Passenger Bill of Rights for air travel

[DandyDon]

If you look at 2006, you'll see that 77.4% of all flights were on time. So, theoretically, if they were on time, they were not delayed (at least excessively) on the tarmac.

No, I think that means at 77.4% pushed away from the gates within 15 min of schedule - even if some of them had to sit on the ground excessively before take off or after landing later. The infamous Jet Blue flight was technically on time, I think, until they finally called for evacuation.

Of the flights delayed (for all reasons), the average delay was 53 minutes. But, obviously, most of those delays would have taken place with passengers in the terminal (or still flying on a connected flight).

Yeah, and weather is generally the cause, in various was. Weather in one part of the country can prevent planes from arriving in other parts on time, so they're late there, too. Or, weather may require more fueling, fewer passengers & luggage for total loading some cases - I got a nice voucher volunteering my seat last Sept when the airline hd to lose weight on the plane. I do get pissed at Continental (and previously) Delta Regional airlines partners for not giving information on delays in the terminals, but have not be grounded with either more than a few minutes yet.

Basically, no one really knows how many people are delayed this way every year. If this was a significant problem don't you think that the airlines would have a huge litigation problem on their hands? I just find it odd to hear such indignation from people who have never had this problem.

I haven't had time to look into details. It seems to be enough to obtain the attention of many.

Why not contact the passengers that have actually been on a flight like this and formulate a class action suit?

I think there are law firms working on that now, but it's too early for new.

 

[OHGoDive]

ohgo, it is not a conspiracy between the airlines and the Gov. The airline does not produce those numbers for us to see. The Gov is not aware that ther is a need for us to have them. When we pass a P B of R it will be done. True, when a plane pulls away from the gate on time it is shown departed on time. No hysteria.

Who produces the 53 minutes of delay info? Is that the airline source? How many bridges have you bought lately?

I did not offer that as a hypothesis that happens all the time but as a question, based on your dubious info and who's source had no link. You have to realize, well, maybe not YOU, but a reasonable reader, that those facts are based on airline industry supplied data, which are the fruits of a poisonous tree.

But, you are wrong. The time when the aircraft pulls away from the gate does not constitute "on time". It just doesn't and you (and a lot of other people) like to perpetuate this myth and build on it a whole cottage industry of misconception and yes, hysteria.

From the Data Requirements and Instructions for CRS Disclosure (bold added by me for emphasis):

1. Each reporting carrier will compute the arrival delay in minutes for each reported (nonstop) flight operation in its monthly data submission by subtracting the scheduled arrival time for each flight operation per its CRS records (data field K) from the actual gate arrival time (data field L).

2. Using the data derived from the computation in paragraph 1 above, each reporting carrier will calculate, for each nonstop flight in its data submission, the percent of that flight’s operations that were on-time during the month (i.e., arrived sooner than the CRS scheduled arrival time + 15 minutes). The calculation will be performed by dividing the number of reported operations of each flight that arrived less than 15 minutes after the scheduled arrival time, by the total number of reported operations of that flight during the month.

It is the ARRIVAL time (based on the OAG published scheduled arrival) that determines on time percentage. Ok? Ok. Good.

There is no incentive to the airline to simply push back from the gate with loaded passengers if they know that plane isn't going to take off in a timely manner, that is, with a high probability of ARRIVING on time.

So no Don, the JetBlue flight was not checked off as on time when it pushed back. It is true that it was not NOT on time until enough time had elapsed to make an on time arrival impossible, but, JetBlue didn't push back just so they could receive a credit from any reporting agency. I honestly believe that they pushed back with every hope and intention of serving their passengers. It obvioiusly didn't work out that way.

And, Pilot Fish, since you assert that the numbers collected and published by the Bureau of Statistics is purposely false,

How many bridges have you bought lately?

your dubious info and who's source had no link

those facts are based on airline industry supplied data, which are the fruits of a poisonous tree

then you are claiming a conspiracy (while simultaneously implying that I am a liar, good work). Go look up the word. Not only don't your claims stand up, but they harm real efforts for reform and enhancements to an overworked, overstretched, aging system. Bills of Rights based on fallacy and hysteria will do nothing to solve the real problems plagueing air travel today or in the future. It won't.

You don't need me to justify them, go to your local airport and record the times when the planes land. Compare them against the published arrival times in your handy OAG guide. If it's within 15 minutes, it's on time, if not, it's not. It's not like this data is hidden from anyones view or ability to corroborate.

You can see. You can tell time. You can read. Go check them out for yourself.

 

[OHGoDive]

Yeah, and weather is generally the cause, in various was. Weather in one part of the country can prevent planes from arriving in other parts on time, so they're late there, too. Or, weather may require more fueling, fewer passengers & luggage for total loading some cases - I got a nice voucher volunteering my seat last Sept when the airline hd to lose weight on the plane. I do get pissed at Continental (and previously) Delta Regional airlines partners for not giving information on delays in the terminals, but have not be grounded with either more than a few minutes yet.

You're right Don, weather is responsible for the vast majority of the delay minutes. In fact, you can look at the historical data and see the years of more frequent severe weather (thunderstorms, hurricanes, snowstorms, etc.) cause simultaneous rises in the number of delay minutes. It also doesn't help that some of the US's busiest airports are also most prone to the impact of severe weather (Chicago, Dallas, Denver, etc.)

Years with better weather = years with fewer delays. It's a good indicator.

 

[OHGoDive]

If you carry on being so sensible, Pilot Fish is going to start abusing you again!

lol. Apparently after all of the abuse the airlines have subjected me to over the years, I'm immune to whatever he can offer

 

[pilot fish]

lol. Apparently after all of the abuse the airlines have subjected me to over the years, I'm immune to whatever he can offer

I think your immunity is not to anyone on this Board, it's to the facts The reason I decided not to answer you in this thread a while back is not because you are a bad person or a rude guy, I don't think you are, so far. It's that you are an airline apologist. No matter what abuse the airline hands out [ to OTHER PEOPLE because if it was to YOU, you would be singing a different tune] you accept it and take thier word that they will be different in the future. Well, it has happened before and they did not police themselves, as they promised, so it's time to enact a P B of R because they will not change until forced to.


Since you seem to have a fuzzy idea of what constitutes ABUSE, AS PRACTICED BY JETBLUE IN THIS INCIDENT, let me give you some synonyms for abouse to help you better grap what we are asserting: maltreatment, mistreatment, neglect, illtreatment. Now, confining passengers on a cramped plane that is PARKED on the tarmac for 11 LONG hours, with no water, bad air, clogged toliets and no information of what is going on, is, we assert, neglect, illtreatment, mistreatment = ABUSE ,and needs to be addressed. Hope this help you?:shakehead

 

[OHGoDive]

I think your immunity is not to anyone on this Board, it's to the facts The reason I decided not to answer you in this thread a while back is not because you are a bad person or a rude guy, I don't think you are, so far. It's that you are an airline apologist. No matter what abuse the airline hands out [ to OTHER PEOPLE because if it was to YOU, you would be singing a different tune] you accept it and take thier word that they will be different in the future. Well, it has happened before and they did not police themselves, as they promised, so it's time to enact a P B of R because they will not change until forced to.


Since you seem to have a fuzzy idea of what constitutes ABUSE, AS PRACTICED BY JETBLUE IN THIS INCIDENT, let me give you some synonyms for abouse to help you better grap what we are asserting: maltreatment, mistreatment, neglect, illtreatment. Now, confining passengers on a cramped plane that is PARKED on the tarmac for 11 LONG hours, with no water, bad air, clogged toliets and no information of what is going on, is, we assert, neglect, illtreatment, mistreatment = ABUSE ,and needs to be addressed. Hope this help you?:shakehead

Well, no, I'm not immune to facts. In fact, between the two of us, I am the only one that is offering facts.

I am in no way apologizing for the airlines, as you would realize were you interested in actually discussing the thread. My posts have consistently said that there are many issues involved in air travel that need to be addressed. A singular, very rare instance of such an issue is leaving passengers on the tarmac for 11 hours.

Where you and I differ, apart from how we conduct ourselves, is in whether or not a Passenger Bill of Rights will actually solve any of these issues. And that was, and still is, the title of this thread.

You feel that the Bill of Rights is necessary and demand that it be implemented. By Congress, no less. You toss out hyperbole and outright misinformation to boost your argument.

I feel that Government intervention, specifically in the form of a Bill of Rights, will do no good. It will, perhaps, based on historical record, even do harm overall, to the air travel experience. In terms of aggravations, additional costs, etc. I, and others, put forth facts, history, and issues to back up our position.

Additionally, I feel that while 11 hours on a plane is excessive. I don't agree with you that it constitutes abuse. Unless you were on that plane, I don't think your adjectives, colorful as they may be, are very convincing. Sorry, I just don't. If I had been on the plane, and it was as bad as you seem to think it was, perhaps I'd think differently. But, then again, I haven't seen anything from anyone actually on the plane who said it was anywhere near as grueling as you have been saying it was. That's the facts, Jack.

You ignore them. Not counter them. Just ignore them. Or pepper spray back insults, invective, and all sorts of histrionics.

I'm having a discussion. I'm not sure what, exactly, you are doing.

It didn't help me, but, hey, as long as you're enjoying yourself.

 

[Diver Dennis]

I heard on CNN last night that the FAA in Virginia did not give the OK to go to a winter storm plan after being asked by the airport in question permission to do so. Perhaps it is not only the airline that is culpable in this incident?

 

[pilot fish]

"Additionally, I feel that while 11 hours on a plane is excessive. I don't agree with you that it constitutes abuse.]][ohgo



That is one of the salient points in this discussion, which you continually fail to see. Since that forms the basis for a need for a Passenger Bill of Rights, to prevent this from ever occurring again, and YOU do not grasp, further responses from me to you are obviously fruitless

 

[pilot fish]

I heard on CNN last night that the FAA in Virginia did not give the OK to go to a winter storm plan after being asked by the airport in question permission to do so. Perhaps it is not only the airline that is culpable in this incident?

Perhaps that area was not that bad?

 

[Diver Dennis]

The FAA saw exactly how bad it was there but chose not to let the plan be implemented, according to CNN. The airport has to ask for permission evidently.