Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Passengers Unloaded After 11 Hrs Waiting At JFK  
User currently offlineindcwby From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 135 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17172 times:

Looks like every one is blaming everyone else for this lapse of operations and/or judgement. How is this even possible? Whose the one that needs to take the blame?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/12/28...jfk.stuck.tarmac/index.html?hpt=T1

If this isn't the right forum to post, please forgive me as I'm still new in the neighborhood. I'm just surprised this hasn't popped up as a topic.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21861 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17148 times:

Quoting indcwby (Thread starter):
If this isn't the right forum to post, please forgive me as I'm still new in the neighborhood. I'm just surprised this hasn't popped up as a topic.

The reason it hasn't popped up is because it's being discussed in this thread:

JFK Airport Is Closed (by Medic2366 Dec 26 2010 in Civil Aviation)

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17005 times:

Probably worth a separate thread.

I don't know who to blame for this. As soon as JFK re-opened at 6PM, mostly international airlines started sending flights in, many of which had been diverted earlier in the day.

Some, like the initial flights that landed and used Terminal 4, were able to turn and depart again within a few hours. The airlines using T1 and T7 seem to have gotten the worst delays.

As a casual traveler, I know that all non-T4 FIS facilities close at midnight at JFK. I'm shocked that Cathay and British aircraft were lining up for a gate at T7 knowing (or should have known) that the FIS would be closing soon. They should have joined the long, but at least moving, line of aircraft waiting for a gate at T4.

Really unacceptable actions by all parties. The airlines should have known that the facilities would not be able to handle multiple inbound flights. There were simply not enough employees at JFK yesterday. Whether this is the fault of the airlines dispatch operators, or the JFK terminal operators, or the PANYNJ is up to you.

I also can't understand why airlines were not flexible yesterday. Delta and American had cancelled a lot of ops; surely they could have found someplace to park one or two of the three Cathay 777s sitting at JFK....


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8494 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Cathay should be ashamed of its self, after all its Cathay not say, Avianca. It could have landed in Chicago or LAX since the weather in JFK was bad when that 777 took off from HKG. Last winter a similar thing happened, CX should learn to avoid JFK when the word "snow" is part of the forcast.

User currently offlineindcwby From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16887 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
Cathay should be ashamed of its self, after all its Cathay not say, Avianca. It could have landed in Chicago or LAX since the weather in JFK was bad when that 777 took off from HKG. Last winter a similar thing happened, CX should learn to avoid JFK when the word "snow" is part of the forcast.

jfk777, I heard that a CX flight came from YYZ where it was diverted to. If this is true, I would definitely blame CX for jumping the gun, without knowing the what's going on the ground.


User currently offlineCasasEWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16863 times:

It seems like airlines were just trying to get planes on the ground without regard for anybody onboard. I don't know why more flights weren't cancelled proactively or is this just a byproduct of carriers trying to resume normal operations? I can only speak for myself, but I'd much rather be stuck at my point of origin than on the tarmac at JFK for eleven hours.

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8494 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting indcwby (Reply 4):
jfk777, I heard that a CX flight came from YYZ where it was diverted to. If this is true, I would definitely blame CX for jumping the gun, without knowing the what's going on the ground

When Cathay first flew to JFK with a 744 it stopped at Vancouver and one CX flight still does HKG-YVR-JFK. Vancouver was a regular stop not a diversion, CX will soon have 4 JFK flights, 3 nonstop and a one-stop via Vancouver.


User currently offlineCoairman From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16806 times:

A great reason to cancel as many flights as possible at their origin. Obviously customs agents had trouble getting to work in such terrible conditions. I would imagine customs received allot of sick calls and that is understandable. Maybe at certain times they may have had only 1-2 agents on duty. Maybe none. I think blame is on both customs in their failure to notify airlines that they have minimal staffing and the airline for operating the flight. The flight should have been can cancelled at it's origin.


Patience Can Be A Virtue.
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16735 times:

Amazingly, it is happening again! Air France 8 just told Ground that they have a two hour wait for their gate at T1. Cathay 840 is due to land any minute now, and gosh knows what the situation is like at T7 again...Amazing how the airlines have not learned!

User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16664 times:

I spoke too soon. It appears that AF 6 that landed about five hours ago is still waiting for a gate!

User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16627 times:

Quoting indcwby (Reply 4):
jfk777, I heard that a CX flight came from YYZ where it was diverted to. If this is true, I would definitely blame CX for jumping the gun, without knowing the what's going on the ground.

My MIL was on CX 840 that got diverted to YYZ. They had them on the plane ready to depart for JFK at 1330!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
Cathay should be ashamed of its self, after all its Cathay not say, Avianca. It could have landed in Chicago or LAX since the weather in JFK was bad when that 777 took off from HKG. Last winter a similar thing happened, CX should learn to avoid JFK when the word "snow" is part of the forcast.

There were 4 CX flights waiting for gates at T7 last night/morning. CX 888/830/840 and 840D (from YYZ)

At 3 AM, they announce that CX 888 and 830 will move to T4 (People had to walk or drive over). At 4:30 AM, CX 840 from HKG direct moved to T4 as well. I was surprised there wasn't a riot in T4 last night/this morning.

My MIL finally appeared at 5:00 AM.


User currently offlineCoairman From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16522 times:

Maybe JFK Airport management needs to set up an International airport arrival rate, to safely meter international arrivals so that this situation can be minimized. Sort of like FAA ATC, but for international arrivals only.


Patience Can Be A Virtue.
User currently offlineindcwby From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16449 times:

Quoting Coairman (Reply 11):
Maybe JFK Airport management needs to set up an International airport arrival rate, to safely meter international arrivals so that this situation can be minimized. Sort of like FAA ATC, but for international arrivals only.

How does that work?


User currently offlineCoairman From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16355 times:

Quoting indcwby (Reply 12):
How does that work?

Not sure...just thinking "outside the box". It is just an idea to better handle irregular ops.

Maybe they are limited as far as available (accessible) gates and customs staffing. They obviously cannot hande the demand for arrivals. I know nothing about JFK as I have never been there.

Maybe they should divert to EWR, who might be more organized and have the capacity to take on international arrivals in a more timely manner, then ferry the aircraft back to JFK as a domestic arrival.



Patience Can Be A Virtue.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5732 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16355 times:

As I've said elsewhere: after 5 hours, the captain needs to declare an emergency and demand that they be brought to a gate immediately. If no action is taken, then an evacuation needs to take place.

I, for one, would probably just jump out after 7 hours or so. At least jail is roomier, and they feed you, and you get a bed.

I'm waiting for the day when someone presses kidnapping charges.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16193 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14):
I'm waiting for the day when someone presses kidnapping charges.

It has been tried - and thrown out of court.

Usually the person who tries to bring charges gets charged himself with interferring with a flight crew.


User currently offlineindcwby From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 16159 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15):

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14):
I'm waiting for the day when someone presses kidnapping charges.

It has been tried - and thrown out of court.

Usually the person who tries to bring charges gets charged himself with interferring with a flight crew.

I wouldn't be surprised if any sued all parties involved for punitive damages.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16027 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 2):
I'm shocked that Cathay and British aircraft were lining up for a gate at T7 knowing (or should have known) that the FIS would be closing soon.
Quoting washingtonian (Reply 2):
The airlines should have known that the facilities would not be able to handle multiple inbound flights.



The BA flight involved was BA183. It was scheduled to arrive at JFK at 2240 hrs. It actually arrived twenty minutes EARLY at 2220 hrs. So how can it be possible that an aircraft arriving 20 minutes early should not have landed because the airline should have known "that the FIS would be closing soon". And in this case "soon" was no less than 1 hour and 40 minutes later.

The suggestion that BA should have known that "the facilities would not be able to handle multiple inbound flights" is equally out of place. BA had 7 flights scheduled to operate LHR-JFK on 27 December. It cancelled six of those flights. It only operated BA183. With its own terminal and and just one flight is it that unreasonable to expect that flight to be handled and not kept waiting from 2220 hrs on 27 December until 0500 hrs the following morning?

Finally if this was not simple incompetence and JFK really did not have the facilities to handle the much reduced operations of BA on 27 December why did their air traffic control divert the aircraft?

Finally don't air traffic control work with other parts of JFK's operations? If the airport really was incapable of handling incoming flights should not ATC have diverted the aircraft to another airport?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21861 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15911 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 14):
As I've said elsewhere: after 5 hours, the captain needs to declare an emergency and demand that they be brought to a gate immediately.

If a plane can't get to a gate in these sorts of circumstances, it's generally because there is no physical way to do it. And declaring an emergency won't override the laws of physics.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 17):
Finally don't air traffic control work with other parts of JFK's operations? If the airport really was incapable of handling incoming flights should not ATC have diverted the aircraft to another airport?

They normally don't. ATC won't divert aircraft to other airports - that's the job of the pilots and the airline's dispatch office. ATC's job is to ensure that there are no collisions between aircraft - if the runways are clear and the pilots want to land, they will let them land. As they should.

This one falls on the airlines and their handling companies for not figuring out that the infrastructure and/or manpower to support their flights isn't there, and to adjust their operations accordingly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5732 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15838 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
If a plane can't get to a gate in these sorts of circumstances, it's generally because there is no physical way to do it. And declaring an emergency won't override the laws of physics.

Speaking from experience, there is absolutely no reason why an airplane can't be gated within 3 hours, even during conditions such as these. If it's impossible to offload an airplane, push it to a remote stand, and bring another one in, then there's no reason anyone should even be arriving.

It pisses me off, the lack of responsibility and people not doing their jobs. I don't want excuses, I want off the damn plane. Make it happen.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
They normally don't. ATC won't divert aircraft to other airports - that's the job of the pilots and the airline's dispatch office. ATC's job is to ensure that there are no collisions between aircraft - if the runways are clear and the pilots want to land, they will let them land. As they should.

This one falls on the airlines and their handling companies for not figuring out that the infrastructure and/or manpower to support their flights isn't there, and to adjust their operations accordingly.

Correct. This falls squarely on the shoulders of the airport operator and the airlines. It's pathetic that those people making those decisions still have jobs. Incompetence at its worst.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21861 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15820 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 19):
If it's impossible to offload an airplane, push it to a remote stand, and bring another one in, then there's no reason anyone should even be arriving.

This is true, and that's why the airlines and the handling companies should have figured out that they need to start sending flights elsewhere. But once an airplane is on the ground, there's not a whole lot you can do if gates can't be cleared.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCoairman From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15731 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
This one falls on the airlines and their handling companies for not figuring out that the infrastructure and/or manpower to support their flights isn't there, and to adjust their operations accordingly.

I do believe it would be nice to have customs and airport operations put out a communication to all airlines operation centers as to the status of JFK's reduced international arrival rate of deplaning and processing customers. It looks like that there is a serious communication breakdown here between JFK airport operations and the airlines. I am speculating here, but it seems unfair to place 100% of the blame on the airlines. I think it should be a shared responsibility.



Patience Can Be A Virtue.
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15716 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 17):
The BA flight involved was BA183. It was scheduled to arrive at JFK at 2240 hrs. It actually arrived twenty minutes EARLY at 2220 hrs. So how can it be possible that an aircraft arriving 20 minutes early should not have landed because the airline should have known "that the FIS would be closing soon". And in this case "soon" was no less than 1 hour and 40 minutes later.

Very easy. Once BA 183 talked to its ground staff and ascertained that no gates were available, the next foreseeable question would be "When do you expect a gate to open up?" Since the answer to that was clearly "not for hours", those BA & CX aircraft should have taken whatever steps necessary to dock at T4, which is a 24 hour terminal. It is madness to wait overnight for FIS to open up at T7.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 17):
The suggestion that BA should have known that "the facilities would not be able to handle multiple inbound flights" is equally out of place. BA had 7 flights scheduled to operate LHR-JFK on 27 December. It cancelled six of those flights. It only operated BA183. With its own terminal and and just one flight is it that unreasonable to expect that flight to be handled and not kept waiting from 2220 hrs on 27 December until 0500 hrs the following morning?

Well obviously it was unreasonable to expect the flight to be handled, since it was not. BA has their own terminal, but only a handful of gates can be used for widebody aircraft. I assume they had some aircraft stranded there from when the snow began on Sunday, not to mention whatever other CX/IB/FI/QF aircraft that might have been there. This must have been the case as no gates were available four hours after JFK re-opened on Monday evening. So if these gates were occupied for the previous 24 hours since the snowstorm began, yes, I think it is fair to blame BA for sending an aircraft knowing that T7 was full already. I understand your point that they just sent one flight and canceled the other six. Fair enough. But then BA operations should have made sure that the aircraft sitting at T7 were moved elsewhere since there were several inbound BA/CX/QF flights...

Btw, I believe BA 179 also operated last night. I seem to recall hearing them on ATC.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 17):
Finally if this was not simple incompetence and JFK really did not have the facilities to handle the much reduced operations of BA on 27 December why did their air traffic control divert the aircraft?

Not ATC's role to divert aircraft that do not have gates available. ATC's role is to get aircraft inbound to JFK to the ground safely.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 17):
Finally don't air traffic control work with other parts of JFK's operations? If the airport really was incapable of handling incoming flights should not ATC have diverted the aircraft to another airport?

See above. I still fail to understand how somebody from BA (who run T7) ground handling did not get in touch with CX or BA operations and advise them of the situation.

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
This is true, and that's why the airlines and the handling companies should have figured out that they need to start sending flights elsewhere. But once an airplane is on the ground, there's not a whole lot you can do if gates can't be cleared.

I don't buy this. BA clearly had some ground crews at JFK, and the other gates were occupied. I don't know why they couldn't have pushed something back to make some space. Or just pull up to any dam gate at T1/T3/T4/T7/T8. It's just unacceptable keeping passengers on the ground in the airplane for that long...


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15581 times:

i was on one of the 4 stranded flights at JFK today

both CX flights came from Vancouver - one landed 2:15am and mine landed 5:45am, which is just about 15 mins before scheduled

they blame lack of gate space, but i'm VERY SURE the true reason is that none of those immigration creatures showed up to work on time, causing the international flights to be all stranded. it was TOTALLY not a gate space issue because MULTIPLE United p.s. planes docked with no problems

and to add insult to injury, that a*hole Steve Coleman from PANYNJ had this kind of none-of-our-problem attitude on CNN - these public union losers should just be fired.

my flight landed at 5:45am and couldn't dock till 1:35pm or so.

the Cathay crew did an excellent job keeping passengers happy, but those public union a*holes all try to point fingers at CX when it's purely their own fault - of cause, because they're all unionized, they can have the WORST attitude on earth and still can keep their job security while collecting inflated wages at taxpayer's expense

Hail to Cathay, and Hell to PANYNJ.


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15456 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
i was on one of the 4 stranded flights at JFK today

both CX flights came from Vancouver - one landed 2:15am and mine landed 5:45am, which is just about 15 mins before scheduled

Not to mention the non-stop HKG-JFK flights that had arrived earlier in the evening! When you landed, how many CX aircraft were on the ground? Did any depart in the middle of the night?

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
they blame lack of gate space, but i'm VERY SURE the true reason is that none of those immigration creatures showed up to work on time, causing the international flights to be all stranded. it was TOTALLY not a gate space issue because MULTIPLE United p.s. planes docked with no problems

I don't know about this. As I mentioned earlier, only a few of the gates at T7 are capable of handling widebody aircraft. It sounds like the FIS facility opened up around 6-7AM at T7, so they were there (albeit backed up for several hours in the morning).

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
my flight landed at 5:45am and couldn't dock till 1:35pm or so.

That is just ridiculous. Did you happen to notice if there were multiple widebodies docked at T7 this entire time? You would think somebody had the foresight to tow one of the BA 747s or CX 777s elsewhere....Or simply dock the CX bird at another terminal!

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
Hail to Cathay, and Hell to PANYNJ.

I don't think it's the Port's fault. If you're going to blame anyone, I'd blame CX over the Port. CX is ultimately responsible for how BA ground handling deals with their passengers...


User currently offlineNZ1 From Australia, joined May 2004, 2275 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15216 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Please continue discussion here: JFK Airport Is Closed (by Medic2366 Dec 26 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Thanks
NZ1


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Evergreen Supertanker At JFK On 11/16/06 posted Fri Nov 17 2006 17:53:14 by FlyDeltaJets
AZ MD11 At JFK Today: Cargo Or Passengers posted Mon Sep 12 2005 04:48:15 by Eyeonthesky17
5th Plane On 9/11 United At JFK? posted Mon Mar 7 2005 01:56:45 by RJpieces
2 DL Intl Flights Land At JFK After Threat posted Fri Feb 4 2005 20:00:44 by Dl757md
Passengers Visiting The Flight Deck After 9/11 posted Fri Dec 17 2004 01:50:48 by WF2BNN
Waiting 7 Hours At JFK posted Sat Nov 20 2004 23:03:56 by Raggi
DL Md-11 At JFK posted Mon Jul 28 2003 03:46:31 by Metsfan1
Spotting Meet At JFK, EWR, LGA, Week After Next posted Sat Jun 14 2003 03:43:03 by CcrlR
Evergreen MD-11 Over-runs Runway At JFK! posted Fri May 30 2003 10:39:12 by Capt.Fantastic
KLM Missed Approach Feb. 11 At JFK posted Wed Feb 13 2002 19:04:19 by Mirabilis