It was on the news tonight about how passengers were stuck on a plane for hours at JFK Airport because of snow.
I heard between 7 and 11 hours.
They were out of food, toliets were over flowing and no air conditioning.
BlueJet Airlines kept telling the passengers they know as much as the passengers.
I am so suprised that someone just didn't lose it.
I read they could of called buses to get these passengers off the plane.
The airline now has said they would reembuirse the passengers and would fly them to wherever they want to go.
I'm sorry but this would not be enough for me.
I put these questions to AD.
1. How long do you think someone has to sit on a plane before being able to get off of it?
2. Are free tickets enough?
3. Why did the Pilots or whoever not call for buses after I think a mininum of 2 hours?
They were in the middle of a major snow storm and what ever possesed them to think they would just have to sit a couple of hours?

What I read in the WSJ was the pilots were getting mixed weather reports – some of which indicated they would be able to take off soon. This is not totally uncommon. I spent 6 hours once in Denver waiting on a plane to get deiced. IMO the FAA needs to have a rule that forces all airlines to do something to get passengers back to the terminal after 2-3 hours.

I think we really need to start hard core fining airline execs for this kind of stuff- that is the only way we can stop the passenger abuse that goes on in this country. They treat you liked warmed over fecal matter, and then arrest the poor joe that finally loses it- and loses it for a good reason. There should be a 5k dollar fine per hour per passenger to airline execs for anytime passengers are forced to sit on the tarmac with no air conditioning or toilets- I can only imagine what parents of small children had to go through.

On top of that- whenever an airline is failing due to this horrible treatment and service- the execs, of course take no cut in pay, yet, come begging to the feds for money.

It is time to put the smack down on Airline execs, big time.

I don't know for sure about this incident, but I had heard about a similar incident in Austin TX recently where a plane was stuck on the Tarmac for like 10-11 hours. The issue in this case was that the plane never received a gate that they were allowed to use to deplane. Finally the pilot decided to just move into position to take a gate and did so without clearance from the airport (at the risk of his own job apparently).

These incidents so CLEARLY emphasize the need for a federal law outlining a "passenger bill of rights". Nobody should ever be held hostage on a plane after 2-3 hours unless there is some crazy circumstance.

The JetBlue problems are simply one more indication that airlines no longer recognize what they are - a service industry. Render poor service and guess what, customers with options will stay away in droves. That is what is happening right now to the airlines and I have exactly no sympathy for them. While much of the trouble facing airlines is attributed to the reaction to 9/11 and the turbulent aftermath, to anyone watching the airlines were going down this path in the middle-1990s.

I know that in my case if I have to go anywhere I can drive in under 12 hours, I won't fly. I don't want to put up with the crowds, being packed into an aluminum sardine can for several hours, absolutely no cabin service and the general hassles of dealing with an airport. Of course, I enjoy driving. Since 9/11 I've put up with several incidents of the type passengers on JetBlue were subjected to during the storm.

Of course, the JetBlue incidents are visible because they were so widespread and occurred in NYC, meaning the newies didn't actually have to venture past New Jersey to cover the story... I rather wonder if they would have been covered so well had this occurred in Pittsburgh, Cleveland or St. Louis?

But my conclusion is that the airlines are in trouble of their own making and I'm not really all that interested in bailing them out of that trouble.

1. How long do you think someone has to sit on a plane before being able to get off of it?

An hour, tops…but that’s me - I HATE sitting on planes.

2. Are free tickets enough?

I think that’s all JetBlue can do – that, plus eat a lot of crow. They have put a passenger bill of rights into practice. From what I understand (I haven’t flown them), JetBlue is one of the few airlines that really does believe customer service is important. I believe all airlines should adopt a policy of letting passengers off a plane that has been delayed for 2-3 hours. Ever hear of portable stairs, people? Sheesh, doesn’t anyone at airports have any common sense? Maybe they’re afraid of all those ticked off people in their terminal being bad for business.

3. Why did the Pilots or whoever not call for buses after I think a mininum of 2 hours?
They were in the middle of a major snow storm and what ever possesed them to think they would just have to sit a couple of hours?

The way I heard it, it was the airport, not the pilots that wouldn’t let passengers disembark (much like the situation ringwraith mentioned). But, JetBlue should have cancelled their flights; I think it was probably a financial decision, rather than a sensible decision, and it came back to bite ‘em in the butt. I bet we'll hear about them going under soon.

Ever heard of capitalism? Ever think that if you sat on a plane with Jet Blue for __ hours that you'd go back? Of course not. This is EXACTLY why some airlines go under.

It's just like a hamburger joint. If there is a local hamburger joint that takes too long to get your food, you don't go back. There should be a provision for passenger comfort just as there is safety, but fining execs? What if there were airport issues that caused this? I hear ya about fines, but the airlines should get hit overall, and if there are exec's responsible for the blunders, capitalism again will ax them as they won't keep their jobs in a failing company.

Let the market help fix this. Companies that abuse folks don't sell tickets. It's easy.

"Ever heard of capitalism? Ever think that if you sat on a plane with Jet Blue for __ hours that you'd go back? Of course not. This is EXACTLY why some airlines go under.

It's just like a hamburger joint. If there is a local hamburger joint that takes too long to get your food, you don't go back. There should be a provision for passenger comfort just as there is safety, but fining execs? What if there were airport issues that caused this? I hear ya about fines, but the airlines should get hit overall, and if there are exec's responsible for the blunders, capitalism again will ax them as they won't keep their jobs in a failing company.

Let the market help fix this. Companies that abuse folks don't sell tickets. It's easy."


This is exactly right! Nothing more needs to be done to them really! Promises and more promises will not do it. The passenger experience was so frightful and the American public has a long memory!

I'm in the Travel Industry. From the agency side.

I want to tell you folks up in arms about this a few things:

1) Jet Blue, up to this point, has had EXCELLENT customer service. They definitely screwed this up. No question about it. There were several other airlines stuck in similar situations... Delta for instance... on that day. Jet Blue got bad press on this.

2) If you want a passenger bill of rights then you'd better be prepared for an airline employees bill of rights because the customers can be complete PIAs that deserve a good smack upside the head sometimes. The customer is not always right at 35,000 feet.

3) The pilots do not get to make a lot of decisions regarding passengers getting on and off the plane - if you want them to have it you'll have to take away a lot of the power the airports currently hold.

MY TURN.

I worked for TWA for nearly 10 years at JFK before they got bought out by American Airline (and I got laid off) so I'd like to fill you all in on how the airline industry works, from the inside.

In no particular order:

First off is how the FAA keeps track of airline statistics for on-time. On time arrivals are pretty straight forward, what ever time the plane gets to the gate. Departures are a bit misleading. Those go by the time the plane leaves the gate, not when it takes off. Now let me fill you in on how things work behind the scenes - if there is a delay of any kind, airline have to attribute it to something, wether it's broken equipment, late arriving baggage, late arriving passengers, maintenance (break downs) or personnel, just to name a few. The worst of these for an employee is personnel, which translates to someone dropping the ball. These are a MAJOR BIG DEAL, you will get a disciplinary action for a personnel delay, several will cost you your job. Now here's a funny thing about how they work, say I'm the person responsible for getting the plane pushed out. My work assignments for today include a departure on gate 10 at 10 a.m. and another on gate 11 at 10:20 a.m. - easily done if all goes well. So I'm at gate 10 at 9:50, I hook up the tractor and the tow bar and I'm sitting there all ready to go, but the plane is being held for a connecting passenger's luggage to come over from another airline, so I wait, and wait, and wait some more. Now It's 10:15, so I unhook the waiting plane and scurry over to the plane on gate 11 and hook up and get it off the gate on time, but while I'm doing that the luggage for the first plane shows up, is loaded and now that plane is ready to go but I'm still moving the second plane. Now guess who the supervisor is going to try to screw with the delay for that first plane? I AM, because I was the last person to work that plane. Since the plane on gate 10 is already delayed because of the late baggage, when I go to to push it off the gate since I was the last person to work that plane I will be the one considered to have delayed the plane. No matter that I was there on time initially, since I left that plane to keep the one on the other gate (11) from being delayed, when everyone else is finished and that connecting baggage is loaded that plane is considered ready to go and just waiting for me to get there to push it off the gate. So I am considered the one who delayed the daparture. Also keep in mind that when the pilot releases the brakes one the plane for push out, that is transmitted by the plane back to the airlines central control system.And that is why we need unions (but that is another debate).

So now the plane is off the gate, assuming it's still in the area where the individual airline has jurisdiction the pilot then has to contact the airport's ground control tower to get permission to get on a taxiway. This could take some time if there is heavy traffic on the taxiways. Now once it's on the taxiways it's in the jurisdiction of the airport's traffic control, the individual airlines have no control over what happens beyond this point and takeoff. The pilot can request to come out of the line to the runway for any reason but there is no obligation to grant that request, because the overall operation of the entire airport is what is considered paramount. Even if there were a medical emergency on board they might not allow the plane to leave it's place in line to the runway if doing so would cause even more disruption. I've seen them send ambulances out to the planes on the taxiways and have the paramedics go up the mobile stairs. They will not deplane passengers if the plane is on the taxiways, they may not even deplane passengers if the plane is right next to the terminal if it means exposing the passengers to a hazardous condition on the tarmac.

Assuming that the airport is allowing incoming planes to still land, those planes will go to the gates, every effort is made to continue as if nothing is out of the ordinary, passengers are loaded, the plane cleaned, food service provided ect. because if anyone doesn't do what is supposed to be done and the airport stays open and that plane isn't loaded and ready then guess what - personnel delay. So now you have a loaded plane ready to go sitting at the gate and the airport stops all departures, they don't tell you for how long. So of course the airlines want the planes boarded and ready to go as soon as it opens back up. Which could be only an hour or so (something most might consider reasonable), but it could also be many, many more.

So at some point the airline decides to give up hope, the pilots on the taxiways are calling in requesting to come back to the gates but they are all filled with the inbound planes, and loaded with passengers for the next flight. So now those planes at the gates have to be unloaded of baggage and passengers. Assuming that goes well now the planes have to be pushed off the gates to a holding area, something not too many airlines have much of. Assuming that goes well, and the airport allows the planes to return from the taxiways, then you can get off and wait around with all the other stranded passengers.

Sometimes if there are no gates available, at JFK at least, the airport (not the individual airlines) have mobile lounges, which can drive up to the plane at a remote location deplane the passengers and then drive them back to the terminal, deplaning a full load of passengers will take several trips. However for an airport the size of JFK I think they only had 4 of these, and they are in the jurisdiction of the airport, not the airlines, airlines can request them but it's up to the airport to provided them, and with only 4, if there are a lot of requests - be prepared to wait.

Now keep in mind that I haven't even brought up issues of equipment freezing, co-ordination issues, the airlines main offices making the calls in most cases and a whole host of other issues.

What happened to Jet Blue is something that happens often, I think Jet Blue made the news over this one because of a few particularly long delays and maybe because they have such a good reputation that finally being able to sling some mud their way was just too easy a target.

No matter what "bill of rights" airlines come up with - THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, because it's not the airline "holding you hostage" it's the AIRPORT. If you want relief from these sorts of situations the airlines can't provide it, the federal government can, because they control the air traffic, even while it's still on the ground.



The air conditioning runs off the engines, even if they shut down the engines and run the auxiliary power unit, that is just a small engine still using fuel. They sit there on the runways waiting for the tower to call the shots, if they use up too much fuel then they would have to return to the terminal to get more fuel, they don't want to do that because if the tower starts letting planes take off then they have to go to the back of the line after they get fueled back up.



Believe me, it's true.



Please read what I wrote above.



no more than the flight time



In this specific case, yeah they should be. You notice how airlines have all been losing money for the last 7 years or so, while the employees have been taking pay cuts, giving up work rules, pensions, benefits ect. It costs a lot more to fly you where you're going than what you're paying, you're already making out like a bandit on airfares these days, be thankful dedicated conciencous people are still keeping you safe at a reduced rate.



They can, and probably did call, but it's not the responsibility of the airline to provide busses, they'd rather get the plane back to the gate, but once the plane is on the taxiway it's out of the airlines hands.


They never think that, they HOPE THAT. They are under EXTREME PRESSURE to get that flight out, even if it is delayed, better late a few hours than a day or two. They have the FAA breathing down their necks with those statistics we keep reading about every few months. Not to mention the airlines have a whole nationwide (even international) schedule that they are trying to keep, part of which includes have all the planes where they should be when they should be.

Hey, the simple fact is I don't really care about the airline's problems. That is why they are in business - to smooth over all those little operational problems and deliver the customer service experience I expect when traveling. And since the airlines are not doing that, I am rewarding them in the way most appropriate - I don't fly except when driving is not remotely practical...

Yeah, it snowed. Big deal. If customer service was the paramount concern of the airline (be it JetBlue, Delta or Podunk Express Connection...) they would unload the plane and deal with the FAA, the airport authority and so forth without imprisoning passengers in their aluminum tubes. While I don't particularly like airports, being inside in the climate controlled airport beats the daylights out of being stuck on the plane!

Again, the airlines are in a customer service business. Those that deliver good service to the customer are rewarded, those that don't are not rewarded by having passengers leave them. Withdraw all the government subsidies and let the the airlines duke it out to see who survives.

Heck, maybe Ford and GM will benefit by selling more cars as we all decide to drive instead of fly...

They don't have the authority.

There are none.

There are no government subsidies to the airlines? I simply don't agree. How many billions of dollars did Congress appropriate following 9/11/01 for the airlines? How much does it cost the taxpayer, including the majority who never fly, to run the air traffic control system? How much do the taxpayers kick in to build new airports, runways, terminals and so forth? How much low-interest funding is provided to airlines to purchase airplanes, provided they are willing to allow the military to use them in an emergency?

Now, I'm perfectly willing to be fair about this and I think we should withdraw the corporate welfare in general, not just from the airlines. And I realize that the economic dislocation of doing that all at once would be awful, so I'm willing to see it done over a reasonable period of time, say 3-5 years.

The CEO of JetBlue was a guest on letterman last Wed. Dave was pickin on him it was funny...the crowd was laughin...

Not quite true. Aircraft manufacturers get direct (a la EU funding for Airbus) or indirect (a la guaranteed US military contracts to Boeing that cross-subsidise their civilian operations).

And, compared to road, rail and shipping transport, aviation has lower costs applied by governments (a type of subsidy) because aviation fuel is not taxed at all, by any government - unlike all other forms of transportation fuel.

I know that administration threw money at the airlines after 9/11, but I thought that had a 2 year limit, maybe it initially did and they just keep extending it, however I see no mention of it the budget for 2008. I know that that practice had been done away with some time many years ago. The EU was somewhat p.o.'d at us for doing it again after 9/11, but they ate some crow given what had happened. I wonder if that whole agreement has been done away with at this point




It's in the budget I linked, but I don't have a problem with it. I don't do much interstate driving, but I'm glad the system is there so that when I go to the local NY supermarket there is fresh Florida o.j. on the shelves.



Most airlines pay for the cost of building their own terminals, if they use an existing terminal they pay the airport authority rent, they pay rent even if they build the terminal themselves, well at least in JFK they do. Any given specific airport could be different.

As far as JFK, the (air)port authority has more money than they know what to do with. They collect far more each year than they spend, they keep the money in a fund, if they funneled it back to the taxpayer the taxpayer would be making money off the airport. JFK, LGA and EWR are not your typical example though, since they are run by an interstate agency it is effectively an autonomous entity (which really needs to done away with), much to the dismay of the Governors of both states.



I know the military does use civilian airplanes to move troops and equipment if needed, we (TWA) provided several during the first gulf war, the airlines insignias were all painted over so that no airline would become a specific target of retaliatory attacks. However, the military paid back the airlines for the costs. As far as the use, I think that is part of the federal aviation regulations, the airlines must agree to follow the law (FARs) or face revocation of their operating license. Low ineterst funding for aircraft purchases comes from the banks, or leasing corporations, in most cases. I don't know of any that comes from tax payer dollars, correct me if I'm wrong, I may be wrong about the continuation of the subsidies.


Agreed.



Since this thread started out about Jet Blue, I'm limiting my responses to airlines, manufacturers are NOT airlines.


You might be right about that, but I don't think you are....

Correct me if I'm wrong.