Sue the Airline! That should stop the weather diversion!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Irate Airline Passengers Threaten to Sue
ABC News
(Aug. 14) - Dozens of outraged airplane passengers are threatening to sue Continental Airlines, claiming they were left stranded on a plane and grounded for hours in hellish conditions.

David J. Phillip, AP For its part, Continental Airlines said because the flight was international, federal law prohibited it from allowing passengers off the plane. Source:

Because of bad weather, Continental's July 19 Flight 1669 from Caracas, Venezuela, to Newark, N.J., was diverted to Baltimore-Washington International Airport, where it landed at 1:50 p.m. Passengers said after sitting on the grounded plane for hours, they began protesting by banging on overhead compartments, clapping their hands and even signing a petition asking to be let off.

"We were not provided with food," said passenger Caroline Murray. "There were passengers who were ill. There was one woman who was diabetic. There was a pregnant woman with small children. It was shocking to me."

As the 124 passengers repeatedly tried to get answers as to why they couldn't land in Newark or get off the plane, someone caught the scene on film.

"When you've got passengers about ready to riot, you've got an air crew that's not properly trained to communicate," said ABC News aviation consultant John Nance.

At 6:30 p.m., homeland security officers finally allowed passengers to exit the plane, but their troubles didn't end. The officers led them into a room, where they were held for two additional hours.

Quote

"We were removed from the plane and were forced to walk single file against the wall, flanked by armed officers one of whom had an attack dog," Murray said.

Then it was back on the plane for an additional hour of waiting before the flight finally left for Newark. It landed around 10 p.m., nine hours late.

Continental Airlines said because Flight 1669 was international, federal law prohibited it from allowing passengers off the plane.

"[There is] no question, the flight took a lot longer than planned because of the diversion," said a Continental spokesperson. "Assistance was provided to passengers with special needs."

Overall that day, 341 Continental flights arrived at Newark carrying 35,000 customers, the spokesperson added.

On the other side of the country, another travel nightmare stranded more than 17,000 international travelers this weekend because of a computer outage at Los Angeles airport..

"We sat for three hours on a plane," said one passenger. "And then we sat for two more hours in an aisle. And then we sit in line."

These are just the latest in a string of incidents that began on Valentine's Day, when thousands of travelers were stranded on planes for up to 10 hours at all three New York City-area airports, JFK, LaGuardia and Newark.

"It's horrifying to think that that kind of power can be wielded against you and you have literally no recourse," Murray said.

In the past, Congress has attempted to pass a passenger's bill of rights with no success, but last week New York state passed its own law.

The law requires that airlines at New York airports provide snacks and water, fresh air and working restrooms to passengers when flights are delayed more than three hours. Failure to do so can result in fines to the airline of up to $1,000 per passenger.

The law will likely protect travelers from states other than New York because millions of flights make connections at New York City airports.
***


What did they want them to do. It was a weather diversion! They bitch that they were not provided food. I am sure they got fed during flight but. They demand to be let off the plane. First it is against federal regs to deplane without customs for them to clear. These people have nothing better to bitch about.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Here is another great article by Mike Boyd of the Boyd Group consulting CO. He can break down a lot of the items that everyday people never think about.

Quote

Facing Realities... The Consumer Really Is Unhappy
Another Hit To The Airline Bottom Line

This past week, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that once a person enters a sterile area at an airport, he or she is subject to security searches, regardless if they decide to fly or not, and must comply with security regulations.

It would be nice if there was also a ruling that once a person decides to take an airplane trip, he or she is subject to the laws of physics, and is not relieved of the potential of being possibly inconvenienced. Unfortunately, the current din in the media is that when something goes wrong, passengers have the God-given right not to experience discomfort, and when they do, airlines must pay. A Passenger Bill of Rights, it's claimed, will fix everything.

Over the past week-end, a customs computer went on the fritz, resulting in thousands of international passengers to be trapped for hours on airliners at LAX. Because they could not be cleared into the country, they had to be herded into hold areas, and when those were full, other passengers were kept on airplanes for hours. Regardless of the cause of the computer failure, the fact was that the operational and procedural physics of air travel meant that a reported 20,000 people were delayed for hours - many of them stuck on airplanes waiting to get processed.

A Passenger Bill of Rights wouldn't have done diddly to avoid this. The issue is a computer failure. The focus should be on fixing that. And fixing the FAA computers that went down three weeks ago, delaying over 100 flights at CVG. That's where the solutions are, not in passing laws to assure that the passenger in 13E has access to a soda pop while she's stuck in an airliner waiting on the ramp because of such events.

Tumble To It. Air Travel Has Potential For Discomfort. The same occurs with weather. Flights divert. Flights get delayed. Flights get cancelled. And consumers are being misled to believe that in such cases they have the right to be entirely sheltered from any discomfort or inconvenience. Consumers are also being led to believe that such events are entirely the airline industry's fault.

Two weeks ago, a Continental Airlines flight from Venezuela had to divert into Baltimore due to weather at Newark, along with a lot of other airliners. In this case, like at LAX, there were no FIS gates immediately available that could handle an un-cleared international flight. More hours for passengers on an airplane at the end of a long flight, and, voila! there was opportunity for another horror story about airline human bondage that will make inches of newspaper ink, as well as feeding the usual-suspect talk show hosts who'd rather rage on first, and worry about facts second.

Along those lines, an intrepid reporter from the Baltimore Sun jumped on to the BWI flight, writing another rip'em-up expose on how it was yet another example of airlines beating up passengers. Paragraph after paragraph droned on, describing the conditions passengers had to endure. Nothing was covered in any detail on the specific causes of the delay, the factors surrounding the diversion, or the physical issues that led to the event. No, just the human interest stuff about how outraged the passengers were, and the implication that the airline was entirely at fault. And, of course, there was the perfunctory quote from a consumerist gadfly who was about as objective as Osama bin Laden at a Bar Mitzvah. And about as well informed.

Then, way down in the story, well after the average reader was so angry as to be heading out to shoot the nearest airline employee, the article included some statements provided by the carrier. None of them were elaborated on nor investigated by the reporter. No elaboration on the fact that many aircraft were diverted to BWI. Or that the Continental flight was an international arrival that by law required that passengers enter the country on other than the swim-the-Rio-Grande approach. Instead, the article focused on things like how the passengers, once deplaned, were outraged because they were guarded. The legal requirements for this were left out of the story.

Media: Get The Facts - Then We Can Address The Problem. It's instructive that the writer and some of the people quoted in the story referred to the flight as "1669Y" - indicating their depth of knowledge of the airline industry.

The media has a responsibility to make reasonable attempts to learn about the airline business and the circumstances surrounding an event before they put pen to paper, or hot air to microphone, and start making blanket conclusions that any untoward customer service event is one the airline could have avoided. When flights divert, for example, it's not uncommon for there not to be a gate available to deplane passengers. When flights divert, typically the diversion isn't for hours, and is often one that can be lifted quickly. Therefore, going to a gate, even if there is one, may well mean an additional delay in getting folks back on the flight and getting the airplane pushed off the gate and into line for take-off. There's the issue, too, of security. Is there a sterile area sufficient to handle the passengers? In the case of 1669, (no, not 1669Y) the carrier couldn't just pull up some stairs (if there were a set available, and the airplane was in a spot were it was safe to do so) and let the people off, because they had to be processed into the country.

There are major problems with our air transportation system. Events like LAX and the flight at BWI are symptoms. Accurate, in-depth, and professional reporting, instead of amateur emotional stories, could go a long way in addressing those problems. Unfortunately, some in the media see what happened in instances such as the Continental flight, and jump to the conclusion that the solutions are simply a set of stairs, or a sandwich, or an extra roll of toilet paper in the lav.

Better reporters look beyond these things and attempt to identify causes and illuminate where the system broke down, if indeed it did, to cause the event in the first place. Getting quotes of outrage from consumerist Cindy Sheehan wannabes who simply have axes to grind against the airline industry doesn't do anything to get the facts.

The Airline Industry Misses The Point, Too. Regardless of the indignant outrage from some quarters, when planes divert, that doesn't mean that there's always going to be gates, hold space, food, and the staffing available to smoothly handle the situation. That's a fact, but it's not an excuse for really dumb service recovery. And is it absolutely true that airlines don't always think ahead in such cases. It is true that in general airlines tend to operate on automatic - "Diversions? We'll deal with 'em when it happens." Planning is often a second-thought, regardless of the protestations from the PR department.

Airports and air travel are daunting. It's where consumers are herded around on the basis of rules, regulations, and procedures that must be enforced like a Papal Edict. Sort of like Army boot camp, only you have to buy a ticket to get in. Years ago, airline customer service employees were trained to guide passengers around and through the air travel maze. Today, too often, they are enforcers of the maze. Increasingly, and not in little part due to inflammatory stories like the one on "flight 1669Y," consumers look at the air travel experience with trepidation. That leads to anxiety. And anxiety leads to fear. Fear leads to the Dark Side - a.k.a. really clumsy federal regulations. It's up to the industry to address this, and silly "12-Point programs" are not the answer.

Ticking Off 1 Million Consumers Per Month? Passengers do deserve a travel experience that isn't a cross between gym class and rush hour on Ellis Island. The hard fact is that the infrastructure cannot meet the demands of the nation any longer. Peter Greenberg, Travel Correspondent at NBC, has noted it clearly. In today's real-world environment of air traffic control delays, ramp congestion, and (at some cities) hubsite airport terminals spread out over a couple of zip codes, a published 50-minute or less connect time needs to be re-considered. In a perfect world, yes. In this one, where we don't have the ATC system we need, it's a recipe for lost luggage, misconnects, and coronaries with people running through terminals when their connecting flight arrives 15 minutes after schedule.

Flight arrivals are now approximating 20% off schedule. (Not just delayed, but off-schedule, because airlines have to add extra minutes to adjust for the ATC mess.)

Put this into perspective. The US generates about 50 million air passengers each month. Let's just figure that only 10% of the people on those late flights are badly inconvenienced. That's 2% of 50 million - or one million customers every month who are ticked off at the airline industry. No industry can afford that.

True, the delays are not caused primarily by the airline industry. True, flights are 80% full, and any cut back in capacity will result in less traffic, not better revenues. True, the costs to the industry of spreading out connecting banks would be enormous.

But this is the business airlines have chosen, and the conditions do not exist to allow as efficient an operation as the nation's air transportation system demands. Unless carriers can find better ways of dynamically managing their operations, the only future is an airline system that cannot grow with the nation's needs.

There's no rabbit coming out of the FAA's hat. The NextGen that is being touted as the solution is nothing more than a collection of the same programs the FAA has been bungling for years, and will continue to bungle for years more. This is the system that airlines are operating within, and there will need to be adjustments from the airline side of the table.

No Bill of Rights Will Reverse The Laws of Physics. Nevertheless, airlines are victims, too. They cannot avoid the ATC system, or weather, or customs computers from flummoxing the system. They have the responsibility to tell passengers exactly that. Bluntly. The Contract of Carriage should include the following: "You are agreeing to get on a big metal tube that we hurl across the sky. You must understand that things like weather, air traffic control, and mechanical problems are possible, and not always under our control. We'll do all we can to reasonably minimize any inconvenience that may be encountered. However, you as a passenger understand the challenges these conditions can represent, and therefore you bear a portion of the assumed risk and responsibility for the discomfort such factors can sometimes cause..."

Most of the staff of The Boyd Group have been in and have managed airline customer service operations. We've provided customer service training to a number of carriers. We've seen both sides, and there's no doubt that there is a major perception problem that needs to be addressed. If the airline industry won't do it, then that vacuum will be filled quickly by self-appointed consumer crusaders whose only goal is to punish the industry, not improve it.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Morrison79 0]

These people had every right to bitch. it is one thing to be stuck for an hour or 2. The airlines have no right to hold you on a plane for 5 hours. Why couldn't they have let the passengers go into that private room sooner? I understand it complicates things more because it is an international flight, but they still couldhave handled the situation better.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

These people had every right to bitch. it is one thing to be stuck for an hour or 2. The airlines have no right to hold you on a plane for 5 hours. Why couldn't they have let the passengers go into that private room sooner? I understand it complicates things more because it is an international flight, but they still couldhave handled the situation better.

Well, the American citizens do anyway. The inconvenience was due to the weather and the US customs and immigration department not having a suitable contingency plan for this type of event.
Call your congressman if you like, but stop blaming the airline for government regs.

[Morrison79 0]

Both parties are to blame. The airlines though should have a better backup plan. Why couldn't they fly to an international airport, get people through customs and then figure out how to get everyone to thier final destination. Instead they figure that they can make them sit on a plane for hours and hours with no explanation. If you were on a flight like that you would be pissed to.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Both parties are to blame. The airlines though should have a better backup plan. Why couldn't they fly to an international airport, get people through customs and then figure out how to get everyone to thier final destination.

Because of weather?

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Why couldn't they fly to an international airport, get people through customs and then figure out how to get everyone to thier final destination.

Any random international airport?
What are they going to do witrh the plane that they have to bump to get THIS one to a gate. Presumably they will have to sit on the tarmac. Thats a better solution obviously
And then "figure out how to get them to their final destination" - what, magic an onward flight out of thin air? so they will be sat in an airline waiting room miles from where they want to be with no forseeable way of getting there?

They should get an explanation while they are sat there? sure. Refreshments and comfort arrangements? sure. And yes, i have been on a plane like that before and yes i did get fed up but i am smart enough to realise that sometimes you can't necessarily beat weather and/or technology.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

The airlines have no right to hold you on a plane for 5 hours.

Do you think they wanted to make them sit there that long? Do you think we go to work in the morning thinking of ways to piss off our customers so they wont come back? I'm sure the people in op's were trying everything they could to get that flight out of there.

Quote

Why couldn't they have let the passengers go into that private room sooner?

They were waiting for customs and homeland security to escort them.

Quote

I understand it complicates things more because it is an international flight, but they still couldhave handled the situation better.

Please tell us how. I hear all the time "they could have handled it better but have no idea how.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Both parties are to blame. The airlines though should have a better backup plan.

Better plan to what? It was a weather diversion then ATC held them on the ground with no ETD. What else should they have done at this time?

Quote

Why couldn't they fly to an international airport, get people through customs and then figure out how to get everyone to thier final destination.

Good question. I will explain. The only airport that Continental has international gates at is Newark. So if they landed at Dulles they still would have to ask another airline to borrow a gate to unload. So now you will wait for a gate there if that other airline lets you use it. These are the laws of customs and immigration. They dont make the rules as they go.

Quote

Instead they figure that they can make them sit on a plane for hours and hours with no explanation.

Thats right! We got there money already so to hell with them. This is such a BS statement.

Quote

If you were on a flight like that you would be pissed to.

Been there already. Wasnt fun by any means but they did what they could to resolve the problem. It was a weather diversion. You cannot control that.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What did they want them to do. It was a weather diversion! They bitch that they were not provided food. I am sure they got fed during flight but. They demand to be let off the plane. First it is against federal regs to deplane without customs for them to clear. These people have nothing better to bitch about.

I know you're the industry apologist (along with billvon), but what exactly do you suggest consumers do to address the industry's lack of care? Consumers can't force airlines and the FAA to upgrade the infrastructure. The only venue individuals have is to litigate. And that's why you have a lawsuit here. There's no other redress available. If we actually had reason to believe improvements were being done, that would be a different matter. But it looks about the same as how Ford handled the Pinto. They know they have a problem, but damned if they're going to do anything about it unless forced.

I work in the financial industry, handling trillions of dollars. We would be fired, and potentially jailed (SOX) if we managed people's money as lazily as the airlines take care of their customers. 'Our computers crashed because of market volatility.' Yeah, that would go over real well.

[billvon 3,119]

> but what exactly do you suggest consumers do to address the industry's lack of care?

The answer is the simplest possible one - refuse to fly those airlines that do these things.

That, of course, will never, ever fly (no pun intended) because people will always choose the lowest price carrier no matter what. Fortunately, it is their choice - and people have spoken loud and clear that low prices are worth all the nonsense they have to put up with. Do you have a beef with those people?

>The only venue individuals have is to litigate.

Can people sue the litigators if prices go up?

>But it looks about the same as how Ford handled the Pinto.

Comparing inconvenience to fatalities is absurd - but is one of the signs of how much we've lost sight of what's important here in the US.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

> but what exactly do you suggest consumers do to address the industry's lack of care?

The answer is the simplest possible one - refuse to fly those airlines that do these things.

Which airlines don't do these things?

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[billvon 3,119]

>Which airlines don't do these things?

Alaska Airlines, for one. Something very similar happened to us, and they had us off pretty quickly.

[BillyVance 35]

Man, I hope to hell that there aren't any problems with Continental in October when my wife, kid and I fly to Newark to see family.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Coreece 190]

Even though it wasn't an international flight, I still had somewhat of a similar situation...Just as we reached take off speed, the jet started shaking violently and began to smoke. They gave us a free beer and a phone card as we waited (without air conditioning) for them to fix the problem. We then took off in the same jet with no serious complaints.

So....Free beer and a phone card = customer satisfaction.

Cheers!

Edit

Oh yeah...I think we were also happy to be alive.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

What did they want them to do. It was a weather diversion! They bitch that they were not provided food. I am sure they got fed during flight but. They demand to be let off the plane. First it is against federal regs to deplane without customs for them to clear. These people have nothing better to bitch about.

Weather happens - a fact that many airlines don't seem to have realized yet.

Neither the weather nor the laws of physics kept them on the plane for hours. Inflexible rules applied by small minded bureaucrats combined with airline procedures that overload the system and don't allow for weather did that.

I hope the passengers win big.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I hope the passengers win big.

A beer, a phone card and their life sounds good to me. Perhaps some new policy would help as well, but as we all know, the authorities in this country will take any opportunity they can get to excersise absolute control...money's not really a concern.... at least not in this "isolated" incident. It's doubtful anything practical will happen until it becomes a more serious and frequent issue that won't be forgotten after it's 15 minutes.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[wmw999 2,589]

A "Passenger bill of rights" is a good idea. What are passengers entitled to, and under what circumstances can those rights be reduced?

If the plane were brought down somewhere due to a hijacker, I'm sure almost no one would blame the airline for a lack of services.

But at an airport where there is access to a potty truck, and a food truck, not making sure that the conditions aboard were reasonable seems to be kind of stupid. Even if you don't bring the people indoors.

And, well, if your business plan doesn't allow for bad weather when it comes to passenger treatment, but it does when eliminating liability for missed connections, it seems there's a little deliberate nearsightedness going on.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

>Which airlines don't do these things?

Alaska Airlines, for one. Something very similar happened to us, and they had us off pretty quickly.

Glad that worked out for you. Does Alaska airlines have a stated policy that says they'll let their passengers off the plane if it can't get off the ground within a certain time frame?

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>Which airlines don't do these things?

Alaska Airlines, for one. Something very similar happened to us, and they had us off pretty quickly.

Pity they don't fly the Chicago - Honolulu route.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>Does Alaska airlines have a stated policy that says they'll let their
>passengers off the plane if it can't get off the ground within a certain time
>frame?

They say they will always delay boarding rather than get you on and have you wait, that they will get you off if no gate can be found within 90 minutes after arriving, and that they will service the aircraft every 90 minutes if you are stuck on the ground.

http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/company/commitment/Customer-Service-Commitment_08.asp

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>Does Alaska airlines have a stated policy that says they'll let their
>passengers off the plane if it can't get off the ground within a certain time
>frame?

They say they will always delay boarding rather than get you on and have you wait, that they will get you off if no gate can be found within 90 minutes after arriving, and that they will service the aircraft every 90 minutes if you are stuck on the ground.

http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/company/commitment/Customer-Service-Commitment_08.asp

I don't buy into this "no gate" scenario. If President Bush can walk down steps from a 747 and stroll across the tarmac, why can't the rest of us? If every major airport had a couple of sets of steps available for the "no gate" situation, there would be no problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>If every major airport had a couple of sets of steps available for
>the "no gate" situation, there would be no problem.

Typically it's not the stairs, it's the buses and personnel required to herd people off the plane safely. One senior citizen tumbling down a wet stairway, or one prop strike on a 2 year old and a decade of 'good feelings' about getting people off quickly vanishes.

Unfortunately, often the times that people have to be deplaned outside a gate are during bad weather, when it is unsafe/less safe for people (both passengers and staff) to be on the ramp - and when they need every employee they have to deal with the people who DEMAND that they be allowed to get on some other plane.

That being said, I think it's a good idea that some airlines do indeed plan for this. As always, consumers have a choice, and choosing airlines that have specific policies on this may prevent unhappiness later.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>If every major airport had a couple of sets of steps available for
>the "no gate" situation, there would be no problem.

Typically it's not the stairs, it's the buses and personnel required to herd people off the plane safely. One senior citizen tumbling down a wet stairway, or one prop strike on a 2 year old and a decade of 'good feelings' about getting people off quickly vanishes.

Unfortunately, often the times that people have to be deplaned outside a gate are during bad weather, when it is unsafe/less safe for people (both passengers and staff) to be on the ramp - and when they need every employee they have to deal with the people who DEMAND that they be allowed to get on some other plane.

That being said, I think it's a good idea that some airlines do indeed plan for this. As always, consumers have a choice, and choosing airlines that have specific policies on this may prevent unhappiness later.

As a "geezer", I well recall the time before the now ubiquitous telescoping "gate", when every flight involved getting on and off planes using stairs. I don't recall any prop strikes or other issues. And if GWB can handle it, I'm sure the rest of us could.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Does Alaska airlines have a stated policy that says they'll let their
>passengers off the plane if it can't get off the ground within a certain time
>frame?

They say they will always delay boarding rather than get you on and have you wait, that they will get you off if no gate can be found within 90 minutes after arriving, and that they will service the aircraft every 90 minutes if you are stuck on the ground.

http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/company/commitment/Customer-Service-Commitment_08.asp

I think this actually strengthens the case for litigating against other airlines, Bill. Rookie's defense was weather sucks and nothing can be done about it, even though that still points to a systemic problem that can be adapted to. But if Alaska has protocols in place to deal with these bad situations with respect for their customers, so can the others.

Of course, a policy is just that if not implemented. And I'm not aware of a reasonable means for customers to identify which airlines are more likely to screw their customers. The ontime arrival stat doesn't cover these situations. Few people are complaining about a 30 minute weather delay.

As I said, the financial services industry doesn't get to duck these sorts of problems. But once you enter the airport, people have yielded rights and they give up even more once they're on the plane, in the name of safety. It's time to correct this.