I agree with 3 hours. That's still too long, but there are 2 sides to this. I'm a former military pilot, so I'm very familiar with the FAA, the route system, "gate holds", etc., so I can definitely see how any mandated "return to the gate" timeframe really hamstrings the airlines. With any mandated maximum delay time, there will no doubt be isolated situations where a flight could have taken off if allowed to wait perhaps 10 more minutes. The human factors side of this issue must prevail though. (I don't think it should be any less than 3 hours, because on more than one occasion I've had simple taxi delays of an hour and a half or longer, because of the backup of airplanes waiting to take off.)

Posted By Robert Mathews on September 27, 2007, 6:25 PM

BS.
Airlines should be required to refund every passenger a percentage of their fare based on comparison of Scheduled Departure/Arrival to Actual.

ex.
I pay $900 for what's scheduled to be a 6.5 hr trip and it takes 10 hrs because of delays taking off and holding patterns landing - I get a $78.75 back.

(.25*fare/actual time)* (actual-scheduled)

Hold me for more than 8 hrs (cumulative by airline) and I get a free upgrade.

Allow the airlines to hit the airports for a percentage of that rate and they'll all straiten up their act or pack up and leave.

Posted By Thanatos on September 27, 2007, 10:01 PM

Although the article "25 Reasons I Love San Antonio" was very informative, it seems to me, as one who has lived here for the past 11 years, that the author left out the biggest reason of all- the people! The people here are the friendliest and most outgoing and helpful Ive ever met-and I've traveled a lot. Maybe it's the diversity, but it's the truth. Come see for yourself.

Posted By Judy L. Ferguson on September 28, 2007, 2:14 PM

Dear Mr. Mathews,
Thanks, as always, for your insightful comments. As a former pilot, you bring a great perspective to this.
Thanks again.

Dear Thanatos,
Great point. Good idea about reimbursement. By the way, have you won your Freudian battle against Eros yet, Thanatos?

Regards,
Sean

Posted By Blog Editor on September 28, 2007, 4:52 PM

Hehe!
They don't say "Love and Taxes" now, do they?

Posted By Thanatos on September 28, 2007, 4:52 PM

There is another option, if it is due to mechanical problems, you can still fly and crash!

Posted By Dan on September 28, 2007, 7:33 PM

US Airways #701, Philly to Phoenix Thursday, 9/27. Total of 8 hours on the ground before takeoff. My concerns are mostly health related: There was very little "fresh" air in the cabin, and those vents above seat were blasting out the smell of jet fuel. The flight attendents were careful/stingy with water until we returned to the gate to refuel (that was hour 4).
I still have a headache 4 days later. Quite apart from the mental health questions, are there studies on the health effects of these "trapped in a plane on the ground" ordeals?

Posted By Tom Moon on October 1, 2007, 11:10 AM

Two hours should be the max. Airlines have to be held accountable for their actions. After two hours of sitting on a plane it becomes close to involuntary confinement.

Posted By Mike on October 1, 2007, 11:14 AM

I also agree that the government should declare a maximum time to be straded out on the tarmac. Two hours seems long enough, a decision should be made by then whether it is safe to fly or turn back. Even after three house, it would seem unreasonably long and would not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to fly in that plane after that anyway.

Posted By Linda DiPalma, Bridgeport, CT on October 1, 2007, 11:19 AM

I find these tales of being "held prisoner" in airplanes horrifying examples of ridiculously bad customer service. Three hours sounds excruciatingly long to me, though I suppose that would be a fair time limit. But I do have to wonder about the people who are diabetic or hypoglycemic and who don't bring along something to eat. Everyone should have a couple of power bars in their carry-on, as well as some water and something to pass the time (book, magazine, iPod, etc.) How hard is that?

Posted By Virginia France on October 1, 2007, 11:28 AM

Unless the plane is in line for take off (and the airport is currently open for take offs), 30 minutes is the maximum I am willing to sit in a plane on the tarmac. Its not that my time is important, but the tight enclosed space feeling a person is subjected to in most airplane seats (and I'm only 5 ft. 6 in.). On a widebody with room to get up and walk around I might (?) be ok for an hour. But on a single-aisle plane only 1/6 of the passengers can even stand up at one time in the aisle next to their seat row. I don't understand why passengers don't just activate the emergency exit slides and leave the plane after an hour and a half. The airline has no more right to keep customers imprisoned in their facilities than a store or restaurant. And no law should prohibit passengers from exiting planes on their own if the airlines won't roll up a stairway and bus.

Posted By AP on October 1, 2007, 11:34 AM

I agree that something has to be done about multi-hour delays but I would also appreciate it if people would discontinue the use of the word "Tarmac". There is no tarmac on any airport in the United States. Tarmac is a paving materiel used in England. There is also no area or place at any airport officially called "tarmac". Thank you.

Posted By Delbert Holzer on October 1, 2007, 11:35 AM

Neither the airlines nor the government can do anything about the weather. They have failed miserably though in allowing more departures/arrivals than can be accommodated. It is also a fact that the ATC system is hopelessly antiquated. Take some of the billions poured into the quagmire of Iraq and fix ATC. Force the airlines to bid for the "attractive" arrival/departure times, and spread the others out. If a customer can only get a noon flight or a red eye, that's what they'll take. Unless they want to pay more for the travel times that are more convenient.

Posted By Tim Purcell on October 1, 2007, 11:36 AM

If I were to be on a plane longer then three hours you can damn well bet I'd be at the door and deploying the emergency shutes and getting off the plane. I don't care if it is illegal and I'd more then likely be fined but it would be better then being trapped on a plane to nowhere!! Why didn't these passengers revolt!! If the cabin stewards and the flight crew could get off the plane why shouldn't the passengers be allowed to? Don't we as passengers have rights too? Nancy

Posted By Nancy on October 1, 2007, 11:39 AM

Three hours is more than long enough. I'm really surprised nobody has totally lost their cool in on of these situations. Maybe someone should file kidnapping charges again the airline?

Posted By Sharon Huneycutt on October 1, 2007, 11:50 AM

2 hours max. then a pro-rated refund. If wait time is more than flight time,full credit toward any other flight on the airline.

Posted By Mike on October 1, 2007, 11:51 AM

I was on the tarmac for 3 hours, the plane had to be de-iced twice, there was no explanation as to why we were still on the ground. I think that 3 hours is too long to sit on the tarmac and if you ever have been stuck you would agree. The airline themselves should come up with some rule that they will only hold for so long and give a credit back to passengers.

Posted By Donna Johnson on October 1, 2007, 11:56 AM

An American commuter flight I was on recently arrived in a small city where the airline had only one gate. It was occupied (although not a single other gate on that concourse was,) so we sat for 45 minutes before the crew decided to open the door and allow us to walk 50 yards to the terminal. Although we were told several times by the captain that the plane at the gate would be leaving in a few minutes, we found that it, in fact, had a mechanical problem and would not leave for several hours.

Posted By Bob on October 1, 2007, 12:00 PM

2 hours MAX. Health concerns begin after that!!!!

Posted By Shelley on October 1, 2007, 12:01 PM

Two hours seems fair.

Posted By dmfnole on October 1, 2007, 12:06 PM

I WAS ONCE HELD IN THE PLANE IN NEW ORLEANS FOR OVER AN HOUR AND MY EARS WERE HURTING SO BAD, I HAD TO TAKE MY BOOTS OFF AND COULDN'T SIT STILL. PASSENGERS SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHOICE FOR THESE AND OTHER HEALTH RELATED ISSUES.

Posted By CATHERINE ROLAND on October 1, 2007, 12:09 PM

I had a similar experience on Delta a number of years ago. We pushed back on a hot summer day and sat on the tarmac for SIX hours. Even after several hours, when the cabin got quite hot, they refused to even do a beverage service because "it's against Federal law while we're still at the gate." After 3 hours, there damn near was a mutiny by passengers. It was *really* ugly, to the point the captain told them to serve water & beverages regardless.

Once the wait was finally over and we landed at our destination, Delta had NO representative at the arriving gate at something like 3am. Their counter help did arrange hotels and rebookings for some people, but many just left out of sheer frustration.

There absolutely should be federal regulations that protect the PASSENGERS, because the airlines really don't give a flying good goddamn.

Posted By MP Crosson on October 1, 2007, 12:09 PM

Two hours should be the mandated max. And the airlines should stockpile snacks in case of these emergencies.
I would also like to know about he health affects of poor air and fumes. I got really sick once from sitting on the tarmac for an hour with little air, and fuelish fumes. Seems to me that holding someone against their will with no air or food is grounds for criminal action.

Posted By Alex on October 1, 2007, 12:09 PM

I think airlines should charge more for tickets: it would decrease demand, fewer aircraft would fly, decrease pollution, less traffic, less long lines on the taxiways, shorter security lines, less crying babies...etc... Sounds like a solution doesn't it but passengers don't want that. I don't want that but that's what is going to happen. It solves the problem.

Posted By ERY on October 1, 2007, 12:27 PM

Two hours max any longer open the dooors and let me off with a 35% discount on my next flight. Any longer than the flight would have been is kidnapping.

Posted By al walker on October 1, 2007, 12:33 PM

If a passenger is a business person making a day trip for meetings, the entire purpose of the trip may be negated by a delay of several hours. Holding any traveler as a prisoner on an aircraft beyond a certain point is unconscionable. Those whose purpose for the trip may be behind them by the time the aircraft arrives should be allowed to deplane.

Posted By Lewis Edge on October 1, 2007, 1:01 PM

Several years ago, I was "trapped" in the aircraft, sitting on the tarmac in Beijing after a freak snowstorm delayed our departure. I realize that there are extenuating circumstances under which one might be kept on the plane. However, our aircraft sat at a remote "gate" for 8.5 HOURS!!! This is OUTRAGEOUS and totally UNACCEPTABLE, in my opinion, regardless of the fact that we were in a foreign country. I PERSONALLY saw flights that were scheduled to leave AFTER us departing BEFORE us (and I am talking about a scheduled departure HOURS after us). This was in a US-based airline. The plane had to be refueled THREE times, movies were replaced TWICE, and food was brought on several times. I think that there should also be limitations as to how long the AIRPORT can be allowed to detain an aircraft, regardless of what country it is in. I also agree that three hours is a little too long, but if the airline (OR the airport) cannot show just cause for delaying a flight by more that one hour, then they should be allowed to deboard the plane (at a legitimate GATE) until the flight is cleared/ready for departure.

Posted By Tim on October 1, 2007, 1:02 PM

I feel you should be held on board no longer than 2 hours BEFORE you are put in the queue for take-off. Once in the queue and barring any other unforeseen circumstances like a sudden t-storm, there should be no return to the gate. But prior to actually being in line for take-off, and after 2 hours have elapsed, the pilot should make one inquiry as to whether anyone wants to return to the gate.

Posted By Claire on October 1, 2007, 1:06 PM

I think an hour is OK, but no longer. I think the airlines get you away from the gate sometimes just to meet an on time departure, never mind that they know you are not taking off. An example is a flight I was on in July 2007. It was out of Dulles. Most of the flights that night were being canceled due to weather. So I went up to my gate to tell them I was just going to spend the night and have them rebook me for a flight in the morning. The gate person said, "Your flight is leaving on time." So I boarded, we taxied out and the pilot immediately said we would be sitting for several hours because no one was taking off. I can't imagine they did not know that before they left the gate 5 minutes earlier. They said 33 airplanes were in front of us and no one had taken off in the last hour. So they should not have sent us out to the runway. We sat for hours in sweltering heat. It was the worst travel experience of my life. I love to travel, but an experience like that really makes me think twice.

Posted By Cindy Johnson on October 1, 2007, 1:20 PM

I think it should be boarding time allowed times 2. Despite earlier references to the "other side" and reasonable expectations, there is no acceptable reason to hold passengers in their seats for two or three hours, -at least not from a customer's perspective. Getting people on the plane and waiting extended periods of time to clear for departure is purely a business decision. The privately owned airlines could care less about schedule coordinating and sufficient capacity, as they've proven over and over and over again.

Posted By David Thurber on October 1, 2007, 1:21 PM

The longest I have ever been stuck on a plane was two hours and two de-icings. I found it to be incredibly long and stifling. But my concern with these horror stories of 7-9 hours on the ground is really about safety: Are the pilots really safe to fly after all that time? Granted, they aren't actually flying if they are just sitting on the ground, but they could still be tired and stressed. And even though they use auto-pilot for the majority of the trip, they still need to be at their sharpest in case something happens.

Truck drivers are required to rest after eight hours of driving. While this might not be a feasible idea for pilots, something similar should be implemented. I have a feeling the airlines would be making more of an effort to get the planes out if they knew they would need to find another pilot after a certain amount of time.

Posted By Keri Sprenger on October 1, 2007, 1:26 PM

I think 1 hour maximum. There are health concerns if you are trapped for longer than that amount of time with no fresh air. Also, passengers should be given frequent updates on the reason for the delay and excepted take-off time.After 1 hour, everyone should be returned to the airport and choose to wait or be compensatated.

Posted By Patti on October 1, 2007, 1:36 PM

If the delay to take off is an hour, why board the plane? How come they don't let the passengers stay in the terminal and board when a slot opens up, like take a number at the deli counter. Then, if a passenger misses his flight, it is on him?

Posted By e on October 1, 2007, 1:45 PM

A couple of years ago we flew from MSY to Salt Lake City with a plane change in Phoenix. The plane we were to take from Phoenix to Salt Lake was struck by lighting just as it landed. This was reported to the powers that be and it was determined that the plane would not continue on to it's destination. A Southwest agent came to see what the problem was and when told the plane would not leave the ground till it was checked out he turned to his helper and stated "The plane in gate ?? is not scheduled to leave till tomorrow so bring it up here, clean it and get these people on their way". I would have cheered but I was so shocked and impressed that someone made a decision without an act of congress, FEMA, or the White House. There are many stories about people being stranded on planes and most of it is because the terminal managers are too gutless to make a decision that someone might not like. Maybe if we stopped flying certain airlines we, the flying public might make a statement to them. There is absolutely no reason that anyone should be stranded or kidnapped for that length of time.

Posted By John Snead on October 1, 2007, 1:58 PM

TAKE AMTRAK!

Posted By Bobby Whitehair on October 1, 2007, 2:02 PM

Two hours seems long enough to me. But the tower needs to get in on this as they say 'yea' or 'nay'--not entirely the fault of the plane. So all facilities need to cooperate and work this out. Passengers are not criminals to be held against their will.

Posted By jedele on October 1, 2007, 2:13 PM

I think no more than 2 hours wait and then back to the terminal and let passengers off. For those who dislike flying, are clastrophobic, not feeling well, aged, handicapped, those with babies and young children, being trapped in a plane is being held hostage. I bet people have flipped out over this while waiting. Given the crampede, small, close conditions, it is inhumane to keep folks on the plane for any more than an hour or two. Let's get in touch with the poor, customer....

Posted By Judy S on October 1, 2007, 2:18 PM

Perhaps if passengers lodged charges of false imprisonment for such long delays airlines would take notice. This is praticularly true of passengers with medical conditions as often they aren't allowed to take on even carry on baggage.

Posted By Roberto Benitez on October 1, 2007, 2:21 PM

Two hours is more than enough unless you are actually in a line for takeoff. It is ridiculous to allow planes to push away from the gate when they know that they will not take off for hours. In any other industry, we would all revolt if this were done.

Posted By Mary on October 1, 2007, 2:22 PM

I think no more than 2 hours wait and then back to the terminal and let passengers off. For those who dislike flying, are clastrophobic, not feeling well, aged, handicapped, those with babies and young children, being trapped in a plane is being held hostage. I bet people have flipped out over this while waiting. Given the crampede, small, close conditions, it is inhumane to keep folks on the plane for any more than an hour or two. Let's get in touch with the poor, customer....

Posted By Judy S on October 1, 2007, 2:24 PM

Unfortunately most people are unaware of the most significant reason to deal with delays on the tarmac. Its not just about inconvenience, its about health, safety and passenger's lives.

The longer a person is immobilzed the greater the risk of acquiring a Deep Vein Thrombosis, or DVT, the technical name for blood clots which form in the deep veins of the legs. DVT, or its more familiar term "Economy Class Syndrome" has potential life threatening aspects. Economy Class Syndrome has been a killer of airline passengers for years, more like decades.

As fully loaded aircraft sit around on the tarmac before a "long" distance flight the risk of experiencing a DVT and its deadly partner a pulmonary embolism, increases dramatically. Pulmonary embolisms are a direct result of a blood clot breaking up and beginning to move through an individual's circulatory system. As the clots pass through your veins and arteries, through the heart and into the lungs, the clots will frequently block off blood flow into the lungs. Because the outward symptoms, when displayed, are identical to a heart attack they are frequently missdiagnosed as a heart attack.

The only cause of this disease is immobility for extended periods of time(measured in hours). More than 60,000 individuals die of Pulmonary embolisms in the US every year. The exact number directly attributed to airline travel is not exactly known because symptoms and death can occur any where from the first movement to a week and a half or two weeks after the offending flight or longer. Another factor is that it depends on whether the actual condition is properly diagnosed and also when the clots begin to break up.

Because most people fatally impacted by "Economy Class Syndrome" are not felled until after they leave the flight the airlines are only too happy to claim they aren't at fault. They are. Doctors who treat the disease know differently.

The most effective airline DVT study under taken identified between 3% & 5% of all passengers will succomb to blood clots on a flight. The study performed an ultra sound test on 2500 passengers before boarding a plane, and then rechecked those individuals after the flight to identify who got blood clots on that particular flight.

If the average aircraft seats between 150 and 200 passengers, and 10% of those that get pulmonary embolisms will die as a result, nearly every other aircraft taking off is taking one passenger to their death. You won't hear about it because the airlines don't want you to and because the fatal moment will be well removed from a direct connection to the flight that caused it. As a result, airlines found a way to cover their complicity and hide from their obligations.

The fundamental cause (long periods of immobility) means the longer the immobility and flight, or the longer a plane is parked on the tarmac with passengers aboard, the greater the risk and greater the probability of a fatal occurrence.

I know, I was not expected to not survive mine. My plane was parked on the tarmac for 3 & 1/2 to 4 hours, prior to a 5 1/2 hour cross country flight. It took 10 days before I was rushed to an emergency room, twice. The first time for a heart attack I never had. I spent more than a week in the hospital as an inpatient, with blood drawn every few hours followed by a six month regimen of injections, blood tests, and medication with blood thinners and anti-coagulants.

The traditional period of immobility before the onset is is assumed to be 3 to 4 hours or more. The study mentioned above found some clots forming in as short as two hours. In most cases of passenger strandings, the airline, the FAA and the on board crew will insist you stay in your seat. That statement is tantamount to a "Kiss of death" to anyone who develops a DVT.

There are things that can be done to mitigate and minimize the severity and likelihood of getting a DVT. The most important is to get up and move around FREQUENTLY.

I recommend all airline passengers perform their own research on Deep Vein Thrombosis, DVT, Economy Class Syndrome and Pulmonary embolisms. Identify the factors you can apply to mitigate and above all if the flight crew demands you stay seated- IGNORE THEM, I will.

Posted By Wayne Burnett on October 1, 2007, 2:26 PM

A couple of years ago, I sat on the tarmac (American Airlines) for 4 hours in July in Fort Lauderdale. The pilot ran the A/C only a few minutes an hour. There was no food, very little water and no communication. The airline knew when we backed away from the gate at 4 PM that the airport in Chicago was closed because of weather because the pilot told us so. They should never board a plane in that circumstance. I could have stayed over another night or found my way to Seattle through other gateways. More than 2 hours is totally unacceptable especially if it is known beforehand that an airport your flight is going is closed.

Posted By Jim Harris on October 1, 2007, 2:33 PM

Read many comments posted. Like many others, I have sat two and more hours aboard aircraft. It's wholly up to the FAA and airplane owner/management staff to resolve this problem. Air space is at a premium today and this needs to come into the equation and resolution process. If any airline delays 2 hours, passengers and crew need to be able to return to the gate immediately. Animals would deserve nothing less.

Posted By Dennis S Newell on October 1, 2007, 2:59 PM

Anything over one hour is too long. Are we not paying the airlines for their time? What makes them feel my time isn't as or more valuable then theirs? I can understand strong storms or any act of God, but anything other than that is just a waste.

Posted By Judie on October 1, 2007, 3:04 PM

I agree with Cindy, we should only have to wait 1 hour and no longer! I also believe that when you are at the gate and ready to board, they already know the flight will not take off on time. I would much rather wait at the gate then sit on a plane for hours on end.

Posted By Michele on October 1, 2007, 3:08 PM

I'M A HANDICAPPED PERSON AND SITTING FOR HOURS ON A PLANE NOT GOING ANYWHERE IS EXTREMELY HARD. IT IS BAD ENOUGH JUST SITTING WHEN THE PLANE IS IN THE AIR. I FEEL THAT IF A PLANE CAN NOT TAKE OFF ON TIME, THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WAIT IN THE AIRPORT. IF THEY ARE ON THE PLANE, YOU SHOULD HAVE TO WAIT NO MORE THAN (1) HOUR BEFORE THE PLANE TAKES OFF. IF THE PLANES ARE GROUNDED FOR AN EXTENDED TIME, THE AIRLINES SHOULD GIVE THE PASSENGERS SOME KIND OF AMENITIES (FOOD,DRINK,HOTEL,BATHROOM,ETC.). BESIDES, THE PLANE SHOULD BE TURNED OFF TO SAVE FUEL AND THE ENVIRONMENT. IT IS BAD ENOUGH, JUST TO SIT IN THE AIRPORT WAITING AND WORST IN A CRAMPED PLANE. THIS IS MY OPINION, AND YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK !!!!!

Posted By STUART RAYMOND on October 1, 2007, 3:09 PM

What about those babies on the plane? Would they let me off if I didn't have enough food for my baby? What about the health issues for them? I think if this ever happens to me I would call the local news... seems to me it would work better than "officials".

Posted By Johnnie on October 1, 2007, 3:12 PM

I am really angry about this type of behavior from airlines. I have a few medical issues, which are normally not a hindrance to flying ... If the airline does its job right.

Logic and humanity declare that there has to be limits. Mine would be: maximum 30 minutes sitting at the gate in a loaded plane; maximum 30 minutes taxiing; 15 minutes max in queue to takeoff. After that, (1 hour 15 minutes total) either return to the gate and reschedule the whole shebang, or bring out a stairway and let those who want to get off do so and those who choose to be prisoners can stay onboard. Also, if, at any point, a plane is on the ground without air conditioning for more than 15 minutes, activate the same choices.

I used to fly 3-5 times a week (mostly via United), with 3-4 other technicians. We once were trapped in the takeoff queue for almost 2 hours. We asked the FAs to serve some drinks - a snack - something. We got that, "Sorry, against the rules" answer. At that point we did revolt. Remember, this was way before 9/11, so my group all traveled with toolkits as our carryon luggage. We simply broke out our tools and disassembled the locked food, beverage and liquor cabinets and passed out everything we could get our hands on.

Of course, the FAs called the pilot, who came out of the cabin to try to intimidate us. That's when we told him to either take off or return to the gate, as the next thing we would begin disassembling was the plane itself. Within moments we were back at the gate, and nobody said a word about our revolt. True story.

I am much older now and much less tolerant of being held against my will. If I am ever landlocked on a plane again for what I consider an unreasonably long time, I WILL deploy the emergency exit and deal with the consequences later.

Listen up airlines:
Passengers are not an inconvenience to your business, we ARE your business.
The customer may not always be right, but he is always the one with the money.
Do what we ask voluntarily and cheerfully and you can be a hero. Don't do it, and you will be a goat and end up bankrupt.
If you try to physically restrain us, or otherwise mistreat us, we will physically resist you.
We will no longer be victims!

Posted By Dave on October 1, 2007, 3:27 PM

It seems that two to three hours is acceptable to MOST people. The problem is not JUST the time it is the confinement, the lack of food, the boredom - Maybe their should be a flight delay party kit on board each plane. After we are delayed for 60 minutes we should get balloons and ice cream and cake and cartoons on the screens and the stews should put on clown out fits, better yet Micky Mouse outfits... Hey, maybe I should patent this idea, where is my agent???

Posted By Jan Howell on October 1, 2007, 3:30 PM

I agree with Patti, why leave the terminal and waste fuel for hours if there's a known delay? Is it to maintain statistics for on-time departure, or to free up the gate for another flight, or what?

Posted By Ralph Gray on October 1, 2007, 3:32 PM

It's probable that this situation is agravated by the rule that "On Time" departures count from the time the airplane leaves the gate, not the time that the airplane leaves the ground. An airplane may sit for 6 hours on the ground after leaving the gate, and it still counts as an "On Time" departure. The airlines (and the FAA) need to count on-time departures based on expected and actual time the airplane actually takes off.

--and two hours is a reasonable maximum. After takeoff, it's possible for passengers to walk around to avoid DVT, get meal service for diabetics, etc.

Posted By John S on October 1, 2007, 3:33 PM

Being held for a long period of time is annoying and all the rest, HOWEVER, we, as passengers should take some responsibility, take plenty of water with you and some snacks,this might help some, the health issues are something else. I have flown many,many miles and have experienced very little inconvenience, both traveling within the USA and internationally. Heathrow being the worst for congestion, etc. I am not an airline employee, nor have I ever been. But to blame the airlines for weather delays, traffic congestion, gates being unavailable is unreasonable.N. Wilkey

Posted By nancy wilkey on October 1, 2007, 3:38 PM

Hey Delbert Holzer,
From the dictionary:
tarmac

NOUN:
A tarmacadam road or surface, especially an airport runway.

Posted By Babalax on October 1, 2007, 3:52 PM

2 hours is the MAX. The airlines should schedule realistic flights within any given hour of the day. Too many flights jammed into any rush-hour slot is unreasonable. All the airlines should be held accountable for the inhumane treatment to the flying public.

Posted By Jason C. on October 1, 2007, 3:55 PM

I agree with the person who said :
TAKE AMTRAK!!! THE SERVICE IS GREAT, THE AMENITIES ARE GREAT. I love flying.... and hate sitting in conditons that would be closed down by health and welfare agencies. In the meantime, send a message to the airlines by not flying those that do not care about their flyers.
AND vote for a one hour maximum tarmac time. Airlines and FAA: Change the rules about "losing " your place for heavens sake!!

Posted By Marjie Pinard on October 1, 2007, 3:57 PM

I think 3 hours is max. A tip to the airlines - if you would improve your baggage services to the point where almost no bags were lost/delayed you could do away with the overhead bins. ALL carry-on luggage would go under the seat in front of you. Airplanes would be boarded MUCH quicker and you could hold the passengers in the terminal longer and easier. It doesn't take much time to sit down, all the fuss is trying to find space for your bags overhead and that's because nobody trusts the airlines not to lose their luggage.

Posted By H. G. Orr on October 1, 2007, 4:05 PM

Pack some power bars and water in your carry-on! You probably won't need 'em but you'll sure be glad it's with you if you do!

Posted By Angelique Sanders on October 1, 2007, 4:23 PM

This issue wouldn't even come up if the FAA were doing its job. The airlines have carte blanche to do whatever they want no matter the suffering or incovenience. There's simply no excuse (business reasons or otherwise) to threatened the public safety by forcible retentation without charges -- and they're not even law enforcement officers.

Posted By John Suddath on October 1, 2007, 4:31 PM

A response to Mr. Holzer regarding the term, "tarmac". Tarmac is an acronym for "Tar Macadam", used first in England for the paving of roadways. Then the paving method/materials were adopted by the U.S. road pavers for all tar pavements. Subsequently, the paving system was modified to use petroleum asphalt, premixed with aggregate, and was so different the term tar-macadam was dropped. Airports do have asphalt pavements. The generally used term for the portland cement concrete and asphalt pavements found around terminals is "apron". The terms "taxiway" and "runway" are very specific. Some media maven decided "tarmac" sounded sooo professional and knowledgeable...and the "herd mentality" of media ignorance stampeded!
Any wait in excess of three hours is a criminal act!

Posted By R. D. Parsons on October 1, 2007, 4:55 PM

No passenger should have to wait for more than two hours in a plane that is sitting on a tarmac. Why is this so hard for everyone, (lawmakers, airlines) to realize?

It takes about two hours to fly between NY and MIA, so this seems like a reasonable time to be waiting!

Posted By Scott on October 1, 2007, 5:01 PM

Any delay of more than two hours and the airline should be required to allow passengers to leave the plane. Prisoners of war are treated better than this. In fact, if cattle were treated this way it would be a violation of law.

Posted By William norton on October 1, 2007, 5:10 PM

I sat on a jetblue flight on valentines day for 8 1/2 hours. (we were on one of several jetblue planes that sat on the tarmac at JFK in view of the gates for that time. and it got a lot of news coverage) It was one of the more unpleasant experiences in recent memory and I've been stuck on some pretty awful subway cars too. we ran out of food and water, there was little information from the pilots or crew, except that they were as angry as we were, and the power went off because of a mechanical problem. At that point it was clear the plane would never take off, but it was still hours before they finally brought out stairs and buses. It's an excercise in group dynamics in a way--how long before the passengers rise up and mutiny?
i don't see any excuse for what happened or for the cavalier way were treated after we finally got off the plane. There were lots of Port authority authorities and jetblue employees there to make sure no one slipped on the icy steps and created a potential lawsuit of course, but when we were unceremoniously dumped in baggage claim there was not a single jetblue employee available to advise us. We spent another 2 hours arguing with the baggage claim office and waiting for someone to tell us if we would be able to get a flight the next day or how we would be compensated.
Jetblue did change its policy after those events, but an enforceable industry-wide standard is a must. Inconvenience is one thing--and there's plenty of that in the airline industry currently--but passengers do have rights and are paying for a service. A service which doesn't include being imprisoned on a plane.

Posted By mart on October 1, 2007, 5:37 PM

Instead of complaining about Involuntary confinement, will someone advise me how to start a petition in Ca. to make all airlines return to gate/discharge passengers at bus p/u point, if plane is on tarmac more than 2.5 hours. Instead of complaining, passengers need to act - a petition in Ca. will get a lot of notice and action in congress and in airline boardrooms!!

Any lawyers out there know how to get a petition started??

Posted By m p ruggeiro on October 1, 2007, 5:50 PM

Reimbursement from the airlines to the passengers is the only answer. If the airport won't let the planes back to the gate then they should reimburse the airlines. Bad weather is bound to happen, airlines and airports should plan for it and have alternatives that are reasonable for the passengers. Two hours on the apron should be an absolute max, and there should be passenger reimbursement for sitting on a grounded plane for any longer than 1 hour.

Posted By Jim Steltenpohl on October 1, 2007, 6:04 PM

Well, I hear lots of complaints but the best way to resolve this problem is to find solutions. Remember the tarmac is a busy place, planes are departing and landing...with delays there are usually lines of planes waiting for take-off. How do you safely get off the plane? A plane cannot easily turn around...once they are waiting for take-off. Most planes are met by jetways which are operated by airline representatives. Ladders would be necessary to get passengers off the plane, which means truck with ladders are on the tarmac, buses have to pick up the passengers, now there are trucks, buses and passenger on the tarmac. Sounds crowded and dangerous. So, given there are delays ~ how do you solve the problem? Remember weather delays are not the airlines responsiblity ~ mechanical delays are due to unsafe aircraft.

I don't want to be stuck on a plane on the tarmac but just in case I pack plenty of water and food, a face mask, air freshner, toothbrush and toothpaste, eye mask and even a diaper! Air travel is not a guarantee ~ airlines offer a service and like any service industry there are events which are not within the airlines control.

Posted By IKE on October 1, 2007, 7:48 PM

Two hours is the correct and fair balance between health concerns and unavoidable delays.

Years ago we were stuck for a total of six hours on a British Airways flight from Heathrow to the U.S. Then the crew had to be changed because the projected flight time would put them over their 13 hour limit (the airline claimed it was a union rule).

We should have been let off MUCH sooner (prefeably with a voucher for a Taxi back to London).

With many airports offering better dining and shopping options, as well as spa services like massages, a little effort by the airlines to get their long-delayed flights back to the terminal, and communicate an accurate "try-again" time, would result in much happier, satisfied customers.

Posted By David F on October 1, 2007, 8:01 PM

Having served on both sides of the gate, all the talk of missing take off times is just talk, if you are more than a few hours late taking off, you have already missed your departure window, the airlines only tell you we will further our delay if we let you off, it is easier for security, manifest, and all around if the crew keeps everyone on the plane. Do I like tha answer, no, and that is why I am helping in the fight for passenger bill of rights.

Posted By Art H. on October 1, 2007, 9:11 PM

Just last week I experienced 3+hours held captive on a plane that had mechanical difficulties. First they told us it would be a half hour, then an hour then two hours, then three, then finally we left that plane only to board another one where we waited almost another hour while it was defueled. Why not defuel it before we boarded? It was an awful flight and we had no water offered to us, and the plane was hot with little air. I think 2 hours should be the maximun time held and that should only be in extreme circumstances. The entire flight was sum total of 7 hours delayed, due to mechanical failures, no parts on hand, changing planes, defueling planes and having to go to another airport to change flight crews because the crew had been on for too many hours, something they knew before they fueled the plane and before we took off, but they waited until we were boarded to tell us...no chance to get off at that point...all very poor customer service. I would never fly this airline again.

Posted By Ann Marie on October 1, 2007, 9:31 PM

Yes, I work for an airline. Yes ,we give bad service. Its called getting what you want to pay for. As long as you want Greyhound -like fares, expect Greyhound service. I see NO one clamoring for higher fares in return for better service. This let -me-off-or I'll-destroy -the -plane attitude type person really aught NOT fly!. Do you realize how much damage and cost your actions would cause? Four blown slides would be good for about a 24 hour delay or so. Many passengers seem to think that there are lots of empty gates at airports while Pilots conspire to keep you out on the taxiway. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing pleases an airline person more than getting a passenger where they want to go. I only have 27 years working at airlines, and have NEVER seen a captain delay or cancel a flight out of spite.

Posted By Steven Muschler on October 1, 2007, 10:00 PM

Does the airline pilot have the legal authority to declare an emergency due to excessive ground delay or the lack of food and water for his passengers?
Is the airline pilot and the crew legally responsible for the well being of the passengers?
Babies on board for six+ hours? Sounds criminal to me.

Posted By William Dougherty on October 1, 2007, 11:35 PM

I am one of those people who brings books and music and powerbars; a three hour delay doesn't phase me much.

What gets me is the treating of the passengers like children. What struck me about that video was that the announcements made it sound like takeoff was always 15-20 minutes away. 20 minutes is, well, I've already invested all this time, and we're just about to get moving, so I'll stay. How many 20 minute -to-an-hour delays in a row can one take before that insanity kicks in?

However, had one known right at the gate that it was likely going to be 3+ hours before takeoff, then that person can make logical choices for alternatives before getting trapped in that can o' seat. Whether buying extra food or just taking the train; whatever. Knowing is half the battle, right?

Posted By Gnat!g on October 2, 2007, 1:48 AM

People need to exercise a little personal responsibility here, too. Diabetics should bring their own snacks, and parents of infants should find a way to fit a few extra diapers into their bag just in case.

However.. it would be a lot easier to plan for these delays if the government did impose a time limit on the airlines. 3 hours is the max.

I believe that 2 oz of water should be available for each passenger for every 60 minutes of a delay. Too much water and people will be going to the bathroom too often.

The airlines should also be mandated to provide climate control for the entire duration of the delay.

Posted By Kimberly on October 2, 2007, 9:06 AM

My question: If a passenger becomes seriously ill, would that passenger be allowed to exit the plane parked on the tarmac? Does anyone know the laws concerning serious illness? I think certain people, especially those with existing heart or other serious conditions, should have the right to leave the delayed plane if they fell ill. I would be extremely upset if my grandmother were in a situation with no food, no water, no ability to move around, and no fresh air for several hours.

Posted By Bridgette on October 2, 2007, 9:32 AM

I believe that after 3 hours passengers should be given the option of leaving the plane. It need not return to the gate - a van could be sent to transport those opting to leave the plane. Those who opt to remain on the flight after a 3-hour delay should be given a refund of 25% of their fare for each additional hour of wait time beyond 3 hours. My father is diabetic and being held prisoner on a plane for more than 3 hours without food or insulin (can one bring syringes as carry-on?) could be fatal to him. He would have to have the option of disembarking. He hasn't flown commercially in several years because of this fear.

Posted By Lian on October 2, 2007, 12:46 PM

Let me interject a point not yet raised - Whenever an in-flight emergency arises, the airplane lands at the nearest airport and immediately taxies to an open gate. Thus, the argument of no open gates is clearly untrue as the airlines/airport have PROVEN that they can make gates available.
Also, this issue DOES need to be mandated as the airlines only give lip-service to the issue - while implying that their customers are cheap, drunken, unreasonable and violent, so it's their own fault and they deserve their fate.
The following should be mandated:
1.) An airplane expected to be delayed for two or more hours shall not be allowed to board.
2.) Passengers may be kept on a plane for a maximum of two hours before being allowed to deplane and given the option of being rescheduled or fully refunded.
3.) Passengers shall be informed of delays PRIOR to boarding and be kept truthfully informed in a timely manner.
4.) A delayed plane must have and make available clean water, clean air and working restroom facilities to passengers. If these are not available, passengers shall immediately be deplaned.
5.) For record-keeping purposes "Departure" shall mean the time the airplane physically leaves the runway. "Arrival" shall mean the time the passengers enter the gangway.

Posted By Cynthia on October 2, 2007, 1:21 PM

Yes, gates can be made available. There are 3 ways in which this is accomplished. Wait for a departure, keep the incoming flight circling the airport. Keep a gate which is expecting an arrival open, keep an arriving flight circling the airport or on the tarmac, or tow a plane from the gate to a terminal that has open gates that are not expecting arrivals. In scenario 1 and 2 passengers are being inconvinced, the 3rd is of course the best option, but takes time for personnel who are busy loading/unloading aircraft, flagging in aircraft, unblocking aircraft wheels for departure and a variety of other duties to get to the gate to tow the aircraft, which requires a mechanic on board who is probably working on the mechanical at the next gate. Passengers get on/off airplanes, they spend xxx amount of time in the air they are clueless to what it takes to run an airport and airline.

Posted By Paris on October 2, 2007, 5:56 PM

To those interested, there is a petition online for a passenger bill of rights. The website is:
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/airlines/rightspetition.htm
It is criminal to hold people against their will, especially when it's been an unreasonably long time. 3 hours max. It would go a long way if passengers were kept informed as to what's going on. In my experience when there are problems, nobody seems to want to let the paying customer know what's happening.

Posted By d. grier on October 2, 2007, 6:37 PM

A 1 hour maximum should be imposed upon airlines. Health, primarily, and comfort are the issues of paramount importance. Imagine a taxicab holding people for a longer period due to traffic backups. Imagine sitting in a restaurant after being seated and told it will one hour or more before you are served. Airlines are a service business and being held for more than 1 hour is not providing customer service under any circumstance. There is absolutely no reason to be held in an airplane, on the tarmac, for any longer than 1 hour. This is particularly true in this world of smaller more confined planes, the repeated comments about lack of air conditioning, and the fact that most airlines know when the plane pushes away from the jetbridge whether a plane is going to take off immediately or not.

Posted By Sebastian on October 2, 2007, 8:02 PM

I have used public transportation in countries where they wait for the vehicle to fill before it goes, which can take days, so I know to bring my own food, a book, etc.

However... in London, especially, people are allowed ONE item to carry on. Not one personal item and one carry-on - one item, period. Ladies, if you have a purse, that's it. No bags of McD's cheeseburgers, no bottle of water. Got a laptop? Snack on that.

To the Amtrak people - I love Amtrak, but get real. It's impossible to get from Boston to Tucson and back again on Amtrak on a four-day Thanksgiving break. Or from Miami to San Francisco for a long weekend. Or from North America to any other continent.

Everyone else - I totally agree with everything you all said so I don't need to add anything here, other than the bathroom situation (including those babies) and how awful that must be in one of these situations.

Maybe the CEOs and major shareholders of the airlines (or maybe also the complicit crew including lying gate agents) should have to be imprisoned in their planes for the same amount of time, under the same conditions. Like that movie about the slumlord who had to live in one of his tenements as his sentence.

Posted By Valerie on October 2, 2007, 9:18 PM

ONE HOUR is the most I am willing to wait. I don't think that time period should be legislated, rather I believe that should be the limit the airlines set for themselves. And if they can't collectively get their act together and police themselves pronto, then I'm with Erik Torkells that a 3 hr limit should be legally mandated.

Now, I'm not talking about 1 hour in which you are making progress. For example, I don't mind sitting in line for take-off for an hour. I don't mind it b/c I can easily see and understand the problem. You can look out the window and see the line of planes and see that you are slowly but surely making progress. Instead, I'm talking about the times when you are sitting there for an hour with no hope in sight.

In that regard, I think COMMUNICATION is a huge area in which the airlines are failing. On the occasions I have had to sit on the tarmac and wait the experience has been completely different depending on how well the crew communicated with passengers. Passengers want to know what's going on! And they have a right to THE TRUTH. When I've been kept up to date with why the delay is occurring I am much more understanding. Even if it is just the pilot coming on with an update on the latest word from the control tower that it will be another 10 minutes till the next update. Even if it's bad news, at least we know our plane hasn't been forgotten, they are working on the problem, etc. Likewise, in a stuck-on-the-tarmac situation, the flight crew is key to a good or bad experience. If they get short tempered and unhelpful, the passengers quickly begin to feel the same.

Posted By Alpine on October 3, 2007, 12:02 AM

Personally, I would freak out if I were held on the tarmac for 3 hours. Longest I've had to wait was an hour and it was a terrible experience. I have asthma, but it is rarely triggered so I often forget to carry my inhaler. When our flight was held the cabin was recirculating the jet fuel smelling air which triggered my asthma. I didn't want to make a scene, press the help button, have the flight attendant make an announcement and everyone stare at me as the poor asthma girl the rest of the flight, so I sat in my seat for the hour trying to control my breathing. In retrospect I should have rang the call button, but it brings me to my point:

It's not just the time you have to wait that makes these delays a bad experience, it's the conditions on the plane while you are waiting. Something should be done so that the air circulating in the cabin is breathable. Additionally, I think airlines should not only comp in-flight movies when there's been a delay, but they should have an emergency stash of complimentary water, soda, fruit, power bars, ice cream, sandwiches, etc. that they offer in these situations. (But not a full meal that will result in everyone putting down their tray table and exacerbating the claustrophobic conditions.) If they don't have room on the plane for these emergency goodies, then each airline should have a "Tarmac Treats" vehicle (the name is hoaky, but you get the idea) that drives out to meet the plane with a box of niceties for the flight attendants to hand out. The idea is to do something that will boost the comfort level of the passengers. Passengers want to know they are valued and that the airline gives a hoot about their situation. This would be a good step in that direction.

Posted By Kelli on October 3, 2007, 12:24 AM

My fear is that if you legislate 3 hours the airlines will think that 3 hours is a reasonable time period to hold passengers captive on the tarmac and won't worry about 'stranded' flights until they begin to approach the 3 hour mark.

Posted By Patrick on October 3, 2007, 12:29 AM

We were delayed in Venice because of a very lengthy thunderstorm. The EU regulations require that airlines make adjustments for any passenger delayed for more than 2 hours. All EU regulations are prominently posted in many places in the airport. We were flown to our connecting city after the storm; taken to a fine hotel and then given a ride back to the airport in the morning. All meals were provided and our plane home took us to Newark comfortably 24 hours late. Why doesn't the US have such regulations?

Posted By roberta churchill on October 3, 2007, 8:34 AM

WOW!! Did this question ever open a can or worms! Are you going to send this around to the airlines or the boys in Washington? I'd love to see some Senator get stuck on a plane for hours on end. I'll bet you'd get some action on the problem double quick. The response to this problem has been amazing and eye opening. I'm better equipped to deal with this in the future.
By the way, if we have to sit on the runway for over two hours, can we call the police and report being held hostage? Can we call a relative and have them call the police and report us as being kidnapped? Maybe someone should try it.
I intend to print this out and share it with others as well as forwarding it to my flying friends.
Thanks again for all these great postings. Nancy

Posted By Nancy on October 3, 2007, 11:44 AM

Very good point, Patrick. I think the exception would become the rule. Who will oversee the overseers?
The antiquated ATC system definitely needs a major overhaul. I think this would alleviate many snafus facing the airline industry today.

Posted By d. grier on October 3, 2007, 11:48 AM

Worse than the delays (and 7 hours is absolutely unacceptable) is that no rule or law compels the airlines to compensate passengers for these obscene delays.

Yes, I will give them a reasonable window for weather, repair, etc. But airlines are in risk business, and that risk is time. They promise to get you (and their cargo) from point A to B by X date and Y time. If that implicit time guarantee was not there we'd all be taking trains, buses, and boats.

Do a Google search on "air cargo guarantee" and see what happens when certain classes of cargo on certain carriers arrives *even two hours late*! 50 percent refund! 100 percent from UPS!

As it stands right now, the airlines bear no risk whatsoever for delaying any passenger for any length of time. **Passengers are of less concern than the cargo in the airplane**.

I will say that in a couple memorable instances the airlines have done the right thing. Northwest in Japan put me up at a nice hotel with meal coupons, and arranged everything for the remaining leg of the trip. Another airline put us all up in Memphis with the same deal (a bad weather delay).

Which is all well and good, but these are ad hoc arrangements and the airlines have no obligation to do what is right.

As for 7 hours on the runway, that is just beyond common sense. Couldn't someone from the airline or from FAA see what was happening and at least get those folks off the plane and into a temporary waiting area? Totally irresponsble and heinously uncompassionate.

Posted By Garry Ray on October 3, 2007, 4:05 PM

The airlines claim it would be too much trouble to let passengers off and put them back on and the plane in line to fly. The inconvenience and hardship on passengers, especially the elderly,the young and those with health problems, during a prolonged wait on the tarmack far outweighs those for the airline. Let's have some common sense, and limit waits on the tarmack to something that most humans would consider reasonable. Personally 2 hours would be enough for me. What do others think.

Posted By Lawrence Lubertozzi on October 3, 2007, 11:28 PM

Anything over an hour should be compensated; anything over two hours is a crime...

Posted By blaine heine on October 7, 2007, 6:46 PM

Please remember that rules about not getting up and no drink service are FAA rules, not airline rules. Going back to a gate will lose your place in take off order, also FAA rules. At the major cities for most airlines, there is not enough gate space to leave a plane at a gate. Who do you keep off the gate the people coming off a flight or the ones leaving? I agree there should be a limit, or a way to get back in line

Posted By jt on October 9, 2007, 7:26 PM

If I am traped on a plane for more than 2 hours I will politely warn the stewardesses that I will open the emergency exit if we don't get off the plane. At 3 hours I WILL open the emergency exit, and if the police want to arrest me and charge me with a crime they are welcome to do so.

Posted By GregSmith on October 10, 2007, 12:03 AM

If the rules apply to all airlines and the problem is weather or a major backup, losing one's place in the take-off line is moot. EVERY plane that's been away from the gate for the maximum time will have to return. Give or take 10 minutes, the planes in front of and behind yours have been out there the same amount of time. Therefore, everyone has nearly an equal chance to reboard and take-off when the problem clears.

The time limit should be 2 hours, there should be status announcements every 10 minutes from the flight deck, and access to beverages and bathrooms should begin after 1 hour.

If the airlines, Congress, or the FAA won't act, it's time for passengers to start taking the matter to court.

Posted By Aaron on October 10, 2007, 3:30 PM

I think 2 hours max should be enough to sit on a plane....especially if you are sitting next to a nervous flyer or tired children.

Posted By ME on October 12, 2007, 9:46 PM

Never ever fly this airline - 23 hours later and I am still in the airport, becuase the gas gauge was not working.

US AIRWAYS IS THE WORST MOST UNPOLITE, UNCOOPERATIVE AIRLINE. 3 + HOURS ON THE TARMAC.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND PUT A STOP TO THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENTS:

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/airlines/rightspetition.htm

Posted By pissed at US Airways on March 13, 2010, 12:27 PM

Learning has always been made much of, but forgetting has always been deprecated; therefore pedantry has pretty well established itself throughout the modern world at the expense of culture. - Albert J. Nock

Posted By Jennifer Taylor on February 1, 2012, 12:47 PM

hello!,I really like your writing so so much! percentage we keep in touch extra approximately your post on AOL? I require an expert on this house to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Looking forward to peer you. - SM London Escorts Agency, 33 Belgrave Road, Westminster, London, SW1V 2, 020 3011 7815

Posted By Kris Moricle on February 7, 2012, 6:03 PM

Lovely article...I like your writing style.

Posted By How To Pass A Urine Drug Test on March 15, 2012, 3:52 AM

@mrsbeatitj stop being a pedo lover and stop flagging free speech? .

Posted By מובילים מו on April 19, 2012, 3:57 PM

Thank you for this weblog. Thats all I can say. You most certainly have made this weblog into some thing thats eye opening and important. You clearly know so a lot about the subject, youve covered so numerous bases. Excellent stuff from this component of the web. Again, thank you for this blog.

Posted By travel insurance for over 80 on April 24, 2012, 5:31 PM

Hiya, I'm really glad I've found this information. Nowadays bloggers publish only about gossips and web and this is actually irritating. A good website with interesting content, this is what I need. Thank you for keeping this website, I will be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can't find it.

Posted By Lazaro Rover on May 5, 2012, 10:01 PM