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 ?

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 ?

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 ?

"- 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

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 ?

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.

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.

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 ?

- 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 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.