Remember the TARMAC RULE???? Unintended consequences!!!

[greatam]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/us_dept_of_transportation_data.html

 

Let's see-about 700,000 fliers displaced due to cancellations. Before the tarmac rule came into effect, IIRC, it was about 3800 people who had to sit on the runway for more than a couple hours.

 

Even if you take 2/3 of the cancellations out of the equation due to winter weather, that still leaves 230,000 people effected by cancellations NOT weather related but flights which may be subject to the Tarmac Rule.

 

And of course, the FAA won't say whether there is any effect or whether the cancellations are related to the Tarmac Rule. It's THEIR rule, forced on them by our all knowing Congress.

 

Kind of like the DOT REFUSING to admit their new HOS (hours of service) rules for truck drivers are causing MORE accidents. California disproved their theory with their own study after some really bad wrecks on I-5 and I know my own drivers are more tired now with shorter driving times allowed than previously. Instead of driving 10 hours (with a break in the middle), sleeping for 8, then driving again, they are now FORCED to quite driving after 10 hours. What do they do with that 14 hours??? Some of it is spent at docks loading freight. But the MAJORITY of their time is spent hanging around truck stops, playing video games, sitting in the restaurant BS'ing for hours on end, laying in their bunks watching TV and videos, gambling at one of the many, many Indian casinos all along the interstates, etc. etc. They are not sleeping.

 

You would think before they make some of these rules, they would actually SPEAK to people who are involved in the actual activities instead of people sitting behind a desk. Leave it to our overbearing government to make rules good for a few, not the many.

[kelmac]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/us_dept_of_transportation_data.html

 

Let's see-about 700,000 fliers displaced due to cancellations. Before the tarmac rule came into effect, IIRC, it was about 3800 people who had to sit on the runway for more than a couple hours.

 

Even if you take 2/3 of the cancellations out of the equation due to winter weather, that still leaves 230,000 people effected by cancellations NOT weather related but flights which may be subject to the Tarmac Rule.

 

And of course, the FAA won't say whether there is any effect or whether the cancellations are related to the Tarmac Rule. It's THEIR rule, forced on them by our all knowing Congress.

 

Kind of like the DOT REFUSING to admit their new HOS (hours of service) rules for truck drivers are causing MORE accidents. California disproved their theory with their own study after some really bad wrecks on I-5 and I know my own drivers are more tired now with shorter driving times allowed than previously. Instead of driving 10 hours (with a break in the middle), sleeping for 8, then driving again, they are now FORCED to quite driving after 10 hours. What do they do with that 14 hours??? Some of it is spent at docks loading freight. But the MAJORITY of their time is spent hanging around truck stops, playing video games, sitting in the restaurant BS'ing for hours on end, laying in their bunks watching TV and videos, gambling at one of the many, many Indian casinos all along the interstates, etc. etc. They are not sleeping.

 

You would think before they make some of these rules, they would actually SPEAK to people who are involved in the actual activities instead of people sitting behind a desk. Leave it to our overbearing government to make rules good for a few, not the many.

 

I would much rather have my flight cancelled, compared to spending four hours just sitting on the tarmac. Last year 1.15% flights were cancelled and this past cycle 1.42% flights were cancelled -- statistically not a big deal; could have been just weather related. You think a CEO making 8 million dollars a year could figure out how to make it work before the government has to step in an give their form of a fix?

 

Enjoy!

Kel:)

[PennyAgain]

I, on the other hand, would rather wait out my chances on the plane than to have my flight cancelled.

 

Been there, done that.

 

The only exception I would make to this opinion is if the airline has already rescheduled me on a soon to depart but different flight.

[cb at sea]

I'd go insane sitting in a non-moving aircraft for hours on end.....insane!!!! We had a delay for over an hour once...and we were crammed in like sardines...it was horrendous. I can't even imagine being stuck on the aircraft for 3 or more hours.

[greatam]

I'd go insane sitting in a non-moving aircraft for hours on end.....insane!!!! We had a delay for over an hour once...and we were crammed in like sardines...it was horrendous. I can't even imagine being stuck on the aircraft for 3 or more hours.

 

I'm curious. You would rather have your flight canceled and maybe not get on another flight for a day or two or sit in the plane until it can take off????

 

Sure, sitting in the plane may not be the most comfortable (and certainly not for 10 hours as the Jet Blue flight was stuck on the runway). BUT with planes flying full (over full for most of them), thinking about how you are going to get to wherever you need to go sure warrants some thought. You may not get on the next plane out or even the next two or three planes out. Are you prepared for that???

 

Sitting on the runway sure is a better option IMHO.

[alidor]

Count me in as preferring the cancellation. Am travel saavy enough to figure something out.

[CtheW0rld]

i would prefer it be cancelled, too. if the delay was that long, i missed my connection already.

[Globaliser]

I, on the other hand, would rather wait out my chances on the plane than to have my flight cancelled.

 

Been there, done that.

Me too, many times.

 

I'd much rather be on the aircraft for three or four extra hours and get there three or four hours late than have the flight cancelled and, on my itineraries, typically incur a minimum of a 24-hour delay. I've got places to go and things to do, and spending a bit of extra time on board is worth it.

[kitty9]

Waiting rather than canceling depending on certain issues. I don't want to sit for hours with no air conditioning, sitting on a tarmac in Phoenix in August. I don't want to sit on a plane for hours with no functioning toilets. And if the plane is loaded with infants, no freaking way do I want to sit there for four or five hours.

[frugaltravel]

Cancel the flights. (1) Flights are historically +-80-85% full. (2) Are flights really "overfull for most of them"? Hardly. How many voluntary bumps are there? Not many. Involuntary bumps? Way fewer. Please post links to stories of people who sat in airports or in cities for days on end due to flights canceled because of the tarmac rule. Such stories are extremely rare. I am still trying to find one. Even with the snow storms on the east coast in December (thousands of flights canceled) and the weather in Atlanta shortly thereafter, people were inconvenienced, but it had nothing to do with the tarmac rule. It was weather. Some people cried how the airlines canceled so many flights in Atlanta due to the tarmac rule during and after that storm. Really? If that really were the case, then why were so many flights canceled a day or two in advance when the airlines really had no way of knowing if the 3 hour limit would even have an effect?

 

And that example in the article was accurate when it said that the person described "has no way of knowing if the tarmac rule came into play in her case." I was in NJ/NY during that snowstorm. I can tell you that the tarmac rule HELPED at least one flight into JFK. Sun Country from MSP to JFK arrived and sat on the tarmac for 2-1/2 hours before the airport "miraculously" found a gate to deplane at before the 3 hours kicked in. But two international flights sat for 8-10 hours at JFK (arrived, no place to go) and YYZ (waiting to take off for JFK) but since the tarmac rule didn't apply, no pressure was applied to deplane passengers. And few flights were moving Dec 26/27/28 at JFK. The airport simply couldn't handle the snow that fell. It had NOTHING to do with the tarmac rule. When an airline cancels 2-3 days' worth of flights during a holiday period due to snow, of course someone who was on one of those canceled flights will have problems finding room on another flight. As alidor said, savvy flyers will know what to do. I eventually had to take a train to a different city and fly from there. Fortunately I also had travel insurance that covered 99% of all my expenses for three days.

 

Sorry, the tarmac rule is, fortunately, here to stay.

[frugaltravel]

Me too, many times.

 

I'd much rather be on the aircraft for three or four extra hours and get there three or four hours late than have the flight cancelled and, on my itineraries, typically incur a minimum of a 24-hour delay. I've got places to go and things to do, and spending a bit of extra time on board is worth it.

 

The tarmac rule doesn't appear to apply to most of your itineraries if you are UK-based. The tarmac rule only applies to domestic US airlines flying wholly within the US. There are multiple flights to most destinations each day within the US. So a minimum of a 24-hour delay would be the exception not the norm...unless someone can give links to the dozens or hundreds of passengers displaced for days on end (good luck finding them!) due to this rule.

[Globaliser]

The tarmac rule doesn't appear to apply to most of your itineraries if you are UK-based.

Fortunately, that appears to be the case.

 

One of the big problems with the tarmac rule is that it's easier for the lawmakers to mandate feel-good measures which have a direct and immediate appeal to voters, who actually have no clue what it's like to operate an airline in marginal conditions, when all that the rule actually does is apply a thin sticking-plaster over the real problems: poorly-designed airports, rampant over-development of available space (see eg the new gates at JFK T2 which contributed to AF's little embarrassment the other week), and wholly inadequate slot systems. If you're number 52 in the queue for takeoff at a particular airport, you know that that airport long ago totally lost its marbles.

[wcook]

I'm sorry, and with all due respect, but much of the opposition of the tarmac rule is <horsepoop>. Basic human decency says you don't keep your customers trapped in a plan for hours and end. Period.

 

Airlines need to set themselves up in such a way that they don't require trapping passengers in plans for hours on end as a routine consequece of doing business. I didn't believe the scare tactics from the airline that the rule would mean massive cancellations. I don't believe folks who point to a statistical blip and say, "see, it must be the tarmac rule." If I'm wrong, and treating your customers with a smidgen of human decency really does mean you have to cancel tons of flights, then there is something wrong with how you have set up your system.

 

The rule isn't the government putting in place feel good regulations. It's a black eye to the airlines who shouldn't have to have been told in the first place how unacceptable their practices were.

[frugaltravel]

I'm sorry, and with all due respect, but much of the opposition of the tarmac rule is <horsepoop>. Basic human decency says you don't keep your customers trapped in a plan for hours and end. Period.

 

Airlines need to set themselves up in such a way that they don't require trapping passengers in plans for hours on end as a routine consequece of doing business. I didn't believe the scare tactics from the airline that the rule would mean massive cancellations. I don't believe folks who point to a statistical blip and say, "see, it must be the tarmac rule." If I'm wrong, and treating your customers with a smidgen of human decency really does mean you have to cancel tons of flights, then there is something wrong with how you have set up your system.

 

The rule isn't the government putting in place feel good regulations. It's a black eye to the airlines who shouldn't have to have been told in the first place how unacceptable their practices were.

 

Well said.

 

I am still waiting to see all those media reports of the hundreds or thousands of people who have been stranded for days on end the past 9 months with all the tarmac-rule-induced flight cancellations :). Airlines realized that they could improve their operations, in spite of inherent deficiencies in the airline travel system in the US. I give them kudos for adopting so well, even though it unfortunately meant it required another government regulation to do so.

[greatam]

The latest update by two researchers following the increased cancellation rate.

 

http://www.tarmaclimits.com/Tarmac/Tarmac_Limits.html

 

Please note the faulty DOT methods of computing the cancellation rates. This statement addresses international flights and people stuck more than a few hours: "they recommend fixing the domestic rule before expanding it to international flights or small airports, where passenger re-accommodation times from cancellations are measured in days, not hours."

 

Our business alone has seen an increase (about 9%) in canceled flights out of JFK for domestic flights. The majority have NOT been weather related (per my NYC dispatcher's notes). It is causing considerable extra expense as we have to keep a driver on standby at JFK UNTIL the plane takes off. If the flight is canceled, we have to reload the freight into one of our refrigerated trucks, as most of our air shipments are highly perishable and cannot be left at the airport. Paying 3 hours of overtime to protect our freight is getting rather expensive for all concerned, not counting the inconvenience on the other end. About 6 weeks ago, AA 21 to LAX got off the ground SIX minutes before the tarmac rule became applicable. We had to have our truck and driver standing by JUST IN CASE the flight was canceled. This impacts a lot of business freight adding time and expense to products/services which eventually comes out of the consumer's pocket. ANOTHER unintended consequence.

[frugaltravel]

The latest update by two researchers following the increased cancellation rate.

 

http://www.tarmaclimits.com/Tarmac/Tarmac_Limits.html

 

Nice link, but how about one that is INDEPENDENT? When they start out with "Debunking DOT's claims" you know right off the bat that they are as biased in one direction as the DOT appears to be in the other.

 

Our business alone has seen an increase (about 9%) in canceled flights out of JFK for domestic flights. The majority have NOT been weather related (per my NYC dispatcher's notes). It is causing considerable extra expense as we have to keep a driver on standby at JFK UNTIL the plane takes off. If the flight is canceled, we have to reload the freight into one of our refrigerated trucks, as most of our air shipments are highly perishable and cannot be left at the airport. Paying 3 hours of overtime to protect our freight is getting rather expensive for all concerned, not counting the inconvenience on the other end. About 6 weeks ago, AA 21 to LAX got off the ground SIX minutes before the tarmac rule became applicable. We had to have our truck and driver standing by JUST IN CASE the flight was canceled. This impacts a lot of business freight adding time and expense to products/services which eventually comes out of the consumer's pocket. ANOTHER unintended consequence.

 

You know as well as anyone that airplanes have problems and cancellations all the time. Are you telling me that before the tarmac rule you never had your drivers wait until a plane took off? I have been on more than one plane that was on the tarmac and ready to take off, then back to the gate due to a mechanical issue. Sometimes the flight was just delayed several hours, sometimes it was canceled. Seems like you would have had to pay this "3 hours of overtime" (or more) with such flight delays. So it is not particular to the 3-hour tarmac rule.

[greatam]

Nice link, but how about one that is INDEPENDENT? When they start out with "Debunking DOT's claims" you know right off the bat that they are as biased in one direction as the DOT appears to be in the other.

 

The companies following the Tarmac Rule are independent aviation consultants. Airline Zone (partner in the study) is one of the top aviation consultants in the USA.

 

You know as well as anyone that airplanes have problems and cancellations all the time. Are you telling me that before the tarmac rule you never had your drivers wait until a plane took off? I have been on more than one plane that was on the tarmac and ready to take off, then back to the gate due to a mechanical issue. Sometimes the flight was just delayed several hours, sometimes it was canceled. Seems like you would have had to pay this "3 hours of overtime" (or more) with such flight delays. So it is not particular to the 3-hour tarmac rule.

 

When our freight is IN THE PLANE, it is in single pallet refrigerated storage containers plugged into the plane. So waiting for delayed take off is NO big deal. Could sit there for days actually as long as the containers are plugged in.

 

Our drivers waiting, waiting, waiting to see if a flight is going to be canceled JUST BECAUSE of the 3 hour rule is definitely extra expense (and they are all getting very tired of hanging around the JFK cargo bays doing NOTHING). On cancellations, the plane is UNLOADED so no reefer protection. We have experienced few times out of JFK NOT weather related when flights were actually canceled. On those rare occasions, we have sent someone to pick up the freight from JFK.

[wcook]

I am quite skeptical that the tarmac rule results in tons of canceled flights and meaningfully higher freight shipping costs. But it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

We should never accept a system that says people should be trapped indefinitely in cramped, uncomfortable and unpleasant quarters - without access to adequate food, water and sanitary facilities - so that freight companies can ship their products more cheaply.

 

It's mind boggling to me that this is even debatable. The airlines and freight companies seem to have lost tract of their humanity. It should be obviously that trapping people indefinitely on the tarmac is unacceptable and that these business need to find different ways of operating.

[ducklite]

Count me in as preferring the cancellation. Am travel saavy enough to figure something out.

 

+1

 

Three years ago my flight from PHL to ALB was cancelled. I counted the number of people who were supposed to be on that flight, and realized there was no way they were all getting re-booked to ALB that day. I nicely walked up to the podium and told the gate agent that I could be very flexible, and would he be so kind as to rebook me to BTV, BDL, or SYR on a flight leaving within the next hour or so. Wala, I got on a flight to BDL and arrived at my final destination only an hour later than originally planned. He was more than happy to re-accommodate me as I gave him actual options rather than whining and complaining or just standing there expecting him to work a miracle and fix a broken plane.

 

Three months ago my flight from MCO/PHL/BOS was delayed leaving MCO and I'd probably miss the connection. I asked and was immediately re-booked MCO/CLT/PVD and arrived at my final destination only 30 minutes behind schedule.

 

There are ALWAYS alternatives, you just have to be smarter than the system to figure them out.

[greatam]

I am quite skeptical that the tarmac rule results in tons of canceled flights and meaningfully higher freight shipping costs. But it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

We should never accept a system that says people should be trapped indefinitely in cramped, uncomfortable and unpleasant quarters - without access to adequate food, water and sanitary facilities - so that freight companies can ship their products more cheaply.

 

It's mind boggling to me that this is even debatable. The airlines and freight companies seem to have lost tract of their humanity. It should be obviously that trapping people indefinitely on the tarmac is unacceptable and that these business need to find different ways of operating.

 

I would like to hear your suggestions to make this system better. Way too many government agencies to work through the hoops with-local, county, airport agencies, state, feds. EVERYONE wants something different from bigger, nicer airports with more gates to eminent domain rules to transport access, etc. etc. There truly is NO consensus. Guess we could just cut down the amount of flights and everyone could pay even more due to Econ 101. There are no simple easy solutions.

 

During weather delays, if the plane has left the gate (ie no jetway access) it is ILLEGAL to unload passengers with steps if there is lightening or ice/snow. OSHA rules PREVENT airport personnel from actually getting steps in position to unload passengers under those conditions. So back to the gate you go MAYBE. It is also against many airport rules to unload passengers any place other than at a jetway regardless of weather. Those alternative solutions are closed to the airlines.

 

While I will agree that sitting for 10 hours in a plane is not something anyone should have to do (the Jet Blue incident), the actual amount of money the airlines can be fined is astronomical. Per my example in the previous post, AA 21 was SIX minutes from having to cancel the flight per the Tarmac Rule. Would it REALLY make a difference in passenger comfort to have the plane leave SIX minutes AFTER 3 hours? Or even another 1/2 hour. I don't think so.

[frugaltravel]

AA 21 was SIX minutes from having to cancel the flight per the Tarmac Rule. Would it REALLY make a difference in passenger comfort to have the plane leave SIX minutes AFTER 3 hours? Or even another 1/2 hour. I don't think so.

 

Or another hour. Or another 2 hours. Or another 3 hours. Where does it stop? The airlines put this on themselves because they didn't do the right thing in multiple incidents. Your beef is really with the airlines, not with the government or with those who feel the tarmac rule is welcome.

[wcook]

There are no simple easy solutions.

 

You are right, there are no easy solutions. Which is why some shmuck typing on the internet (me) isn't going to be able to post the answer. There are a lot of smart, knowledgeable, highly paid people within the airlines and the government who need to come up with them.

 

However, a shmuck typing on the internet can point out what is obvious - or what should be obvious: Namely, that trapping people indefinitely on the tarmac as a routine course of business is unacceptable.

 

And while I don't have the full answer, what I just wrote is the first step in any solution. The decision makers need to stop whining and complaining about the tarmac rule. They need to ask themselves, "What the heck is wrong with us that we think stranding people indefinitely is an acceptable way to do business?"

 

The decision makers need a change in attitude. If they can't change their attitude, they need to be replaced. And once the decision makers realize that it's unacceptable to leave people stranded indefinitely on planes, they need to make sure every single person in the organization understands that as well.

 

Many of the most egregious incidents took place because the people involved

 

- Weren't trained in all possible solutions

- Didn't have the resources to find all possible solutions

- Quite frankly, didn't care enough. They accepted trapped passengers rather than seeking all possible solutions.

 

Changing attitudes is a first and necessary step. If the decision makers can't get an empathy transplant, then "astronomical" fines might be the only way to do it.

[waterbug123]

We should never accept a system that says people should be trapped indefinitely in cramped, uncomfortable and unpleasant quarters - without access to adequate food, water and sanitary facilities - so that freight companies can ship their products more cheaply.

 

It's mind boggling to me that this is even debatable. The airlines and freight companies seem to have lost tract of their humanity. It should be obviously that trapping people indefinitely on the tarmac is unacceptable and that these business need to find different ways of operating.

 

+1

 

I'll give it an hour or two, but beyond that, sorry- my comfort (and that of my fellow pax) takes priority over someone's perishable cargo or overtime payroll.

[frugaltravel]

Changing attitudes is a first and necessary step. If the decision makers can't get an empathy transplant, then "astronomical" fines might be the only way to do it.

 

True.

 

And in referencing the report in the first post, I still find it intriguing that "the joint research program of The Airline Zone Inc. and Marks Aviation LLC confirmed that the three-hour taxi time limit and the threat of punitive fines were driving thousands of flight cancellations. The reports found that the rule, fines and conflicting regulations are causing significant consumer harm by forcing the cancellation of thousands of flights that would not otherwise be subject to egregious taxi times."

 

Assuming there were only 50 people on each of those "thousands of flights" (probably at least double that number of passengers per plane) and let's assume "thousands" means 2,000. So that is 100,000 passengers (in reality probably 500,000 if 100 people/flight and 5,000 flights). Not a single media report that I can find about these passengers' inability to find alternate flights within a reasonable time. I can't imagine news organizations ignoring stories about airline passengers stranded for days on end because of flight cancellations due to the tarmac rule. And remember, the media loves these kinds of stories - in fact it was these stories that got the government involved in the first place.

[Globaliser]

Airlines need to set themselves up in such a way that they don't require trapping passengers in plans for hours on end as a routine consequece of doing business.

It wasn't "routine". On average, it was only about one flight a day during December 2009 (a winter month).

 

Of course, it may be that you think that an average of once every 10 days is still an unacceptably "routine" consequence.

I am still waiting to see all those media reports of the hundreds or thousands of people who have been stranded for days on end the past 9 months with all the tarmac-rule-induced flight cancellations

On the raw numbers quoted in the article, an average of one flight a day used to have its passengers disrupted for 3+ hours.

 

Now, instead of that, about 30 flights have their passengers disrupted for - easily - 3+ hours. Not everyone has the knowledge, skills or information to do the things that are being talked about here. Most passengers have no alternative but to wait for the airline to reaccommodate them, and it can easily cause a 3+ delay in arrival.

 

How is that a better outcome? What is so intolerable about being on board the aircraft for 3+ hours? If sitting in a seat on board a powered aircraft for that length of time is the worst nightmare you are ever going to have, boy your life is easy.

 

But I readily acknowledge that I fly often, and (like greatam's freight) I really have to get where I'm going. So that may affect my point of view. A 30-fold increase in the likelihood of being delayed for 3+ hours? I'll sit on the aircraft, thanks.