[tomchgo]

On a trip from Kansas City to Toronto this past weekend, I flew on Delta with a connecting flight in New York City (JFK airport). On the flight from NYC to Toronto, the flight was delayed by six hours. We were on the plane for most of this time, with no options for waiting out this delay in the terminal. After the first three hours, we taxied back to the gate so that they could re-fuel the plane and get new crew since the original crew had "timed out." Then after re-fueling and getting the new crew, we taxied right back out to the runway and waited another three hours.

I simply do not understand why airlines continue to do this to their customers and how airports and airlines can be this mis-managed. If, after the first three hours, we went back to the gate, why not let us sit in the more comfortable terminal until a later time, then have us re-board the plane. I have voiced my concern to Delta and I assume that I will not receive a reply from them.

I hope other passengers don't simply sit back and let this happen without complaining. Otherwise, these types of problems will only get worse and we will continue to hear about them on the news.

[abutterfinger25]

Long Tarmac Delays are a hot topic on the Hill and in the Halls of DOT. Legislation may in the works and the DOT has proposed a rule on the issue.

There are many reasons the plane does not return to the gate and allow passenger to get off the aircraft. The main one being that doing so, will actually create a longer delay if there is a sudden break in the weather. The aircraft is no longer in line to take off and then would need to re-board, taxi back out and then get back in line.

I am not saying that are right or wrong, just that there is a lot more variables than most passengers are aware of.

The New York Times just published an article on how to best cope with these events, and unfortuately, they will continue. Even with legislation in place.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...lays.html?_r=1

[Gromit801]

I suppose they could just cancel the flight, let everyone off, and be done with it. That would create havoc.

There is no 100% sure fire solution where weather is involved. Stay on the plane hoping for a break in the weather, pissing off all the passengers. Or back to the gate, deplane, cancel the flight (which is what would probably happen at that point), and **** off the passengers.

I wish the airlines would fix their god machines so they could control the weather better.

I feel for any passenger stuck on a flight, but given the circumstances, what to do?

[jimworcs]

Gromit.. is this a serious reply? What is the airline to do... ? Well, one is let the hostages go back to the terminal, disembark and use the facilities. If it is a 6hr+ delay, I am sure many of the hostages would prefer a cancellation. It is ridiculous to suggest that the airline is acting reasonably in holding people hostage for this long. The maximum should be 3 hours and there should be specific bill of rights type legislation for this, rather than a rule change by the DOT.

Incidently, we have weather in Europe too.. (in fact, I think you will find it is a worldwide phenonomen). I have NEVER heard of people being held hostage for 6 hrs plus on a plane. Why do you think that is?

Could it have anything to do with the arrogant, anti-consumer attitudes of the airlines and their employees in the deregulated environment of the US air industry?

[Gromit801]

jim when you go off on a Josef Goebbles like rant, calling passengers "hostages" you lose any credibility you might hope to have.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

OK, Gromit, if "hostages" displeases you perhaps you'd prefer "FALSE IMPRISONMENT:"

false imprisonment:n. depriving someone of freedom of movement by holding a person in a confined space or by physical restraint including being locked in a car, driven about without opportunity to get out, being tied to a chair or locked in a closet. It may be the follow-up to a false arrest (holding someone in the office of a department store, for example), but more often it resembles a kidnapping with no belief or claim of a legal right to hold the person. Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime and if proved is almost always the basis of a lawsuit for damages.

See:
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=728

In any action where false imprisonment is the basis of the claim the airline will, obviously, throw-up SOME kind of "...claim of a...right to hold..." However, the specific circumstances of a given (tarmac) incident will probably govern how much credit, if any, the Court would give to the airline's "...claim..."

The first judgment, favoring a plaintiff, which is upheld by the US Supreme Court, would, doubtless, see an almost overnight change in the airlines' procedures relating to tarmac strandings.

The decision of the airlines to totally ban smoking was, significantly, affected by a successful action relating to the in-flight death of a passenger resulting from the inhalation of secondary cigarette smoke during a flight to the USA. In OLYMPIC AIRWAYS V. HUSAIN (US Supreme Court, 2004) the Court affirmed a judgment partly arising from the neglegent act of a flight attendant. The decedant asked to be re-seated. Olympic alleged there were no vacant seats available. The Court appeared to hold that the flight attendant, not the decedant as Olympic had argued, was responsible for finding someone to switch seats with the decedant. In addition, the Court held Olympic was responsible for the death as a result of its decision to allow smoking on the flight. Olympic terminated service to the USA when it became apparent they might be forced to pay on the judgment. The Supreme Court's decision was rendered in 2004, while the death occured around December of 1997.

The point of this post is to suggest to aggrevied airline consumers that accepting worthless free flight vouchers is not always one's only option. Legal action, in some instances, is an option and is something the airlines will be far more responsive to than a complaint letter. To the "Airline Sympathizers," and "Employees" that have a problem with this I could really care less.

[jimworcs]

Originally Posted by Gromit801

jim when you go off on a Josef Goebbles like rant, calling passengers "hostages" you lose any credibility you might hope to have.

Yeah Gromit, in your anti-customer bubble, the nazi is the person who complains about being trapped in a tube overnight, with over-flowing toilets, screaming babies, no access to food and water, no access to medications for a diabetic, etc. Meanwhile, the airline employee who refuses to let the hostages disembark because they don't want the hassle of having to "handle" the passengers in the terminal should be likened to who.. perhaps Mother Theresa?