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

[TeeVee]

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.

kudos for 3we saying it before i did...and they all lived happily ever after...

you go on about families taking in strangers on 9/11. and this has exactly what to do with deplaning nearly 1,000,000 pax???

and you were where and doing what on 9/11 to know that there was pandemonium and that airport managers were making it up as they went along?

maybe YOU think that there is some other reason for incarcerating folks in an aluminum tube for 10 HOURS or 8 HOURS or 6 HOURS on the tarmac besides bullshit and laziness. go ahead and tell us your brilliant thinking. enlighten us. please. then tell us why that doesn't happen anymore now that airlines are being fined HUGE amounts for that kind of crap. please tell us oh brilliant one.

oh, and what exactly is the longest time you've spent on a plane without food or water and with shit and piss flowing down the aisle?

[Fear_of_Flying]

...and basically what you are trying to do to counter Tee Vee's question.

Wrong. I said the question was ridiculous, not the person asking it, and then I explained why I thought it was a bad question. This is completely different from a personal attack on another member of the forum, which is what you did.

[Fear_of_Flying]

maybe YOU think that there is some other reason for incarcerating folks in an aluminum tube for 10 HOURS or 8 HOURS or 6 HOURS on the tarmac

As I said, there's "no excuse for passengers being stuck on the tarmac for 4 hours..." My criticism is of your question - I don't think there's a valid comparison to be made to 9/11, nor does it seem you were interested in any dissenting viewpoints - you just wanted to state your case. Sorry if you disagree.

[TeeVee]

As I said, there's "no excuse for passengers being stuck on the tarmac for 4 hours..." My criticism is of your question - I don't think there's a valid comparison to be made to 9/11, nor does it seem you were interested in any dissenting viewpoints - you just wanted to state your case. Sorry if you disagree.

your one dimensional thinking is causing the problem. obviously, my question was not a straight out desire to know what they did with 1,000,000 pax on 9/11 cuz the answer is obvious: they deplaned them. and although i looked, there is no evidence that anyone, let alone masses of pax were locked in their respective metal tubes for hours and hours. you on the other hand apparently have assumed that they were.

try to think of my OP as an invitation to a discussion, to which several folks accepted and responded. the goal here, as i think you yourself have pointed out, is discussion.

however, rather than discuss, you chose to attempt to prove that my question was not valid.

oh, since when is one not permitted to ask a question to which he already has an answer, in hopes of hearing the opinion of others?

[TeeVee]

As I said, there's "no excuse for passengers being stuck on the tarmac for 4 hours..." My criticism is of your question - I don't think there's a valid comparison to be made to 9/11, nor does it seem you were interested in any dissenting viewpoints - you just wanted to state your case. Sorry if you disagree.

not a valid comparison?

on one day, which i acknowledged to be extraordinary, airports and airlines were able to deplane 1,000,000 pax without a prior plan. 6,500 extra planes on the ground when they were supposed to be flying. and they managed to do it without bitching about lack of space, lack of equipment, lack of personnel. friggin amazing!

on the other hand, a blizzard strikes NYC and 100's of pax are incarcerated in tubes for 10 hours because there is no equipment no gates whatever. an ice storm hits Dallas and the same story. a plane lands in Connecticut because of weather in NY and the intl pax are trapped because a lack of BCIS personnel. a tiny little jet is trapped on the tarmac in, i can't remember, minnesota was it? because the airport personnel went home and no one could open a door?!?!?! are you f#ckin kidding me?!?!?! until a pax begins complaining of chest pains and difficulty breathing--signs of a heart attack--no one does anything.

these are simple things to remedy, and apparently, the specter of paying monster fines to uncle sam has just about fixed them.

[AA 1818]

So, I am not going to enter into the pissing match that is 'apropriate comparison' question, but I do think that there is some validity in the frustration that TeeVee is expressing regarding this situation.

It's not always Sunny in South Florida. Anyone that has lived here understands very well that we get violent thunderstorms (almost daily in the afternoons of summer) and we also get a hurricane or two. So, the question remains - why isn't this taken into account when dealing with traffic in and around South Florida? Why are there not new/innovative/intelligent ways to deal with the weather, and why are we not innovative enough to deal with the 'oh, it's raining, and we can't deplane' excuse yet?

The same goes for most airports that deal with snow storms. It's inexcusable that in this day and age, after facing the horrors of the problem for decades, and now that legislation is in place (to correct a serious issue) that we are still using archaic technology, and outdated processes to fix these issues.

If you (guys and gals) had to fix these problems, how would you? Do you have any cool or interesting (as out of the box as they may be) ideas or, processes that you've noticed, that addresses similar issues?

[TeeVee]

since i live and fly in and out of MIA several times per month, i know this problem well.

1st, thunderstorm delays are not nearly so bad. and as far as i know and in my experience, the ramp is only closed when there is lightning near the field. this is to protect the ramp workers, which i fully understand and agree with. the good thing is that no one ever misses a connection because of these delays and they usually only last 15 minutes.

if the plane is at the gate, in my experience, pax are allowed to board and deplane. the baggage and cargo is another story as is fueling and servicing the plane.

as for what i would do, i'm pretty sure that just about every airport has at least on or two gates that are not occupied at any given moment. in the event a plane arrives or is substantially delayed in departure, they should be directed to the vacant gate, regardless of which airline "owns" it. at the end of the day, the gate belongs to the airport, county, state, whatever. airlines are probably only assigned rights to use the gate. in case of emergency, the airport authority should usurp the rights and use the gate as necessary.

as for what to do with pax, well, that is a bit more complex but by no means impossible. they may have to sit or wander around a terminal, but that sure beats being trapped on a plane. as for immigration issues, well, at least in the major airports there are always plenty of BCIS officers wandering or siting around. it's not such a big deal to close off a section of a terminal or concourse. if the delay is going to be extremely long, than pax should be given the option to "enter the country" and find hotels. if this occurs at an airport where there are no BCIS officers the problem is more difficult for the passengers. but they should always be allowed off the plane and held in a part of the airport.

this country has solved bigger problems than this and is a world leader in technology. to say that this problem is simply insurmountable is a load of crap.

[3WE]

Ok, so perhaps this nuance was not discussed much...

9/11 was very different, they did not have other flights to launch

So, what did they do?

Maybe they unloaded planes, pushed them from the gates, and moved them to a hold pad or distant taxiway or closed runway so that they could unload more planes. It was a nice clear day across most of the USA.

So, it snows, and they still want to launch flights, and tugs spin their wheels, and the world starts to melt down.

Fine, I will give you that 9/11 and a snowy day differ at this point.

But it hit's 4 hours. Passengers get irritated, drinks run out, toilets overflow, 6 hours, 8 hours, someone has chest pains.

Perhaps there is a point where perhaps [Quote a few sentences up] you start unloading planes and move them to a hold pad, or distant taxiway or closed runway so you can unload more planes.[slash quote]

Oh, so it's snowy and the tugs slip- well plan better, snow does not usually shut down airports.

And what about those thunderstorm melt downs (like Austin, TX)- tugs work pretty well then.

Oh, there's traffic jams on the taxiways? Again, plan better AND damn it, you can turn folks onto a runway to back taxi!

This is where I'm with Tee Vee. The reason those things did not happen with storms is that the airlines "chose" to not let them happen. The pilots, middle managers, etc were not empowered (instead they were probably 'threatened' with deviating from process.) And, there were not decent contingency plans.

Why?

Again, I'm with Tee Vee: They didn't really want to think about it nor spend the dime.

Maybe it was easier for them to decide to go into "emergency unload mode" on 9/11, but it took the new rules-with fines- to get them off their a$$ to decide to go into "emergency unload mode" when the schedule starts to melt down on a snowy or stormy day...

Thanks Congress.

[MCM]

Like always, there is a middle ground.

There is no doubt that some airlines do take the mickey when it comes to this stuff, and don't have appropriate contingencies.

But I will STRONGLY refute that there is always an answer. There simply isn't.

The question is - how much money are you prepared to pay?

What is reasonable, and what is not? If you want these sort of contingency plans, then the passenger is going to have to be prepared to pay for it. Are they?

However - And I don't like having to, I have to call bullshit on a few things.

as for what i would do, i'm pretty sure that just about every airport has at least on or two gates that are not occupied at any given moment. in the event a plane arrives or is substantially delayed in departure, they should be directed to the vacant gate, regardless of which airline "owns" it. at the end of the day, the gate belongs to the airport, county, state, whatever. airlines are probably only assigned rights to use the gate. in case of emergency, the airport authority should usurp the rights and use the gate as necessary.

One or two gates is usually as useless as tits on a bull in these scenarios. I like the way you say the airlines are "probably" only assigned rights to use the gates. Probably? Are they, or aren't they?! The gates at a local airport are OWNED by the airline. They also OWN the terminal. The airport authority, state, whatever, do not have posession. Some airports it is not that way, and they are leased. Who is going to use the aerobridge? Who will drive it? Who will cover the insurance costs?

Two gates are not the problem. The problem is what you THEN do with the aircraft. Some weather conditions DO prohibit the movement of aircraft, even under tow. Where do the aircraft go then?

There is definitely more that needs to be done by a lot of airlines to solve the problem. No doubt about that. The unnecessary delays do need to be eradicated. But the COST associated with ENTIRELY removing these delays under all circumstances is prohibitive.

[Evan]

But the COST associated with ENTIRELY removing these delays under all circumstances is prohibitive.

This is why the cost associated with paying a fine for exceeding legal ground delay limits must be more PROHIBITIVE and must be ENFORCED after the fact. I understand that there is a reasonable degree of inconvenience that travelers must bear, but after three hours it gets inhuman. If airlines are only going to look at this as an accounting exercise, than make it economically favorable to deplane those poor souls. As it stands, it seems the SOP is to exceed the legal limits with the idea that the fines can be negotiated down later. I do not for one second believe ANY airline management will deplane passengers out of simple human decency. You have to $$$peak to their value system.

[3WE]

But the COST associated with ENTIRELY removing these delays under all circumstances is prohibitive.

I don't think we want delays ENTIRELY removed.

I kinda want to get to my destination. A 2 hour "stranding" would suck, but I get that, quote = Me "Crap happens"

It's when you hit 4 hours and someone has chest pains and it seems like nothing can be done. ("And you get the poor little us" claims from the airline)

Figure it out (including how to use other folks gates)

OR

Pay the fine.

[3WE]

The problem is what you THEN do with the aircraft. Some weather conditions DO prohibit the movement of aircraft, even under tow. Where do the aircraft go then?

We can zoom down the runway at 140 kts with 200 souls on board and braking action of poor but cannot taxi an empty plane or be towed at 3 mph?

...again that's a choice to not help the folks stranded.

...and regarding gate sharing. Again, a choice to not help passengers. The big execs can't have a 1 hour meeting at an exotic resort to agree on an emergency usage fee (insurance included)???

How is it that when a Union Pacific train passes, there are cars from BNSF? Who pays the damages if the BNSF car throws a wheel and causes a wreck. What if the rail breaks and derails Amtrak? Could it be that they worked out business arrangements?

[TeeVee]

One or two gates is usually as useless as tits on a bull in these scenarios. I like the way you say the airlines are "probably" only assigned rights to use the gates. Probably? Are they, or aren't they?! The gates at a local airport are OWNED by the airline. They also OWN the terminal. The airport authority, state, whatever, do not have posession. Some airports it is not that way, and they are leased. Who is going to use the aerobridge? Who will drive it? Who will cover the insurance costs?

Two gates are not the problem. The problem is what you THEN do with the aircraft. Some weather conditions DO prohibit the movement of aircraft, even under tow. Where do the aircraft go then?

There is definitely more that needs to be done by a lot of airlines to solve the problem. No doubt about that. The unnecessary delays do need to be eradicated. But the COST associated with ENTIRELY removing these delays under all circumstances is prohibitive.

MCM, you know that i have no inside info on this. what i suspect is that the airlines lease the gates and like here in MIA, the county really owns the airport and the miami-dade airport authority operates it. AA started a 2.85 billion new (and crappy) north terminal building project (more that 1 billion over budget) but they dumped it back on the county's lap when it became apparent that they couldn't handle it. AA do not own the terminal. more than likely, they lease the gates from the county. JFK and LGA are owned by the city of new york, and i would bet that airlines lease gates there as well.

point is this: it is fairly simple for the governmental bodies that own the airports to REQUIRE airlines not currently utilizing a gate to allow any other aircraft to use the gate in an adverse weather scenario. does anyone doubt that airforce one could commandeer any gate at any airport the president wanted? (crappy analogy, but you understand).

like i've said all along, when and where there is will there is a way.

oh and yeah, this stuff costs money. but guess what, doing business has its risks and costs.

[3WE]

...ENTIRELY removing these delays under all circumstances is prohibitive.

Never ever ever ever have any strandings whatsoever at all???

I understand...maybe not. We should not expect perfection, and yes, totally eliminating every last stranding would be very costly.

BUT

I do say that the new rules with fines have greatly reduced the problem by making the airlines economically chose to address the issue with some of the common-sense alternatives they formerly chose not to use.

[MCM]

TeeVee,

Yes, getting arrangements to use someone elses gate is probably possible. In fact, it probably happens already. I still claim that 2 free gates at an airport is as useless as anything when it comes to these delays.

Lets take Hong Kong as an example. This is an airport that is internationally recognised as a beacon of good management and operations. All gates seem to be managed by the airport authority, and you park where you get told to park. There is no "possesion" of gates, and you could park anywhere. Hong Kong has a LARGE number of gates, as well as significant stand off parking areas - all with the ability and resources to bus people to the terminal at any time of the day or night.

However - bring in a Typhoon, and passengers are sitting on aircraft for many hours. There is simply nothing that can be done. And trust me, if they could do it, they would. Aircraft rush to get in to the airport before it closes, but no-one can leave. What happens when instead of 50 aircraft you now have 100, and none can depart? You get delays and congestion.

Similarly with snow and ice - 3WE may be able to depart with a slippery runway, but I have been stuck in Frankfurt (again, and airport with the very best resources) because the tug physically could not push the aircraft back from the gate. We tried, and it couldn't. You can't go safely moving aircraft around airports in those conditions.

I strongly agree with your last comment 3WE that it is necessary to shake the airlines up to do what they reasonably can. It is quite interesting that these large delays do seem to pop up with regular occurance in the US, but less so internationally.