If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
"Robin Stober" schrieb
I am torn on this issue. The airlines have done some truly stupid things in the recent past in regard to keeping passengers on planes for much too long. But putting an arbitrary limit in place isn't the right idea, either. How about just applying common sense? Nah, that can't work. No, it obviously doesn't work - the airlines have done some stupid things, as you said. Do they risk a fine of $27,500 per passenger for taking off five minutes after the three-hour limit? Or do they return to the terminal ...? They would take off - who could return to the gate and debark the plane in 5 minutes? So they are exceeding the limit anyway. But I would be happier with the new rule if the airlines would have pay the 27.500 each to the *passengers* and not to some anonynous *somebody* .....wouldn't we all just loooove long delays on the tarmac? Jochen |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
In message Robin Stober
was claimed to have wrote: Yes, it's easy to praise the new regulations. They seem to say, "No delays greater than three hours." What they really say is that more flights will be canceled. Delays happen. Arbitrary regulations often cause more problems than they solve. While true, common sense has been tried. And tried. And tried. Time after time the airlines proved that they don't have common sense, so arbitrary regulations are all that is left. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
DevilsPGD wrote:
In Robin Stober was claimed to have wrote: Yes, it's easy to praise the new regulations. They seem to say, "No delays greater than three hours." What they really say is that more flights will be canceled. Delays happen. Arbitrary regulations often cause more problems than they solve. While true, common sense has been tried. And tried. And tried. Time after time the airlines proved that they don't have common sense, so arbitrary regulations are all that is left. When the people involved _have_ used common sense . . . that doesn't make the news. I'm not saying that there haven't been serious lapses in judgment, but we're being manipulated by the media and politicians. The media picks up the really egregious incident and uses it to create a sensational story to sell their product; the politicians grab this perceived problem and pat themselves on the back for solving it. Talk about using common sense . . . when you apply it to this new regulation, does it pass the test? Solving a problem doesn't count if you create worse problems in the process. For example, I believe that the 3-hour timer starts when the plane pushes back. What if the airlines decide that the way around this is to not have the plane push back? This will have the effect of increasing delays for incoming aircraft because there will be no gate to unload arriving passengers. So the outgoing passengers have the same delay (except that part of it isn't subject to the new regulations) and the incoming passengers get to sit on the tarmac and wait for a gate. Now you've got two planeloads of people delayed instead of just one. There must be some common ground between letting the airlines ignore the needs of passengers and imposing an arbitrary deadline that will result in different inconvenience for passengers. Is imposing an arbitrary three-hour limit really the best way to improve service if it results in the airlines simply canceling the flight? If we want to think outside the box, I rather like Jochen's suggestion to provide the penalty to the passengers, rather than kick it into some amorphous fund that doesn't directly benefit the people involved. Make it a sliding fee based on the length of the delay, and refund it to the folks involved. That motivates the behavior change you're looking for but not at the expense of every other consideration. In other words, rather than treating a ticket as the privilege of flying on a specific flight, consider it as the service of moving a person from point A to point B at a particular date/time. If the airline cannot do that, then force them to refund a part of the cost of the ticket, the amount dependent on how much they miss the target service. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:44:03 -0500, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)"
wrote: Thunderstorms. We were stuck at YYZ for 2 hours before they could unload the plane due to lightening in the area. And with NO support from the Air Canada flight staff who hid from the passengers it was a terrible experience after a five hour flight - especially with kids onboard. These rules make an exception for times when there are safety issues. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Planes That Sit on Tarmac | Alan[_4_] | Air travel | 31 | March 20th, 2007 05:19 AM |
On the Tarmac for FIVE HOURS Due to LAX Power Failure? WTF?!?!?! | mrtravel | Air travel | 12 | July 29th, 2006 04:56 PM |
On the Tarmac for FIVE HOURS Due to LAX Power Failure? WTF?!?!?! | js | Air travel | 0 | July 23rd, 2006 08:46 PM |
On the Tarmac for FIVE HOURS Due to LAX Power Failure? WTF?!?!?! | Marty Shapiro | Air travel | 1 | July 23rd, 2006 07:04 AM |
Two Hours On The Tarmac at ORD | Dave | Air travel | 0 | February 2nd, 2004 10:54 PM |