Outrage on tarmac delays--you want to know, DOT wants to know

What does it mean that an article from over the weekend on a nightmare flight delay is yesterday's "Most Viewed" news item in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune? I think it means that reasonable people are outraged at the idea of being stuck on a small plane for seven hours. I think it means that flyers and those who are considering flying want to know that should a delay occur, they will be treated respectfully.

That is why we have sent a letter to Continental Airlines inquiring into the circumstances of its recent Continental/Express Jet flight 2816 extended delay.

When I was in Congress, I did a lot of traveling to and from my district in Illinois, so I'm not unfamiliar with the experience of sitting on the tarmac, waiting--whether for clearance from the tower, further instructions from the airline, or simply some information from the crew. I know being stuck on a plane is no fun.

But I also know that delays happen for many reasons, most of which are beyond the airline's control.

That's why the letter to Continental  simply seeks answers to a few questions. Basically, we want to know what I think all of us want to know:

1. Why the flight was diverted to Rochester, Minnesota, in particular;
2. Which carrier, Continental or Express Jet, was responsible for the well-being of the passengers and, in particular, which carrier’s contingency plan was implemented during the tarmac delay;
3. Whether Continental/ExpressJet had in place at Rochester procedures regarding the deplaning of passengers on diverted flights at diversion airports without TSA presence and if not, why not;
4. Whether such procedures were implemented with respect to flight 2816 and if not, why not;
5. Why flight 2816 was forced to stay on the ground at Rochester for as long as it did; and
6. An explanation of the passenger’s treatment during the delay, including once they were inside the airport terminal.

The letter also asks Continental for similar information about other recent delays.

What will we do with the answers Continental provides?

Well, last year at the recommendation of the DOT Office of Inspector General,  we  established the National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The model plans suggest what steps airlines and airports may take to alleviate passenger discomfort, but the Task Force could not require any action by airlines. 

However, DOT has a rulemaking in progress that proposes to require airlines to take certain steps to deal with lengthy tarmac delays, including establishing contingency plans that meet basic passenger needs during a lengthy tarmac delay.  Some have proposed that DOT go further and set a time limit for carriers to deplane passengers.  While I can't comment on the merits of the proposed rule yet, we will use the information Continental provides to help us reach a decision about what direction to go in that rulemaking.

Whatever shape any rule might take, I want readers to know that DOT is trying to help reduce the discomfort--and the resentment--that can turn a lengthy delay into a nightmare.

Comments

[Gideon yuval]

whatever rule you make, make it a safety rule. Declare that if stranding is too long, passengerss have the right, and crews the obligation, to deploy the emergency evacuation slides. Will wake up the bean-counters real fast ...

[Gideon yuval]

a live number 1-800-STRANDD (leading to someone with clout) would also help

[x]

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The foolishness of rule-following rather than thinking is one of the most insane of all civilized practices. Lemmings, is that what people are? Let me remind people of something. Hitlar was elected by a rule following, civilized nation, some of whom simply could not believe that the rules would allow for evil to subvert their system. Don't let follow the rules be your ONLY guide. The Pilot in Command is supposed to be able to decide what is right and wrong and not merely what is least likely to get him or the airliner in trouble. Empower these men and women to use their judgement and their abilities to properly fix the problems at hand rather than intimidate them into follow-the-rules stupidity. The pilot of the plane in Rochester should have been empowered to say, "It's not as safe here on the Tarmac in this airplane (lots of accidents happen to planes on the ramp, taxiway, runway, etc.) as it is in the terminal." He should have then been able to alert the tower (or broadcast on the Unicom, 1090 data channel, whatever) that he's taxing to a safe place (or a jetway) and deplaing the passengers to a safe location.
End of story.

[Dean Marino]

New 3 hour Tarmac rule could have meant something - but the blanket "Security" exclusion makes it worthless... EVERYTHING will be due to "Security", as "Security" is not defined.

Try again.