[Justin D]

The flight in question is #2683, Atlanta (H-Jackson Airport) to Houston Intercontinental, 11:05 to 12:15pm.

The plane--a sold-out flight--boarded on time, but the INSTANT they closed the door, the pilot announced that we were grounded due to bad weather in Houston. He followed that they needed our gate, so the plane wheeled out to some isolated part of the tarmac. We would get an update in an hour.

One hour later, the pilot just came on, saying that we would be here yet another hour. We will get further updates in 60 minutes.

My question is this: why didn't they just leave us in the airport, when they obviously knew beforehand that we'd be stuck? Waiting until the door clicked shut just adds insult to injury.

Will keep posting as events unfold.

(I am 6'6" tall, and this just adds to the misery. This plane is tiny.)

[airhead]

Justin D: the reason for pulling away from the gate is to be ready when air traffic control gives the "go." The crew may only be given a 10 minute window to take off. The update may be in 60 minutes but in 5 minutes that can change. Nothing is for sure. Nothing is written in stone. It takes too much time to deboard and reboard the passengers and the ground crew is probably busy with other delayed passengers in the terminal and really can't afford the time to stop what they are doing to add more passengers to the line inside. And then ATC will say "go" but everyone is inside. Indeed what a mess that is.

Other passengers get pretty mad when a select group get to go but their group can't. A human zoo to be sure.

[PHXFlyer]

Update to the OP's flight:

After taking off from Atlanta the flight was diverted to Lake Charles where it spent about 90 minutes on the ground. It then proceeded to IAH where it arrived just under 4 hours late. Looks like there was a large front moving through IAH today with a line of thunderstorms. Not a good day to be traveling in that part of the country.

[AirlinesMustPay]

The OP is entitled to compensation, act of God or not. There is no excuse for an airline imprisoning passengers on the tarmac even for an hour. You get into an aircraft to fly to your destination, and once they are not flying they need your consent to keep you in the aircraft. Once the pilot is able to say they would be there at least an hour, if there was no gate available, the airline should have sent a bus to bring the passengers to the terminal. If there are passengers who prefer to stay in the aircraft without food and with overflowing toilets, those should stay, but if some passengers want to be let out the airline must return them to the terminal or heavy compensation should follow.

[Silent Bob]

Sorry airline, but it looks as though even folks for a passenger bill of rights find 3 hours "acceptable". I mean I think even an hour is rough, I've sat on a plane 1 1/2 hour. It wasn't too bad, but I I wouldn't wanna be on a plane in excess of 3 hours. But when it comes to compensation, I think there is where you hit a stop because no one can agree on just what kind of compensation is due. You say heavy, but just how heavy, give us an example.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Silent Bob

You say heavy, but just how heavy, give us an example.

Actually, please don't!

I regularly book non-stop flights in excess of three hours. What, may I ask, is the difference? The only difference is that usually one is actually going somewhere while in the case of a tarmac delay one is not. One is still, however, stuck in a plane. At least during Tarmac delays they usually let you use cellphones and, if you're lucky, you can pick up a WiFi signal if you're close enough to a terminal building. I'm lucky since I carry an AT&T wireless card for my laptop and can connect to the internet wherever I can get a cell signal.

And yes, before anyone asks, I have involved in a few lengthy tarmac delays. The worst were at Newark and Denver and both involved snow. On one occasion, also at Newark, the delay was ATC related and the weather over the airport was fairly good but all around us there were thunderstorms.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

I regularly book non-stop flights in excess of three hours. What, may I ask, is the difference?

This has to be a joke, right? Ha Ha.

Because if it were a flight to India with 16 hours flying time, you would not think that flying to India would be the same as being stuck on the tarmac for 16 hours.

So you see I do have a sense of humour to see that that had to be a joke.

Nice one, PHX. Ha Ha.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by Silent Bob

I wouldn't wanna be on a plane in excess of 3 hours. But when it comes to compensation, I think there is where you hit a stop because no one can agree on just what kind of compensation is due. You say heavy, but just how heavy, give us an example.

I am talking about the situation where the airline forces passengers to stay on board an aircraft standing on the tarmac. Maybe passengers would be able to tolerate an hour or two delay if they were in the terminal building.

In this case, once the pilot says that the delay would be an hour, passengers should be free to say, I would like to return to the terminal. the crew should then contact the staff at the terminal who should arrange for passengers to get off.

I have been told by someone who works in the legal department of one airport authority, that an airline would have have to pay an additional fee to the airport, if an aircraft having pulled away from the gate, returns to drop off its passengers into the terminal building. I don't know if this applies to Unites States airports, but it would be at least an inconvenience to the airline to deboard and reboard the passengers. But so what?

Which is worse? The passengers who have to remain stuck in an aircraft, and we read that in 2007 this went on for 9 and 10 hours already, or the inconvenience to the airline to deboard and reboard passengers. I know for sure that airports have buses that go out to tarmac to bring passengers in when they need to. I have seen this in effect at JFK.

The right not be imprisoned against one's wishes is a more fundamental right than can be provided in any airline passengers bill of rights. The right to liberty is a right guaranteed in most constitutions including the U.S. When you board an aircraft you are consenting to be in their aircraft on the understanding that it will take off in a reasonable time. Boarding time is usually 30 minutes before departure, sometimes less. So if the pilot says that its going to be at least an hour, you should be able to say, I want to get off until you are ready to leave. I know Mr PHX will say I'd like to stay because I can use my cellphone and laptop while stuck here.

At that point in time you do not consent to be sitting in the aircraft, and to further keep you there amounts to wrongly imprisoning you.

If I was this OP and was made to sit in a cramped aircraft for two hours, I would want to be compensated by at least two or three hundred dollars. One good day when this kind of thing happens, passengers bill or rights or not, a passenger will bring a class action suit claiming false imprisonment in a aircraft for himself and other passengers so imprisoned. Then we will see the US supreme Court deciding what if any kind of award to make.

This kind of thing only started two or three years ago. I know about lengthy days in years past, but as far as I am aware, these delays always took place with passengers off the aircraft. I think what has happened is that in an effort to save the cost of putting up passengers in hotels and providing them with meal vouchers during the delay, airlines have started this practice of making passengers board, knowing full well they can't take off for hours, and then keeping them on the tarmac.

[jimworcs]

Google Kate Hanni, and I think you will find that lawsuits have been tried and failed in the US. This requires legislation. There is a bill currently before Congress...

strandedpassengers.blogspot.com

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AirlinesMustPay

If I was this OP and was made to sit in a cramped aircraft for two hours, I would want to be compensated by at least two or three hundred dollars. One good day when this kind of thing happens, passengers bill or rights or not, a passenger will bring a class action suit claiming false imprisonment in a aircraft for himself and other passengers so imprisoned. Then we will see the US supreme Court deciding what if any kind of award to make.

Two or three hundred dollars for two hours? What if the flight you are on was a scheduled three to four hour flight? You were going to be on the aircraft anyway. What difference does it make if the aircraft is flying or on the ground? And in my opinion unless you are waiting out the delay in an airline club the terminal isn't much more comfortable than the airplane. At least on the plane if you need to use the lavatory you don't have to drag your carryons with you as they are already stowed!

Lets assume this scenario. A plane boards, pushes away from the gate, requests clearance to taxi and is told that due to an ATC hold they will be there for at least an hour. An hour later they are told perhaps another hour and continue to hold on the ground. After the captain announces the additional hour several passengers demand to be let off. So under the "passenger bill of rights" as long as the demand is made the crew must comply. So they arrange for a gate assignment, taxi to the gate and allow those demanding off to deplane. Five minutes later they are told there's a slot but they must shut the door and push back immediately or they'll lose it. So they secure the cabin, shut the door and take off without the persons who demanded that they be let off.

Now just who, Mr. Attorney, do you think will be yelling at the airport agents that they were left behind and cursing them out when told the next available flight with open seats to their destination is not for two days? You guessed it!

So you see, your honor, it's not such an easy thing to draw a line and say after so many minutes/hours passengers should be given the option of getting off the plane. Every situation is unique and having a law that is cut and dried won't address every situation.

[Leatherboy2006]

This just happened to me in Chicago going back to Dallas a couple weeks ago, we pushed off the gate at Ohare for DFW, taxi'd and was told that a storm moving through dfW had closed airport and airtraffic. We could be delayed about an hour or so on ground at Ohare. People were fine for about an hour, then capt. came on and said that due to how severe the storms were we could be delayed further on ground at OHare due to backed up traffic now going into DFW. People started demanding crew to return to terminal. Crew was saying they would try but was unlikely and plus things could change. 10minutes after that Capt. came on and announced thanks to a different routing he was offered by ATC we would leave as soon as he could get the plane on runway. Had they listened to the passengars and went right back to the gate we would have never left for DFW for another 4-5 hours. The longer route added about 45minutes to flight but we still got home at reasonable hour.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Google Kate Hanni, and I think you will find that lawsuits have been tried and failed in the US. This requires legislation. There is a bill currently before Congress...

I checked and cannot find any such failed case in the US.

Kate Hanni's class action suit appears to have been settled by American Airlines for an undisclosed sum. I found another class action suit against Northwest for an 11 hour delay on the tarmac, that was again settled for $1,200 per passenger.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

Two or three hundred dollars for two hours? What if the flight you are on was a scheduled three to four hour flight? You were going to be on the aircraft anyway. What difference does it make if the aircraft is flying or on the ground? And in my opinion unless you are waiting out the delay in an airline club the terminal isn't much more comfortable than the airplane.

it's not such an easy thing to draw a line and say after so many minutes/hours passengers should be given the option of getting off the plane. Every situation is unique and having a law that is cut and dried won't address every situation.

Of course nothing is cut and dry, I know it's not really an easy thing to count minutes/hours and relate them to quantum of damages. This happens in many situations not only for airline delay. But some guidelines can be given to airlines and used. But do you really mean that you cannot see that if in a 3 hour flight there is a delay on the tarmac of 2 hours, it means 5 hours in the aircraft instead of 3. Who wants to be stuck in an aircraft for 5 hours for a 3 hour flight?

I surely will prefer to be in the terminal, even if there is the chance (has to be a very slim chance) that the pilot gets the OK to leave and has to take off in 5 minutes. I think the OP's choice was to be in the terminal. People must have the freedom to choose when their liberty is concerned. Most I think would opt for the terminal instead of be in an aircraft cramped, hungry and thirsty, overflowing toilets, crying babies, etc. But if you want to be in the aircraft so long as you can use your cellphone, fine.

If we ever are on the same flight stranded on the tarmac for 11 hours, give me your cell phone number. While I'm sipping a lager and eating a steak sandwich in the terminal building, I'll be happy to give you a call to ask how you're doing.

[mars6423]

how would anyone know if it is a slim chance or not? the ATC may not know till the minute to tell the airline you have to leave now or you will have to wait even longer, due to another plane that was due was being held up (mech issues, bags not all on board, etc) so they may not know until the sec, and if people were in the terminal there is a missed chance, and if people knew they could have left than they would be ****** coz it meant they would be waiting longer and still have no idea when they would be leaving

alot of the time the plane pulls back and than they are told to hold, they follow ATC rules and what they are told

however, if they know that it will be a long period and no chance of being able to take off in a tight window, than maybe they should allow passangers back into the terminal, only if there is no chance that they have the opportunity to leave

[airhead]

Airlinesmustpay: You are seeing the problem from a micro point of view. The update is in a hour so instead of asking the passengers what they want, the captian does his job. In a perfect world the captain would ask the passengers but guess what...by doing that a mutiny is created. Half wants to go and the other half wants to stay. How do you figure who is right?

And let's assume they decide to bus out the ones who want out...well where does the bus come from and how many of these buses should an airline have on stand by at every airport, everyday and what should be the pay of these bus drivers? And what will you pay the agent who has to stand at the bottom of the stairs as passengers walk from the aircraft to the bus? What a tremendous cost to the airline that would be. A cost that will surely be passed on the customer.

The whole issue of being held captive is a tricky issue still yet to be defined. What is a defined reasonable amount of time to be sitting in the tarmac? I think 3 hours is acceptable. But at some point the passenger has to agree that some rights are briefly given up for the ability to fly in a small metal tube at 12,000 feet altitude going 500 miles an hour.

[AirlinesMustPay]

Originally Posted by airhead

Airlinesmustpay: You are seeing the problem from a micro point of view. The update is in a hour so instead of asking the passengers what they want, the captian does his job. In a perfect world the captain would ask the passengers but guess what...by doing that a mutiny is created. Half wants to go and the other half wants to stay. How do you figure who is right?

And let's assume they decide to bus out the ones who want out...well where does the bus come from and how many of these buses should an airline have on stand by at every airport, everyday and what should be the pay of these bus drivers? And what will you pay the agent who has to stand at the bottom of the stairs as passengers walk from the aircraft to the bus? What a tremendous cost to the airline that would be. A cost that will surely be passed on the customer.

The whole issue of being held captive is a tricky issue still yet to be defined. What is a defined reasonable amount of time to be sitting in the tarmac? I think 3 hours is acceptable. But at some point the passenger has to agree that some rights are briefly given up for the ability to fly in a small metal tube at 12,000 feet altitude going 500 miles an hour.

The captain must do his job, but his job cannot be to keep me on board against my wishes. That is to infringe on my right to liberty protected by the constitution. I boarded the aircraft to fly and if he is not flying he must let me out if I so request.

If half want to go and half wants to stay, that's no problem and that's no mutiny. I thought I had dealt with that. The half who want to get out must be allowed to get out. I already said while I am in the terminal having my steak sandwich, I am quite happy to give you guys who want to stay on an aircraft with overflowing toilets a call.

The pilot can pull back to a gate to let the passengers off. But if that has a cost, then the airline can weigh that cost against the cost of getting a bus to bring the passengers from the aircraft to the terminal. Where does the bus come from and how much is the driver paid? Since when is that a passenger's problem. Would you like me to say how much the pilots and stewardesses are to be paid too? Pay them all a million dollars a day if you wish.

Some small airports own buses and employ drivers. When needed the airline pays the airport for use of the bus. I travel to JFK regularly by Delta (and I'd like to say I've never had a problem with Delta - all my problems have been on AA) and I have seen buses marked "Delta" at JFK so I will presume for larger airports, some airlines will have their own bus. These are not used only in emergencies but if an aircraft cannot get a gate, they remain on the tarmac and a bus picks up the passengers at the foot of the aircraft and brings them to the terminal. If a small airline with only one or two flights per day arriving an an airport doesnt have a bus, it can use another airline's bus for a fee, or their managers can have a contingency plan in place which may be to phone up a local bus company and have them do it. That is what prudent management is about. Managers are not there to tell their staff how to lie to customers!!

Whatever "tremendous cost" they pay for buses, is their decision. When Northwest settled for $1200 per passenger for keeping them 11 hours in 1999 on the tarmac, I'm sure they settled because their lawyers advised them they were likely to get the worst of the lawsuit.

There is nothing tricky about the right not be imprisoned against one's wishes. It is an established fundamental right, and no pilot can ride roughshod over that right. When you enter a plane you consent to fly. If the airline wants you to consent to sit in a stationary plane for three hours, they should get you to sign such a document.