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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
On 11/2/2011 4:33 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , Sancho wrote: On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote: The US government constitutionally can take anything they want for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking clause). Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration. It is a little bit of superfluity, but not all that much. At least at the Fed level, there has to be some public purpose, but the courts have pretty much said public purpose is whatever the government says it is. The ability to invoke eminent domain has always been around, viewed by the courts as being inherent in sovereignty. It rests in the legislature to say what can be condemned, but can be delegated to others.. say RRs or utility. The "public purpose" is the use defined in the constitution, statute or ordinance. Berman v Parker set the modern definition of "public use" when it decided the government could take the land and lease it to a private developer for $1 a year. The same with Kelo v New London (CT). In that case a resort hotel and conference center, new state park, 80-100 new residences, research, office and rental space, was a public use and New London could condemn it. (Although these are related to state or local condemnation, they all raised Fed constitutional questions of what was a public purpose under the US constitution. Find me a FEDERAL ruling that says differently from what I mentioned. States can, and do, add things to their laws on emmenient domain. The fact that Kelo's land remains a vacant lot after all these years is not lost on the public or the courts. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
DevilsPGD wrote:
But with regard to holding me on a plane for 7 hours against my will, here we have a corporation (a legal person) interfering with my liberty. Say someone takes it to court and the court rules that people have the unqualified right to leave whenever they want. Now what? The court will aways factor in "reasonable expectations". If I bought a ticket for a flight that I know will take, say, 4 hours to complete, then it would be unreasonable for me to claim that at the 2-hour point in the flight that the airline is infringing on my liberty. While in the air, it's clearly unreasonable to expect the airline to stop the plane and let me out. But while parked on the ground, during irregular operations, at a non-regular airport, that's a whole other ballgame - one for which the airlines shroud in more mystery than area 51. They are sacrificing my liberty for the sake of some cost that only they know, a secret cost. You're flying from city X to city Y, you've landed in city Z and are stuck on a plane for 6 hours and decide to leave. What's your next move? A law needs to be passed that compels an airport (upon pain of massive fine or criminal charge against airport manager) to positively respond to a pilot's request to de-plane all passengers within 30 minutes of the request being made to the ground control tower. Another law needs to be passed that compels a pilot (upon pain of massive fine, stripping pilot's flying license, criminal charge, or any combination thereof) to request that the airport tow the plane to a gate or direct the plane to a tarmak area and bring air-stairs to the plane within 2 hours of the plane landing at the airport, or within 2 hours after the plane has been fully boarded but has not yet taken off. If the plane is still at the gate at 2 hours after scheduled departure (regardless if all doors are closed or not) then the pilot must declare the flight as cancelled and he must de-plane all passengers. If a plane containing passengers is still on the tarmac 3 hours after all passenger loading doors have been closed, or has been landed for 3 hours, then a third federal law would grant complete immunity (legal and financial) to any passenger(s) that open any available exit or door on a plane (emergency exit, regular door exit, etc) and who exit the plane through said open exit and make their entrance into the airport terminal through any available means. This law would make it a crime for the crew to interfere with the passengers' attempt to open the exit doors and disembark the plane and for airport staff to prohibit the passengers re-entry into the airport terminal. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article ,
Sancho Panza wrote: The fact that Kelo's land remains a vacant lot after all these years is not lost on the public or the courts. I h aven't seen anything that indicates the Courts have noted to any important degree. IIRC, there was a flurry of state law changes right after that. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article , Fly Guy wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote: But with regard to holding me on a plane for 7 hours against my will, here we have a corporation (a legal person) interfering with my liberty. Say someone takes it to court and the court rules that people have the unqualified right to leave whenever they want. Now what? The court will aways factor in "reasonable expectations". Which would include what would reasonably happen in these circumstances. You have a relatively small airport that all of a sudden got ~15-20 extra planes they weren't expecting, during a major snow storm. IIRC one of the problems was that they had arrived after the terminal had closed (but I could be wrong on that one). Even if the terminal was open, how do you get that many planes to the gates? Where do you all of a sudden "store" all those extra planes on the field? Even using the airstairs, you need to have a safe place to deplane the passengers. How do you get them from where ever they deplaned to shelter? Do you pull people from snow/deicing duty to do all of this? CAN you under FAA rules actually pull people off of these tasks. .. But while parked on the ground, during irregular operations, at a non-regular airport, that's a whole other ballgame - one for which the airlines shroud in more mystery than area 51. They are sacrificing my liberty for the sake of some cost that only they know, a secret cost. Maybe. Maybe the receiving airport was simply overwhelmed by the sudden influx. Maybe both. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
Kurt Ullman wrote:
The court will aways factor in "reasonable expectations". Which would include what would reasonably happen in these circumstances. You have a relatively small airport that all of a sudden got ~15-20 extra planes they weren't expecting, during a major snow storm. IIRC one of the problems was that they had arrived after the terminal had closed (but I could be wrong on that one). Even if the terminal was open, how do you get that many planes to the gates? Where do you all of a sudden "store" all those extra planes on the field? Even using the airstairs, you need to have a safe place to deplane the passengers. What we know from similar past events is that there has been NO attempt to immediately off-load passengers despite a REASONABLE expectation that they will be spending many hours on those planes. Any offloading has happened after many hours of needless passenger and crew distress and confinement. Even before you consider the physical problems of unloading passengers where-ever the plane may be sitting, you MUST remove the proceedural impediments and instill and enforce the perogative to make passenger deplanement a high priority or SOP. Maybe. Maybe the receiving airport was simply overwhelmed by the sudden influx. Maybe both. Even when overwhelmed, you don't just throw up your arms and say "if I can't deplane ALL of them, then I will deplane NONE of them" (that's what you seem to be implying). In this case, we know that 10 to 20 unscheduled planes landed at that particular airport. How many of them were "irregular" - I don't know. We also don't know if the airport was truely overwhelmed by these planes (overwhelmed from a parking / access / deplanement POV). The dynamics of the interaction between all parties (pilot, tower, airport management, FAA, airline management) need to be put under a microscope to uncover obstacles, roadblocks and costs associated with the timely deplanement of passengers arriving at airports during irregular operations and conditions. You will note in a previous post that the Jet Blue pilot stated that a police car (local municipal police?) was parked in front of the plane. What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being excercised here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't assisting a private corporation to limit or interfere with the liberty of the citizens on that plane? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article , Fly Guy wrote:
Even when overwhelmed, you don't just throw up your arms and say "if I can't deplane ALL of them, then I will deplane NONE of them" (that's what you seem to be implying). I haven't heard anything definitive on what was done. Did the deplane none of them? Or was Jet Blue just down the line? Actually, since you appareently have nearly as many unscheduled planes as you did gates (the website indicates 30 gates) , how can you deplane them all? In this case, we know that 10 to 20 unscheduled planes landed at that particular airport. How many of them were "irregular" - I don't know. The news reports said specifically that 20 or so were diverted from other airports. Besides if they are unscheduled how could they be anything BUT irregular. Maybe I missed an additional point you were trying to make.. certainly wouldn't be the first time (g). The dynamics of the interaction between all parties (pilot, tower, airport management, FAA, airline management) need to be put under a microscope to uncover obstacles, roadblocks and costs associated with the timely deplanement of passengers arriving at airports during irregular operations and conditions. That I'll agree with, but to arbitrarily put a time line on deplaning (in emergency conditions) seems untenable. Another option should be for the FAA to work on an algorithm that would help disperse the flights in a more workable manner. Seems like this little airport got socked badly and maybe the FAA could have spread the pain a little more evenly. You will note in a previous post that the Jet Blue pilot stated that a police car (local municipal police?) was parked in front of the plane. What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being excercised here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't assisting a private corporation to limit or interfere with the liberty of the citizens on that plane? Depends on who put them there. If it was at the behsest of the airport so the pilot did not do something (they felt) was rash and move the plane, then nope. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
Kurt Ullman wrote:
I haven't heard anything definitive on what was done. Did they deplane none of them? Or was Jet Blue just down the line? I don't know. The only people that know are the ones that apparently don't talk to reporters. Actually, since you appareently have nearly as many unscheduled planes as you did gates (the website indicates 30 gates) , how can you deplane them all? Huh? If the number of gates and the number of planes is roughly equal, then doesn't that mean there's maybe 1 gate for every plane? Or close to it? And again, you continue to ignore the possible use of air stairs for those planes that are lacking a gate. The news reports said specifically that 20 or so were diverted from other airports. Besides if they are unscheduled how could they be anything BUT irregular. By irregular, I mean that the plane in question (as in the carrier operating the plane) has no ground operations at the airport in question. That is what I mean by an "irregular plane". but to arbitrarily put a time line on deplaning (in emergency conditions) seems untenable. I question your use of the term "emergency". Weather or infrastructure conditions that prohibit safe landing at one airport does not constitute an "emergency" condition at a nearby "safe" or otherwise normally-operating airport. You will note in a previous post that the Jet Blue pilot stated that a police car (local municipal police?) was parked in front of the plane. What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being excercised here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't assisting a private corporation to limit or interfere with the liberty of the citizens on that plane? Depends on who put them there. No it does not. Unless you're saying that the police can play different roles and enforce different rules / laws depending on who calls them for service. If it was at the behsest of the airport so the pilot did not do something (they felt) was rash and move the plane, then nope. If police are called to block the exits of a shopping mall by the owner/operator of the mall given a situation where no crime or code infraction is being alledged, and you are confined within the mall against your will for 7 hours, is that not a case where some level of gov't is violating your constitutional right to liberty / personal freedom? What if that police car was blocking the plane's access to a free / open gate? What argument would you put forward to support the action of the state (as carried out by the police) in that situation? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article , Fly Guy wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote: I haven't heard anything definitive on what was done. Did they deplane none of them? Or was Jet Blue just down the line? I don't know. The only people that know are the ones that apparently don't talk to reporters. That makes them smarter than the average bear. Actually, since you appareently have nearly as many unscheduled planes as you did gates (the website indicates 30 gates) , how can you deplane them all? Huh? There were ~20 extra planes trying to sandwich into 30 gates. Plus, I am assuming many of the scheduled flights. If the number of gates and the number of planes is roughly equal, then doesn't that mean there's maybe 1 gate for every plane? Or close to it? Not necessarily. I am assuming at least some of the gates were for the Delta Connection type planes that would have no jet way, for instance. There were probably already regularly scheduled jets sitting there. Does the FAA or other entity require some sort of staffing level at the gates and, if so, how were the appropriate personnel allocated? Where there enough "drivers" to get the gates to the planes? How well did the gates match up with the types of planes coming into the airport (I am not familiar with jetways to know if they all would mate properly with various flavors of Airbus and Boeing or if you maybe had some gates that would only mate with specific kinds of airplanes). Where can they put the planes once they move off the gates? (The main thing that allowed IND, for instance, to take as many planes as they did immediately following 9-11 was because of the Fed Ex ramp space available. And that was on a nice clear day when you did not have to keep runways, taxiways AND THEN extra ramp space free of snow.) Just because the number of gates available is close to what is needed, doesn't mean that the actual availability of gates is sufficient. And again, you continue to ignore the possible use of air stairs for those planes that are lacking a gate. And you keep assuming that there was a clear space to actually move the airstairs to. ANd that there was a clear space near enough to the terminal to get them inside in an safe manner. Or that that there was clear space somewhere else AND a bus or some other transportation to get them to safety. At a busier than usual airport, it isn't just a matter of parking a plane at some random space and trucking the airstairs up and letting groups traipse around until they find warmth. The news reports said specifically that 20 or so were diverted from other airports. Besides if they are unscheduled how could they be anything BUT irregular. By irregular, I mean that the plane in question (as in the carrier operating the plane) has no ground operations at the airport in question. That is what I mean by an "irregular plane". Okay but to arbitrarily put a time line on deplaning (in emergency conditions) seems untenable. I question your use of the term "emergency". The middle of a nor'easter where you suddenly have 20 flights show up at your doorstep with snow falling. That certainly qualifies in my book. Weather or infrastructure conditions that prohibit safe landing at one airport does not constitute an "emergency" condition at a nearby "safe" or otherwise normally-operating airport. I beg to differ, especially in this context. What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being excercised here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't assisting a private corporation to limit or interfere with the liberty of the citizens on that plane? Depends on who put them there. No it does not. Unless you're saying that the police can play different roles and enforce different rules / laws depending on who calls them for service. I am exactly saying that. They always enforce different rules and laws depending on the situation. If it was at the behsest of the airport so the pilot did not do something (they felt) was rash and move the plane, then nope. If police are called to block the exits of a shopping mall by the owner/operator of the mall given a situation where no crime or code infraction is being alledged, and you are confined within the mall against your will for 7 hours, is that not a case where some level of gov't is violating your constitutional right to liberty / personal freedom? Maybe. But then you have a lock down of a school or mall where public safety is an issue where the exact same thing happens. A case can certainly be made that a pilot going off and moving a plane on his accord without okay from the FAA officials responsible for the area is a public safety issue. I don't know why they were there, any more than you do, I was just putting out a couple of alternatives that fit the situation. Even assuming they were there. What if that police car was blocking the plane's access to a free / open gate? What argument would you put forward to support the action of the state (as carried out by the police) in that situation? See above. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Passengers Trapped on Runway for 8 Hours at JFK | Agent_C | Air travel | 106 | February 20th, 2007 02:24 AM |
JetBlue Passengers Stranded for Almost 11 Hours | Ablang | Air travel | 0 | February 18th, 2007 07:42 AM |
AA holds passengers hostage in airplane for 9 hours | James Robinson | USA & Canada | 0 | January 11th, 2007 02:22 PM |
Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours | Larry R Harrison Jr | Air travel | 296 | January 10th, 2005 10:31 PM |
USA detains BA passengers for 3 hours | nobody | Air travel | 28 | January 4th, 2004 09:15 PM |