVER.

 

So I will ask you what plan you have? HU?!

 

Its not rocket science.

 

So answer the question. What is YOUR plan? Just sit there indefinately with no way to relive yourself? No food and no drink just because the airline says so? Yea government rules have to be followed but the airline has the responsibility to make their passengers comfortable. THATS PRETTY DARN BASIC.

 

Ontario airport is 45 mikes from LAX the original destination.

 

The airline could have loaded up some supplies and driven to Ontario to deliver supplies. That would have been the other option.

 

So since your plan' date=' which you refuse to share, is so much better lets hear it.[/quote']

 

According to various sources (the LA Times and the SF Examiner), the airport was prepared for the flights that were diverted. Whether the airline was prepared or even knew what was available to help passengers is in question. Remember, you are dealing with a foreign airline from a small country with few flights per day into the USA. Who knows what the airline and country culture felt was right in this situation???

 

But according to other sources, it was a comedy of errors, with government agencies and the airline in total conflict with each other.

http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/519715.html

 

I tend to believe the airline more than CBP. How many customs officials do you think you could get out of bed at midnight on Sunday night???? Most probably let phones go to voicemail, to be answered after 6:00AM Monday morning. Those on duty at LAX would have had to stay at LAX. So rounding up enough officials PLUS having access to enough computers hooked into ICE databases to process passports was the biggest problem.

 

As with most government interventions, the incident turns into a he said/she said. IMHO, a passenger's bill of rights the way it was written would have had NO impact on this scenario. When it was originally written, it was to prevent scenarios such as the JetBlue incident a couple of years ago. Absolutely nothing relevant in the bill (other than maybe food and drink) when you have an entire plane of passengers that has not legally entered the country.

[greatam]

but I just don't understand how these situations were not anticipated, given the way we as a nation always over-regulate, overcompensate and overinvestigate everything to the nth degree before we will approve any product, service or legislation.

 

This is the crux of the problem with lots of things. OVER REGULATION. CONFLICTING REGULATIONS.

 

Airline situations-FAA, local airports regulations, local CITY/COUNTY regulations, OSHA regulations. Many conflict with each other. One at JFK is particularly hilarious. Local JFK airport rules REQUIRE all luggage containers/palletized containers/cargo containers to be AWAY from aircraft during ground stops/ground holds. BUT OSHA and NYC Employee protection rules PREVENT anyone from using a forklift/pallet jacket/yard tractor during a ground stop. So cargo gets left where it was upon initial ground stop implementation. Which may prevent SkyChef (food/beverage) or the porta potty people from getting close enough to the plane to be of any service. Conflicting, confusing-Yes!!! Which agency prevails???? Who knows???? And that is the crux of not only the airplane on the tarmac problem, but many others that we the people have created.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

According to various sources (the LA Times and the SF Examiner), the airport was prepared for the flights that were diverted. Whether the airline was prepared or even knew what was available to help passengers is in question. Remember, you are dealing with a foreign airline from a small country with few flights per day into the USA. Who knows what the airline and country culture felt was right in this situation???

 

But according to other sources, it was a comedy of errors, with government agencies and the airline in total conflict with each other.

http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/519715.html

 

I tend to believe the airline more than CBP. How many customs officials do you think you could get out of bed at midnight on Sunday night???? Most probably let phones go to voicemail, to be answered after 6:00AM Monday morning. Those on duty at LAX would have had to stay at LAX. So rounding up enough officials PLUS having access to enough computers hooked into ICE databases to process passports was the biggest problem.

 

As with most government interventions, the incident turns into a he said/she said. IMHO, a passenger's bill of rights the way it was written would have had NO impact on this scenario. When it was originally written, it was to prevent scenarios such as the JetBlue incident a couple of years ago. Absolutely nothing relevant in the bill (other than maybe food and drink) when you have an entire plane of passengers that has not legally entered the country.

 

I am not talking about the lack of customs officials I am talking about not helping those people stuck on the plane. That is a separate issue.

 

IF YOU WON'T LET THE PEOPLE OFF THE PLANE GET THEM FOOD, WATER AND A TOILET THAT WORKS!

 

How can I make it anymore clear?

 

So you would just prefer that people be held for endless hours with no basic service? Food, water and a working toilet would be pretty basic. I have said that so many times and yet you over look that and keep throwing that same question at me.

 

If the airline won't take care of this then the airport or local authorities should step in and provide those BASIC services. If this means the passengers have to call 911 to get a drink of water then so be it.

 

Take care of those people first then work the details for payment and blame later!

 

SIMPLE SIMPLE SIMPLE.

 

Thats my plan now I would like to hear yours.

[greatam]

I am not talking about the lack of customs officials I am talking about not helping those people stuck on the plane. That is a separate issue.

 

On the TACA flight' date=' immigration/customs WAS the issue. An entire plane, over 200 people, NOT cleared to enter the USA. None of the other Ontario diverted planes (and there were quite a few) had any problems.

 

 

 

IF YOU WON'T LET THE PEOPLE OFF THE PLANE GET THEM FOOD, WATER AND A TOILET THAT WORKS!

 

How can I make it anymore clear?

 

 

As posted previously and reported by the LA Times, SF Examiner, and other media outlets, the airport AND THE AIRLINE had water and snacks available. No mention specifically of bathrooms, other than passengers complaints.

 

 

Thats my plan now I would like to hear yours.

 

For this specific flight, with enough advance warning of conditions at LAX, my plane would not have crossed the US border. I would have landed my flight in Tijuana, loaded the passengers on buses, crossed the border at Otay Mesa, NOT San Ysidro, and bussed them to LAX.

 

TACA does not fly into Tijuana, so it could have been a real problem getting clearance to land. Other option would be San Diego, but at that late hour, most of the San Diego Airport is shut down by about 11:00PM. Again, very likely no immigration procedures available. So no different than landing at Ontario, Santa Anna or Long Beach.

[cruzegirl]

According to various sources (the LA Times and the SF Examiner), the airport was prepared for the flights that were diverted. Whether the airline was prepared or even knew what was available to help passengers is in question. Remember, you are dealing with a foreign airline from a small country with few flights per day into the USA. Who knows what the airline and country culture felt was right in this situation???

 

But according to other sources, it was a comedy of errors, with government agencies and the airline in total conflict with each other.

http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/519715.html

 

I tend to believe the airline more than CBP. How many customs officials do you think you could get out of bed at midnight on Sunday night???? Most probably let phones go to voicemail, to be answered after 6:00AM Monday morning. Those on duty at LAX would have had to stay at LAX. So rounding up enough officials PLUS having access to enough computers hooked into ICE databases to process passports was the biggest problem.

 

As with most government interventions, the incident turns into a he said/she said. IMHO, a passenger's bill of rights the way it was written would have had NO impact on this scenario. When it was originally written, it was to prevent scenarios such as the JetBlue incident a couple of years ago. Absolutely nothing relevant in the bill (other than maybe food and drink) when you have an entire plane of passengers that has not legally entered the country.

 

Ok, seriously. There are reports that the airport was prepared to assist the airplanes diverted to Ontario. You question this. Maybe, rightly so. But if the airport wasn't prepared or didn't offer the basics of food, water and emtpying the potty, they are stupid. If the airplane/airline didn't ask for these same things, they are stupid. It's the basics. Not movies, or steak/lobster, but food, water and a working toilet.

And I mentioned the customs people being transferred to Ontario to help with immigration to get these folks off the plane. I am sure, being as important as these folks are, that they have emergency plans. What if agents got sick. Would they not replace them? And what if there was an emergency on the plane, which I would consider this to be, would they not deplane them? No, wait sir. We can't verify your immigration status. Be serious. Take these people off, put them in a room where they can use a potty, get some food and food around versus being stuck like sardines.

[greatam]

Ok, seriously. There are reports that the airport was prepared to assist the airplanes diverted to Ontario. You question this. Maybe, rightly so.

 

I did not question the airport being prepared in the least. Please reread.

 

What I did question was CBP statements that they were ready and able to process the passengers, but the airline never asked.

 

But if the airport wasn't prepared or didn't offer the basics of food, water and emtpying the potty, they are stupid. If the airplane/airline didn't ask for these same things, they are stupid. It's the basics. Not movies, or steak/lobster, but food, water and a working toilet.

 

According to various media reports, the airport WAS prepared with snacks and water. No mention of the toilet situation.

 

 

 

And I mentioned the customs people being transferred to Ontario to help with immigration to get these folks off the plane. I am sure, being as important as these folks are, that they have emergency plans. What if agents got sick. Would they not replace them? And what if there was an emergency on the plane, which I would consider this to be, would they not deplane them? No, wait sir. We can't verify your immigration status. Be serious. Take these people off, put them in a room where they can use a potty, get some food and food around versus being stuck like sardines.

 

What CBP people being transferred to Ontario??? NOT ONLY do you have to have physical officers present, but you MUST have the ICE database available. For foreign nationals, who may or may not need a visa, all info must be entered in a computer.

 

So you really think you can get enough agents AND EQUIPMENT (which is what I posted to begin with) to Ontario in a short period of time??? Doubtful

 

Hypothetical scenario-Phones start ringing in people's houses about 1AM. I bet 30% go to voice mail. Out of the 70% who answer, BEST CASE SCENARIO, it will take a MINIMUM of 3+ hours to get them out of bed and to Ontario. We are now between 4-5AM and passengers have already been on the plane for 5 hours. Another hour to set up equipment and get organized and MAYBE you start getting passengers off the plane by 6:00AM. You have also had to clear all this with the airport, local officials, FAA, etc. etc. PLUS you have to clear not only the people, but the luggage AND CARGO AND provide transport to LAX.

 

Look at the REALISTIC time frame. VERY easily 6-7 hours to arrange all this. And at any time during all this moving people around, making arrangements, etc. etc., the ground stop could have been pulled and the plane could have flown on to LAX. An exercise in futility, IMHO.

 

No where have I read that there was no water or snacks.

[Ocham's_Razor]

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.

 

I would have been off that plane after the first sign that we would be "held hostage" for more than a couple hours. :rolleyes:

No way I am sitting 10 hours in a tube...

[greatam]

I would have been off that plane after the first sign that we would be "held hostage" for more than a couple hours. :rolleyes:

No way I am sitting 10 hours in a tube...

 

Sounds like someone puffing up their chest for macho land!!!!

 

Please let me know how you plan to get off the plane. I really want to know.

 

There may or may not be stairs. Long jump to the ground. There may be snow or ice on the ground. Operating one of the slides, doors or getting in the flight crew's face is a FEDERAL offense-interfering with a flight crew.

 

I'm waiting for your grand plan.