|
|
|
Comments (11)
Print
Save/SharePilot Ray Stark has offered his personal explanation at the official Southwest Airlines Blog. He says that pilots have a key decision to make when pulling away from the gate.
It's up to the pilot to listen to reports from air traffic control and judge whether or not they should let passengers board the plane. His personal rule is that if it sounds like air-traffic control won't let the plane take off for another hour, he won't let passengers get on board. But sometimes air traffic control provides a faulty forecast.
This pilot's explanation is helpful, but it's worth noting that even he thinks that an hour long delay on the tarmac is, well, highly undesirable. To put his post in context a couple of weeks ago, a Southwest spokesperson told a group of reporters that the airline opposes any federal rule mandating that planes must take passengers back to the gate if an airplane has sat on the tarmac, even if it's for specifically rare and extreme delays of three hours or more.
Earlier: Four tips for coping with flight delays and cancellations.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Sometimes you'll get to your destination quicker by driving. On August 9th, my wife had her connecting flight from Tampa to Philadelphia canceled because of storms in the northeast. She had been attending a business conference in Ft. Lauderdale. We were slated to drive to NC the next day to attend a Saturday wedding. As soon as she realized that all of next day's flights were overbooked, she quickly cruised the airport rental car counters until she found a car, rented it and began driving to NC. While she was driving north, I began driving south and met her at the airport rental car drop point nearest our final destination. If she had waited for an available flight, she would probably have missed the wedding.
Posted By Lewis Edge on August 16, 2007, 7:52 AM
As`a retired airline pilot, I can tell you that the aircraft at the end of the runway, loaded and ready to go, will take off long before the one sitting at the gate when the airport opens for takeoffs. If the pilot waits until the airport opens to board his/her passengers they will be behind all the others running and ready to go. It may be uncomfortable on the plane but if it's a weather delay the airspace may open at a moments notice.
Posted By W. T. Zander on August 16, 2007, 12:43 PM
Hi, W. T. Zander,
Thanks for your insight as a former pilot. Makes sense. And it's a big reason why airlines and pilots ought to have flexibility.
Thanks for your post!
--Sean
Blog editor
Posted By Sean O'Neill on August 16, 2007, 1:55 PM
Dear Lewis Edge,
Thanks for this comment. It's a shame you almost missed the wedding because of flight trouble, but the rental car idea is a good one to suggest to other people. Glad it worked out in the end.
Thanks for your earlier comment on Virgin America and on-board internet access, too. Regards, Sean (Blog editor.)
Posted By Sean O'Neill on August 16, 2007, 1:56 PM
Savvy travelers know the pros and cons of sitting on a tarmac.
When pilots shut off the AC or heat, and passengers can't use the toilets and don't have access to food and water, many would prefer to return to (or not leave) the terminal and have (relative) comfort there.
In the alternative, when delays greater than 30 minutes or so occur, pilots should run the AC/heat, passengers should be able to use the toilets, and flight attendants should disburse beverages and snacks. These are basic elements of human decency.
If FAA rules are the problem, enlist the help of passengers to change them.
Posted By Aaron on August 16, 2007, 2:19 PM
If you got into someone's vehicle and for whatever reason they wouldn't let you out, it seems to me this is kidnapping or unlawful detention - isn't the same thing true of an airline?
The (spurious) argument that an airplane that returned to the gate would lose its place in line - is absolutely lame - let the passengers, who paid for the flight, decide. If a majority want back in the terminal - then the rule should be - back to the terminal. All other arguments appear to me to be rationalizations.
I think all passengers should lobby their representatives to enact such a regulation.
Maybe a phone call to the local law enforcement agency
stating your being held against your will might be a solution
Posted By phil ruggeiro on August 16, 2007, 4:39 PM
Phil, your suggestion makes sense to me. However -- maybe someone who knows for sure can shed light on this -- when you board any ship, you are entirely under the command of the Captain of that vessel. The same may hold true for aircraft.
Posted By Ken Ross on August 16, 2007, 6:10 PM
I was recently on a flight from Laguardia to Richmond and, as usually is the case in NY we sat on the runway for 3 plus hours. The pilot & FA told us when we boarded that it would probably be 2 hours plus. They never told us specifically it was weather related (maybe was, there were thunderstorms somewhere, I suppose). He shut down 1 engine, then both. It never got terribly hot, so I'm not sure how he kept the ac going.
At any rate, as we neared Richmond a ts did come through, and he told us that due to the length of time waiting, he was running low on fuel and if we didn't land fairly quickly he would have to divert to get fuel.
Fortunately, the TS got through, we got in, only 3 1/2 hours late.
In this case had we gone back to the gate, I do suspect we would have ended up taking longer or not getting out at all.
Posted By Ronald Williams on August 17, 2007, 6:36 PM
Response to K Ross
It used to be that the pilot had control of whether to wait or not.
but I believe this rule has changed and that the personnel on the ground control election to fly or wait.
Whether it's the pilot or ground personnel, the rule/law should be CHANGED so that after, say, 2 hours the passengers, who paid for the flight, should by majority get the call.
Send a message to your representative in congress and suggest this - if enough of us do - something will happen (barring undue lobbying from the airlines.
Posted By phil ruggeiro on August 17, 2007, 9:42 PM
Restricting a flight to wait no more than 2 hours on the taxiways is a reasonable compromise for both airlines and passengers. It should also be the responsibility of the airport authority to provide a sufficient number of gates so that planes can re-dock during weather delays or other circumstances. The respacing of the number of takeoffs at different hours would also help immensely. Considering the substantial cost of airline tickets, a simple 7% fee designated solely for airport upgrade will certainly provide enough revenue to pay off any bonds required for the capital improvements needed.
Posted By Christopher Hahin on August 23, 2007, 11:12 AM
Incarcerating passengers on a plane and refusing to let them return to the terminal is something that has a name. False imprisonment. It's a crime, and also a basis for civil action. And there is no excuse for failure to provide food, drinks, a/c and usable bathroom facilities.
Thank God this has never happened to me - yet. But if it does and the incarceration goes on for hours, you can bet there will be a lawsuit.
Posted By Richard Rosichan on October 30, 2007, 10:07 PM