US Senate Proposes 3-hr max tarmac rule.
07-15-2009, 04:07 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Better yet, how about this is not the approach we take. The guys over on the 4th floor here at Delta have come up with 43 or 73 suggestions on how to improve the NYC airspace. (I cannot remember the correct number off the top of my head) To date the FAA has not listened to any of them.
How about the FAA tries some of these before these blowhards in DC come up with some asinine law that will cause more harm than good.
How about the FAA tries some of these before these blowhards in DC come up with some asinine law that will cause more harm than good.
07-15-2009, 04:12 PM
#12
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
No, like airspace changes.
Deregulation sucks. But if we do re-regulate, about 1/3 of us will be on the street and quick. If that is what it takes then so be it. This profession needs to get better and quick or we are in deep trouble.
Deregulation sucks. But if we do re-regulate, about 1/3 of us will be on the street and quick. If that is what it takes then so be it. This profession needs to get better and quick or we are in deep trouble.
07-15-2009, 04:56 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Unquestionably.
I just wonder what sort of economic impact analysis the good Senators did prior to introducing this legislation? Surely they did their due diligence?
As overseer's of the FAA, they're far more culpable for most ultra-long tarmac sits than airlines ever were. After literally billions and billions poured into the FAA for the past 2-3 decades, I don't see things getting any better (except for the ultra-cool code word "NEXT-GEN").
I'm merely concerned because this will be an unknown, yet probably significant, cost for the airlines who operate out of places like JFK.
I just wonder what sort of economic impact analysis the good Senators did prior to introducing this legislation? Surely they did their due diligence?
As overseer's of the FAA, they're far more culpable for most ultra-long tarmac sits than airlines ever were. After literally billions and billions poured into the FAA for the past 2-3 decades, I don't see things getting any better (except for the ultra-cool code word "NEXT-GEN").
I'm merely concerned because this will be an unknown, yet probably significant, cost for the airlines who operate out of places like JFK.
I'm a pilot yes, airline pilot no but I do understand the challenges in congested terminal areas and it's impact on flight operations in those areas. I do get the fact that there are other ways to fix this problem as ACL has pointed out. My point is, should airlines continue to make pax sit in the back of these aircraft for 5,6,7(whatever) hours in the hopes they get going sooner than later? In the grand scheme of things are the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order effects of letting some pax off the airplane that huge when they are already that late or the aircraft is that late in getting to its desired location to support a schedule?
I'm not throwing a spear here, but I do think there ought to be some common sense applied by those PICs you all mention to keep in mind that they have a responsibility to not only the company but the pax in back and their comfort. Not every passenger back there is the typical, in shape, type A personality that can sit in the jet for hours on end.... It's not about a passenger overriding a PIC, it's just about common sense IMHO. I would hope that if I'm ever in the position to make the decision I would know when to call a baby ugly and go back to the gate.
07-15-2009, 05:01 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Under the topic “Option of deplaning,” it requires airlines to allow passengers at their option to get off a plane that has sat on the tarmac for three hours after leaving the gate, or after landing without pulling into a gate.
USMCFLYR
Mod note -
Riddler - don't try to turn this thread into some mainline -vs- regional bashfest. FOCUS on the potential law please.
07-15-2009, 05:01 PM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
My first reaction was to get ****ed off........then I thought about it and had a change of heart.
Okay........he/she wants off, fine. Even if we get to a gate quickly, I'm going to refuel and we'll have to take a place in the BACK of the line (another 3 hours ???). Now, what happens when I get back out and 30 minutes later, more want off (after the "back of the line speech" and the "congressional mandate" speech)..........does the clock reset ? How many times do I go back to the gate ?
Crew fatigue and duty time are going to turn what sounds like a good idea into a nightmare and my guess is the majority of pax will go bananas. But maybe this is what is neede to fix the problem............DELAYS.
This is a feeble band-aid (at best) that will only worsen the issue instead of solving it. But, if congress and the FAA aare involved, expect them to muck it up on schedule and back peddle later.
Everyone relax and enjoy the sitcom that's coming.......we've earned it.
Okay........he/she wants off, fine. Even if we get to a gate quickly, I'm going to refuel and we'll have to take a place in the BACK of the line (another 3 hours ???). Now, what happens when I get back out and 30 minutes later, more want off (after the "back of the line speech" and the "congressional mandate" speech)..........does the clock reset ? How many times do I go back to the gate ?
Crew fatigue and duty time are going to turn what sounds like a good idea into a nightmare and my guess is the majority of pax will go bananas. But maybe this is what is neede to fix the problem............DELAYS.
This is a feeble band-aid (at best) that will only worsen the issue instead of solving it. But, if congress and the FAA aare involved, expect them to muck it up on schedule and back peddle later.
Everyone relax and enjoy the sitcom that's coming.......we've earned it.
07-15-2009, 05:10 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Am I missing something here too on the above sentence? This would apply to AFTER LANDING too? So an airplane is on in the middle of the airport, stuck for whatever reason, trying to get to the gate for over 3 hours, and they are going to have some RIGHT TO DEMAND that they make it to the gate quicker than they are already trying? Better yet - they are going to be able to DEMAND that they be allowed to deplane? What are they going to do? Roll out a pair of airstairs to the middle of the airfield and then have said passenger hump across the runways and taxiways with their carry-on (or does the law allow them to dig around in the luggage compartment for their checked baggage too)?
USMCFLYR
Mod note -
Riddler - don't try to turn this thread into some mainline -vs- regional bashfest. FOCUS on the potential law please.
USMCFLYR
Mod note -
Riddler - don't try to turn this thread into some mainline -vs- regional bashfest. FOCUS on the potential law please.
NRT had a great plan in place for just that scenario...flying on a NWA 747 into NRT we landed, and sat on the ramp for an hour(13 hour flight) waiting for a gate. After an hour we taxiid to the NWA cargo area and did just that, offloaded on a mobile ladder and into buses to customs and then to the terminal. Now, obviously the length of flight across the pond and time already on the jet had something to do with that as well as fuel I would imagine but there are ways to clear gates and offload pax in that situation in my opinion especially on domestic flights where customs is not an issue.
07-15-2009, 05:29 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 880
Inconvenience the "other 200 people onboard?" Don't you mean "other 47 people crammed into an RJ that replaced a mainline jet, carries 1/3 to 1/2 the passengers, takes up the same amount of airspace and gate space, and helps cause the friggin 3 hour delays in the first place?"
I know, it's an incendiary remark...
I know, it's an incendiary remark...
07-15-2009, 05:29 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
