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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode
" The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
Did you ever see the Bill Cosby skit about him on a plane next to Jeffrey?
Imagine being next to Jeffrey for 3 hours and not even LEFT yet ? "- Bobb -" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode " The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
Luckily it hasn't happened to me often but I have sat on the tarmac at
Newark for a little over three hours. We were pushed back and taxied out to a holding area while we waited for the weather to clear in Chicago. (One of the many reasons that I try my darnedest to avoid O'Hare and Midway whenever I can.--Weather can be way too unpredictable there almost any time of the year!) Weather and air traffic holds can really screw up the system but I do agree that the airlines have been way too cavalier about letting passengers sit way too long in a plane going nowhere. Gary Central Illinois USA Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html "- Bobb -" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode " The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
"- Bobb -" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode " The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? an emergency closure of the runway after pushback. It does happen. tim |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
Instead, now they will just cancel the flight and you won't get to
Chicago at all. On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:26 -0600, "GV" wrote: Luckily it hasn't happened to me often but I have sat on the tarmac at Newark for a little over three hours. We were pushed back and taxied out to a holding area while we waited for the weather to clear in Chicago. (One of the many reasons that I try my darnedest to avoid O'Hare and Midway whenever I can.--Weather can be way too unpredictable there almost any time of the year!) Weather and air traffic holds can really screw up the system but I do agree that the airlines have been way too cavalier about letting passengers sit way too long in a plane going nowhere. Gary Central Illinois USA Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html "- Bobb -" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode " The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
On Dec 21, 9:36*am, "- Bobb -" wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261...?mod=WSJ_hpp_M.... " The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 *minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? Three hours is a really short time. These are not passenger cars, they are huge jetliners that need to be manuevered amongst other jetliners. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:36:44 -0500 "- Bobb -" wrote:
:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode :" The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a :runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be :provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined :$27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation :Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." :Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes :is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway :for THREE HOURS ? You have obviously never flown from a major airport during crush hours. There can be a 45 minute line for take-off. -- Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
Probably true, but at least I won't be sitting in a plane all night. I
wasn't the one who complained and I can understand that weather and air traffic delays are part of the risk of flying in "modern" times. But, I think that the rule was needed because of the few incidents where there seemed to be a total lack of common sense on the part of the airlines. Such as when passengers have had to sit on planes for 8 hours or more because the terminal personnel went home. I think that the incident that upset me most, though, was the time we had to sit on a plane for over an hour in San Diego because there wasn't a gate available. I saw no reason why they couldn't have just brought over a set of stairs and let us get off and walk to the terminal. After all, this was just shortly after they installed jetways and it was just a short time before that all planes loaded and unloaded that way at San Diego. Not a big incident but irksome. Gary "John Kulp" wrote in message ... Instead, now they will just cancel the flight and you won't get to Chicago at all. On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:26 -0600, "GV" wrote: Luckily it hasn't happened to me often but I have sat on the tarmac at Newark for a little over three hours. We were pushed back and taxied out to a holding area while we waited for the weather to clear in Chicago. (One of the many reasons that I try my darnedest to avoid O'Hare and Midway whenever I can.--Weather can be way too unpredictable there almost any time of the year!) Weather and air traffic holds can really screw up the system but I do agree that the airlines have been way too cavalier about letting passengers sit way too long in a plane going nowhere. Gary Central Illinois USA Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html "- Bobb -" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode " The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined $27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
- Bobb - wrote:
,,,,,, Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway for THREE HOURS ? 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. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Sawyer Nicknames + + http://sawyer.xtreemhost.com + + Seinfeld Lists + + http://seinfeld.xtreemhost.com + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
3 hours on the tarmac seems like a lot to me
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:36:44 -0500 "- Bobb wrote: :http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261... ies#printMode :" The new rules would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a :runway for more than three hours, and would require that passengers be :provided snacks and water during such delays. Airlines would be fined :$27,500 per passenger for violations. Currently the Transportation :Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case-by-case basis." :Yeah, it's better than nothing, but a 3 HOUR limit. I think 30-45 minutes :is more like it. What possible reason could there be for waiting on a runway :for THREE HOURS ? You have obviously never flown from a major airport during crush hours. There can be a 45 minute line for take-off. Very true. 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. So a flight pushes back so that an incoming flight can use the gate. Two hours and 59 minutes later they're sitting on the taxiway, number two for takeoff. They're not going to get in the air in one minute. So the pilots have no good choices. 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, which will guarantee the cancellation of the flight, huge inconvenience for the passengers on the plane, plus potential disruption for other passengers waiting for that plane to arrive at its destination to turn around into another flight? 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. |
|
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 |