US seeks exemption from delay rule
- Thread starter N965VJ
- Start date
But why just PHL? Other airlines are doing it FOR NYC. Why aren't we doing it for LGA/DCA? The Shuttle is notorious for ground delays. More than once I have made 2-3 hrs (even more) of additional blocktime in one day.
SS255
Veteran
Don't "exemptions" defeat the purpose of having a Tarmac Rule to begin with? 
I'm opposed to the Tarmac Rule because it does nothing to address the real problem, but if you're going to have it, you may as well stick with it, because giving exemptions just makes the problem fester.
I'm opposed to the Tarmac Rule because it does nothing to address the real problem, but if you're going to have it, you may as well stick with it, because giving exemptions just makes the problem fester.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Don't "exemptions" defeat the purpose of having a Tarmac Rule to begin with?
I'm opposed to the Tarmac Rule because it does nothing to address the real problem, but if you're going to have it, you may as well stick with it, because giving exemptions just makes the problem fester.
You're are correct! NextGen needs to be implemented sooner rather than later. The tarmac rule is a typical knee jerk reaction of a bloating government. I'm guessing that the Government gave away all of money to friends for 8000 earmarks. If the Morons in Washington aren't pressed, lodied, bribed eyc, NextGen will be LastGen by the time it gets implemented..
signals
Veteran
I see how the airlines are subject to a catch-22 on this one. First you have to pay to return to a gate and have to pass it on to customers because of storms and weather. Apparently 'Act of God' does not appease the Kettles! Because you can't pass a weather fee on your passengers you tend to argue about 'congestion' as an excuse.
Air travel is a quick way to get from point A to point B, that is all, the Kettles mind can comprehend. And the fines only benefit the Feds and make the airlines look like the bad guys.
LUV actually loves this in airports they don't serve....Yet!h34r:
Air travel is a quick way to get from point A to point B, that is all, the Kettles mind can comprehend. And the fines only benefit the Feds and make the airlines look like the bad guys.
LUV actually loves this in airports they don't serve....Yet!
h34r:Who gets the money passengers or FAA
With the high volume of express and lack of food onboard all flights US basally has a 2-hour rule
With the high volume of express and lack of food onboard all flights US basally has a 2-hour rule
signals
Veteran
Do you have to ask the obvious? The FAA gets all the money and the passenger gets the feel good screw. The airline is the one burnt in effigy. But the Kettles feel they have one up on the airline while they get screwed and accomplish nothing.
signals
Veteran
Port Authorities rely on landing and gate fees. From my understanding, going back to a gate, still requires a fee, or penalty....nothing is free!
Then again IF I am wrong then the airlines deserve what the FAA gives them! Still the pax are the ones who are screwed!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Onlly in two cases - it is a common use gate or is leased by another carrier who charges per use.
Jim
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
I'm sorry but singling out the "kettles", IMO, misses the mark. I had far more problems in bad irregular ops situations, both on the ground and as a CSR, from business folks. I can't even guess how many of them claimed to have missed million dollar deals, were gonna sue the airline into oblivion, etc. Yes I had some issues with "kettles", but the vast majority were business folks who swore they would never fly us again, but were back a week later and not flying WN.
I see how the airlines are subject to a catch-22 on this one. First you have to pay to return to a gate and have to pass it on to customers because of storms and weather. Apparently 'Act of God' does not appease the Kettles! Because you can't pass a weather fee on your passengers you tend to argue about 'congestion' as an excuse.
Air travel is a quick way to get from point A to point B, that is all, the Kettles mind can comprehend. And the fines only benefit the Feds and make the airlines look like the bad guys.
LUV actually loves this in airports they don't serve....Yet!
If I were running an airline, I would happily comply with this new rule. Once a aircraft taxied back to the gate, the flight would be canceled and all pax eligible for full refund. At that point, I would reinstate an "extra section" to the destination and offer seats at full Y fare for any takers. After all, these are all now "walk up" passengers.
Law of unintended consequences. See how long that lasts.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
The most likely problem with that scenario may be crew issues. If the crew has already been flying that day and had 2.5 hours sitting on the tarmac there may be problem staffing the new flight. Along that same line of reasoning comes another nightmare and that will be having sufficient CSR's and baggage folks to now accomodate the returned aircraft and passengers.
It is bad enough working minimum staffing and have a flight cancel without having left the gate, but if you add flights returning to the gate to that mix it will be awful.
It is bad enough working minimum staffing and have a flight cancel without having left the gate, but if you add flights returning to the gate to that mix it will be awful.
flyJOE
Advanced
They would get a refund only if they asked to have a refund. The agents would just rebook the pax on the extra section without any charge.
Similar threads
