Back on December 30, 2009 the Department of Transportation published a rule, “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” that encompassed what we now know as the three-hour tarmac delay rule. The new DOT rulemaking strengthens that original rule in four ways.
(more…)

Originally published by the Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2009

The approach of cold-weather season reminds me of tarmac delays.

Like the Northwest Airlines flights grounded during a 1999 blizzard at Detroit’s Metro Airport, leaving passengers without water or working toilets for more than seven hours. Or the JetBlue Airways customers stranded for nearly half a day during an ice storm in New York back in 2007.

But what if those were the only memories that cold weather evoked?

No skiing. No eggnog. No chestnuts roasting on the open fire. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it?

No more absurd than what has happened to the “passenger rights movement.” In the past few months, a series of headline-grabbing tarmac delays has helped a couple of influential lobbyists convince the media and a few elected officials that tarmac delays are the No. 1 passenger rights problem in America.
(more…)

Kate Hanni of Flyersrights.org and Kevin Mitchel of Business Travel Coalition led a stakeholders meeting in Washington to focus attention on passage of the tarmac-delay provisions in the Senate version of the pending FAA Reauthorization bill. The meeting was packed and proponents learned about the complexity of their proposal and had more problems added.

The hearing turned out to be excellent as a forum to show the intense interest in the pending legislation. It also provided a platform for many to present their own passenger rights agendas and to question the wisdom of the current legislation.

Two influential Senators, Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) spoke and Robert Crandall, ex-CEO of American Airline made a statement and participated in the entire morning of presentations.

Interestingly, Hanni kicked off the hearing by couching the tarmac delay legislation as a form of health legislation rather than customer service. She asserted that long tarmac delays lead to blood clots, dehydration, diabetic episodes, missed medications and that mothers are reduced to using T-shirts as diapers. The rest of the hearing and witnesses focused on the customer service component.

Robert Crandall addressed the group, saying that airlines need some form of legislation to force them to act on these extended tarmac delays (or in airline industry-speak, extended involuntary holds). He encouraged the group to realize that solving this problem will take far more than simple legislation that rules, three hours “or else.” There will need to be coordination with the FAA to change airline take-off procedures. Airports will need to set aside scarce space to provide loading and unloading of aircraft. Airlines will have to modify boarding procedures. TSA will have to modify its plans.

He noted that American Airlines has already implemented internal rules that all but eliminated extended tarmac delays. The AA rules say no passenger should be held on the runway more that four hours without the opportunity to deplane. Computer programs help with the planning for these situations.

He urged the group to modify the legislation to allow the airlines a four-hour rule for the first year and then drop the requirement down to three hours for a maximum tarmac delay. He also noted that the congestion at the New York airports must be solved before any meaningful enforcement can be expected. He noted that the airlines are simply scheduling more flights than can be handled by the airport. Average afternoon take-off delays at JFK are currently 50 minutes.

When Sen. Boxer addressed the group Crandall raised this same point, but Boxer dismissed it saying (I paraphrase), “We need to get this law passed. Then we can deal with capping NY air traffic.”

Oddly, the hearing featured only one witness from a tarmac-delayed flight that would have be affected should the pending legislation have been in place.

Link Christin, one of the passengers stuck on the ill-fated Continental Express flight that was diverted to Rochester, Minn., and forced to remain overnight on the tarmac recounted his ordeal. However, this was a case where the pilot wanted to deplane all passengers and was prevented from doing so by an airline employee following the normal rules. If the pending legislation had been in place, the airport would have had plans in place for just such an occurrence.*

Luke Thomas, a businessman and very frequent flier, stated that he has finally come around to believing that some sort of tarmac-delay rule is necessary. He, personally, noted that his experiences with tarmac delays has been limited and normally was handled well by the pilot and crew.

Canadian country musician Dave Carroll, of YouTube fame, spoke about his guitar being broken by United Airlines. He never mentioned tarmac delays. Later, he performed as the hearing broke up.

Shawn O’Brien, MD, testified about a tarmac delay caused by a forced landing at an airport without customs facilities. However, his kind of tarmac delay isn’t covered by the current legislation. Common sense should have prevailed and it is uncertain whether this bill would have helped.

Leslie Yourra, a business owner and mother, opined about her experience about almost losing her daughter during a boarding error. Certainly, this situation reflects poorly on airlines in terms of customer service but had nothing to do with tarmac delays.

The expert witness panel was impressive.

Scott Nason, a consultant who once a vice president at American Airlines, spoke about the complexity of trying to coordinate all the pieces of the puzzle when it comes to these tarmac delays. He stated that he knows of no airline executive who wants to see tarmac delays, but that they happen during times of extreme duress on the system based on weather and load factors.

Dr. Amy Cohn, an associate professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan, and a self-described “engineering geek” came to this hearing after authoring a Forbes Magazine piece questioning the wisdom of tarmac-delay legislation. She reiterated what was written in the article.

She said the new legislation simply “won’t work.” Reading a list of possible reasons for tarmac delays, Dr. Cohn noted that passengers delayed because of snow, lightning, or landings at non-international airports won’t see their lives change a bit by the current legislation.

George F. Doughty, executive director of the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority, noted that his airport is committed to allowing passengers to deplane. However, most of the flights that are diverted to his airport are there simply to pick up fuel so that they can return to the landing pattern. His airport has instituted a procedure where passengers who want to deplane during refueling .

Doughty also noted that he posed the question about whether anyone could remember tarmac delay problems prior to the 1999 Detroit snow delay event. He has not had anyone come up with earlier problems. His opinion is that there were no delays because of structural differences in the airlines, lower load factors and larger planes, before 1999. Those options are not available in today’s airline world.

James M. Crites, executive vice president of operations for Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, outlined his airport’s leadership role in handling tarmac delays and the plans that have been made to deplane passengers in case of extended delays. He noted that the costs were high, but that customer service and passenger care mandated that they find ways to limit discomfort during delays. He also noted that partner airports that took overflow traffic during slowdowns are all cooperating in this effort. All of his actions were taken without any legislation.

Hanni spoke as the last expert witness. She started by saying that it was a shame that passengers had to hold their own hearing in Congress because of airline stonewalling. Her presentation sought to dispel eight misleading statements about tarmac delays.

She asserted that the three-hour turnback rule would not reduce safety, cause cancellations, add to New York’s air-traffic problems, increase costs or drive up prices. She continued, noting that her organization is not trying to solve all of the tarmac delay problems, but wants to solve most of them. She questioned airline surveys that show passengers actually want to stay on airplanes during tarmac delays. Finally, she rebutted those who claim these delays are “statistically insignificant.”

Kate finished with, “…it’s not statistically insignificant for the daughter whose 80-year-old mother, who recently recovered form surgery, is sitting in metal tube in September on hot Houston concrete.”

Finally, a panel of journalists and association representatives were to have questioned the expert witnesses, but the questioning period deteriorated into a series of statements from various trade groups about why their organizations are supporting this legislation and the Consumers Union representative added a new problem to be considered, outsourced and off-shore aircraft maintenance.

Looming over the entire proceedings was the recent news that the FAA Reauthorization act was going to be delayed for at least until the end of the year before coming up for a vote. The House is expected today (Sept. 23) to simply extend existing surface and air transportation programs through the end of the year.

This delay doesn’t doom the tarmac delay rules, but it certainly will slow the bill’s momentum as the FAA Reauthorization moves towards resolution next year.

If tarmac delay legislation is important to you, contact your Congressman.

*This sentence was added as a correction. Originally, I thought that the Rochester airport delay would not have been covered because the pilot had requested that his passengers be deplaned and was denied. The bill would have required that airports handing diverted flights would be required to have a procedure to handle these flights without delays.

The Consumer Travel Alliance polled almost 100,000 readers of various travel newsletters over the past week concerning consumers’ opinions about tarmac delays. The fact that 87.2 percent of the respondents felt Congress should pass a rule mandating three or four hours as the maximum time a plane is kept waiting on the runway after leaving the gate was no surprise. But the fact that 50 percent of those passengers only want to go back to the gate if they can still get to their destination that day was a little unexpected.

Here is a summary of the poll:

• Almost 90 percent want a law limiting tarmac delays.

• 50 percent only want the law if it doesn’t delay them for a day.

• 69 percent want food and water from airlines during tarmac delays.

• 42 percent want their luggage back if they get off the plane after a tarmac delay.

• 51 percent feel the airlines should pay for overnight and meal costs if flights are canceled after a tarmac-delay even when it is an “Act of God.”

We want tarmac-delay rules. But we don’t want to be inconvenienced but the rules. In other words, we want to have our cake and eat it, too.

It seems that having Congress pass a turn-around rule will end up only making half of the flying public happy.

Basically, passengers want a chance to get off the plane and stretch our legs and grab a bite to eat and then be back on our way. (That shouldn’t be so hard.)

(Photo: Vancouver Airports)

From the Secretary of Transportation’s blog — August 11, 2009

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.
(more…)

I have been writing about tarmac delays for a decade now. From the debacle with Northwest Airlines back in 1999 to last week’s Continental Airlines absurdity of keeping a planeload of passengers overnight within feet of a terminal. The airlines have had their chance to fix the problem. Now we need firm legislation.
(more…)