Careful What You Wish For

[bicker]

Airlines Ground Thousands of Passengers to Avoid Tarmac Fines

Emotional reaction to occasionally being stuck on the tarmac results in frequent disruption of vacations ... yeah, Passenger Bill of Rights was a big win for passengers.

 

[KINGBOBOFTHENORTH]

Well if an airline can't get its flight into the air within 3 hours of the flight backing out, it NEEDS to cancel it!

Sure no one wants their flight cancelled, but it's preferable to sitting out on the tarmac for as long as the airline wants to hold you.

Bravo to the law for putting a stop to the practice! And it comes as a surprise that there were ANY such incidents still happening.

BobK/Orlando

 

[seashoreCM]

If the airlines had air conditioning on in the cabin there would be far fewer complaints about being stuck on the tarmac.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I'd rather have my flight cancelled then being stuck on a Tarmac for over 3 hours with limited climate control and/or ability to actually move around get service, etc.

 

[doggydoc]

Airlines Ground Thousands of Passengers to Avoid Tarmac Fines

Emotional reaction to occasionally being stuck on the tarmac results in frequent disruption of vacations ... yeah, Passenger Bill of Rights was a big win for passengers.

Give me a break. "Occasionally being stuck on the tarmac"? Have you honestly never read any of the horror stories that people have been put through because arilines don't want to cancel flights and have to compensate people. Hours on a plane with no AC, no food, no water, no functioning bathrooms? Saying there's no pixie dust here is one thing, defending the indefensible is another. Maybe the PBR isn't an ideal solution but the status quo was not a viable situation by any stretch of reasonable imagination.

 

[Big Kid]

I'm with JLewis on this one. Traveling with a two-year-old is not so easy when the planes fly as scheduled. I would honestly rather fly the next day than add several hours confined in an airline seat designed for people far smaller than I.

 

[bicker]

Well if an airline can't get its flight into the air within 3 hours of the flight backing out, it NEEDS to cancel it!

Not true. Sometimes after four hours, a flight takes off, keeping 150 people pretty-much on schedule for their vacation.

Sure no one wants their flight cancelled, but it's preferable to sitting out on the tarmac for as long as the airline wants to hold you.

I disagree. If holding the flight a little longer would have gotten the flight up to #1 in queue to take off, then that would be preferable.

 

[bicker]

Give me a break. "Occasionally being stuck on the tarmac"? Have you honestly never read any of the horror stories that people have been put through because arilines don't want to cancel flights and have to compensate people.

Yes, I've read them and if you believe that that happens more than occasionally then you're sadly misguided.

And indeed that's part of what worried me in the first place, that exaggeration in the minds of passengers prompted bad law.

I've been on hundreds, if not thousands of flights in my life, and it has never happened to me. I had a few times where we waiting two-plus hours but we actually never made it to three, if I recall. It happens, as I said "occasionally". If you want to say that "once is more than enough" that's fine, but don't try to pass off three-plus hour tarmac delays as something that an individual passenger experiences repeatedly with great frequency.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Give me a break. "Occasionally being stuck on the tarmac"? Have you honestly never read any of the horror stories that people have been put through because arilines don't want to cancel flights and have to compensate people. Hours on a plane with no AC, no food, no water, no functioning bathrooms

Absolutely. Have you read about the millions of flights that take off annually with virtually NO delays? Of course not. They're not newsworthy. The couple of dozen or so (tops) that are, or rather were before the rules changed? Yeah - THOSE make the news.

 

[bicker]

Have you read about the millions of flights that take off annually with virtually NO delays? Of course not. They're not newsworthy. The couple of dozen or so (tops) that are, or rather were before the rules changed? Yeah - THOSE make the news.

Yes, that's really the crux of the issue. Those very occasional incidents are what drove the law, without what I feel would have been adequate consideration of how rare those events are.

And this is not the only thing that is prompting reduction in inventory in the industry. Regulation and consumer behaviors are driving the industry to become worse and worse instead of better and better.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Regulation and consumer behaviors

Uh, would that be Veruca Salt Syndrome? I want it NOW!

 

[bicker]

More like Ebeneezer Scrooge Syndrome ... I want it CHEAP!

 

[seashoreCM]

Heck, even if it were up in the air, slightly ahead of schedule, all systems "go" except with no air conditioning or no working toilets, I would not want to be on it.

 

[maxiesmom]

I would rather sit in the airport for 9 hours with air conditioning, and food, and toilets, then be trapped on a plane with none of the above for 4 hours.

 

[bicker]

However, that's not always a choice:

While passengers won't be trapped in hot, crowded jets for hours on end, they might be stuck waiting in terminals even longer, and getting to their destination hours, maybe even days later.

...

Jenkins said it is taking 17 to 18 hours on average to rebook passengers on those canceled flights.

So answer the question, using close-to-worst-case scenarios for both choices:

1) Waiting 4 or 5 hours or so on tarmac before take-off; or
2) Waiting 18 hours in airport before rebooking, followed by a day or two before the rebooked flight gets you to your destination.

 

[doggydoc]

Name me one other non emergency/law enforcement situation where a private company can keep you confined against your will. Whether or not YOU feel the repercussions of canceling flights is worse is irrelevant, if I feel the consequences of staying on the flight is worse for ME. The police can't even hold you for questioning without booking you for as long as some people have been held hostage on planes. It may be rare but the worst cases are once is too much situations.

The law may not be perfect but if the airlines hadn't been guilty of repeated ridiculous infractions it wouldn't have been put in place. No industry should have the right to hold people against their will in what they feel is uncomfortable conditions for more than 3 hours. What if WDW decided that the parks and resort pools were too full and so certain guests would have to stay in their rooms for 4-5 hours per day. And oh yeah AC is costing too much so none of that, and by the way the bathrooms are broken.

I have spent hours on the tarmac due to weather only to have the plane called back to the terminal just as flights were leaving simply because the flight crew was reaching maximum allowable flight time. I feel I deserve to have rules in place to protect my freedom, safety and comfort just as much as the employees do.

 

[bicker]

Name me one other non emergency/law enforcement situation where a private company can keep you confined against your will.

Name me one other means of multiple-person conveyance where every bit of traffic movement is directly controlled by a government agency.

Whether or not YOU feel the repercussions of canceling flights is worse is irrelevant

No, it isn't. My feelings are as valid as yours, which is why I wrote what I wrote about my feelings, and wrote what I wrote about how I think should be as a result.

The law may not be perfect but if the airlines hadn't been guilty of repeated ridiculous infractions it wouldn't have been put in place.

The law has nothing to do with the airlines being "guilty of repeated ridiculous infractions". The law is a reflection of mob mentality, and now we're paying the consequences for that. I truly don't expect them to put things back. The mob is bigger than I am. I do expect, though, that folks would acknowledge and accept that there are consequences to what they've put in place, and that those consequences, i.e., more canceled flights, more itinerary disruption, etc., are "our" fault, not the airlines' fault.

 

[carolsherman]

I say 3 government needs to start deregulating airlines again they are just so getting out of control fees/cancellations yada yada. We are so being nickel and dimed to death its not even funny.

 

[bicker]

I say 3 government needs to start deregulating airlines again they are just so getting out of control fees/cancellations yada yada. We are so being nickel and dimed to death its not even funny.

I think you mean that they need to start re-regulating the airlines - deregulation is what allows for the fees.

The cancellations, however, would probably sky-rocket if the airlines were re-regulated. Re-regulation wouldn't help there.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I disagree. I think airlines need to stop nickel-and-diming, sure - but I think they need to start charging reasonable fares. Instead of $129 each way to fly between Boston and Las Vegas in December, then adding $6 or $13 to choose my seat, then $23 or $25 to check a suitcase, and the $2.50 security fee, and the 'up to $10' PFC, and the $7.50 landing/take-off fee... Now it's costing me $185 each way.

Or I can just book with JetBlue. Yes, I still have some of those annoying little fees - but seat selection is free, first bag is free - I'm paying $194.50. Worth it to me, worth it to them. No nickel-and-dime.