[charlesa]

First, I'm a "gold frequent flyer" so I have a little insight and tolerance into the airline passenger world.

My flight was significantly delayed due to mechanical failure of the de-icing truck as per the pilot announcement. The temperature required de-icing but the de-icing truck breakdown caused our delay(not the weather) and subsequently missing my connection.

Obviously when the airline labels the delay "weather", they have negated any responsibility that they would otherwise have to the passenger. I restate: the cold temperature and the plane sitting overnight required the de-icing and this process is everyday ho-hum, how can it be considered weather?

This is not the first time I have encountered these circumstances and I believe it is an injustice to the airline consumer.

[jimworcs]

I would go to the DOT with this one. That is ridiculous... there is a link in the quick links above. The extreme lengths the airlines are going to link delays to the weather are becoming comical. We need regulation and we need it now.

[mars6423]

Jim.....this really has nothing to do with Delta, unless they own the deicing truck

there is nothing they can do to control the truck and they need to be deiced to fly or it could result in disaster.........by sending a letter to the DOT they will most likely agree that it would be unsafe and that Delta (or any airline for that matter) did the right thing by not flying due to the ice on the plane due to the weather and that they have no control of the deicing truck breaking down

[wkharris2001]

I don't see how this could be coded as a weather delay. I'm 100% with the original poster on this one. yes it was the cold temperatures (weather) that caused frost on the overnight aircraft. but in the end there should have been de-icing available to get that aircraft out of the origin city. since the de-ice truck was not available due to a mechanical problem, i would have coded it as a mechanical problem, not a weather problem. i'm not sure who owns the de-icing equipment in that city as each airport operates a little bit different than the next. the station i work at Delta owns and maintains it's own de-ice trucks one primary and one as a backup. and when both of those aren't working we call another airline for a favor. but that's just the nature of a smaller station.

[Gromit801]

The problem here, is who owns the deicing equipment. If it is not owned by the airline, then they can't claim a mechanical delay. It wasn't their equipment. It's not an ATC issue either. So what's left, weather.

[jimworcs]

Mars/Gromit,
Your logic is ridiculous... ownership of the de-icing truck doesn't absolve the airline of it's responsibilities... by your logic many airlines would never be responsible for any delay. A lot of them don't actually own the aircraft they fly.. they are leased. Perhaps they should tell the passengers to make their claim against GE.

[mars6423]

jim thats a ridiculous comment as there is a big difference between a plane that the airline can control (even if they dont own it, they are able to use it, maintain it, etc) but if the deicing truck is owned by the airport or an outside company then delta or another airline cant do much about the truck as they have no control over it and all they can do is look elsewhere and try to find another truck

theres a big difference between having possession vs another company having possession.....so i say your logic is ridiculous here

[jimworcs]

Mars,
Airlines are responsible for the actions of their sub-contractors. For example, they must provide wheelchair services to disabled passengers. For many of the airports, the airlines contract in this service... but it is the airline that would be held to account if the wheelchair was not provided. Likewise, some sub-contract out maintainance... but that does not mean they are not responsible if there is a maintenance problem. The status of who owns equipment or employs individuals is irrelevant to their obligations under the law.

[Gromit801]

Jim doesn't get it. If the AIRPORT owns the deicing equipment, as many do, they are not a sub-contractor to the airline. They are a service, like the refueling trucks. And the airline has no say in the matter.

[jimworcs]

You don't get it Gromit. Failure by airlines to operate a flight which is due to equipment failure, whether provided by the airlines themselves, or by a contractor, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AIRLINE. They are allowed exceptions only for the weather or an ATC delay.

[jimworcs]

Here is a news article which illustrates just how illogical Mars and Gromits position is... This is from the Charlotte Observer

[QUOTE] And US Airways canceled several flights Monday night after the Charlotte airport began running low on de-icing fluid. Charlotte-Douglas International airport deices US Airways planes, the other airlines deice their own planes. An airport spokeswoman said the airport was using more deicing fluid than usual because of the weather conditions, causing the shortage.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...g7x[/QUOTE]

Let's say AA ran out of de-icing fluid at Charlotte-Douglas, would we say they are responsible, but because US Airways contracts de-icing to Charlotte-Douglas then they are not. It is ridiculous.

Now having said that... if US Airways has losses as a result of the failure of Charlotte-Douglas to have sufficient de-icing to maintain flights, then US Airways may have a claim against the airport.

[Gromit801]

No Jim, you don't WANT to get it. Airport owned deicing equipment is not a contractor to any of the airlines that use that airport. It is OWNED by the airport, just like the terminals, or jetways.

If an airline needs deicing from the airport, the airport provides the service as a charge, like a landing fee. They are not contractors.

[jimworcs]

Wrong.. the airline can choose who contracts to provide the service. If you read the articile, you will find that AA don't use the airport service and contract someone else.

[HoustonFlyer]

A public authority can exercise both a public function as well as it can enter contracts. An airport is exercising a public function when it maintains the airport and imposes landing fees and taxes on passengers who pass through the airport which you have no choice but to pay if you use the airport.

The airport can also enter contractual relationships for other fuctions such as de-icing which the airline can do itself or pay the airport to do if they choose. In such a case I think the airport authority would be a subcontractor and the primary liability to the passenger would be the airline, and if the de-icing doesn't take place due to equipment breakdown, the airline could turn to the airport for reimbursement if they have to compensate passengers.

The primary liability is on the airline because the passenger contracts with the airline not the airport when he buys his ticket for travel.

[jimworcs]

Thank you Houstonflyer... exactly as I said. Gromit and Mars... look forward to your apology.

[charlesa]

I wrote a complaint to the DOT who "pushed the paper" to Delta. Delta wrote back to me stating that the de-ice truck breakdown was NOT a wx delay and they would compensate me with 15k miles in my account. How benevolent. Problem is they've done this before and I'm sure they'll do it again, especially if it just costs them 15k miles in someone's account. DOT doesn't really seem interested in consumer rights protection.

[jimworcs]

You are right about the DOT... it is toothless and reluctant to act as a true consumer advocate...

The real story here is Delta lying and claiming it was a weather delay. How often do they get away with this because no-one pursues it. Delta are anti-consumer, unethical liars, and why anyone flies with this nightmare of an airline, I just don't know.

mars..and gromit... you seem to have gone quiet, and I am trying to fill the void in my life, where the apology should be....

[thebritisharecoming]

jim,
when they're using a deicing truck, it falls under "weather." you see, when they have to use a deicing truck, its because of a "weather" situation, strange right? regardless of the airline, your discounted online cheap air fare ticket suddenly blasts off in value because the cost to de-ice an aircraft starts at around $35,000 and can cost as much as $150,000 PER FLIGHT, and most domestic flights barely make a profit/break even to begin with. airlines are a BUSINESS, not government funded public transportation surviving on a cushion of tax money.. i hate to say this but jim you sound like a person that treats employees at an airline like crap, and then wonder why they have no enthusiasm to offer you any help...
airlines do not go out of there way to lie, hurt, or victimize their passengers, nor do they have a policy for dealing with cynical passengers like you... trying to argue that the deicing truck problems fall under a mechanical sounds like you're being cheap and annoying and should get out of line so nice people like me standing behind you can be helped

look at you begging for an apology... your exposing your true character

[jimworcs]

Britisharecoming.....

Did you read the earlier posts? Perhaps this will help you...

when they're using a deicing truck, it falls under "weather." you see, when they have to use a deicing truck, its because of a "weather" situation, strange right?

Delta wrote back to me stating that the de-ice truck breakdown was NOT a wx delay and they would compensate me with 15k miles in my account.

The logic that a de-icing truck breakdown is due to the weather because you de-ice as a result of a "weather" situation illustrates exactly what is wrong with airline employees. Many of them are stupid.

[HoustonFlyer]

Interesting post from Themartiansarecoming, oops, Thebritisharecoming. I couldn't help notice the lack of punctuation. Come on, Mars. Just apologise and let's move one.

[Gromit801]

No apologies coming Jim. You're wrong. That's all there is to say about that.

[jimworcs]

Right, I am wrong Gromit...and the airline itself it also wrong, having written to the customer, compensated them, and stated categorically that the breakdown of a de-icing truck is not a weather related delay.

The inability to admit you are wrong is

a. a personality flaw
b. an indication of intellectual impairment
c. ignorant and stupid OR
d. all of the above

Answers on a postcard....

[jameskgriffin]

??????????

[Jetliner]

Well, this seems to have come back from the dead.

To the original post, Delta was in the wrong. Why? Does anyone remember the Comair computer meltdown a few years ago? There was a huge winter storm system that pretty much grounded them for the day. The next day, their crew scheduling computer shut down because there were so many transactions taking place trying to get the crew back on track. Comair blamed it on the weather, however the DOT saw otherwise. Yes, it started with the weather, but it went beyond that. Is anyone here, including current/former airline employees really going to say that when De-ice truck number one (and apparently only) broke down, that they didn't have some backup plan?

Having worked in Florida, de-icing was a foreign concept to us, but even with that I'm pretty sure there would have been another airline that would have been happy to let Delta pay for the de-icing and even charge them 2 or 3 times their cost for the Glycol.

[Gromit801]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Right, I am wrong Gromit...and the airline itself it also wrong, having written to the customer, compensated them, and stated categorically that the breakdown of a de-icing truck is not a weather related delay.

The inability to admit you are wrong is

a. a personality flaw
b. an indication of intellectual impairment
c. ignorant and stupid OR
d. all of the above

Answers on a postcard....

The airline didn't admit anything. It's called customer service, something I'm well familiar with in my business, and you seem woefully ignorant. Concerning your list, so which are you? You didn't say.