July 14, 2011
Passenger Rights and the Law of Unintended Consequences
I recently had an extensive delay on a flight from New York to Las Vegas. We pushed back from the gate on time, and as I went to start the engines I could see the dark skies to the west, our intended direction of flight. As we waited on the ramp for clearance to taxi, I heard the Ground Controller telling several planes to switch back to the Clearance Delivery frequency for a new route of flight. That’s never a good sign, and it tells us that certain departure routes are closed due to weather.
After being cleared to taxi to the end of a long line of planes, we were also told to switch radios to pick up a new clearance. Our intended departure fix, Robbinsville VOR, was shut down because of thunderstorms, and our new route would take us farther to the north. But the area of weather was extensive, and for a while it effectively shut down all departures from JFK Airport.
Heavy rain showers hit the airport and the line of planes remained stationary. We shut down our engines to save fuel, running our much less fuel-demanding APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) to provide electrical and air conditioning needs.
The delay was extensive, and we made several PAs to our passengers with updates on the weather and our (lack of) progress. In a situation like this, things can change quickly, and once the weather moves through the area, the controllers will get out the departures as fast as New York Center can handle them. We want to be ready to go when this happens.
Why am I going into so much detail about a delay that’s not all that uncommon? Because there’s a new wrinkle in the airline business, and it’s called The Passenger Bill of Rights. This bill became law this past Spring in response to some situations where passengers were essentially held hostage on an airplane for several hours. With the new law, an airline can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if the airplane is on the ground for more than three hours without giving passengers an opportunity to deplane.
It sounds good on the face of it, but there are always some unintended consequences, and here’s how it affected us that evening. As we reached the two-hour point, we realized that another hour on the ground would make our company potentially liable for a fine approaching five million dollars. So we contacted our operations folks, and the decision was made to taxi back to the gate. The reason for making the decision at the two-hour point is that getting back to the gate would take some time since we had to get out of line and find an open route back to the terminal.
As it turned out, we got back to our ramp area after about 40 minutes of maneuvering by the ground controller to get other planes out of our way in this near-gridlock situation. Once on the ramp, we couldn’t park at the gate due to lightning — ramp personnel can’t come out when there’s lightning, for their own safety. With time running out on the three-hour limit, a mobile lounge was brought up to the plane so that a door could be opened and passengers could be given their legal right to deplane. We made it with eight minutes to spare.
Four or five passengers did take the opportunity to get off, and after getting some more fuel, we pushed back again with a fresh three-hour clock. The thunderstorm had passed and the airport was open, but the taxiways were still full of planes and it took nearly an hour before we even got cleared to taxi out from the ramp area.
As we approached the two-hour point again, we had a decision to make. Up ahead was a turn onto taxiway Foxtrot. Once we made that turn it would be next to impossible for us to get out of line and return to the gate. Not wanting to make a multi-million dollar decision on our own, we called our dispatcher (we’re allowed to use our phones on the ground for operational necessity). I explained the situation, including our position in line (number 19 or 20 for takeoff) and the departure rate (about one takeoff every two minutes). If we decided to return to the gate a second time, it would probably result in a flight cancellation, or at least the necessity to call out a fresh crew, which would probably take two hours or more.
The crew would get paid for the flight even if it cancelled, but pilots tend to be mission-oriented. Our dispatcher deferred to us, and we ultimately decided to take the gamble. We ended up taking off with 18 minutes to spare.
The bottom line is that because of our return to the gate, we experienced another two hour and 40 minute delay before getting airborne. With the additional time spent at the gate getting refueled, we took off nearly six hours late. Had we not returned to the gate, we probably would have shaved close to two hours off this.
So, the Passenger Bill of Rights may be great in concept (and was probably appreciated by the few who elected to get off our plane). But ironically, it can actually increase the delay that passengers experience. Our flight, which was scheduled to arrive in Las Vegas at 8:40 P.M. made it to the gate at 2:55 A.M. I was fresh as a daisy…the topic of an upcoming blog.
Can you name this airport?
And now for something completely different: as promised earlier, here’s a picture of another airport’s runways. Can you name the airport? Hint: it’s not in the U.S.
The difficulty factor is high, I know, but you guys so easily identified Boston that I had to make this one tougher. If no one gets this by my next blog, I’ll give some hints. (And I’m going to try to step up the frequency of these blogs.)
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
So instead of the 3 hours what do you propose? 4 hours? 5 hours? 3 hours with a weather exemption?
Airlines and airline employees (management, flight crew, ground crew, etc) can bemoan The Passenger Bill of Rights all they want but the simple fact of the matter is that the industry was given DECADES to come up with their own solution and they REPEATEDLY failed….
It isn’t an issue of whether the Passenger Bill of Rights was the best solution….because it was the ONLY solution since the industry never offered one besides the “Sit down, shut up, and stay locked up here for as long was WE say!” standard.
Comment by Burj — July 14, 2011 @ 5:31 pm
Might that be a picture of the airport in Pisa, Italy? I flew into it once a quarter century ago but it still looks familiar.
Comment by Mike Burkholder — July 14, 2011 @ 8:42 pm
Mexico City International Airport MMMX.
Comment by KJ — July 14, 2011 @ 9:27 pm
I don’t propose anything; I was merely pointing out the “unintended consequences” aspect of the whole thing. Holding passengers hostage for extended periods is inexcusable and many airlines have had their own in-house rules in place for years to prevent these occurrences. I have gone back to the gate many times in the days before this Bill of Rights was passed into law. To me, it comes down to common sense and it’s unfortunate that there have been some egregious occurrences which resulted in having a law.
In this particular event, as we left the ramp for the second time (after waiting almost an hour for clearance from Ground Control), a Flight Attendant called us in the cockpit to tell us that another passenger had now decided that she wanted off the plane. Does anyone suggest that we go back to the gate every time anyone wants off? She had just passed up her opportunity and we elected to deny that request rather than further inconvenience 180 passengers.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 14, 2011 @ 11:08 pm
Mike, you are correct. It is Pisa, Italy. I was afraid it might be too obscure. Nicely done.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 19, 2011 @ 1:46 pm
I’ve been to MMMX and it’s a much more congested area, though it does have parallel runways with mountainous terrain.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 19, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
I was stationed in Pisa in 1952 when the main runway was steel matting for the C119′s we gave them and the Savoia Marchetti trimotors they still had. Every day was fun as we trained their maintenance people. I believe one of the old “Boxcars” has been rehabbed there and placed on display The airport that was the most fun was Trieste with an ammo dump at one end and a burning landfill at the other.
Comment by Brad Tinkham — July 20, 2011 @ 1:51 am
While I empathize with your issues from a crew standpoint, (I’m a corporate pilot so slightly different perspective)the issue is that you can’t treat people like cattle and expect them not to react negatively. The Passenger Bill was written because the airlines have only indicated that they don’t care about the passengers. Pay us money, sit down, shut up. With the increasingly onerous TSA, still no room in the seats despite all the new aircraft designs, apparently deleting the word ‘service’ from all cabin crew manuals, and the outrageous 10 and 12 hour ramp holds that made the news, people are rightly fed up. It’s unfortunate that sometimes the situation requires legal intervention but a little more thought about customer service and comfort might have alleviated the need for the Bill.
Comment by Andforj — July 22, 2011 @ 6:11 pm
I have not landed there for many years but belive this is Geneva
Comment by Les Horn — July 23, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
Les, I don’t think Geneva has parallel runways. The picture I posted shows the airport at Pisa, Italy.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 23, 2011 @ 9:33 pm
I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said about the experience aft of the cockpit door. The deterioration of the flying experience is partly due to market pressures. I know that’s a lame excuse, but I think there’s some truth in it. The emphasis has been on “low cost” airlines and, with the rising cost of fuel, the only way to hold the line on ticket prices (which is really the only thing passengers look at) is to cut service and/or start charging for things that were free up until recently.
I don’t want the role of airline apologist. I rue the decline in service as much as you do. And, of course, the whole security thing hasn’t helped the airport experience either.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 23, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
Since only deplaning is concerned, wouldn’t be possible to have special shuttle vehicules with collapsible staircases come and pick-up willing passenger back to the terminal?
Comment by François Guay — July 30, 2011 @ 1:47 am
Francois,
I suppose this would be possible, but it means having even more vehicles in inventory which have to be stored and maintained. They would only be used in very special circumstances and probably wouldn’t have served in this case since it was pouring rain at the time. Also, if your idea is that they come out to the taxiway and take passengers off so that the plane doesn’t lose its place in line, that probably wouldn’t get approved by either the FAA or the Port Authority.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 31, 2011 @ 5:30 pm
Each airline, aircraft, and route needs to have a “certified” ground time. A 3 hour delay in a B777 or a B747 fueled and provisioned (with toilets and food) for a 12 or even 22 hr flight isn’t a big deal. The same 3 hours in an Embraer waiting to go from JFK to Buffalo is a different story. Each airline also needs to have a means to get passengers off of a jet after arrival if their other jets are using the gate. Yes this is an expense, but airlines get certification to do other things as well. And finally the fee for the Bill of Rights needs be reduced and go to the passenger, not the government. Two or three times the round trip ticket price would cover typical expenses for a typical person and be an disincentive for the airlines not to do go past their “certified” times.
Comment by Todd — August 3, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
Quote:
Since only deplaning is concerned, wouldn’t be possible to have special shuttle vehicules with collapsible staircases come and pick-up willing passenger back to the terminal?
Comment by François Guay — July 30, 2011 @ 1:47 am
Francois,
I suppose this would be possible, but it means having even more vehicles in inventory which have to be stored and maintained. They would only be used in very special circumstances and probably wouldn’t have served in this case since it was pouring rain at the time. Also, if your idea is that they come out to the taxiway and take passengers off so that the plane doesn’t lose its place in line, that probably wouldn’t get approved by either the FAA or the Port Authority.
Comment by Steve Satre — July 31, 2011 @ 5:30 pm
End Quote
Excuse me… “Special Vehicles”? You already have mobile lounges which are just as capable of going alongside a taxiway as they are between aircraft at the gate. And wouldn’t the incremental cost of storing and maintaining these mobile lounges with their slightly expanded utility be miniscule compared to the cost of returning to the gate? Why is “passenger service” not even included in the discussion?
As for getting FAA and/or Port Authority approval, I think that would be more likely if the Prima Donnas at FAA experienced some of these inconveniences themselves instead of traveling in their own privileged airline.
All in all, if I must travel and there is any possible alternative to commercial air, I will take that alternative.
Comment by Oren Wolfe — August 6, 2011 @ 4:35 pm