[mgoodman@pacificlife.com]

My family flew on Delta flight 4558 from Salt Lake City to Kalispell, MT on August 29. Although Delta personnel were aware that the air conditioning unit on the plane broke down earlier that day, passengers on flight 4558 were not informed that there would be no air conditioning until after the plane was fully boarded and we began taxiing out to the runway. The temperature in SLC that day was highter than 90 degrees so imagine what the temperature was like INSIDE the plane. Intolerable. We were further informed that the plane would need to fly at a low altitude AND that there was no running water in the plane!!!! When arrived, we learned that 3 of our 4 checked bags were on the wrong flight. We had family members fly on an earlier flight (same itinerary) and their bags were on OUR flight. Unbelieveably, the flight attendant kept a positive and pleasant attitude during the entire flight and calmly stated "I'm used to this." These conditions are inexcusable -- both for the passengers AND the flight attendant. I feel that Delta compromised the health and safety of their passengers and should have given us the option of taking an alternate flight. I submitted a formal complaint to Delta today.

[cortney]

it sounds to me the APU was down while on the ground but i dont know why if that were the case they wouldn't hook the plane up to a gpu. please clarify one thing for me. you stated that you were told you wouldn't have air until you left the gate. did you have the air conditioner on once you left the gate and in the air? i know all to well about no air. try being in kuwait where its 120 degrees in the sun without air on a plane...yuck. while i was in ATL flying on a delta flight we also had to sit on the ground for 3 hours in the plane waiting for pilots (this was due to weather which was the truth lol) with no air. i couldn't write a complaint, i wouldnt get a thing out of delta with it being on a ticket that my company paid for. please let me know the out come, but im thinking the only thing will be a voucher or miles. as far as an alternate flight, did you ever just ask if you could change flights yourself due to this problem? their may not have been other flights available as well.

[Gromit801]

Wow, talk about the perfect storm.

[mgoodman@pacificlife.com]

The air con was down on the ground and during the entire flight, which is why the pilot had to fly the plane low. We were not told about the equipment problem until everyone boarded and the doors had been shut--so no opportunity to even ask for an alternate flight. It wasn't 120 degrees like it is in Kuwait but it sure felt like it!!

[jimworcs]

This is typical Delta.. they have little concern for the comfort of their passengers. Realistically the only option is to avoid using them.

Your title is misleading though. There is no mention of flying dangerously low in the text of your message and there is nothing inherently unsafe about flying lower than normal. The FAA would not allow the aircraft to fly "dangerously low" and there are strict regulations relating to whether a flight can go with mechanical defects. There is no one with a bigger interest in flight safety than the crew.

Flying at higher altitudes is done for fuel economy and comfort as you are able to fly above the weather. It is not a safety issue.

[pattis]

It really is bad customer service and I am sorry you had to endure a miserable trip like that. But the part about dangerously low. There are regulations that state what is acceptable altitude. Besides in order for them to land in FCA they need to be able to fly up and over the mountains to fly into that valley. I am sure the crew does not want to endanger their own lives. As far as the bags not on your flight...it sounds as though they were there when you got there...no big deal...u did not have to wait 24 hours or more to get them right. Maybe u and all your family members checked in at same time for 2 different flights and some of the bags were loaded onto earlier flight because on those small regional aircraft, the hotter the temp and heavier the load the more weight and balance problems they have. Better to send bags ahead if possible then bump people on a later flight due to overweight issues.

[PHXFlyer]

No air conditioning on flight 4558 requires plane to fly dangerously low!

I'm not sure what one, flying "dangerously low", has to do with the other, no AC.

At altitude the cabin is cooled by outside air which is pressurized and circulated through the cabin. According to FlightAware and FlightStats your flight pushed back only 5 minutes late @3:16 PM and was "wheels up" @3:30 PM so you spent less than 15 minutes taxiing and were probably at an altitude where the temperature started to cool down shortly thereafter. As for the temperature on the ground, in order to cool the plane either the aircraft's APU has to be started or the plane has to be connected to an APU on a ground unit. Either burns fuel and my guess is that since your flight was going to be reasonably on-time they opted not to burn the fuel since you would be airborn shortly. I agree it's not the most customer friendly policy but take it from someone who lives where it's sometimes 115+ in the Summer 90 degrees for 15-30 minutes isn't "intolerable."

As for the "low" cruising altitude as was pointed out before there could have been many reasons for this but flying at lower altitudes is not, in and of itself, unsafe. According to FlightAware your maximum cruising altitude was 24,000 feet. While that may not be as high as they normally fly that particular aircraft, the CRJ 200, nor is it anywhere near that aircraft's maximum operating altitude of 41,000 ft., it may have simply been because the flight from SLC to Kalispell is only just over an hour so climbing to a higher altitude would just have wasted time and fuel.

Sorry to hear about your bags but the temperature most likely was a factor there too. Higher temperatures require longer rolls down the runway in order to get airborne. It's just plain and simple physics. It was probably determined that if they carried more bags they would have to add more fuel and both add to the weight of the aircraft. As the outside temperature goes up the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft goes down. At some point they had to make a decision to remove weight. That can be done in two ways. Remove bags or remove passengers. That's why your other family members' bags were on your flight. They were trying to clear the backlog. I'm guessing that since nothing more was said about your bags that they were delivered to you in a reasonable amount of time after you arrived in Kalispell.

I'd love to hear Delta's reply to your "formal complaint" but, honestly, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. To say that "Delta compromised the health and safety of their passengers" is really a stretch.

Good luck to you!

[Jetliner]

I'm really wondering if this is one person posting bogus complaints against Delta because this one also doesn't add up.

The air conditioning works by simply bleeding some of the air into the cabin that goes into the front of the engine. It's done with differences in air pressure. Higher pressure is hotter than lower pressure.

However this same system is also what is used to pressurize the plane. Also, I don't recall the altitude, but it's about 6 or 8 thousand feet that there is a thermal layer where the air outside suddenly gets very cold.

Now, if the system was broken as claimed, then they would have had to have flown at about 9-10 thousand feet. They would not be able to above 10,000 because that is where the air gets too thin to breath. So they would have been flying unpressurized. However, because of the outside air temp. the inside would not have stayed the 90 degrees that it was on the ground.

And if PHX's info is correct, that they flew at 24,000 feet, then they system had to be working, otherwise you all would be dead right now. You cannot breath the air that high up. But that also means the pressure system was working, hence they were able to pump air into the cabin, and keep it cool.

Sorry, but this one doesn't hold water.

[jimworcs]

There are so many legitimate complaints against Delta I can't imagine having to make any complaints up.

I suspect that this is a case where the pilot has given some information which has caused some confusion. I am sure the average passenger would not know that air into the cabin is off the bleed in the engine, any more than they would know anything about pressurisation and the need to stay below 10,000ft if there is a problem.

I think I would give the benefit of the doubt. The passengers have been given some information which may have been mis-interpreted. One thing is for sure though... there is nothing in any post which gives any indication that anything unsafe was going on.

[mars6423]

everyone hates sitting on a hot airplane, it makes everyone stressed and people get agitated, one min feels like it takes an hour and it is just plain old uncomfortable, and it makes most people sweat which could make the plane a stinky situation

i know that when i fly from singapore to kaula lumpor it is a very short flight (singapore airlines flys the boeing 777 as that is the smallest plane they operate....unless you count the a340 all business set up) and it didnt reach a high altitude (hour flight)

all i know is that its very uncomfortable sitting on a hot plane, but at least it was only a short flight so even though it was very frustrating it coulda been worse, such as a long cross country or longer

there was a story on here a few weeks ago about how someone believed that each airline should have a spare plane

the luggage is just a pain in the behind, i get that it makes the plane heavier and would need more fuel, but wouldnt they rather keep as many people as satasfied as possible, or was the runway to short? haha

maybe delta was like hmmmm they are gonna be too hot to notice their bags are not on the flight, or the plane is uncomfortable and the experiance will be bad, why not make it a little bit worse, icing on the cake

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Jetliner

I'm really wondering if this is one person posting bogus complaints against Delta because this one also doesn't add up.

I honestly don't suspect any conspiracy theories here. It's a known fact that Delta Connection/Express carriers (well, most operators of regional aircraft really) limit the use of APUs/GPUs while aircraft are parked on the ground. Turns on these "commuter" flights (the time the aircraft remains parked at the gate) are relatively short. They are usually loaded and pushed back in about 30 minutes or less. Running the APU/GPU to cool the interior of the aircraft for such a short amount of time just isn't cost effective. The fact that the aircraft door remains open the whole time doesn't help either. I agree on a hot summer day the temperature can get a bit uncomfortable but it's no worse than going to your car at the end of the work day after it's been parked in the sun all day.

[Jetliner]

True, but she was saying there was not AC for the flight. But if the plane flew at 24,000 that's not possible.

[The_Judge]

I think some responders are reading more into this than there is to the story. In the first post by the OP, this is said....."there would be no air conditioning until after the plane was fully boarded and we began taxiing out to the runway."
Then in a subsequent post, the OP said this...."The air con was down on the ground and during the entire flight, which is why the pilot had to fly the plane low. We were not told about the equipment problem until everyone boarded and the doors had been shut--"

First, did the aircon work during the flight or not? First post indicates, to me, it did as the OP didn't complain it not working during the flight, only on the ground.

Second, in the second post, the OP said they weren't told of the problem till after the door was shut but in the first post said that they were told the aircon wouldn't work until all passengers were boarded and the door was shut whcih means they had to have been told before the door was shut. Which is it then?

And I dont' get the whole flying low statement. As was said earlier, this would happen if their was a pressurization problem. OP never mentioned this was said by the crew.

Hate to do it, but I have to say we're not getting the full story or maybe the story is ebellished a bit.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by The_Judge

And I don't get the whole flying low statement. As was said earlier, this would happen if their was a pressurization problem. OP never mentioned this was said by the crew.

Hate to do it, but I have to say we're not getting the full story or maybe the story is embellished a bit.

Bingo! I've already quoted 2 (extremely reliable) sources which confirm that from push-back to wheels-up was only 14 minutes and that the aircraft climbed to a cruising altitude of 24,000 ft which wouldn't be possible if the pressurization/air handling system wasn't working. Why don't we all agree this post was de-bunked, the OP, while having a semi-valid gripe about the 90 degree weather on the ground was way off base claiming their safety and lives were jeopardized, and label this one "case closed." Some people are just prone to complaining no matter what.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by mgoodman@pacificlife.com

were not informed that there would be no air conditioning until after the plane was fully boarded and we began taxiing out to the runway.

Which I take to mean that the crew didn't tell them it was broken until after taxi, not that it would be broken until after taxi.

Regardless, the post does not hold water at all. As I said, if the system was broken, then the plane could not pressurize. And at 24,000 feet with no pressure, she would not be alive right now to have posted this.

I'm calling this one case closed, and as far as I'm concerned her post is absolutely false since it involves arguing the laws of physics. That's one argument you will never win.

[mgoodman@pacificlife.com]

First of all, it occurs to me that far too many people have way too much time on their hands and are spending A LOT of time analyzing and picking apart my complaint! All that analysis to determine whether or not my complaint is valid or not? REally???! Sorry, but I have more important things to do than to be making up things for fun.

Let me clarify a few things -- first one of my sentence structures caused some confusion. What I meant to say is that the NOTIFICATION of the air conditioning being out of service took place AFTER we boarded and began taxing. In other words, we WERE NOT TOLD that the air conditioning was broken until AFTER we were stuck on board and unable to deplane.

In my posting I only citied my experience and perception and also details that were divulged to me by the flight attendant on board (please go ahead, look her up and ask her to validate). She told me why the pilot would need to fly low, and the fact that the air con unit had broken down on an earlier flight, and implied that all of these equipment problems are typical of Delta. I am not a technical expert -- just a dissatisfied customer who experienced a bad flight.

The pilot announced the altitude at which he would be flying; I don't have an altitude meter to determine the actual altitude at which he flew the plane--good for him if he actually flew higher. I still stand behind my complaint that Delta could have communicated the situation more accurately to their passengers. Some passengers, like my husband, have a health condition and, therefore, we could have made alternate arrangements IF WE KNEW IN ADVANCE what the conditions in the aircraft would be like. The lower altitude felt dangerously low to me--perhaps that is the one point that everyone is so hostile about if it indeed posed no additional risk. It seems logical to me that when a broken air conditioning unit and the need to fly much lower are connected (as the flight attendant stated in cause and effect terms), this is somehow connected with passenger safety.

I love hearing the defenses about the baggage snafus as well. Three of our bags were boarded on an earlier flight and one of our other family member's bags were on our flight. When I say family members, I'm talking people with different surnames -- Delta would have no knowledge that we were part of the same "group." Bottom line is, way too many bags get mishandled way too many times and it is always pain in the rear end to the customer. Any time a bag is lost is lower than the standard level of service that any airline should meet-regardless of the situation. Customers should expect their bags to be on their plane--or be rightly irritated for the inconvenience.

On our particular flight, it was several things on a single flight experience(the broken air con, flying at a lower altitude, the lack of running water, the broken seatback which I didn't even mention, the bags being mishandled) adding up to a lack a my confidence about Delta's level of quality control. That is based on my perception and experience.

At any rate, Delta responded with the standard $50 travel vouchers on a future flight.

This is supposed to be a productive forum and a thread about describing problems and EXPERIENCES but it really felt like an attack from people who are more interested in investigating the accuracy of the claims rather than hearing customer's in flight problems and experiences. I have no interest in participating in further postings or conversations in this type of environment. Good luck to everyone else who chooses to post here!

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by mgoodman@pacificlife.com

First of all, it occurs to me that far too many people have way too much time on their hands and are spending A LOT of time analyzing and picking apart my complaint! All that analysis to determine whether or not my complaint is valid or not? REally???! Sorry, but I have more important things to do than to be making up things for fun.

Actually, it took very little time. You were never accused of "making things up for fun." It was merely pointed out that you were misinformed and that certain facts didn't support some of your statements. Well, not some but most. FlightStats and FlightAware use data supplied by the FAA. The data says only 14 minutes elapsed between push back and takeoff and that the airraft reached an altitude of 22,000 feet. Those facts are indisputable yet you still claim you were subjected to a long confinement in an overheated cabin and that the cruising altitude "felt dangerously low." Also in your own words, "In my posting I only citied(sic) my experience and perception..." Sorry that your perception, in this case, was over-exaggerated. Facts are facts and perceptions are not.

[jimworcs]

It's the Airline Complaints experience.... but take some reassurance... the "experts" are often wrong!!

[justme]

I still stand behind my complaint that Delta could have communicated the situation more accurately to their passengers.

It wasn't "Delta" actually. It was flight 4558, which is more than likely either an ASA or Skywest flight number. Yes, it is technically a Delta flight, but it is operated by a completely different company.

She told me why the pilot would need to fly low, and the fact that the air con unit had broken down on an earlier flight, and implied that all of these equipment problems are typical of Delta. I am not a technical expert -- just a dissatisfied customer who experienced a bad flight.

The FA is just that, an FA... not a mechanic or an engineer... they (making a generalization) have no clue how an airplane works other than it has engines and wings that make it fly. I wouldn't trust what an FA says about mechanical functions of the airplane if you gave me a million dollars to do so.

Some passengers, like my husband, have a health condition and, therefore, we could have made alternate arrangements IF WE KNEW IN ADVANCE what the conditions in the aircraft would be like.

How far in advance would you expect to know? The airline often doesn't know which A/C they're going to use until 4 or 5 (max) days prior to the flight date. Plus, the air could have broken that morning or the night before, you never know.

It seems logical to me that when a broken air conditioning unit and the need to fly much lower are connected...

That's the problem... they're not connected in any way what-so-ever. If you flew at a lower altitude, which was determined by PHX's research that you in fact didn't, it would have had nothing to do with the air being broken.

[jimworcs]

Just me...

The point is, that the poster is subjected to a whole barrage of posts, many of which slam the customer. I have no objection to correcting the factual errors of the poster nor challenging their peception if it appears to have been wrong. I did it myself, when stated that there was no safety implication in "flying low". What is at issue, is the overall tone..

I think the tone taken by ex airline employees, current ones and "sympathizers" closely resembles the break down in relationships between an industry which is out of control and it's customers. When monopolies get control of a market, it is not just the customer who suffers. They also start to squeeze the employees, stripping them of not just benefits, decent pay and conditions, but also of any authority or control over their jobs. This creates the atmosphere of resentment and hostility which is pervasive in the US airline industry. Customer services reps have been battered down so much that they now operate like cowboys. This forum, my3cents, skytrax, etc are littered with examples in which customers have been ripped off, taken advantage of and exploited and it is indefensible. This hostile tone is reflected in many (although by no means all) of the posts in these forums.

[Jetliner]

Sorry, but she is going to be subject to the barrage of posts making some of the statements she has.

She is claiming that there was no AC on the flight, yet it's an indisputable fact that she flew at 24,000 which would not be possible if the AC was broken. If she had, she would be dead. End of story. Yet she continues with the complaint.

It's a bit like the person who claimed that they had two pictures of the same part falling off of a Southwest jet, and it was proven to be something on the lens of the plane. But even in the face of indisputable evidence, she continued to claim otherwise.

[ChrisH]

The airplane did not fly "dangerously low", LOL!!! if it was dangerous, they would have delayed, or canceled the flight. Planes can fly low like that, including airlines. They still have Air Traffic Control. They flew low to remain at an altitude where the temperature wouldn't be 90 degree, or 30 degrees.