3 Airlines Fined..

C.Ann

<font color=green>We'll remember when...<br><font
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
33,206
3 airlines fined in Minnesota tarmac stranding

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 54 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The government is imposing fines for the first time against airlines for stranding passengers on an airport tarmac, the Transportation Department said Tuesday.

The department said it has levied a precedent-setting $175,000 in fines against three airlines for their roles in the stranding of passengers overnight in a plane at Rochester, Minn., on Aug. 8.

Continental Express Flight 2816 was en route from Houston to Minneapolis carrying 47 passengers when thunderstorms forced it to divert to Rochester, where it landed about 12:30 a.m. The airport was closed and Mesaba Airlines employees — the only airline employees at the airport at the time — refused to open the terminal for the stranded passengers.

Continental Airlines and its regional airline partner ExpressJet, which operated the flight for Continental, were each fined $50,000. ExpressJet spokeswoman Kristy Nicholas said the airline can avoid paying half the fines if it spends the same amount of money on additional training for their employees on how to handle extended tarmac delays.

The department imposed the largest penalty — $75,000 — on Mesaba Airlines, a subsidiary of Northwest Airlines, which was acquired by Delta Air Lines last year.

"I hope that this sends a signal to the rest of the airline industry that we expect airlines to respect the rights of air travelers," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "We will also use what we have learned from this investigation to strengthen protections for airline passengers subjected to long tarmac delays."

The passengers of Flight 2816 were kept waiting nearly six hours inside the cramped regional airliner amid wailing babies and a smelly toilet even though they were only 50 yards from a terminal. The captain of the flight repeatedly pleaded to allow the passengers to deplane and enter the terminal.

In the morning they were allowed to disembark. They spent about two and a half hours inside the terminal before reboarding the same plane to complete their trip to Minneapolis.

Passenger Link Christin praised the department's action.

"A conclusion that there was some wrongdoing or negligence is more important to me than the amount of the fine," said Christin, a lecturer at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn.

The fines send a message not only to airlines, but to the wider business community "that there's a new sheriff in town and they'd better treat their customers reasonably and responsibly," said Dan Petree, business school dean at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.

John Spanjers, president of Mesaba, said the airline "continues to feel it operated in good faith."

"However, customer service is paramount, and we are re-evaluating our policies and procedures for the courtesy handling of other airlines' flights to do our part to mitigate this type of delay," Spanjers said.

Continental pointedly noted in a statement that its fines were less than those imposed on rival Delta's subsidiary.

Besides the fine, Continental also provided a full refund to each passenger and "offered each passenger additional compensation to tangibly acknowledge their time and discomfort," the department said.

The department's actions come as Congress weighs passengers' rights legislation that would place a three-hour cap on how long airlines can keep passengers waiting on tarmacs before they allow them to deplane or return to a gate. The measure would give a flight's captain the authority to extend the wait an additional half hour if it appears that clearance to takeoff is near.

There were 568 flights delayed on runways by three or more hours this year through Sept. 30, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

The measure is opposed by the Air Transport Association, which represents major airlines. Industry officials say a three-hour limit could create more problems than it alleviates by increasing the number of flights that are canceled and leaving passengers stuck at airports trying to make new travel arrangements.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, co-authors of the passengers' rights bill, said in a joint statement that they were pleased by the department's action, but legislation is still necessary to establish standards for airlines' treatment of their customers and to hold airlines accountable for meeting those standards. Besides the three-hour cap, the bill would require airlines to provide food, potable water, comfortable cabin temperature and ventilation, and adequate restrooms to passengers during extended delays.

Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, a consumer group representing business travelers, said he hopes the fines will serve as a catalyst to force the airline industry to address concerns about the treatment of passengers during extended tarmac delays after years of lobbying to ward off legislation.

___

Associated Press writer Ed Donahue contributed to this report.

I would have gone nuts!! Claustrophia..:eek::eek::eek:
 
I'm glad that the FAA fined them. I wonder why we as consumers are usually so meek about this.
 
I'm also glad to see this. Keeping passengers on planes that won't be departing within an hour or two is tantamount to kidnapping. I understand if they don't believe it's safe to depart, but let me off the plane.I don't care if it takes 2-3 days to get to my destination, but don't keep me held hostage.
 
The airlines needed a fine. It's a wake up call to get their act together. I saw a clip where a guy was trapped in a situation like the article describes and he called the police. The airline employees gave him a rash for that! The police came and set them free.

I liked that guy! Great thinking. :)
 

Seriously though - can you imagine being held "hostage" on a plane for that long if you suffer from claustrophobia; anxiety attacks; IBS; an infant that has run out of diapers and/or formula; people who suffer from breathing issues due to the heat; etc.??

That's insane!! :eek::eek::eek:
 
Seriously though - can you imagine being held "hostage" on a plane for that long if you suffer from claustrophobia; anxiety attacks; IBS; an infant that has run out of diapers and/or formula; people who suffer from breathing issues due to the heat; etc.??

That's insane!! :eek::eek::eek:

It is insane. And the air quality is poor to begin with and plummets as time goes on. No I couldn't imagine. I know I'd be looking for some way out. Right or wrong, I wouldn't stop till I found it. Knowing what I know now, If I were flying, I'd take my fully charged cell phone with me. :)
 
I think the airlines got off lucky. I view it as kidnapping. But I'm glad they were fined....and I hope the fines continue for airlines that treat humans like they are cargo unworthy of basic human decency.
 
/
Wasn't there an incident on one of these airplanes where a woman was suffering from a severe panic/anixiety attack and she was arrested for being unruly, creating a disturbance, and trying to exit the plane?

 
It's about dang time!

I've always thought that if I was one of those people stuck on a tarmac for hours, I would probably end up calling 911 and reporting that I was being held against my will.

I've also kinda wondered that they've never had a case where a passenger pulled the emergency exit during one of these extra-long tarmac holdings... there are at least a few passengers sitting right next to emergency exits.
 
I'm glad that the FAA fined them. I wonder why we as consumers are usually so meek about this.

ITA. It's completely unfathomable to me to even imagine being stuck on a plane with my kiddos for 6 hrs., or even just myself. I'm honestly surprised you don't hear about ppl. becoming irate to the point of violent. I'm completely against using violence ect., but I mean it's practically being kidnapped; you're completely held hostage in a very small space.
 
I was stuck twice on our trip to Rochester, MN. Once there and once in Chicago. Chicago's lasted a few hours and it was soooo horrible. Thank God for xanax and bonine which I took at the same time to just try to sleep through it at chicago. "no restroom breaks or we'll have to go to the back of the line." was what wewere told. The line was like 20 planes long. It was frustrating, scary and as a clautrophobic person, I was afraid of a panic attack.

On the way home, we were stuck for a short period of time (maybe an hour or so) in Rochester. The T-storms were so bad that time of year (August) in both places. Rochester's airport was small. One place to grab something to eat and I'm not surprised the airport emplyees pulled this one off. How horrible.

Glad they were fined. I'm dying to take DD up to see the Mayo Clinic in Rochester but dread the flight.
 
Good for the FAA! I've done 8 hours on a runway, though it wasn't in a commuter plane. NOT a pleasant experience in an MD-80, and I can imagine how much worse it would be in a jungle jet. (It happened to us flying out for Xmas, and there was a little boy of about 7 who was an unaccompanied minor seated in front of us. He only knew 2 lines of Jingle Bells, but he sang those 2 lines at the top of his lungs -- over and over again for 8 flippin' hours! All attempts to distract or bribe him totally failed.)

At the risk of overstating the obvious, what the heck was with the pilot that he didn't pull out his cellphone and call the CO Operations Desk in Houston? So what if the Mesaba people wouldn't open a gate -- surely someone in Houston could have called the airport's general manager at home (or the local FAA rep) and gotten a gate opened up.
 
Okay, so playing devil's advocate here..... What should the pilot of the Continental Express flight done? Did he make the call to divert or did Air Traffic Control tell him to divert? Should he have flown into the bad weather -- risking the lives of everyone on board? Once he landed... what could CE have done? They aren't paying the Mesaba employees salaries, so they couldn't force them to do anything. If they did let the passengers off, would the Mesaba employees have to babysit them in the terminal thereby not getting their work done and causing untold delays with their flights the next morning and downline, too? (Those delays would've cost the airline more than the fine did in misconnects, etc.) I'm sure they would've been fired if they let the passengers run around unsupervised and the FAA would've levied heavy fines for not having an employee in the terminal when passengers are present. As far as someone in Houston calling the airport's GM.... I doubt he would've done anything. Continental doesn't fly into Rochester, so why should he listen to them? I also doubt the FAA would've done anything either.

I used to be a f/a before leaving to raise my family. I have been stuck on airplanes and agree that it stinks. I also think that some procedures need to be in place for when things like this happen. When a plane diverts into a city that it doesn't operate out of, however, they are at the mercy of either the airport employees or a competitor's employees. The Mesaba employees could've easily been fired for allowing those passengers off the plane and into the terminal. Maybe the fine will make airlines more agreeable to doing that in the future. Then again, maybe not.

Believe me. I'm not defending the airlines. It is easy to say this shouldn't have happened, and then offer no solution. While you may not believe so, it isn't as easy as just unlocking the door and letting the people off.
 
I know it isn't easy, but it should be possible, especially at a tiny airport like that. There really isn't much of anywhere for the passengers to go, unless they choose to leave altogether and not bother to try to reconnect with the plane.

I would think that the GM of any small airport would be happy to extend emergency diversion services to an airline even if they did not serve it -- for a price, of course. The only thing that the people on the plane needed was a gate, some heat and light and a working bathroom. They could have left the baggage on the plane under the circumstances; I wouldn't object to that if the alternative was not getting off at all. As for security to "babysit" while in the terminal, perhaps local law enforcement could be called upon in a situation like this? (And reimbursed, of course.)

If there are FAA rules that prevent sharing of facilities, etc., or union rules that do so, then provision needs to be written in for exceptions for emergency diversions.
 
Should I ever find myself in the situation of being held hostage on an airplane on the tarmac by an airline, I am fully prepared to call 911 on my cell phone and report that myself and approximately XX other people are being held hostage on an XX airlines plane at XX airport. I would also do my best to document the situation with my camera, camcorder, and/or voice recorder (all of which would be with me if I were making a trip far enough away that I'd need to take a plane; ie: likely going to Disney World or Disneyland). I also fully expect that were this to happen, I'd likely be arrested for some sort of made-up crap "homeland security" nonsense "law", that was probably made up on the spot by a flight attendant with a superiority complex (nothing against flight attendants in general, just the ones who take part in holding people hostage). And then there's always the big, bad TSA to deal with.
 
Okay, so playing devil's advocate here..... What should the pilot of the Continental Express flight done?
Great points. It distresses me how quickly so many people jumped to the conclusion that these fines were all fair. Besides the fact that we end up paying these fines, through higher fares, the fact is that only one entity was even remotely at fault in this case, yet three were fined. Something is rotten at the FAA.

It is also questionable as to whether that one airline is at fault. Is an airline allowed to open an airport without adequate security in place, security that is not going to be there when the airport is closed? A law that essentially fines airlines for unfortunate circumstances is a law that in the end will just cost money and not accomplish anything constructive.

Believe me. I'm not defending the airlines. It is easy to say this shouldn't have happened, and then offer no solution. While you may not believe so, it isn't as easy as just unlocking the door and letting the people off.
I am defending the airlines. The say that they operated in good faith, and no one at the FAA who was involved in levying this fine has explained what they actually expected the airlines to do. Fines are supposed to be for doing something wrong, but that requires there being a way to do something right, and the folks assessing this fine haven't specified what that was. The fine is just a nuisance fine, a way for a weasely government agency to get the press and the public off its back for a few minutes, by giving them a pound of someone else's flesh to chew on. This law is turning out to be little more than a reflection of the extent to which American passengers as a group have become spoiled brats.
 
I agree with Bicker. What was Continental's responsibility in this? They were told to land in Rochester, which they did. It seems like there is no official procedure for an event of this type.
 
I agree that more rules need to be put in place for situations like this. The pilots landed the plane where they were told to due to weather. IF the airport was closed for the night, and Mesaba Airlines(I think that was the name) wouldn't allow them in, that is not Continental's fault. But I do think that there need to be some reciprocity rules or something put into place so things like this don't happen. Passengers should not be stuck in the plane on the tarmac for that long, when there is a comfortable, safe terminal a few hundred yards away.
 
It seems like there is no official procedure for an event of this type.
There can't be. Stuff happens.

Here's what should be, IMHO:

Airlines shouldn't be involved in the consequences of this law. Instead, as long as an aircraft is on the ground, the obligation to facilitate deplaning should be shifted, entirely, to the airport authority, empowered (which is why it must a governmental entity) to do what is necessary to assuage situations like this. Essentially, every air station subject to the law should be required to have an on-duty officer, empowered and physically capable to do what is necessary to permit an aircraft to deplane, 24/7, paid for by a fee imposed by the airport authority on its tenants (passed along to passengers as part of the airport fees). If Homeland Security wants to have control (and yes, they do, and should), then Homeland Security would be required to be on-duty, 24/7, at every legitimate air station subject to the law, paid for by taxpayers. (To be clear: 24/7. An officer abandoning one's post without replacement would be considered dereliction of duty, regardless of circumstances, i.e., snow storms, wife having baby, etc.)

That's how you deal with an issue like this responsibly: Maturely acknowledge that there are costs to what is wanted; determine how the costs will be covered; determine if the costs are worth the benefits (in this case, I bet the evaluation would resolve to 'no'); and then, if worth it, implement. The problem with all this is that the American airline passenger and taxpayer aren't willing to do their part to pay for what they want. So again we end up with a system that is inherently unfair, and essentially ridiculous.
 
Should I ever find myself in the situation of being held hostage on an airplane on the tarmac by an airline, I am fully prepared to call 911 on my cell phone and report that myself and approximately XX other people are being held hostage on an XX airlines plane at XX airport. I would also do my best to document the situation with my camera, camcorder, and/or voice recorder (all of which would be with me if I were making a trip far enough away that I'd need to take a plane; ie: likely going to Disney World or Disneyland). I also fully expect that were this to happen, I'd likely be arrested for some sort of made-up crap "homeland security" nonsense "law", that was probably made up on the spot by a flight attendant with a superiority complex (nothing against flight attendants in general, just the ones who take part in holding people hostage). And then there's always the big, bad TSA to deal with.

As a former f/a, believe me when I tell you that the f/as have no part in holding anyone hostage and in possibly every single case want passengers off the plane even more than the passengers themselves want off. It is absolutely no fun getting yelled at for something that you have no control over and isn't your fault. Also, last I checked, no f/as were making any laws -- "nonsense Law" or not.
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top