QF fined USD$90k for holding passengers during delay at DFW

[markis10]

Qantas Airways was fined $90,000 by the U.S. Department of Transportation on Wednesday for failing to inform passengers they could deplane during a delay at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport last March.


The carrier did not alert passengers that they could leave the plane while it sat at the gate for a long period of time with the door open, the DOT said.


“Airlines may not leave passengers stranded indefinitely aboard an aircraft, whether on the tarmac or at the gate, and passengers have a right to know if they are able to leave the plane,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.


On March 21, Qantas’ flight to Brisbane was scheduled to depart at 10:00 p.m. but returned to the gate three times after receiving mechanical alerts. The first time it returned, the plane sat at the gate for more than an hour and the second time it sat for a little over two hours. The DOT says that during both delays the aircraft door was open and passengers could have deplaned.




Read more here: Qantas fined $90,000 for leaving passengers on plane at DFW | Airlines and Aviation | Da...

 

[Foreigner]

Here are the facts of the case, per the DOT:

On March 21, 2013, Qantas flight 008 was scheduled to depart Dallas/Fort Worth at 10:00 p.m. en route to Brisbane, Australia. The plane initially pushed back from the gate at 10:41 p.m., but had to return to the gate three times after receiving mechanical alerts. After the first return to the gate, the plane sat for an hour and seven minutes with passengers on board, and the second time for two hours and two minutes. During both of these delays, the aircraft door was open and passengers could have left at any time, but Qantas personnel failed to inform passengers that they could deplane. The flight was canceled after a third mechanical alert and passengers disembarked at 3:05 a.m.

Here’s what Qantas offered as mitigation, as repeated in its consent order with the DOT:

In mitigation Qantas states that it made every effort to accommodate the needs of the passengers from the time that Qantas Flight 8 left the gate on March 21, 2013, until the flight ultimately had to be canceled. Qantas explains that both the coughpit crew and the cabin crew kept passengers fully notified of the status of the flight at all times, including the two periods when the aircraft returned to the gate in order to address the engine alerts and to refuel. Qantas states that while the aircraft was at the gate, cell phone access, drinking water, and toilets were all available and that no medical assistance was requested. Qantas also states that during the second period that the aircraft was at the gate, the crew provided passengers with food and water.
Qantas recounts that during both returns of the aircraft to the gate, the Customer Service Manager, other cabin crew, and the Captain did walk-arounds of the cabins to maintain contact with the passengers and to answer questions. Qantas states that although no one expressed an interest in deplaning during the periods that the aircraft was at the gate, the doors to the aircraft were open and any passenger who wished to deplane would have been permitted to do so. Qantas notes that all indications were to the contrary—that the passengers’ priority was for the flight to depart as soon as possible. Qantas also notes that it did not receive any complaints from passengers during the times that the aircraft was at the gate.
Qantas emphasizes that crew members made every attempt to minimize inconvenience to passengers and to get the flight underway within crew duty time limitations in order to avoid an overnight delay. Qantas points out that the crew prepared a flight plan for Auckland when the flight was unable to depart for Brisbane due to duty time limitations but that the flight nonetheless had to be canceled following the third engine alert since the crew time remaining was insufficient to complete a transpacific flight.
Qantas affirms its commitment to compliance with all of the Department’s requirements, including the notification requirement at issue.

 

[OzEire]

Qantas' actions sound quite reasonable. The DOT requirement for an announcement is a there, and Qantas staff should have made a perfunctory announcement, but the absence of the announcement - when all of the other circumstances are taken into consideration (no one complained or was prevented from leaving) - is hardly cause for a 90k fine. Bureaucracy and an entitled litigious public.

I mean its hardly the 'bad ol days' of Southwest and others stranding pax on their tiny jets, on tarmac (rather than gate), without aircon, food or water for hours at a time which led to the DOT rules in the first place.

 

[speed]

It would appear that Qantas at no time said "you can leave the plane if you like" which i'm sure that if offered, most people would have taken up the offer...

 

[RooFlyer]

I guess the issue revolves around whether the law requires the airline to pro-actively inform pax of their 'rights' (ie via an announcement such as "You can leave the plane if you like") - as opposed just leaving the front door open.

Unless they actually say "you can leave" I think most people would assume, as in all other cases, you have to stay put.

 

[Pushka]

In situations where a corporation is fined because of poor service to their clients, I get a little frustrated that the money for the fine goes to some government finance sink and not to the people actually aggrieved.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

if no one complained, how did the DOT find out? suggests to me someone must have been unhappy with being kept on board?

 

[gwynne]

Given the flight was cancelled, it might have piqued someone's interest.

 

[exp1k]

Qantas states that although no one expressed an interest in deplaning during the periods that the aircraft was at the gate, the doors to the aircraft were open and any passenger who wished to deplane would have been permitted to do so.

I was in a similar situation and I repeatedly requested to deplane while the aircraft was at the gate and the door was open, but I was not permitted to do so. This was in Australia though, not in the US.

The US rules say (14 CFR 259.4(6)): "[passengers] have the opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists"

What are my passenger rights here in Australia?

 

[harvyk]

It would appear that Qantas at no time said "you can leave the plane if you like" which i'm sure that if offered, most people would have taken up the offer...

Why do you think that most people would take up that offer? The longest I've spent on the tarmac was 2.5 hours. This was on a QF flight when SYD was fogged in. After waiting for an hour QF came over the PA and advised that anyone who wished to leave the aircraft and get a full refund of the ticket where welcome to do so. Only a couple of pax actually left the aircraft (inc the guy who was sitting next to me ), everyone else (inc me) chose to wait it out. This included pax with checked bags in the hold which needed to be retrieved.

I also remember an AirNZ flight which was delayed, and again they offered to let people off and no one took the offer.
Keep in mind that most people on an aircraft actually want to get where they are going, and as such even with an offer to leave most would not take it.

Edit: and I've just noticed the date of the rest of the posts, I really wish ppl wouldn't dig up old threads for no good reason.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why do you think that most people would take up that offer? The longest I've spent on the tarmac was 2.5 hours. This was on a QF flight when SYD was fogged in. After waiting for an hour QF came over the PA and advised that anyone who wished to leave the aircraft and get a full refund of the ticket where welcome to do so. Only a couple of pax actually left the aircraft (inc the guy who was sitting next to me ), everyone else (inc me) chose to wait it out. This included pax with checked bags in the hold which needed to be retrieved.

I also remember an AirNZ flight which was delayed, and again they offered to let people off and no one took the offer.
Keep in mind that most people on an aircraft actually want to get where they are going, and as such even with an offer to leave most would not take it.

Edit: and I've just noticed the date of the rest of the posts, I really wish ppl wouldn't dig up old threads for no good reason.

there is a difference between... please step out and stretch you legs (which is what QF was supposed to do in the USA)

and

please leave the plane now if you want a full refund (and don't come back on)

the two situations aren't even comparable.

 

[harvyk]

there is a difference between... please step out and stretch you legs (which is what QF was supposed to do in the USA)

and

please leave the plane now if you want a full refund (and don't come back on)

the two situations aren't even comparable.

Point taken...

 

[OzEire]

I was on a QF 744 at SFO (those were the days) for over 4 hours. I don't recall that particular announcement but QF crew did keep us informed, even when the aircraft blacked out for a couple of mins. Might have been a bit too much info from the flight deck when they said there was a fire warning on the APU and there was fire trucks attending!

Still, no one left the plane at that point... But we all left later when the airframe was declared unservicable.