Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So what did they do with 1,000,000 passengers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So what did they do with 1,000,000 passengers?

    yesterday evening my mind was drifting as i watched a mess of aircraft on approach for MIA. for some reason i began thinking about the several instances where pax were incarcerated on the tarmac because there were "no available gates" "no available tsa" "no customs officers" etc etc.

    well WTF did they do on 9/11 when 6500 aircraft were grounded by order of the FAA?!?! certainly i do not recall reading stories of pax trapped on board these grounded aircraft for 10 hours, so i imagine they were not.

    yes, 9/11 was certainly an extraordinary day, but if the airports were able to handle that much pax traffic without warning, i simply do not buy for 1/4 of a second that they cannot accommodate a few extra planes in a storm. and no, it makes n difference to me what airport we are talking about. it's simple: when there is a will there is a way. anything less is just bullshit and laziness

  • #2
    Because the order to ground all aircraft was urgent, aircraft landed at the nearest field, which meant that the national fleet (and your "million" passengers) was distributed widely across the country. In truth, however, there were extraordinary pressures on ATC and the airlines. In extreme cases a system can perhaps cope on one day, but clearly not on a regular basis. Also, in view of what happened, there was unusual patience and cooperation exhibited by all parties.

    Comment


    • #3
      missing my point. of course the planes were distributed widely, nevertheless, there were 6500 extra lanes on the ground--that is shitload of extra planes and pax to deal with, yet they did.

      all i'm saying is that when a snowstorm hits JFK, one of the larger airports in the country, there is simply no friggin excuse for not letting the passengers off the aircraft.

      like i said, when there is a will there is a way. cooperation or not. terrorist attack or not.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's a whole different ballgame if you aren't trying to cope with keeping as much of your normal traffic on time as possible in daily operations.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tee Vee's question is valid.

          I tire of the angle that "Pity us poor airlines, we really try hard to get you off the planes, really hard, but it's just impossible"

          That being said, here are some discussion points that have some validity as to why the airlines got most everyone off on 9/11 and then fail so epically in winter weather situations.

          1) Greed (and an effort to serve SOME people). Get that plane out of the gate so the Miami flight can go.

          1a Cost cutting- we do buy the cheapest internet fares....that extra gate, set of steps, bus cost $$.

          2) Snow affects workers- I think with the original NW debacle- the airport was in fairly good shape, but their work force was horribly absent because of the snow.

          3) ATC- There are instances where ATC says there's a reasonable release time, so load up and get in line....and then the release never comes.

          3a. The carrot on a fishing pole in front of the mule with respect to 3 above. The airline is making an honest attempt to get you where you want to go! (and a lot of folks want to get there even though it's crazy late).

          4) Greed- Airline X ain't gonna loan it's gate to Airline Y.

          5) Litigious soceiety, intense safety culture. It's usually snowing and icy. Someone's gonna slip, someone's gonna sue- steps and busses do not work- the safest bet is on the plane with no more drinks and overflowing toilets.

          6, 7, 8 (There's probably some more angles I have fogotten.)

          Ok, so much for being an apologist.

          What chaps me is that there was apparently no decent plan nor empowerment to address these things. The majority of the mass melt downs were kind of inexcusable IMO. How many folks were stranded, a short walk from the terminal? The poor SOB middle manager, gate agent, pilot with no authority to enact some really common sense fixes.

          IMO- I am glad that the fines were enacted (whenever that was).

          The fines force the airlines to develop those plans I describe.

          It was said that the airlines would "retaliate" or "be forced" to just wholesale cancel everything...

          ...that being said, I have to say that the mass ramp-strandings seem to be much less common now that fines are possible- so even if it increases cancellations- maybe that's what needs to happen.

          So, I'm with Tee Vee. On 9/11 there didn't seem to be too much problem getting folks off of planes even though the whole USA flight schedule was derailed- so why so much trouble when a couple of hubs have snow? I understand some of it, but some of it really sucked!

          Answer- the airlines had crap plans/contingencies for snowy days.

          I generally oppose gubment intervenshun, but this one seemed neccesary and seems to have worked.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Or, it could have something to do with the fact that passengers were in fact kept on aircraft for protracted periods but the fact that a major national disaster was unfolding and thousands of lives were being lost they chose not to make waves about it.

            Life is also very different when you can park aircraft on runways knowing that no-one will be flying again for days.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MCM View Post
              ...passengers were in fact kept on aircraft for protracted periods but ...thousands of lives were being lost so they chose not to make waves about it.
              Indeed we should not imply that there were no issues on 9/11. There had to have been some somewhere.

              However, I think the counter argument is that on that day, the airlines did away with their "bad" policies and used some common sense and, for the vast majority, got folks off in a reasonable amout of time as opposed to the 6 and 8 hour fiascos of severe 'total' gridlock.

              Crap does happen. I understand 2 hour ramp strandings. But then, when the airline seems unable to do much of anything when it hits 3 and 4 hours- no ability (or willingness?) to throw in the towl and get folks back off within an hour or two??? Remember, 10 hours/day, 6 days a week, the gates are turning plane after plane after plane- sometimes more than twice an hour.

              There comes a time to pull the plug, stop loading out, send empty planes to hold pads, distant taxiways, an unused runway.

              Another item I did not mention is that when it snows or freezes, tugs can get stuck. Sure, that's an issue, but I still say "crappy planning". Denver operates through lots of light and moderate snowstorms right? Sure, there's delays, but planes are still loading, unloading and getting pushed- somehow they know how to have traction for their tugs- and can operate without these major gridlock/clog up/melt downs.

              It's "basic contingency planning" verusus "pinching every last penney"

              Again, thanks for the government intervention on this one.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                MCM, i dont doubt that pax spent some time in the grounded aircraft on 9/11. but knowing how loudly people like to bitch, i doubt there were any long delays.

                about this gate availability crap. i've spent countless hours in MIA and DFW two relatively busy airports, and i don't think i have EVER seen every gate occupied. in fact MIA has many gates that seemingly are not used. DFW has so many gates in general it's hard to imagine them all being occupied ever.

                the answer is what 3we has been saying: it's all about the almighty dollar, lack of communication and lack of cooperation. all of which, to me, boils down to this: they simply don't give a shit about the pax or the crew.

                Comment


                • #9
                  While I agree that there's probably no excuse for passengers being stuck on the tarmac for 4 hours just because it's snowing somewhere, I don't think the best way to go about demonstrating this is by comparing an average day at the airport with the most atypical day in the history of aviation.

                  Nothing was the same on 9/11, so to turn around and compare what happened then to every other day is to introduce a whole new set of variables.

                  Of course the will was there to do things differently. The will was also there for families to take in stranded travelers - people who were complete strangers - but that's not something that happens on a daily basis. Why not?

                  On that day, people had the flexibility to improvise, without worrying about procedures getting in the way. But could we get away with that free-for-all on a regular basis? "Well, when everyone did their own thing, it worked great, so let's just do that from now on." I think safety would soon be compromised.

                  The way to improve procedures is to look at examples of procedures that work efficiently, and to examine where procedures break down, not to look at a case study where procedures were thrown out the window and everyone was acting on instinct but with a will and magnanimity that transcended every other day.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                    The way to improve procedures is to look at examples of procedures that work efficiently, and to examine where procedures break down, not to look at a case study where procedures were thrown out the window and everyone was acting on instinct but with a will and magnanimity that transcended every other day.
                    ...and the prince and princess lived happily ever after.

                    Dude, the airlines spend every day "looking at how to make procedures efficient", and make no mistake, heads rolled and asses were reamed when the companies livery was plastered all over the evening news with 911 calls that someone was having chest pains after 8 hours and 'ground control' said, "rodger, continue holding"...

                    ...but the incidents kept happening.

                    ...first congress threatened fines. "Oh no, you don't want fines, remember, we the airlines do not want strandings and bad PR, let us regulate ourselves"...

                    ...then comes more stranding melt downs.

                    ...bring on rules with fines...seems like things are largely fixed.

                    I think there has been an isolated incident or two since the fines, yes, $hit happens, but now that it hits their pocket book, there's some real plans in place and real actions that are making things a whole lot better.

                    I think Tee Vee would say- now that there are fines they are doing some of those "common sense" things they were willing to do on 9/11 that they were so unwilling to do before the threat of a fine.

                    It's not all or nothing / black and white, but I think he's asking some reasonable questions when you compare and contrast 9/11 strandings when every last plane in the air had to be parked and apparently was unloaded without too much trouble versus snowstorm strandings where only a few airports are involved, and there are 8 and 10 hour strandings....
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      ...and the prince and princess lived happily ever after.

                      Dude, the airlines spend every day "looking at how to make procedures efficient", and make no mistake, heads rolled and asses were reamed when the companies livery was plastered all over the evening news with 911 calls that someone was having chest pains after 8 hours and 'ground control' said, "rodger, continue holding"...

                      ...but the incidents kept happening.

                      ...first congress threatened fines. "Oh no, you don't want fines, remember, we the airlines do not want strandings and bad PR, let us regulate ourselves"...

                      ...then comes more stranding melt downs.

                      ...bring on the threat of a fine...seems like things are largely fixed.

                      I think there has been an isolated incident or two since the fines, yes, $hit happens, but now that it hits their pocket book, there's some real plans in place and real actions that are making things a whole lot better.

                      I think Tee Vee would say- now that there are fines they are doing some of those "common sense" things they were willing to do on 9/11 that they were so unwilling to do before the threat of a fine.

                      It's not all or nothing / black and white, but I think he's asking some reasonable questions when you compare and contrast 9/11 strandings versus snowstorm strandings.
                      I got stuck on the tarmac at JFK for four hours once due to severe weather all up and down the eastern seaboard. Fortunately, my company had sent me business class and the FA's broke out the booze. Unfortunately we drank them dry before we got airborne. Made it to SAN just as they were shutting down for the night.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        I think he's asking some reasonable questions when you compare and contrast 9/11 strandings versus snowstorm strandings.
                        No, he's not. It's a ridiculous question. We don't even know if the main premise is true, that passengers weren't in fact stuck in their aircraft on the tarmac for extended periods while they sorted out the deplaning on 9/11. If it is true, I don't think that makes the question any more reasonable. The airports were in a state of pandemonium, with airplanes setting down here there and everywhere and travelers stuck all over the country and beyond. There was no normal routine, and many people were inconvenienced far beyond what they would have been had they sat on an airplane for a few hours. The airport authorities had to make it up as they went along. There was only one goal: get everyone on the ground and off their plane - gate be damned; no more flights. Is that usually the goal during inclement weather?

                        Then, before TeeVee hears any responses, he answers his own question, deciding that 9/11 proves that lengthy delays are a result of "bullshit and laziness." Nothing black and white about that! It's not surprising that of the comments that followed, he decided that the one that supported the point he was trying to make was "the answer".

                        If someone wants to ask why a seemingly minor weather issue results in lengthy delays when we should have procedures in place to account for that, that's a reasonable question. I'm cynical, too. But to extend the analogy to what happened on 9/11 is highly problematic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                          No, he's not. It's a ridiculous question.
                          Indeed.

                          Excellent example of narrow-minded, black and white thinking, without the ability to grasp broader concepts...
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Indeed.

                            Excellent example of narrow-minded, black and white thinking, without the ability to grasp broader concepts...
                            Excellent example of an ad hominem post.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                              Excellent example of an ad hominem post.
                              ...and basically what you are trying to do to counter Tee Vee's question.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X