[AirlinesMustPay]

Take a look at this


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aO7zaDESNdcw

[Jetliner]

Soooo, let me see if I have this right. This guy who worked for a contractor who had Delta as a client was fired and is now making allegations that his company had obtained Hanni's personal emails?? Riiiiiight. Sounds more like sore former employee. He may have been emailing her, and that could be the reason for his termination, but I'd have to see proof for the rest of this.

On the other hand, it's kind of interesting that her email got hacked. So did the forum boards and it seems the Google group has been been shut down by Google for terms of use violations.

[justme]

I know everyone will label my reply as blindly defending Delta because I work for them, but just want to point out...

The person was not a direct Delta employee, he worked for, if I'm reading it correctly, Metron Aviation Inc. who was a Delta "contractor."

And for the record, I wasn't involved in anything to do with what happened in the article, so I cannot say who is right and who is wrong. That's up to a judge, not me.

[Gromit801]

Interesting. Kate Hanni and her forces have pretty much been stalled, and getting no PR. Now suddenly, her email and website are being messed with, and her operative at Metron got canned.

Now they're back in the news.

Interesting.

[jimworcs]

Yeah, it is all one big conspiracy... poor innocent Delta would never stoop to such levels..

Did you guys know that noone has ever stepped on the moon and 911 was an inside job...

[Jetliner]

JIm - just like butch you are not willing to consider both sides. Sure it's possible that Delta is guilty, but which is more likely - Delta hacks Kate's email or this guy who just got fired is making the story up to get even?

Keep in mind that there is no smoking gun, only this guy's claim. Also, you can't tell me that someone tinkered that much with and AOL account and they didn't notice.

And Kate isn't above twisting the details either. Go look at her website. It's to a much lesser degree, but she has a news item that an Air France plane sat on the tarmac for 6 hours and the FAA is denying it ever happened. She has the part about them denying it in all caps. But that's not exactly true. The FAA is simply stating that the status was unknown because the don't track international airlines the same as US carriers. Nowhere are they denying the plane sat.

[PHXFlyer]

Kate Hanni, for lack of a better term, is a nutcase. She would do anything and everything to promote her agenda. Sure she was subjected to a lengthy tarmac delay which was uncomfortable. I don't doubt that for a moment. She was generously compensated for that delay but chooses to promote her own agenda. She disregards all rational discussion of airline operations and how a strict 3 hour rule could potentially cause lengthier delays for passengers should every aircraft sitting for more than three hours be required to return to a gate. She also doesn't understand the logisitcs involved when there are weather/ATC delays in getting an open gate for those aircraft to return to. What Kate Hanni needs to do is spend an afternoon at one of the major airline's OPS centers on a bad weather day to experience first hand what factors come into play when flights are delayed, canceled and/or held on the tarmac awaiting the OK for takeoff. I'll bet if she spent even a single day observing what goes on behind the scenes (as I have had the opportunity to do on a couple of occasions) she would gain an appreciation that the airlines actually do have the best interest of the passengers and crews involved in these delays and do not just make arbitrary decisions without the knowledge that those decisions affect people and not only equipment and schedules.

[Jetliner]

Well, in all fairness I can't disagree with her wanting to do something, but unfortunately what she wants is not as simple as she thinks, by a long shot.

But you should see some of the crap that has been listed as a wish list for a passenger bill of rights. One item was to reimburse a passenger the fair market value for the contents of your bag if it doesn't arrive within 12 hours. Obviously she didn't think that one out as to what exactly that would mean. Also if we pay you for the contents of your bag, you don't get the bag back. It's the same as an insurance settlement. And if you think about it for a moment, there are plenty of smaller airports in the US where if your bag got left off of your origin flight, there may not be another flight for 3 or 4 hours, and now it has to make a connection. 12 hours isn't all that un-heard of.

What she doesn't understand as well is that if the plane does go back to the gate after 3 hours, the airline will simply cancel the flight. Now there is a real chance of people not being able to go and getting stuck in the airport overnight. And guess what? It's a weather cancelation. We don't owe you crap. Now in reality I'm not saying that would be the right thing to do, but folks, let's face reality. That is exactly what will happen.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by Jetliner

if the plane does go back to the gate after 3 hours, the airline will simply cancel the flight. Now there is a real chance of people not being able to go and getting stuck in the airport overnight.

Why would the airline cancel the flight? All she is asking is that passengers must not be held on the aircraft as she was, and that they should wait out the delay in the terminal.

So why would the airline cancel the flight? They have a plane load of passengers ready to fly with their bags on board. The only difference is where these passengers wait out the delay. The airline loses nothing except having to deboard and reboard. But if people leave their carryons on board, just taking their medication and valuables with them, and everyone disembarks, re-boarding will take place in a jiffy. Half of the boarding time goes in passengers having to stow their carryons.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

Why would the airline cancel the flight? All she is asking is that passengers must not be held on the aircraft as she was, and that they should wait out the delay in the terminal.

So why would the airline cancel the flight? They have a plane load of passengers ready to fly with their bags on board. The only difference is where these passengers wait out the delay. The airline loses nothing except having to deboard and reboard. But if people leave their carryons on board, just taking their medication and valuables with them, and everyone disembarks, re-boarding will take place in a jiffy. Half of the boarding time goes in passengers having to stow their carryons.

So if they roll up to a gate to deplane and they then need the gate for another flight and tow the aircraft out...and in the mean time ATC gives the word that the delayed flight is cleared to depart...they're screwed. And the poor passengers who invoked their 3 hour "rights under the passenger bill of rights" law are now stuck for another several hours or more as the airline pulls together another crew to fly them to their destination...as you can see there's much more to it than a simple "3 hour rule."

[jimworcs]

she would gain an appreciation that the airlines actually do have the best interest of the passengers and crews involved in these delays

Ok, I'll bite. How did Delta (Ground handling), Continental and ExpressJet act in the "best interests of the passengers and crew" in the recent twin cities hostage situation?

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

Why would the airline cancel the flight? All she is asking is that passengers must not be held on the aircraft as she was, and that they should wait out the delay in the terminal.

So why would the airline cancel the flight? They have a plane load of passengers ready to fly with their bags on board. The only difference is where these passengers wait out the delay. The airline loses nothing except having to deboard and reboard. But if people leave their carryons on board, just taking their medication and valuables with them, and everyone disembarks, re-boarding will take place in a jiffy. Half of the boarding time goes in passengers having to stow their carryons.

Yeah, except for the fact that if you are waiting out, it' due to weather or air traffic (or both) and once the flight has been released it needs to leave NOW, or loose it's spot for takeoff, and have to sit for another lengthy time. You need to remember that deplaning like that requires taxing back to the gate, unloading, and re-boarding, then taxi back out. Even if everyone leaves their stuff on the plane this is still going to be a 20-30 minute process. Bye-bye takeoff window.

As I said, it's not the right thing to do, but it will happen.

Jim - Continental was not able to do anything different. The government already made that determination. ExpressJet's crew elected to not allow the passengers off without the use of a jetway due to lightning. To that end it was in the best interest of passenger safety. The one's squarely at fault were Northwest (now Delta) since they wouldn't let the flight have a gate. Under Kate's plan this still could happen. The airline was not able to let the passengers off because of a lack of a safe way to do so at it's disposal. Her plan doesn't say that another airline has to help them out.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by Jetliner

Once the flight has been released it needs to leave NOW, or loose it's spot for takeoff, and have to sit for another lengthy time. You need to remember that deplaning like that requires taxing back to the gate, unloading, and re-boarding, then taxi back out. Even if everyone leaves their stuff on the plane this is still going to be a 20-30 minute process. Bye-bye takeoff window.

Maybe there is something I don't get here. Why does that flight have to lose its spot for take off? Why can't there be a Federal regulation that in these circumstances, once the aircraft returns to the gate after 3 hours, in the event it is later cleared for take off, once reboarding has taken place (up to 30 minutes you say?), it keeps its priority for take off. why "Bye-bye takeoff window" ? I cant see why ATC cannot be directed to permit this aircraft to take off.

Remember too we are talking about unusual weather conditions, e.g. snowstorms, so no one was taking off for hours. These passengers were in their aircraft for 3 hours, so what's the deal with permitting it to take off before aircraft that are only just boarding. It seems to me it is just a question of logistics, and someone should be able to work it out how this aircraft is not delayed a second time.

[Gromit801]

HOSTAGE:

A hostage is a person or entity which is held by a captor. The original definition meant that this was handed over by one of two belligerent parties to the other or seized as security for the carrying out of an agreement, or as a preventive measure against certain acts of war. However, in modern days, it means someone who is seized by a criminal abductor in order to compel another party such as a relative, employer, law enforcement, or government to act, or refrain from acting, in a particular way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) after expiration of an ultimatum.

It doesn't apply to airlines, no matter how much the propaganda writers would like to make it so.

Oh gee, because I don't back up every single complaint on here, I'm now an "Airline Sympathizer." SWA should be laughing their heads off now.

[AirlineComplaints.org]

Originally Posted by Gromit801

Oh gee, because I don't back up every single complaint on here, I'm now an "Airline Sympathizer." SWA should be laughing their heads off now.

Correction: You were labeled an "Airline Sympathizer" because you believe 90% of passenger complaints are the passenger's fault, and your posts on here back that up.

[Gromit801]

To paraphrase Will Rogers, I only know what I see in the airports.

[AirlinesMustPay]

I'd say thats quite a lot to know just from looking on in the airports

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

Remember too we are talking about unusual weather conditions, e.g. snowstorms, so no one was taking off for hours.

YOU are talking about local weather. Kate Hanni's own situation was just the opposite. Her plane was headed to Dallas, but diverted to Austin and sat. It could have just as easily sat in the origin city.

And to answer you other question, you can't federally regulate what God does with the weather. Look at it like this - Let's say in Dallas they have 30 arrivals in an hour. (I don't know what they actually get, but just for this example...) The airport shuts down for a storm for 1 hour. Now it opens back up. Now you have 60 planes ready to get in there. But they have to be spaced, so that backs things up. But it also means it you don't get going, you will have to wait for a later space. And they can't just say that the planes that were scheduled first get to go in first, because some of the on schedule flights are already in the air. Unless you plan on diverting them, anyway. But then that creates a bigger mess.

The problem is this is a much more complex problem than what it seems, and obviously Kate Hanni doesn't understand even a fraction of the whole big picture.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by Jetliner

The problem is this is a much more complex problem than what it seems, and obviously Kate Hanni doesn't understand even a fraction of the whole big picture.

I myself don't understand the whole picture when it comes to how flights leave and land. But I thought you had been referring earlier to losing your spot because now you have to get back in line for take off. I was not suggesting that you delay the flights ready to land. In any case these flights in the air will land whether the aircraft went back to the gate after 3 hours or whether it remained on the tarmac.

The Federal regulation that may be necessary would be for ATC to permit this delayed aircraft back into the conga line for take off. I believe it is not done at the moment and I admit I don't know how it may work. But I believe that the runways may be designed to permit an aircraft that has this kind of priority to get to the runway for take off before those in line.

If I was a law maker I would surely want to set up a technical sub-committee to report of the feasibility on whether an aircraft that lost its position because of this return to the gate, can regain its priority for take off. It is idle to suggest that this is trying to regulate what God does with the weather

[jimworcs]

A bit of honesty by the airlines wouldn't go amiss. This is a uniquely American problem.. this does not happen anywhere else in the world on anything like this scale. Why is that? Is it because only America has weather?

Or perhaps the US airlines cram too many flights into too few slots, which actually results in some airports (JFK for example) being physically unable to handle, on time, the number of flights it has scheduled. When the slightest problem in the system develops, the backlog quickly becomes unmanageable. The airlines solution is to make passengers suffer, on the grounds that this is the more efficient solution. If we pass regulations which prohibit this, or which required the airlines to pay prohibitively expensive compensation where they have kept passengers on the ground and onboard for over 3 hours, I think you would find that solutions would be found. One of which is to spread flights out over the day more efficiently, and stop overstuffing "peak time" take off and landing slots beyond endurance.

[mars6423]

its not just the airport and airlines fault there jimworks

if there is high demand than and flights at a certain time of day than it will cause a problem, so the overcrowdedness comes from the passengers themselves too, not intentionally but due to the demand alot of flights go there, otherwise there wouldnt be enough seats for people to sit and then everyone would be angry at the airlines for not having the seats, and if the schedules were more spread out than people would complain about that

so the airlines can get bigger planes but that isnt economical

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

But I thought you had been referring earlier to losing your spot because now you have to get back in line for take off. I was not suggesting that you delay the flights ready to land. In any case these flights in the air will land whether the aircraft went back to the gate after 3 hours or whether it remained on the tarmac.

Actually I was referring to a plane ready for takeoff that had to sit. The problem is the plane will be given a very narrow window to takeoff. If the plane goes back to the gate, it will miss that window. Let me explain a bit further what I was talking about:

Let's use Delta as our example, with a flight going from Tampa to Atlanta. Atlanta's weather goes to pot, and later clears up. But the plane has already pushed the gate in Tampa. Granted 3 hours is quite extreme, no argument on that. But let's say the plane did sit. Keep in mind that there are going to be a large number of other airplanes around the country trying to get to Atlanta. Now, let's say some of our delayed planes are now going to arrive in ATL at 6pm. All quite late. Well, they get there, but there were already a large number of planes due to arrive at 6pm. So ATL's air traffic load just shot up.

Because of this, each of those sitting planes will be given a takeoff time. The idea is that they need to arrive in ATL's airspace and land at a certain time. So if a plane misses it's takeoff window, it will arrive later than it was assigned, and now crowd another flight.

Let's now complicate things even further. ATL gets plenty of widebody aircraft. When one takes off or lands, you cannot have another do the same right behind it without a 2 minute window. These larger aircraft create heavy wake turbulence that can push another aircraft around, and crash it.

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

The Federal regulation that may be necessary would be for ATC to permit this delayed aircraft back into the conga line for take off.

It's not that there is a conga line, per se. Refer to the above. But what I just pointed out was a case of a plane that is not in a hub. You are not going to have lines of planes in an out station normally. Because if ATL is shot, Delta and AirTran are screwed, but the other airlines would be OK, since none of them are headed to ATL.

However, it's time now to look at the other end of the coin, that being the hub. So let's look at ATL. While the weather went bad, the planes probably were not able to take off. Now they can. But remember, we have to get these planes off the gates to make room for all those arriving flights. So now in the hub they do start a conga line on the taxi way, but if the taxi ways to line up, there is no physical way for a plane to taxi back to a gate. And at the same time, no way for a plane at the gate to jump the line. And let's not forget that 2 minute separation for wide bodies.

Jim is right to a certain degree. Look at any large airport at the number of gates verses the runway space. It is all designed for when things go right. ATL did at least do something about this a few years ago and put in another runway, and they don't have quite the same congestion problems they used to. While this would be a great solution, it's not feasible in many cases because often you don't have the room, or you have people that don't want planes now flying over their homes.

However, Jim, part of this too is the fact that there is no other country in the world that has about 400 domestic airports. So, the hubs are quite crowded. Most of the international airlines only fly a couple flights a day to the cities they serve just because of the length of the flights. It keeps the fleet spread out more. And there aren't as many short haul flights. So that itself will keep down the number of airplanes on the ground at one time.

[jimworcs]

Originally Posted by Jetliner

Jim is right to a certain degree.

Sorry I didn't reply area... I had fainted.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

A bit of honesty by the airlines wouldn't go amiss. This is a uniquely American problem.. this does not happen anywhere else in the world on anything like this scale. Why is that? Is it because only America has weather?

Or perhaps the US airlines cram too many flights into too few slots, which actually results in some airports (JFK for example) being physically unable to handle, on time, the number of flights it has scheduled. When the slightest problem in the system develops, the backlog quickly becomes unmanageable. The airlines solution is to make passengers suffer, on the grounds that this is the more efficient solution. If we pass regulations which prohibit this, or which required the airlines to pay prohibitively expensive compensation where they have kept passengers on the ground and onboard for over 3 hours, I think you would find that solutions would be found. One of which is to spread flights out over the day more efficiently, and stop overstuffing "peak time" take off and landing slots beyond endurance.

For the traditional hub and spoke model your suggestion to spread the flights out is just not very feasible. Flights arrive into the hub then go out of the hub to get people to their destinations. Most flights to Europe and Asia leave in the late afternoon or evening so people are not going to book a flight into the hub arriving at 9 or 10 AM when their international departure isn't until 6 or 7 in the evening unless they absolutely have to. Most arrivals are timed to provide convenient connections.

Also airlines must schedule with the business traveler in mind. Most people cannot cut their workday short to make a 3 or 4 PM departure so departures between 5 and 7 PM are much more convenient for that crowd. Let's say there are two departures to a particular city between Noon and 4 PM and four flights Between 4 and 8 PM. Under your scheme they should schedule those six flights out evenly over that 8 hour period but the flight that gets moved earlier than 4 PM to accomplish that is going to suffer a drop in sales and the three flights after 4 PM will be consistently overbooked because the business people just can't leave before 4 PM.

The only other solution would be to add more runways however in the major metropolitan areas of the US the airports have expanded to their maximum. You just can't build a runway in Central Park in NYC to provide extra capacity for NY's three major airports. In some major metropolitan areas like New York they are trying to better utilize airports in the outlying suburban areas but those efforts often meet with resistance from the surrounding communities and where they are able to fly people continue to choose flights from the major airports because they are easier to reach by car or public transit.

The biggest problem we face in the US is that we didn"t invest in rail when we should have. Our rail system has many gaps which we are only now trying to catch up with Europe.

[jimworcs]

So what is the solution PHX? Can't build runways, don't have adquate fast rail infrastructure and the distances are too great to go by car. Surely the solution can't be to just accept that the system will become gridlocked and hold people hostage in a tube for hours on end, waiting for the traffic jam to clear?

Europe too, is built on a hub and spoke system. The major hubs in Europe.. Madrid, Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, Milan, Paris, etc.. are similar, with the same business demands and frequent shortages of runway availability. LHR in particular has serious capacity problems, serving more passengers than CDG or FRA but with only two runways. There are massive demands on gates... Nevertheless, I have never heard of passengers being held on an aircraft at Heathrow for up to 9 hours.

There is a lack of goodwill towards passengers in the US by the airlines. The situation faced by the passengers in the twin cities was intolerable, and a relatively simple solution was waiting. The Captain asked repeatedly for the facilities to safely disembark her passengers. The ground handling by Delta blocked this, for spurious reasons. They were not held because of concerns about slots.. they were held by an airline which is arrogant and has a "couldn't care less" attitude towards passengers in general. The bogus "security" concerns were simply an excuse for inaction. The Manager of the airport has stated categorically that had Delta asked, he would have been able to allay any security fears immediately and authorise the passengers to disembark. The airport was not asked.

Despite Jetliners earlier defence of Continental/JetExpress, neither of these airlines "escalated" the problem appropriately and this too illustrates an arrogant dis-regard for their passengers.

Airline employees seem to have become so used to treating their passengers like cattle, they no longer have any kind of compassion for their passengers. It speaks volumes about the culture of Delta, that any ground services manager would leave passengers crammed into a small regional jet for hours on end, with no facilities. The only US airline I have experience of in recent years which does not seem to have this culture was Southwest.