Passengers Trapped on Runway for 8 Hours at JFK

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/02/15...ded/index.html

Warehousing people on the tarmac should be against the law.

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey should lead in legislation
to prevent this sort of thing.

Something along the lines of: "Passengers shall not be required to
remain onboard a stationery aircraft for more than 3 hours. Once
passengers board an aircraft, if such aircraft has not departed the
airport within 180 minutes, passengers must be transported back to the
terminal."

I'm amazed that airport operators and the airlines have the capacity
to treat people this way!

A_C

(Agent_C) wrote in
:

Warehousing people on the tarmac should be against the law.

As should calling any paved surface "tarmac" simply because it's at
an airport.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Feb 15, 11:57 am, Agent_C wrote:

I'm amazed that airport operators and the airlines have the capacity
to treat people this way!

Air travel is wonderful! Who are you to question it? Would you
rather that people spend their 8 hours sitting comfortably in a large
seat on a train actually getting to their destination?

As should calling any paved surface "tarmac" simply because it's at
an airport.

huh, didn't know that until now. Well, you can blame it on the media
for the misuse of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac

On Feb 15, 9:26 am, wrote:
Air travel is wonderful! Who are you to question it? Would you
rather that people spend their 8 hours sitting comfortably in a large
seat on a train actually getting to their destination?

Ha ha, LOL!

Although to be fair, some of those flights were to cancun and aruba.

(Bucky) wrote in
ups.com:

As should calling any paved surface "tarmac" simply because it's
at an airport.

huh, didn't know that until now. Well, you can blame it on the
media for the misuse of the word.

I always thought it was due to America's Anglophilia and over
exposure to 1940s movies :-) [But I guess movies count as media,
don't they?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Up to 11 hours on another flight to Aruba. If this happened to me, I
would fake a medical condition after 3 hrs. Passengers need to revolt.
Airlines come up with excuses of no available gates, waiting for
weather to break, etc, but it really comes down to profits. They could
free up a gate to let passengers off, but it would impact other
flights' schedules.

"passengers were left waiting on planes at a New York airport for as
long as 11 hours during a snow and ice storm"

"While they waited to take off, John Farrell waited to arrive. His
JetBlue flight from Fort Myers, Fla., landed at 10 a.m., but
passengers didn't get off until nearly 7 p.m., he said."

"some of the plane's wheels froze to the ground"

" 'One of the pilots should get out here and have a mini-press
conference,' passenger Sarah Greenberg said in a phone call to CNN as
the plane sat on the tarmac. 'The longer they wait, the more people
are going to get upset. It's Psychology 101.' "

"The plane was like a 'sound-proofed coffin' when the windows were
iced over, said Carolyn Faucher, another stranded passenger."

"Greenberg said she and other passengers were getting testy because
the flight attendants told them they couldn't hand out food or water
until the plane had been grounded for at least four hours, citing a
Federal Aviation Administration rule."

"Another passenger said there was no power, and flight attendants had
to keep opening the doors so they could breathe comfortably."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/...ther_jetblue_7
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/02/15...ded/index.html

Larry in AZ wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, said:

On Feb 15, 11:57 am, Agent_C wrote:

I'm amazed that airport operators and the airlines have the capacity
to treat people this way!
Air travel is wonderful! Who are you to question it? Would you
rather that people spend their 8 hours sitting comfortably in a large
seat on a train actually getting to their destination?

Train travel is much more limited, and trips over a couple of hundred miles,
take far longer.


That's partly because the US's passenger rail network is inadequate and
inefficient. There are parts of the world where the distance threshold
where it becomes quicker to fly is far, *far* longer than 200 miles.

--

Stephen

Bill: Loss of job can be a result of termination, merger, or act of God.
It doesn't say anything about poker.
Mr. James: Read your "Act of God" clause.

On Feb 15, 1:04 pm, Stephen Farrow wrote:
Larry in AZ wrote:


Train travel is much more limited, and trips over a couple of hundred miles,
take far longer.

That's partly because the US's passenger rail network is inadequate and
inefficient. There are parts of the world where the distance threshold
where it becomes quicker to fly is far, *far* longer than 200 miles.

The U.S., as a matter of policy, invested great sums of public money
into aviation (ironically taxing railroads as a source). The govt,
not private sector, used tax free low cost bonds to build massive
airports and air traffic control systems (along with highways). It
was impossible for railroads to compete against this and they
withered.

While it is true coast-to-coast travellers would prefer to fly,
regional travelers would continue to take an overnight train if the
service was good and cost reasonable. Had the policy been fair, such
trains would exist. But the govt continues to pour our taxpayer
dollars (beyond trust funds) into avaition while starving Amtrak.
Thus travellers have few choices.

In a recent storm, Denver air was closed up for days and travellers
spent DAYS sleeping on the cold hard marble floor. Amtrak trains
continued to run. Had there been sufficient Amtrak capacity, many
people would've gotten to their destination in comfort, certainly
better than going nowhere stranded in an airport.

A good train can cover quite a distance in nine hours. Don't forget
those stranded travellers had to arrive at the airport two hours
before their flight for their strip search. So that's 11 hours of
zero motion.

wrote:

On Feb 15, 1:04 pm, Stephen Farrow wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:



Train travel is much more limited, and trips over a couple of hundred miles,
take far longer.

That's partly because the US's passenger rail network is inadequate and
inefficient. There are parts of the world where the distance threshold
where it becomes quicker to fly is far, *far* longer than 200 miles.


The U.S., as a matter of policy, invested great sums of public money
into aviation (ironically taxing railroads as a source). The govt,
not private sector, used tax free low cost bonds to build massive
airports and air traffic control systems (along with highways). It
was impossible for railroads to compete against this and they
withered.

While it is true coast-to-coast travellers would prefer to fly,
regional travelers would continue to take an overnight train if the
service was good and cost reasonable. Had the policy been fair, such
trains would exist. But the govt continues to pour our taxpayer
dollars (beyond trust funds) into avaition while starving Amtrak.
Thus travellers have few choices.

In a recent storm, Denver air was closed up for days and travellers
spent DAYS sleeping on the cold hard marble floor. Amtrak trains
continued to run. Had there been sufficient Amtrak capacity, many
people would've gotten to their destination in comfort, certainly
better than going nowhere stranded in an airport.

A good train can cover quite a distance in nine hours. Don't forget
those stranded travellers had to arrive at the airport two hours
before their flight for their strip search. So that's 11 hours of
zero motion.



That is the first time in decades I have heard words like 'in comfort'
used in reference to Amtrak.