Passenger Bill of Rights for air travel

[pilot fish]

The fact, as you youself stated, that they did not go wheels up, fly, after waiting 11 hours on the runway. The airline did not require they fly then because they realized they could not perform that duty safely. Do you understand now how you made my point?

That degree of discomfort leads to a safety issue.

I think we're done here.:shakehead

Your point was that they were unsafe. They're only unsafe (to the passengers) if they're actually flying. Which they weren't. Ergo, they weren't unsafe. Doesn't prove your point at all.



Yes, I can see the difference. But, how does that comfort add up to less frustration? I'd think that a pilot would want to fly. Restricting that due to weather would be frustrating, regardless of how comfortable you made them. We were talking frustration levels (and fatigue and safety). You changed to comfort.

 

[OHGoDive]

Chairman of JetBlue's statement last night on the news and reconfirmation this morning on CNN news. Is that reliable enough for you?

Do you think that is adequate and reasonable compensation for that degree of discomfort? What about your hotel bill at the resort you never showed at, meals paid for etc?:shakehead

Oh, well, heard it on CNN. I humbly submit.

 

[pilot fish]

Oh, well, heard it on CNN. I humbly submit.

Yes, those words coming out of the mouth of the CEO of JetBlue on CNN.

Submission accepted, and appreciated

 

[Diver Dennis]

How often does this happen? I would submit that the frequency is extremely low. It is definitely a screw-up and I'm not defending the airline or whoever caused it but as has been pointed out here the bad publicity will keep things like this from happening very often.

 

[pilot fish]

I understand your point Dennis but it is now happening with increasding frequency, due to larger traveling population. We legislate how certain products perform all the time and what is reasonable to expect from a service you need performed. This kind of thing can happen for all sorts of reasons but what the proposed Bill is trying to prevent is, UNREASONABLE DELAYS THAT EXCEED 3 HOURS. I thinik it is not asking too much for an airline to pull out of line after 3 hours and give travelers an opportunity for alterntive travel, or money back, or something.

How often does this happen? I would submit that the frequency is extremely low. It is definitely a screw-up and I'm not defending the airline or whoever caused it but as has been pointed out here the bad publicity will keep things like this from happening very often.

 

[akbpilot]

(In fact, if there are any commercial pilots here, can you answer this? If you're in the cockpit waiting on the ground, does that count toward your "shift time"? That is, if you sit in the cockpit for 11 hours, do the rules that limit the number of hours you can be on the job apply the same as if you'd been in the air?)QUOTE]

Yes, time logged in the cockpit is part of shift time, and if I understand the "new" (actually been around for quite some time) criteria developed by the FAA and the airlines to increase the number of "on-time" departures, the minute that planes rolls back from the gate, it is listed as "Departed".

 

[OHGoDive]

I understand your point Dennis but it is now happening with increasding frequency, due to larger traveling population.

I don't think this is true. Can you quantify this claim? (other than you hear about it more on CNN)

We legislate how certain products perform all the time and what is reasonable to expect from a service you need performed.

Who is we? Airline travel isn't a "product", it's a service. Do we really legislate the timeliness of services all the time? No one legislates how quickly FedEx gets your package there. How long it will take your dry cleaner to press your shirts. How long ScubaToys has to deliver your new regulator. You can legislate the safety of a product, but really, we legislate how timely the service industry is?

This kind of thing can happen for all sorts of reasons but what the proposed Bill is trying to prevent is, UNREASONABLE DELAYS THAT EXCEED 3 HOURS. I thinik it is not asking too much for an airline to pull out of line after 3 hours and give travelers an opportunity for alterntive travel, or money back, or something.

Who decides what is unreasonable?

And what really worries me is the "or something". Where is that "or something" going to come from? Yep, higher ticket prices. For everyone.

Except for the very rare horror stories like what happened to JetBlue, this just doesn't happen that often. It really doesn't. Certainly not on a per passenger basis. And if it happens to you, do what most people do when service isn't up to their satisfaction, they look elsewhere.

 

[Garrobo]

Again: BUSSES.

 

[DandyDon]

I would call the airline's customer service center (from my cell phone) and tell them that we're stuck on the tarmac, and my next phone call is to the local news.

And tell both to hurry, because the mutiny & revolt to escape the tube is really pretty eminent. :light:

I think it's pretty safe to say that this whole episode was a big screw up and that I am sure that all of the negative publicity for the airline is more than enough to prevent this from happening again.

For now. It should not have happened the first time, or the second, or the third. The American pilot was reported to have decided to return to the terminal without permission - saying he should have done it sooner...!

But the Jetblue pilots stuck it out there for 7 & 11 hours? Must have been warned what would happen to them if they did what the American pilot did.

How often does this happen? I would submit that the frequency is extremely low. It is definitely a screw-up and I'm not defending the airline or whoever caused it but as has been pointed out here the bad publicity will keep things like this from happening very often.

Should never be allowed to happen, but will again if allowed.

I would like to see a legal limit imposed, and two hours seems plenty to me. Beyond that, I'd going to start asking other passengers who would be with me in taking action. They'd arrest me if I tried something alone, but if 20 of us took action as a team - doubt it.

I'm thinking start with a chant, get the whole plane screaming together - with cell phones on to the various news stations listening and recording. "Live from JFK, here is what we are hearing from a cell phone call from a plane full of mutinous passengers who have been entombed for hours on a XYZ plane parked within sight of an empty gate"

 

[webhead]

Why would confinement on the tarmac for 11 hours be any more cruel and unusual than confinement for 11 hours over the Pacific Ocean at 37,000 feet? Because you can see a terminal???

Because on that 11 hour flight, you have working toilets, clean drinkable water and hopefully an environment of heated (pretty cold at 35,000 feet), filtered air. That was not the case in any of these "flights".

Reality is that yes, you can see the terminal and there is no earthly reason why you cannot unload passengers from a parked plane that has backed up toilets and no water. Would an airline actually let a plane take off in a condition like that? Image adding 3 hours to your ordeal on a plane with overflowing toilets and NOT being able to get off the plane easily.