Regulating Tarmac Delays

You can submit your own question to us at askgeorge@airfarewatchdog.com. We will try to answer as many as possible. If we use your question in a future newsletter, we will send you a free Airfarewatchdog T-shirt. We do not print your name or other details in our newsletters.

To post a comment to one of our Q&A's please click on "read more" and then "post a comment."

Post a Comment

sayhello,
If we take published data from June 1979 through June 2009, your "slightly higher" airfare would be roughy 3x what you pay today, adjusted for inflation.
Instead of, say, $400 coast-to-coast round-trip, it would be $1200. Travel with a family of 4 and the difference is $3200.
Yes, airlines have gotten more efficient partly by cutting services. But that is not the whole picture.
The product may not be as "pleasant" as it was back in the 70s, but it is pretty clear that people are not willing to pay 3x current prices to restore those services.

by notthatsimple on Friday, October 09, 2009

notthatsimple, I'd rather pay a slightly higher airfare, inflation adjusted, if that meant I wouldn't have such a horrific experience flying & dealing with the airlines. Airfares aren't lower because the airlines have become more efficient. Airfares are lower because the airlines have cut service, and cut quality, and nickel and dime us to death, and because they're hitting the ceiling for what people are willing to pay for such a crappy product.

by sayhello on Thursday, October 08, 2009

sayhello,
For a picture of the airline industry being less efficient than it is today, just do a little research on how things operated before deregulation.
Flights today cost in dollars about what they did 30 years ago. Now, consider the inflation rate over that time.

by notthatsimple on Sunday, October 04, 2009

notthatsimple, I fail to see how the airline industry can be less efficient than it is now. I shudder in horror at the thought.

by sayhello on Saturday, October 03, 2009

Mickisue wrote:
I'm wondering if the apologists for the airlines here work for the airlines. They are being utterly disingenuous about the issues of prolonged encasement in a non-moving airplane.

I think that was pointed at me! I am not defending the airlines (and I am not an airline employee). But my perspective is hardly disingenuous.

I daresay that I have been encased within non-moving airplanes for extended periods many more times than the average reader (or poster) on this site.

I don't like it very much either. But I do know that the system is not perfect. Airlines are losing money hand over fist. There is very little room, if any, to accommodate irregularities.

I also prepare for flights. I use the restroom before I board...travel with snacks and grab water after I pass through security...know airplanes can get cold, so I carry a windbreaker in my carry-on (especially in the summer)...get up and stroll the length of the aircraft every 45 mins or so during most extended ground holds...prepare my child to fly, etc.

If I miss a connection (and I've probably missed more connections than most people have flown flights), I miss it. There has never been a case where there wasn't another option. I also know that returning to the terminal is not likely to get me to my destination sooner than by staying onboard.

The fact is that the issue is more complex than just getting a bus to take people back to a gate. As I mentioned before, if it was as easy as some posters seem to think, this would never happen in the first place.

This isn't just the airlines. The FAA plays a great role in creating the conditions that can cause these messes. Yet not one person in this discussion has mentioned how to fix that component.

And, any time you regulate added complexity into a system, you are likely to introduce inefficiency. And inefficiency means additional costs.

by notthatsimple on Wednesday, September 30, 2009

I'm wondering if the apologists for the airlines here work for the airlines. They are being utterly disingenuous about the issues of prolonged encasement in a non-moving airplane.

The fact is that the legislation governing airlines, as is the case with most of the "governing" legislation, has been written by the industry which it governs. If *you* can write the laws that control your behavior in re your customers, you are in a superior position to them. If *you* can join together with other members of your industry to do so, then none of you is required to compete on the basis of superior service, if lesser service somehow saves you money.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We can talk all we want, here, about the need for more meaningful laws governing airlines in this country. That will get us exactly nothing. The place to talk is to your legislators, both your Congressperson and your Senators, so that they know that it's important to you, and that you vote.

by mickisue on Wednesday, September 30, 2009

zzzzz78759,

I fly that "other" airline most frequently these days. Maybe we can be continue this dialog if we're "stuck" in the same row! It'll help pass the time!

by notthatsimple on Monday, September 28, 2009

One BIG concern I have with sitting on a tarmac for an extended period of time is deep vein thrombosis.
Blood is meant to flow; if it becomes stagnant there is a potential for it to clot. The blood in veins is constantly forming microscopic clots that are routinely broken down by the body. If the balance of clot formation and resolution is altered, significant clotting can occur. A thrombus can form if one, or a combination of the following situations is present:
Immobility

Prolonged travel and sitting, such as long airplane flights.

Clot forms, breaks loose, goes to the lungs, then you have a pulmonary emboli. Not much chance you'll be walking off of that plane. Just saying.

by medisunman on Sunday, September 27, 2009

zodiac711:
If you were one of the hundreds of people affected by those "downstream issues", who couldn't get to where they wanted to go because the aircraft wasn't where it was supposed to be because it canceled, your opinion might be different. This IS a complex issue.

I've been a very fequent flyer for nearly two decades. I have sat waiting for hours for the aircraft to get clearance many, many times. I did not enjoy it.

That said, I would much rather sit, waiting in line for 4 hours...and get to my destination (although late)...than to return and, quite likely, have the flight cancel. With a lot of cancellations, it could be another day -- or days-- before I get to where I'm going. I've been there, too.

It also shows that one has to be prepared for flying. If there is a hint of a possibility of "irregularity", I don't get on an aircraft without 500ml of water and enough snacks to last me for the next 8 hrs.

I don't expect the airline to feed me. But, although it apparently is not a legal requirement, it does seem reasonable to expect the lavatory to work properly.

by jaded on Saturday, September 26, 2009

I don't think the issue is really that complex. Sitting on a plane on the tarmac for 3 hours is, while not optimal, at least bearable. Beyond that, it's not.

If you're in the air, the lavs are functional, the flight attendants are bringing drinks and snacks (even if you have to pay for them), the air is working, the movies are playing, and everything is functioning as designed.

On the tarmac, the flight attendants are ignoring the passengers or, even worse, harrassing them, the lavs are failing, there are no movies, and very often the air conditioning (or heat) isn't working.

Children are cranky, adults are cranky, it's a recipe for disaster. Those people held hostage in Rochester can tell you how terrible it is.

If the plane has to return to the gate, oh well. If all airlines held the same policy, it wouldn't be an issue. All the planes ahead would be returning to the gate. People need to breathe, move around and use lavatories.

by zzzzz78759 on Saturday, September 26, 2009

People really need to be prepared for the possibility of delays, and a few hours on a plane is something people experience voluntarily every day. It's called a long flight. But I think a plan of escalating compensation would solve the tarmac issue. After two and half hours, it's $100 to each passenger, and another $100 for each half hour after that. The economic incentive to resolve whatever is keeping the plane waiting - or let passengers off - would kick in much sooner than in currently the case. And at $200 per hour, I'd be willing to wait. I think passengers would be in a much better mood.

by DaveS on Saturday, September 26, 2009

@jaded:
We're not talking about a flight that is sitting on the tarmac for an extra 30 minutes... We're talking a plane that has been boarded by people and is sitting on the tarmac for THREE HOURS!

Downstream issues aside, there is absolutely NO justification to keep people penned up like that for that long, ON THE TARMAC!

@ktwilt
I like your idea... I'm wondering however if there would be any legal issues around this? What about the ability to get back on the plane if/when it ever actually is ready for take-off? I've also heard of someone (I believe a lawyer) calling 911 and reporting being held hostage. (No idea what the outcome was, but again, something I've heard)

by zodiac711 on Saturday, September 26, 2009

The bottom line is that if you are passionate about this issue, talking about it here does nothing. BUT calling your senators and congresscritter lets them know that you have a real interest in the issue, and that you VOTE.

by mickisue on Friday, September 25, 2009

I am surprised that more passengers don't pretend to have a medical emergency (like chest pain) to return to the gate. Being an emergency nurse, people use this complaint to try to get seen sooner when in reality the reason for coming is something else - like needs a prescription refill and not wanting to call their own MD on a weekend. I doubt the airlines would want to risk the liability involved. And once you are off the plane, you can always refuse treatment/transport. Heavens only knows if you would ever see any checked luggage again.

by ktkwilt on Friday, September 25, 2009

This issue is far more complex than it appears at first glance. And it involves far more than just airlines. And think, about the downstream effect should a flight return to a gate and lose its slot in line and then have to cancel.

The solution is not as simple as to say "no waits longer than 3 hrs."

By the way, the "airport" is not responsible for passengers once on the aircraft, the airline has that responsibility.

by jaded on Friday, September 25, 2009

I find it hard to believe there isn't an airport in this country that doesn't have an available gate to deplane passangers in the unlikely event of a delay. After deplaning passengers, simply push back the plane to an unrestricted part of the tarmac. Airports do it quite often when planes are not in use.
The bottom line, it seems, is the airports have a financial stake in keeping the passengers on board as much as the airlines do !

by jacketnut69 on Friday, September 25, 2009

I find it unbelievable that Congress is ready to let us sit on planes for three hours minimum. Wouldn't one hour be long enough!! It's a disgrace how passengers are treated by all airlines, airports, TSA and Congress. If you put one Senator on a three hour delay there would be action...and quick!

by jkj6328 on Friday, September 25, 2009

Popular Destinations

Popular Routes

Travel Q&A