dojetdriver

Never been to NRT, but that simply wouldn't work in JFK, EWR, or LGA.

HSLD

Not sure why pilots, who get paid by the hour, are unhappy about this.

If congress isn't addressing the cause of not being able to depart/block in within 3 hours - then what is this law going to change?

USMCFLYR

Not sure about *false imprisonment* since that would require the crew intentionally holding them against their will. The definition of false imprisonment is - intentionally restraining another person without having the legal right to do so. It's not necessary that physical force be used; threats or a show of apparent authority are sufficient. Forces outside of the pilots control are causing the delay. Now if you are suggesting that if this law passes and then the passenger wishes to deplane and the pilot violates the LAW by not complying - now you might have some type of legit complaint.

USMCFLYR

newKnow

If you are versed enough to bring up the "reasonable standard" test, you should know that there is no set amount of time that makes something unreasonable. It depends on the facts of the situation and what the trier of fact determines is reasonable for the circumstances.

This is exactly why a rule/law that specifies that at 3 hoursall of a sudden it becomes unreasonable and you have to go back to the gate is bs.

Flight crews, and their support systems, for the most part, know what is reasonable and do everything in their power to act reasonably. With that rule, you take the decision out of the hands of the people with the most information at the time and potentially give it to someone who does not.

hat person--the new decisionmaker/passenger-- could be intoxicaed, deranged, 1/2 asleep, ect. He even could have been fully informed before he got on the airplane that it would take 3 hours and 30 min to take off and then change his mind at 3:00 when you are about to go.

If pilots and dispatchers were holding people on the airplane all the time, on purpose, for no reason, I would see a need for a new law. But, that is not the case.

New K Now

newKnow

USMC,

You just saved me from having to make post #2.

ClipperJet

You are all missing the point of the proposed legislation. It has nothing to do with letting passengers off the plane after 3 hours. Like someone said in an earlier post, if you could, in fact, get to the gate after landing in 3 hours, you would have already done so.

So what's the point? Since this is impossible to implement, and whatever you think of the Senate, they are not stupid. The people who actually benefit are (drum roll please...)

Before I answer that, think about what group of people give the most money to the leaders of the Senate? Who isn't being mentioned/reigned in at all in the debate over healthcare costs?

Yep, you guessed it: TRIAL LAWYERS!!!!

With this legislation, they will have a stronger legal basis to prove their clients' hardship/etc. and do so by showing how the Capt violated the law in the process.

This is an attempt to give lawyers another way to make money, plain and simple.

wheresmyplane

I can't speak for everyone, but at Comair, If I sat on the taxiway for 3 hours and went back, the second that door opened, I just lost 3 hours of credit. Now, we weren't flying, but it's not like I wasn't on duty either. I don't think we need to keep passengers on the plane for 12 hours with the lavs overflowing just for the sake of our paycheck, but it should definitely fall into the PIC responsibility to decide when to go back. I think most responsible crews can make that call on their own. We only hear about the ones that can't.

HSLD

I'm sure the Comair pilot group sees the need to negotiate block out/block in pay timers & wish their negotiating committee the best in getting that for the pilots. Hard to believe one would be asked to operate on arguably the most demanding and potentially dangerous phases of flight without pay. I'm hard pressed to recall any recent flight plan that would allow for a 3 hour pre-departure APU burn - in addition to taxi fuel - and stay with in current fuel policy. Aside from letting passengers off, I'd be going back for fuel too. Of course enroute diversion is not failure - and you got your off time.

I agree that passenger shouldn't be help captive, after all they pay our wages and it's best to keep them happy. However, any law that doesn't address the cause of such delays is only transferring blame.

HercDriver130

you want cheese with that whine riddler?

Phrog Phlyer

Agreed on both points although I'm not sure how they'd mandate airport ops except with more slot controls.

We have a vote for a return to Airline Regulation. Do we have a second?