Stranded air passengers to get relief from new rules

[ethernet]

Stranded air passengers to get relief from new rules | TopNews United States

Airlines will also have to give a chance to its passengers to deplane by the third hour.

So.. When is Australia matching this?

Qantas has been known to keep passengers locked up onboard on the tarmac (held Hostage) for > 11 hours - even after they ran out of water.
I think some plane scored 23 hours, when someone died on one at the height of swine flu scare.

As usual, the WORST thing they do is keep people uninformed - there will be a short delay or such 2, 4 10 hours ect.

Hopefully soon.

 

[samh004]

That’s a new American rule, it has no bearing on policy in Australia.

I think what needs to be done too, is amending the rules on how long cabin crew can work with regard to delays, as deplaning means everyone needs to get back on board at some stage and generally by then the cabin crew will have exceeded their hours. If you’re going to make rules that allow deplaning after a set period of time, then that should also include suspension of cabin crew hours in the air, at least for a little bit, so passengers can re-board and get to their destination with minimal delay.

While such a policy would allow you to get off a stretch your legs, it wont get you to your destination any quicker! It’ll probably in fact do the opposite.

 

[ethernet]

There are two parts.

1) Airlines will also have to give a chance to its passengers to deplane by the third hour. It does not say deplane - but given the chance.
This means the pilot will have to 'fess up' to the situation - engine fell off, fuel pump not working, lost slot, curfew etc. Or they can make it easier - free drinks, or bus in extra water.

I'm sure this came in because some airlines abused reasonableness,

2) Other policy issues. Yes, I have been stuck waiting, because TigerAirways alleges one cabin crew is sick or over the limit - on wayyy too many occasions. I think some flexibility and common sense needs to be added back in. Those are other issues.

3) I 'd like to see the passengers empowered with a simple majority vote.

4) Offtopic: Thai Airlines were going to have a 6 hour delay, so they disgorged their pax and bussed then to a hotel to wait in BKK. They told the mainly British pax, no charge - but nothing for extras either.
When they re-entered BKK airport, they were forced to pay a 'Departure Tax' even though they were told they would not. Things like this need fixing too.

 

[anat0l]

A good idea, although I don't know too many cases of QF "regularly" keeping people for > 11 hrs at a time. More than 3 hr is relatively frequent; last time I can remember was when a QF plane was diverted then held at CBR due to no customs availability (which I still maintain was the fault of our customs system and the federal government which runs it - because of a complete lack of procedures it was the Australian government that held a plane load of pax hostage and could have very well dehydrated them).

Some of the board stalwarts might like to chime in here as to examples of where QF have held pax for > 11 hrs onboard and we'll establish whether this is "regular".

But back on topic, I think something like this needs to be done. I also think - and this is not completely unreasonable - is that a set of backup crew should be appointed and called as soon as the airline detects a delay of greater than 1 hour (predicted or actual) for any long haul flight (i.e. where there is the potential for the delay to push out crew hours for the affected crew). I was thinking of proposing that a set of backup crew should always be available for every long haul flight, although I anticipate this would blow out requirements quite a bit. Having them on call and ready to go as soon as a long delay is anticipated is probably good enough.

I don't agree with the "given a choice" bit. Giving pax the chance to deplane or not opens a can of security worms. Either leave them on the plane (not the desired situation) or they all must deplane - there might be a case to leave their cabin baggage on board (but again this might be a security thing). Of course, it will be "necessary" for them to be rescreened, but that is due to airport security procedures which can't be worked around unless the said workaround will be part of the new laws.

And how does one administer a majority voting system on board an aircraft? Raise hands? Be realistic (not to mention that the ability to competently and clearly raise one's hand seems to be inversely proportional to age). Count how many call bells get lighted up? Potential for rigging, also not sure how they can do the count. I think it has to be all or nothing. In this case, it is assumed that if a new law or rule came in, a passenger would rather deplane in the case of a long delay, go back to the airport and require rescreening and reboarding, instead of remaining on the aircraft (even if provided with food, water and entertainment).

 

[harvyk]

I still don't see why pax can't be off-loaded back into the departures area of the terminal.

The reason why they have departures and arrivals area's in international terminals is because not every country has top notch security screening in place. Thus it stops an in-transit pax from bringing something on-board an aircraft outboard from Australia without Australia actually confirming what the pax has with them.

That said, every pax on the A\C would have been through security either as an outbound pax or as a transit pax. They would have then been placed onto an A/C, which one would assume is a sterile environment, if the aircraft has not yet left the ground, one would assume that there was no point in time where un-security checked people could have gotten something onboard, thus the idea that you need to recheck a group of pax, who have just been through security checking seems a little absurd.

 

[Dave Noble]

I still don't see why pax can't be off-loaded back into the departures area of the terminal.

The reason why they have departures and arrivals area's in international terminals is because not every country has top notch security screening in place. Thus it stops an in-transit pax from bringing something on-board an aircraft outboard from Australia without Australia actually confirming what the pax has with them.

That said, every pax on the A\C would have been through security either as an outbound pax or as a transit pax. They would have then been placed onto an A/C, which one would assume is a sterile environment, if the aircraft has not yet left the ground, one would assume that there was no point in time where un-security checked people could have gotten something onboard, thus the idea that you need to recheck a group of pax, who have just been through security checking seems a little absurd.

The USA flights , I believe have an additional screening before boarding. If the passengers disembark, then the secondary screening would need to be re-performed since the passengers will be back in he general airside area of the terminal

For other flights, I agree, there should be no issue at all

Dave

 

[harvyk]

I know there can be secondary screening for US bound flights. That said I have never been through secondary screening myself (I've always been waived past).

Given that a percentage of people had already been through secondary screening, I would have thought it would have been "safe enough" to still let the pax de-plane and then reboard at a later stage, as it would not have been a situation that a terrorist could have planned for.

 

[Dave Noble]

I know there can be secondary screening for US bound flights. That said I have never been through secondary screening myself (I've always been waived past).

Given that a percentage of people had already been through secondary screening, I would have thought it would have been "safe enough" to still let the pax de-plane and then reboard at a later stage, as it would not have been a situation that a terrorist could have planned for.

Qantas does not have the authority to choose to ignore the US rules regardless of likelihood of an issue

Dave

 

[anat0l]

Qantas does not have the authority to choose to ignore the US rules regardless of likelihood of an issue

More precisely, no airline has the authority, and I'd be hard pressed if even the relevant people empowered to enforce security procedures has authority, barring an emergency.

This is why this kind of legislation may need to be supplemented with appropriate changes in procedure. But that in itself is another uphill battle.

 

[Dave Noble]

More precisely, no airline has the authority, and I'd be hard pressed if even the relevant people empowered to enforce security procedures has authority, barring an emergency.

This is why this kind of legislation may need to be supplemented with appropriate changes in procedure. But that in itself is another uphill battle.

I was still referring to the case in point of Qantas

If Australia had an airport setup such as London where there are gate areas which can be closed off, then could open up a couple of gate areas to let people get off and perhaps provide sanwiches and drinks without needing to worry about passengers wandering off or re-screening. I cannot imagine the airports spending money to create this sort of set up in Australia though

Otherwise does need a change in policy from USA

Dave

 

[ethernet]

I cannot imagine the airports spending money to create this sort of set up in Australia though.

USA is responding to a foreseeable oversight.
When they think it through, Australia will have no option but to adopt this policy. As pointed out, some inflexible policies need fixing - to make operational smoothness is everyones business - to minimise issue #1.

Several benefits would flow:
1) A fully loaded ,fueled up heavy on the tarmac, going nowhere is a security risk. Risk mitigation = deplaning.
2) Airport would have no option, and would therefore need to upgrade to 'international levels' - or able to cope with a 380 deplaning - else they will have to quickly reprocess an awful lot a angry pax (with liquids).
3) If deplaning was frequent enough, more attention to staffing issues would hit the fan.
4) Airlines would figure out, and pay a price, for cost shifting their stinginess in robbing passengers their time .
5) Comfort and consideration of the passengers is #1 . I dont care about the airlines lack of planning or staffing issues.
6) Obviously new/more jobs created.
7) The bikie gang incident proved many things, and airport spending money for safety was a hot potato.
8) Cooperation. They don't at present. Here is a stick that may create a 'pool' of replacements.

I foresee the airport coughing - "Well, if we make one terminal isolated - then thats one more we have to build, and less room for shops and a picture theatre.. yadda The scum in cattle class - who cares, and those in 1st -well they will be ok".