US Senate Proposes 3-hr max tarmac rule.
07-15-2009, 01:39 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
US Senate Proposes 3-hr max tarmac rule.
Apparently the US Senate is going to slide a provision into an omnibus FAA bill that will force airlines to give passengers the option to deplane after a 3 hour wait on the tarmac, either on pushback or on the way into the gate.
If implemented, any passenger who's on your plane 3+ hours on the tarmac would be able to effectively order the PIC to return to the gate. Immediately. Nice to know that that fat dude in seat 34e or the gum-smacking teenager in seat 29b who wants off would have the power to override your PIC authority and massively inconvenience the other 200 people on the plane and , eh?
There are no qualifiers that would allow the PIC to overrule this; the only reqirement is that a passenger wait 3 hours, then demand to be let off. EXCEPT: For the brave <stupid?> pilot who is reasonably certain that he can get it off the ground an additional 30 minutes.
Right or wrong, this is yet another unfunded mandate on an airline model that's not exactly flush with cash right now. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it's sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Olympia Snowe. Read into that what you will.
(apologies if this has been posted already . . . I looked first, I promise!)
================================================== ===== Joe Sharkey At Large Blog Archive New Senate FAA Bill Sets 3-Hour Limit on Tarmac Delays
New Senate FAA Bill Sets 3-Hour Limit on Tarmac Delays
Tucked deep in the FAA reauthorization bill introduced in the Senate today is a provision that, if it stands, is guaranteed to give the screaming-meemies to the airline industry.
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.
The provision is radioactive to the airline industry, which has battled the evolving of the so-called passengers-rights movement led by California activist Kate Hanni, who was stranded on a parked plane for eight hours along with thousands of other passengers in late 2006.
So-called stranding incidents occurred with disturbing frequency throughout 2007 and 2008. Typically, passengers sat on parked planes as conditions deteriorated, without food, sometimes with toilets overflowing or not working, for up to 12 hours.
Hanni pushed relentlessly for the three-hour provision. The airline industry is pushing relentlessly to keep it from becoming law.
The stranding incidents have become infrequent in the last six months, as air travel demand has lessened and as some airlines have put better practices into place to head off the horrible publicity these situations brought (largely as a result of the indefatigable Hanni and the grassroots group she formed, the Coalition for an Airliner Passengers Bill of Rights.)
I’ve known Kate since she first started working on her lonely quest, trudging the halls of Congress in the winter of 2007. Consistently, I have told her that, while her efforts were clearly having results in focusing public and industry attention on the problem, there was no way she was ever going to get a federal law passed that requires airlines to bring a plane back to a gate under these circumstances. I now wonder if I have been dead wrong on that.
Here’s a joint press release today from Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe, who were responsible for the passengers bill of rights provisions, including the three-hour rule, in the current FAA bill. Hanni worked closely with both senators on this.
The Senate bill now has to be reconciled with the House bill. Lobbying will intensify and the airline industry will call in chits to try to dislodge the passengers-rights provisions.
The airline industry, which was freed from most federal regulation in a landmark 1978 law, swore that the three-hour provision would never happen and mounted a huge lobbying effort against it.
It’s the airlines’ position that they themselves can fix the problems, and that well-established federal law prevents interference in their operations, other than for such matters as air-traffic control and safety. The airlines say that allowing a passenger to turn a plane back to a gate after three or more hours can cause chaos in flight schedules — for example by causing planes to lose their place in takeoff queues during bad weather.
But there it is in the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill (which still has not become law). Three hours on the tarmac and sorry, back to the gate if a passenger demands it.
The exceptions are if a pilot “reasonably determines” that the plane will in fact take off within 30 minutes after the three-hour tarmac delay, or if the pilot cites a safety concern. Pilots themselves have expressed no organized opposition to the three-hour provision except to insist, quite correctly, that they are responsible for safety.
James May, the president of the Air Transport Association, testified against the three-hour rule and other proposed passengers-rights legislation during hearings on the FAA reauthorization bill. He said legislation was not necessary.
May said that the industry trade group had consistently maintained that airlines “would learn from the unusual and extreme events of December 2006 and February 2007″ [when the most heavily publicized airline strandings incidents occurred]. Airlines, he said, would and did learn “how to better handle lengthy delay situations and improve the process to cancel flights.”
We’ll be hearing more from the airline industry on this, oh, I’d say any minute now.
If implemented, any passenger who's on your plane 3+ hours on the tarmac would be able to effectively order the PIC to return to the gate. Immediately. Nice to know that that fat dude in seat 34e or the gum-smacking teenager in seat 29b who wants off would have the power to override your PIC authority and massively inconvenience the other 200 people on the plane and , eh?
There are no qualifiers that would allow the PIC to overrule this; the only reqirement is that a passenger wait 3 hours, then demand to be let off. EXCEPT: For the brave <stupid?> pilot who is reasonably certain that he can get it off the ground an additional 30 minutes.
Right or wrong, this is yet another unfunded mandate on an airline model that's not exactly flush with cash right now. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it's sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Olympia Snowe. Read into that what you will.
(apologies if this has been posted already . . . I looked first, I promise!)
================================================== ===== Joe Sharkey At Large Blog Archive New Senate FAA Bill Sets 3-Hour Limit on Tarmac Delays
New Senate FAA Bill Sets 3-Hour Limit on Tarmac Delays
Tucked deep in the FAA reauthorization bill introduced in the Senate today is a provision that, if it stands, is guaranteed to give the screaming-meemies to the airline industry.
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.
The provision is radioactive to the airline industry, which has battled the evolving of the so-called passengers-rights movement led by California activist Kate Hanni, who was stranded on a parked plane for eight hours along with thousands of other passengers in late 2006.
So-called stranding incidents occurred with disturbing frequency throughout 2007 and 2008. Typically, passengers sat on parked planes as conditions deteriorated, without food, sometimes with toilets overflowing or not working, for up to 12 hours.
Hanni pushed relentlessly for the three-hour provision. The airline industry is pushing relentlessly to keep it from becoming law.
The stranding incidents have become infrequent in the last six months, as air travel demand has lessened and as some airlines have put better practices into place to head off the horrible publicity these situations brought (largely as a result of the indefatigable Hanni and the grassroots group she formed, the Coalition for an Airliner Passengers Bill of Rights.)
I’ve known Kate since she first started working on her lonely quest, trudging the halls of Congress in the winter of 2007. Consistently, I have told her that, while her efforts were clearly having results in focusing public and industry attention on the problem, there was no way she was ever going to get a federal law passed that requires airlines to bring a plane back to a gate under these circumstances. I now wonder if I have been dead wrong on that.
Here’s a joint press release today from Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe, who were responsible for the passengers bill of rights provisions, including the three-hour rule, in the current FAA bill. Hanni worked closely with both senators on this.
The Senate bill now has to be reconciled with the House bill. Lobbying will intensify and the airline industry will call in chits to try to dislodge the passengers-rights provisions.
The airline industry, which was freed from most federal regulation in a landmark 1978 law, swore that the three-hour provision would never happen and mounted a huge lobbying effort against it.
It’s the airlines’ position that they themselves can fix the problems, and that well-established federal law prevents interference in their operations, other than for such matters as air-traffic control and safety. The airlines say that allowing a passenger to turn a plane back to a gate after three or more hours can cause chaos in flight schedules — for example by causing planes to lose their place in takeoff queues during bad weather.
But there it is in the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill (which still has not become law). Three hours on the tarmac and sorry, back to the gate if a passenger demands it.
The exceptions are if a pilot “reasonably determines” that the plane will in fact take off within 30 minutes after the three-hour tarmac delay, or if the pilot cites a safety concern. Pilots themselves have expressed no organized opposition to the three-hour provision except to insist, quite correctly, that they are responsible for safety.
James May, the president of the Air Transport Association, testified against the three-hour rule and other proposed passengers-rights legislation during hearings on the FAA reauthorization bill. He said legislation was not necessary.
May said that the industry trade group had consistently maintained that airlines “would learn from the unusual and extreme events of December 2006 and February 2007″ [when the most heavily publicized airline strandings incidents occurred]. Airlines, he said, would and did learn “how to better handle lengthy delay situations and improve the process to cancel flights.”
We’ll be hearing more from the airline industry on this, oh, I’d say any minute now.
07-15-2009, 01:57 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 872
3 hours is a long time but I have seen it on more than one occasion.
Ok so if the delay is 3 + hours, we sit for 3 and change and tell ground we need to go back to the gate for uncle sam. They say fine but I won't be able to move you for at least another 1.5 hours. Welcome to NY senator.
Govt FTL.
Ok so if the delay is 3 + hours, we sit for 3 and change and tell ground we need to go back to the gate for uncle sam. They say fine but I won't be able to move you for at least another 1.5 hours. Welcome to NY senator.
Govt FTL.
07-15-2009, 02:06 PM
#4
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
3 hours is a long time but I have seen it on more than one occasion.
Ok so if the delay is 3 + hours, we sit for 3 and change and tell ground we need to go back to the gate for uncle sam. They say fine but I won't be able to move you for at least another 1.5 hours. Welcome to NY senator.
Govt FTL.
Ok so if the delay is 3 + hours, we sit for 3 and change and tell ground we need to go back to the gate for uncle sam. They say fine but I won't be able to move you for at least another 1.5 hours. Welcome to NY senator.
Govt FTL.
On top of that I'm sure the pax will be thrilled when they find out they won't be able to get to their destination for another 3+ days due to loads.
07-15-2009, 02:09 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
It may make the airlines have a more realistic sked, especially in conjested airports like JFK...if the govt is going to put these changes in place, the govt should also mandate and enforce only sustainable levels in operations to airports. 3 hours is to long
07-15-2009, 02:50 PM
#7
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
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.
07-15-2009, 03:40 PM
#8
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
You can taxi around JFK and be in motion for 3 hours and still not get airborne.
It would curtail the paid by the hour crowd a bit. But I think people movers ought to be allowed on the taxiways and there should be a requirement that it takes more than 1 passenger to make this happen, like say 3 passengers or 5% whichever is higher.
It would curtail the paid by the hour crowd a bit. But I think people movers ought to be allowed on the taxiways and there should be a requirement that it takes more than 1 passenger to make this happen, like say 3 passengers or 5% whichever is higher.
07-15-2009, 03:44 PM
#9
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
You can taxi around JFK and be in motion for 3 hours and still not get airborne.
It would curtail the paid by the hour crowd a bit. But I think people movers ought to be allowed on the taxiways and there should be a requirement that it takes more than 1 passenger to make this happen, like say 3 passengers or 5% whichever is higher.
It would curtail the paid by the hour crowd a bit. But I think people movers ought to be allowed on the taxiways and there should be a requirement that it takes more than 1 passenger to make this happen, like say 3 passengers or 5% whichever is higher.
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, 03:48 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma
Posts: 593
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...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
