U.S. imposes 3-hour limit on tarmac delays

[straitman]

U.S. imposes 3-hour limit on tarmac delays.

By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Passenger-rights advocates won a major victory Monday when the Transportation Department announced a rule to let passengers stuck inside stranded planes disembark after three hours.

The rule, which will take effect in late April and applies only to domestic flights, prohibits airlines from letting an aircraft remain on an airport tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning passengers.

 

[codash1099]

Precise limits can create problems. Imagine you have been sitting on the tarmac for 2hrs 59.5 minutes and were next in line for take-off.

Would you have to return to the terminal? How p*ssed off would the PAX be?

 

[Dave Noble]

Precise limits can create problems. Imagine you have been sitting on the tarmac for 2hrs 59.5 minutes and were next in line for take-off.

Would you have to return to the terminal? How p*ssed off would the PAX be?

Precise limits provide something which cannot be so easily weaseled out of by the airline. 3 hours is more than generous a limit to the airline to actually take off imo; by this time passengers can have been sat onboard for over 3 and a half hours when boarding is taken into account

Dave

 

[docjames]

Yep, this is great for pax.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We're now second in the queue to take off, but as it's been three hours since puhback, we have to return to the gate or opur compnay will get fined. And the crew is now out of hours so we'll be de-borading the aircraft and you'll be waiting in the terminal for a further 6 hours while we arrange another crew. Thankyou"


Another win for idiotic government over common sense.

 

[UP4014]

Most definately a win for passengers. If they don't think they get off the ground within three hours they shouldn't push back.

The airlines proved there they couldn't deal with it, they said they would but never did, now its so bad the Govt stepped in.

It's a cop out to always blame air traffic control.

Good move.

 

[Dave Noble]

Yep, this is great for pax.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We're now second in the queue to take off, but as it's been three hours since puhback, we have to return to the gate or opur compnay will get fined. And the crew is now out of hours so we'll be de-borading the aircraft and you'll be waiting in the terminal for a further 6 hours while we arrange another crew. Thankyou"


Another win for idiotic government over common sense.

It is great for passengers. The airline can easily avoid the issue by NOT boarding the passengers onto the aeroplane if it is not going to depart

It does not mean that flights cannot be delayed, just that if the airline takes the decision to lock the passengers in the plane , that they have a time limit attached

How on earth is the current situation good for passengers

Dave

 

[docjames]

So, plane pushes back, in queue of 20 a/c awaiting departure. Then one runway closes so backlog. Pax get returned to gate instead of taking off.


I cant say this is the ideal solution, but then, i guess there isnt really one.

And yes, asking the airlines to regulate themselves is leaving the fox in charge of the hen house.

 

[Dave Noble]

As an example of US Carriers regard for their passengers

1,5 years ago , I was on a flight from MSN-ORD on American Eagle. The scheduled flying time was 35 minutes ( timetabled as 50 mins )

The airline started boarding the passengers 30 mins before scheduled departure and ( with only 20 passengers on the aeroplane ) we pulled back and departed 5 minutes ahead of schedule.

The pilot then came on and addressed stating that we would be sitting on the tarmac for a while since ORD was closed due to storms and that it would be at least an hour before we were able to take off. we Eventually took off 1.5 hours later

There was no good reason to board the plane given that it was known that the flight would not be able to get airborne. The flight did show an on-time departure , since once we pushed back, the flight was departed. Nice for the airline's on time statistics but dismal for the passengers spending 90 minutes waiting to take off for a 30 minute flight

Hopefully the new rules will discourage these antics and that they will just inform passengers that there will be a delay to the flight ( a concept in honesty that seems to be alien to the US airlines )

Dave

 

[straitman]

Yep, this is great for pax.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We're now second in the queue to take off, but as it's been three hours since puhback, we have to return to the gate or opur compnay will get fined. And the crew is now out of hours so we'll be de-borading the aircraft and you'll be waiting in the terminal for a further 6 hours while we arrange another crew. Thankyou"


Another win for idiotic government over common sense.

docjames,

I cannot agree here. As Dave Noble says:

It is great for passengers. The airline can easily avoid the issue by NOT boarding the passengers onto the aeroplane if it is not going to depart

It does not mean that flights cannot be delayed, just that if the airline takes the decision to lock the passengers in the plane , that they have a time limit attached

How on earth is the current situation good for passengers

So, plane pushes back, in queue of 20 a/c awaiting departure. Then one runway closes so backlog. Pax get returned to gate instead of taking off.


I cant say this is the ideal solution, but then, i guess there isnt really one.

And yes, asking the airlines to regulate themselves is leaving the fox in charge of the hen house.

One would hope that a small element of discretion and common sense might prevail even in the USA :!:

 

[docjames]

This law wont stop what happened to Dave Noble.

Common sense. LOTFAP? Seems unlikely.......

 

[Dave Noble]

This law wont stop what happened to Dave Noble.

Common sense. LOTFAP? Seems unlikely.......

It may reduce it , since if they know that they cannot possibly depart until at least 60 mins late , they may be less inclined to board the flight without allowing for the delay if they know that they have to allow the passengers off should the delay be extended

Dave

 

[SeaWolf]

Yes, there will be that inevitable situation where if the limit wasn't there, then some aircraft that sat around for three hours would have been able to get off the ground at three hours and one minute. But the reality is that the line has got to be drawn somewhere (since the airlines are clearly incapable of drawing it) and, to me, three hours seems more than lenient.

 

[Maca44]

I thought "on time" departures were governed by aircraft push back from the gate so hypothetically a carrier could load pax, push back on time and have that 'departure' recorded as on time, and then return to the gate and deplane pax. Remember I said hypothetically.