Logos
Topic Author
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:47 pm

Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:53 am

Apparently irate passengers from a diversion of a CO flight from CCS-EWR are looking for some more serious compensation. Yet more air rage. Here's the link:

http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/irat...reaten-to-sue/20070814133609990001

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando
Too many types flown to list
 
ACFA
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:41 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:01 am

"We were not provided with food," said passenger Caroline Murray.

Of course not, unless she wanted leftovers.....
 
ACFA
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:41 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:08 am

And planes don't get "stranded on the runway" as the ABC journalist erroneously states in the video. The video report seems to praise the passengers on the flight who "took matter into their own hands", thats encouraging disorderly conduct and can make flying a lot more dangerous. I wonder if the same crew took the passengers back to EWR, I would think its a bad idea simply for the fact that there was likely a lot of animosity directed towards them.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:09 am

Irate passengers? Landed at 1.50, got off the plane just to be "disciplined" at 6.30? These passengers were extremely easy going on my books...There is something seriously wrong with the aviation in USA. If I'd be there, I'd be suing too,especially after this experience:

Quote:
We were removed from the plane and were forced to walk single file against the wall, flanked by armed officers one of whom had an attack dog," Murray said.
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:18 am

Quoting ACFA (Reply 2):
he video report seems to praise the passengers on the flight who "took matter into their own hands", thats encouraging disorderly conduct and can make flying a lot more dangerous.

Sorry man, I have only one word to this: bullshit. Nothing happened during the flight, problems started when the airline airline failed to look after it's customers on the ground. That's pisspoor service. It's really interesting that many of airline employees will complain in Non-Aviation about low quality of products and services elsewhere, but when it comes to airline screw ups, they'll will defend them...

Quoting ACFA (Reply 2):
I wonder if the same crew took the passengers back to EWR, I would think its a bad idea simply for the fact that there was likely a lot of animosity directed towards them.

I'd highly doubt that, they most likely timed out.
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:19 am

Quoting ACFA (Reply 1):
Of course not, unless she wanted leftovers.....

There are no catering companies in Baltimore?
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
ACFA
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:41 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:22 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 4):
Sorry man, I have only one word to this: bullshit. Nothing happened during the flight, problems started when the airline airline failed to look after it's customers on the ground. That's pisspoor service.

Maybe so, but we don't have the full story. There could've been a variety of reasons why the passengers couldn't be allowed off. To encourage them to riot is a very dangerous road to be going down. Its not like the crew held them hostage or anything. Believe me, I'd bet my next paycheque that everyone on the crew wanted off that plane as well. Aircrew don't get paid during ground stops, they would've been doing everything they can to try to communicate the situation to ops.
 
28thguy
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:45 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:25 am

Continental deserves everything that they have coming to them for this incident.

CO should also be smarter about diversions. I recall being diverted on DL due to a mechanical problem (landing gear wouldn't retract) from AMS-JFK. DL diverted to LGW, all passengers were allowed to clear customs, and then we were rebooked on various British Airways flights from LHR-JFK (with a bus ride from LGW to LHR). We were told that DL ops decided to divert us to London given availability of alternate flights.

Contrast that experience with CO's recent AMS-SNN-JFK diversion (diversion to SNN, requiring use of the same malfunctioning plane on following day to complete the trip), and this case of diverting to BWI without allowing customers to clear customs. I am not sure if customs is open all day at BWI, but it certainly is at IAD or BOS.
 
ACFA
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:41 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:26 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
There are no catering companies in Baltimore?

Its not always easy to order catering service just like that. And anyways, CO likely would've been looking to have the plane in EWR, they just didn't know how long it would take. You're going to suggest that an airline spend a ton of money catering planes stuck on the ground that may not need it in the end? Also its not like food service can be done with trolleys on the ground (per FAA regulations) so it would be quite time consuming.

There are lots of logistical problems and variables involved in running an airline. If it were that simple it would've been done. Airlines don't make a ton of money, so they have a fine line to walk always.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:26 am

With 7 airlines providing scheduled international service to BWI, why weren't these passengers deplaned, allowed to go through customs and then rescheduled on other flights departing from BWI to their final destinations? Was US Customs not up to the task of handling an unscheduled load of passengers? Were all the international gates occupied at the time?

Lots of questions to be answered. Things definitely could've been handled better.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
sacamojus
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:24 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:30 am

I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at this. I can't believe that GROWN ADULTS will act like little children when they don't get their way. Why can't people just appreciate the small things in life. I hope the crew sues the passengers for something, I am not a lawyer but you can sue anybody for anything here in America.
 
A340Spotter
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:35 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 4):
Sorry man, I have only one word to this: bullshit.

Hopefully you are talking about the report and not the flight itself?

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 4):
I'd highly doubt that, they most likely timed out.

You'd be wrong.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 5):
There are no catering companies in Baltimore?

Not when an international flight diverts due to ATC/Weather. In this case, the normal routes between the Washington, DC area and EWR were completely shut off due to weather in between the stations. These are purely gas-n-go situations.

Quoting ACFA (Reply 6):
Maybe so, but we don't have the full story

And that's why none of you on this particular thread should be making any comments about it.
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
28thguy
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:45 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:38 am

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 11):
I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at this. I can't believe that GROWN ADULTS will act like little children when they don't get their way. Why can't people just appreciate the small things in life. I hope the crew sues the passengers for something, I am not a lawyer but you can sue anybody for anything here in America.

It's not as if they were throwing a fit because they wanted their meal choice was unavailable.

They were subject to FALSE IMPRISONMENT on an aircraft without access to food or working toilets.

I say good for the passengers. The pilot should have been more proactive in demanding a resolution, and good for the passengers in standing up to him and the airport authorities!
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:42 am

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 11):
These are purely gas-n-go situations.

You'd be wrong then wouldn't you ... as you say  Wink

I can't imagine anyone here giving an explanation that would make this anything but totally unacceptable, and just truly unbelievable. How this happens, or is allowed to happen, is beyond me ... and I've been in this business many years ... although to be honest, that's irrelevant.


.. but please try. I'm willing to listen.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
exFATboy
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:15 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:45 am

Ah, yet another "trapped on a plane story." Mixed feelings on this one - on the one hand, sitting on your duff isn't exactly "hellish" or "grueling." More like "dull" and "annoying." I'm not sure what the big deal about "pregnant women with small children" is - they'll either have to sit on the plane or sit in the terminal. The article doesn't mention the plane running out of drinking water, not having working lavs, or the air conditioning going out.

On the other hand, one grows tired of the industry's lack of collective ability to come up with alternative ways of handling these "isolated incidents" that seem to happen every couple of weeks lately. I'm not entirely clear on why the passengers couldn't be let off the plane - the "I" in "BWI" stands for "international", after all, and the flight landed in early afternoon, so why couldn't the passengers just be processed by Immigration? If the plane landed at, say, three in the morning when there wouldn't be any Immigration staff on hand, that'd be more understandable.

Or if it was desirable to keep the passengers on the plane - possibility of proceeding on to Newark on short notice, or the teminal being overcrowded already, if CO catering didn't have anything handy it shouldn't have been that big of a deal to have some sandwiches delivered or dispatch someone to McDonald's with a fistful of petty cash on a McNuggets run (be sure to pick up a few salads for the vegetarians!) As a diabetic, I understand that for some people meal timing is more important than you might think...I always carry a bag of trail mix or nuts with me just in case of a delay. Having food provided for longer delays simply shouldn't be that difficult.

The industry needs to come up with better responses - or at least more friendly-appearing ones - or sooner or later we'll have a federal law mandating disruptive "rights", particularly a "right" to be let off if takeoff is delayed past a set point. And that's just going to make things worse...
 
sacamojus
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:24 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:48 am

Quoting 28thguy (Reply 12):
They were subject to FALSE IMPRISONMENT on an aircraft without access to food or working toilets.

The article states that a federal law would not let them off the plane. Then passengers should not sue CO but rather the government to repeal this law. The article does not state that the toilets were not working.

Quoting 28thguy (Reply 12):
good for the passengers in standing up to him and the airport authorities!

I believe the passengers should stand up for a better solution, but they way they went about it was the problem.
 
flyinryan99
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:54 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:52 am

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 14):
all, and the flight landed in early afternoon, so why couldn't the passengers just be processed by Immigration?

I can't find the link, but I thought I read all International gates were filled at this time. Google is letting me down...drr
 
A340Spotter
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:57 am

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 13):
You'd be wrong then wouldn't you ... as you say

Any diversion, and let's not focus on the CCS-(BWI)-EWR flight per se, but rather any one that is unscheduled enroute to it's destination due to weather forcing the airport itself or routes enroute closed, are exactly that, gas-n-go situations. Sometimes, an international flight runs out of options where it can land at an airport that even has a customs/immigrations facility (I'll use CLL College Station, TX for example). When a plane lands at CLL, the only thing it can do is get gas, new paperwork and wait until the airport of destination has reopened, or the route has reopened due to weather moving off. Passengers can't get off, trash can't be emptied, food/water can't be added as the plane is still in transit to it's first port-of-entry airport, be it DFW, SAT or IAH in this example.

That particular day, I believe there were upwards of 12 planes that landed in BWI due to this route closure, DL/AA/FL/CO/WN even. If you go back on a flight tracker like red1aviation.com, you can see how planes didn't depart BWI to the north for at least 60-75 minutes.

JSD
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:58 am

Quoting ACFA (Reply 6):
. Its not like the crew held them hostage or anything. Believe me, I'd bet my next paycheque that everyone on the crew wanted off that plane as well. Aircrew don't get paid during ground stops, they would've been doing everything they can to try to communicate the situation to ops.

In this case I consider the crew being held hostage too, without support from the company. I've been in similar situation at YUL too, except the reason was a security breach, not the weather. The cabin crew was as annoyed as the passengers. At the end they timed out...

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 11):
Hopefully you are talking about the report and not the flight itself?

I'm talking about this statement: thats encouraging disorderly conduct and can make flying a lot more dangerous.

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 11):
You'd be wrong.

Hmm... CCS-BWI is rougly 1800 mn, approximately 4 hours. Add to it the 7 hour waiting at BWI, that's 11 hours, even without time spent with the flight preparation at CCS. What's the maximum duty time?

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 11):
Not when an international flight diverts due to ATC/Weather. In this case, the normal routes between the Washington, DC area and EWR were completely shut off due to weather in between the stations.

These are purely gas-n-go situations.

7 hours of pumping, thas a helluva lot of gas.
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
A340Spotter
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:02 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 18):
I'm talking about this statement: thats encouraging disorderly conduct and can make flying a lot more dangerous.

Thanks, wanted clarification on that...

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 18):
What's the maximum duty time?

16hr duty day I believe (don't have the FAR in front of me)

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 18):
7 hours of pumping, thas a helluva lot of gas.

 Smile
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:03 pm

The article mentioned the following in the picture's subtitles (Pic #7):

Quoting The Article Provided from AOL.com:
For its part, Continental Airlines said because the flight was international, federal law prohibited it from allowing passengers off the plane.

Can anyone, with international law knowledge, confirm this??
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:06 pm

Quoting ACFA (Reply 8):
You're going to suggest that an airline spend a ton of money catering planes stuck on the ground that may not need it in the end?

What I'm suggesting is that every business has to assess the risks associated with running the business and have provisions ready to solve the problems. Failing that is a sign of poor management.
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:14 pm

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 17):
Any diversion, and let's not focus on the CCS-(BWI)-EWR flight per se, but rather any one that is unscheduled enroute to it's destination due to weather forcing the airport itself or routes enroute closed, are exactly that, gas-n-go situations.

It was more your 'gas-n-go' phrase.

Gas-n-go doesn't usually mean 'gassing' and then 'n'ing for 5hrs before 'going'  Smile


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
nonrevman
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:30 pm

It is hard to make assumptions on this one without some specifics, however there are a few thoughts on this one.

(1) Most diabetics who are seasoned travelers know to bring more than they think they need. Actually, the same could be said for people with small children, especially infants. Of course, supplies eventually run out (see #4)

(2) It was interesting to note that New York has passed a law requiring passengers to have fresh air, access to lavs, snacks and water if the delay exceeds three hours. Failure to comply would result in fines of 1000 dollars per passenger.

(3) This kind of thing does seem to be happening more and more lately. As far as press coverage goes, I think it all started with the infamous incidents with Northwest at Detroit back in 1998 or 1999. That was right around the time when the passenger bill of rights talk was really getting active. Years later, some very comparable stories are occuring.

(4) In the passengers defense, there will eventually be a point reached where the only logical thing to do is to let them off the plane. The diabetic will eventually need the insulin, the infant will eventually need another diaper change, food, or water (a diaper bag can only hold so much), or general hunger and thirst set in. There is going to have to be a contingency plan for this. Prolonging hunger, thirst, unsanitary conditions, and another other activity which goes against nature cannot hold on beyond a certain limit regardless of whose fault it is.

(5) In the defense of the flight crew, I really doubt they had any idea that the delay would be that long. Just like the passengers, the pilots have to wait to find out what is going on. There is usually now way to predict what will happen. The situation could be resolved in 15 minutes or it could be in several hours.

Obviously, there is not an easy solution to situations like these, because they have been going on for years now.
 
exFATboy
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:15 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:51 pm

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 17):
When a plane lands at CLL, the only thing it can do is get gas, new paperwork and wait until the airport of destination has reopened, or the route has reopened due to weather moving off. Passengers can't get off, trash can't be emptied, food/water can't be added as the plane is still in transit to it's first port-of-entry airport, be it DFW, SAT or IAH in this example.

See, this is part of what I mean when I say that part of the problem is that the industry (including the government) is not thinking proactively. Why should the local Customs/Immigration officer-in-charge not have the authority to override the "port-of-entry" restrictions for unusual situations, at least to allow for trash/lavatory emptying and catering delivery, with appropriate security supervision? It simply shouldn't be that big of a deal.
 
atlaaron
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:30 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:56 pm

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 14):
I'm not sure what the big deal about "pregnant women with small children" is - they'll either have to sit on the plane or sit in the terminal.

You clearly do not have kids.
 
User avatar
modernArt
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:23 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:09 pm

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 11):
And that's why none of you on this particular thread should be making any comments about it.

Hmmm, someone "in the biz" telling others not to comment on the pathetic way their biz solves (or doesn't solve) problems when they occur. I think I've got enough info to make a summary opinion - and frankly Continental dropped the ball.
 
AA767400
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:04 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:26 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 4):
problems started when the airline airline failed to look after it's customers on the ground.

Here is the problem.

When weather hits, no airline can expect how long or where things are going to happen. This plane diverted to BWI because of weather and that is something that CO had no control over. CO could have all their planes catered with reserve food, but guess what? There is no space on these planes to place more food catering and they are going to do this to all their planes in the system? Also the FAA does not allow Crew members to use carts while on the ground.

The United States government is responsible for what happened here. They will not allow ANY aircraft from an international destination to deplane. Even when the government alloys passengers to deplane they will be put in a "secure" location. The airline has no say in that what so ever. One lady stated in the video "Why can't we just go to EWR?" People just don't understand the situation and blame the airline for the most part. And since they can't really get anything out of the government they sue the airline.

Toilets that need to be replenished is something that needs to be done, but there are rules that go by with that. The airline it self might not be able to get the right permission to do so. The plane coming from CCS needs to be inspected by customs as well.

It is not a pretty scene to be in, but I do think that blame is placed in the wrong direction.
"The low fares airline."
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13763
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:49 pm

Again, just like the LAX breakdown this week, this is NOT THE SAME AS what happened this winter. Further, this can happen anywhere in the world from diversion if the airport can't handle the passengers. It's not an American problem.

Quoting 28thguy (Reply 12):
They were subject to FALSE IMPRISONMENT on an aircraft without access to food or working toilets.

Nope. Immigration law does not have "FALSE IMPRISONMENT" in it, at least not in this case. You can be held INDEFINITELY until you clear immigration. Period. There is nothing in the law that says "must be allowed to clear customs within 5 hours or can enter the USA without any screening." It would be ludicrous to have such a time limit on processing immigration.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 20):
Can anyone, with international law knowledge, confirm this??

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that this is true, unless there are very special circumstances (terror threat, potential disaster, medical emergency).

Further, I highly doubt the FIS at BWI was open at 3AM to clear these pax once it was obvious they wouldn't be flying for a while, nor was the catering facility open to serve them (nor could they bring food on, since they hadn't cleared customs/agriculture).

Finally, I had a diversion this long due to weather on an international flight on AA, and no we were NOT allowed to get off the plane in our diversion city.

NRT-DFW, diverted to DEN just as we were flying near Roswell. Re-fueled , then stuck at gate due to lightning in DEN. Pilot informed us that they asked if we could be cleared here instead of DFW, and were informed it is not allowed, as we are a "vessel" with a designated "port of entry" of DFW, not DEN, and since this was not an emergency, we would not get a waiver. Only crew could clear and be replaced if they timed out, since it is a matter of safety, and crews of a vessel are treated differently under the law (since they are precleared and prescreened for employment).

After waiting for about 2 hours, we were finally allowed to taxi for takeoff, but then the airport was closed again for lightning, and we waited another hour before takeoff near the end of the runway, watching the massive storms move around us. Finally took off, flew south, circled over texas, landed at DFW about 6 hours later than scheduled, with no extra food. DFW was a mess due to weather and missed connections, but I ended up getting to LAX and my Mom got onto the last flight to IAH.

None of us sued AA. This shit happens!!!!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:54 pm

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 17):
Passengers can't get off, trash can't be emptied, food/water can't be added as the plane is still in transit to it's first port-of-entry airport, be it DFW, SAT or IAH in this example.



Quoting AA767400 (Reply 27):

Here is the problem.

Assuming both of you are right (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), i.e., the situation was due to (asinine) federal regs, then the consultant quoted in the article is right. It seems that there was a major communications blunder on the part of the crew.

I can't conceive that passengers would behave this way if the captain and senior flight attendant had come up on the PA, in English and Spanish, and explained that there was absolutely nothing they could do, and then had kept giving constant updates on the situation. And if by any chance the crew did all of this and passengers still rioted, then they should have been handled by the proper authorities, and never have been let back on board.

I've been stuck due to weather on a CO 757 at EWR for 5 hours, albeit on departure, and because the crew did their best to keep us informed, the cabin mood was pretty good throughout.
Let's go Pens!
 
Venezuela747
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:36 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 pm

Granted CO probably should have done a better job. There are a few rules and regulations your average joe passenger doesn;t understand. It's an international flight with the paperwork to land at EWR and although IAD is capable of handling that I donno if CO were up for the paperwork. As for food, IAD is nota hub for CO so it is probably less prepared to handle stuff like this as compared to IAH or CLE. Also, once weather hits there are a few things you cant predict. Fos example, I am sure this passenger would take this suffering than have to take part in a tragedy, God forbid, like we have seen recently and a few years ago when planes try to land in rough weather conditions.

they are rough conditions but you can't always expect perfect flight....and second of all coming from venezuela and most of those people probably fly Aserca/Aeropostal/Santa Barbara, a 6 hours aircraft sitting on the tarmac is nothing.....hey at least they made it to EWR on a plane that was big enough to hold all passengers boooked (horrible personal experience with Aserca)
ROLL TIDE!!!
 
kith
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:26 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:08 pm

I buy a plane ticket. Here, Continental, here is $2,000 for a ticket. OK. Now I paid Continental $2000 for them to get me from A-B (CCS-EWR say). They, according to their terms can get me to my destination when they want (cancel/delay their choice) how they want (I paid F, sorry plane was downsized, you are now in Y) on pretty much any reason they want. It gets better, the airline (not just CO, I love CO but any airline) can send you to a nearby city (co terminal airports). Next time you book a ticket on UA from Washington DC, ask for the BWI fare but from IAD since they are CO TERMINAL, I bet UA will call them the same city but won't give you the BWI fare (or any airline in an analogous city coupling). So to recap, you pay them X amount of money (doesn't matter if it is miles, 100, or 10000), the airline (any airline) will send you to ABOUT your destination, how they please, when they please, if they please at all. How did we end up in this situation (and don't blame Fred Kahn/Lorenzo/the union boogeyman)?

Can you honestly imagine going to your local Kia/Buick/Toyota/BMW whatever dealership, handing the dealer $30,000 and saying "give me whatever piece of garbage on the lot you have"
Name me one other industry that has a contract of adhesion like the airlines do? Where the employees can have a customer arrested for muttering a foreign word, wearing a t-shirt or pressing a button? Find me another industry like this please. -Matt in KITH

[Edited 2007-08-15 07:14:27]
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:11 pm

Does anyone take in to consideration that this could be part Media Hype coupled with the increase of technology as they both increase I seem to recollect an increase of stories about airline delays even more frequently now-days. This is not surprising as the media has more access to more resources.

Having said all of that the point is these incidents probably occurred in the past but now-days are getting more attention by the media, 10 years ago you may not have heard about this incident but since a pax recorded this on cell phone this story opened up a different can of worms.

No one is saying this is normal for the airlines however with the dramamtic increase of airline traffic, el-nino, wx etc..changes present day this seems to be coming a increasing trend.

Just my 2 cents....

[Edited 2007-08-15 07:17:59]
 
GUAMVICE
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:46 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:01 pm

Hey while they're at it, why not sue God or Mother Nature for causing all this trouble? I'm sure that'll get them somewhere *sighs*
The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:09 pm

Unfortunately, Hugo Chavez was not on the flight on the way to the UN.
At least the passengers got out of CCS.
sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/
 
ultrapig
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting ACFA (Reply 8):

I don't understand it at all. Airliens are experts at logistics. They sent hundreds of planes across the world everyday.

If a plane is diverted to a place where an airline doesn't have a station and I was a manager at Continental operations I'd radio the pilot and tell him to take out his credit car and call the airport police and ask them to bing over 150 subway sandwich and 150 bottles of water. If the airport police wouldn't do it I'd call the airport manager. if they wouldn't do it I'd keep calling.

All of us understand that weather and mechnaical problems are something to be expected. But this kind of thing is not to be expected. Does anyone have any brains?
 
tsnamm
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:02 pm

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 36):
If a plane is diverted to a place where an airline doesn't have a station and I was a manager at Continental operations I'd radio the pilot and tell him to take out his credit car and call the airport police and ask them to bing over 150 subway sandwich and 150 bottles of water. If the airport police wouldn't do it I'd call the airport manager. if they wouldn't do it I'd keep calling.

BWI is a CO station...however there's a bit more to it than just "calling",,,see above....
 
ImperialEagle
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:23 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 3):
There is something seriously wrong with the aviation in USA. If I'd be there, I'd be suing too,especially after this experience:

You've got that right! There is no excuse whatsoever for holding pax hostage. Without the pax there would be NO airlines or airline jobs. It is time the airlines stop treating the PAX as the problem. The FAA also needs to make special arrangements to allow a "zone" around the aircraft for PAX to wait for help or make a path to the terminal without posing a threat. Have disclaimer forms ready for the pax to sign and pop a slide to let 'em off if thats what it takes. Yes, it is high time arrangements are made to deal with these types of situations.The morons at TSA also need training on handling such a situation---hostility towards the taxpayers who pay their salary is not the answer!. Just because pax have not yet cleared customs does not mean they are an imminent threat to our national security. Besides if that were really a problem how would the government ever explain the (estimated) 12M illegal immigrants in this country now! Hell, most of them just walked in!

Class actions suits---the more the merrier---is what it will take to get the ball rolling. The "do nothing" Congress sure doesn't care.
As usual---money talks!
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12395
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:33 pm

Perhaps it is going to take a number of well publicized lawsuits including some going to trial or local laws as recently done in NY City, to get some kind of changes by the airlines and the government in dealing with or reducing such extended airline ground delays. When such delays involve an international flight, there are very critical security, health and other issues (as some other posters have noted), along with sufficient staffing to handle such problems, that make it near impossible to let pax go through customs and allow them to continue their journeys from an airport they have been diverted to. Such situations must begin to be dealt with soon before someone dies, or a serious security or safety problem develop due to such extended delays.
 
FlyHoss
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:37 pm

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 38):
Just because pax have not yet cleared customs does not mean they are an imminent threat to our national security. Besides if that were really a problem how would the government ever explain the (estimated) 12M illegal immigrants in this country now! Hell, most of them just walked in!

Yes, it's quite ironic isn't it? Treat the people entering legally this way - and fining any airline who lets the passenger deplane before clearing Immigration and Customs - but encouraging illegal aliens to enter the country illegally.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 38):
Class actions suits---the more the merrier---is what it will take to get the ball rolling. The "do nothing" Congress sure doesn't care.
As usual---money talks!

Money talks, yes, but CO was complying with the U.S. entry requirements. Congress can't be sued and CO can be, but CO was meeting the requirements of Congress.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 38):
There is no excuse whatsoever for holding pax hostage.

Like it or not, this isn't holding the passenger hostage. It's the law.
A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
 
ImperialEagle
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:52 pm

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 40):
It's the law

Is it really a law that when a pax purchases a seat on an airline, they forfeit any rights to protect their own welfare whatsoever? If so then the coming pax reveloution will surely change that. And mark my words, its going to become a reveloution if something isn't done to relieve the situation and fast!
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
 
tguman
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 11:47 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:34 pm

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 40):
Like it or not, this isn't holding the passenger hostage. It's the law.

Its the law, whether for a CO jet arriving from Venezuela, or a small piper warrior arriving from Manitoba. As a pilot I must keep my passengers on the plane until a customs official comes to the airplane and tells me it is alright for me to get up. Its not the FAA and its not airlines, its Immigration. And it doesn't matter if your 2 days old or 30 years old, or 70 years old, everyone's identity needs to be confirmed. The reason that passengers are allowed off of airplanes at international airports is because they are allowed to walk to customs through special areas at airports. The airlines set up paperwork for that to happen at the destination airport "port of entry".

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 41):
s it really a law that when a pax purchases a seat on an airline, they forfeit any rights to protect their own welfare whatsoever?

That is why the passenger bill of rights should be in place, but i think it will only be truly effective if the government allows international flights to be deplaned in secure areas and placed on different planes if need be.

As echoed many times in other replies, I would imagine CO did the best they could with the situation given. At least they appeared to be allowed to stand up and walk around. I remember getting stranded once for 3 hours and being unable to even undo my seatbelt. much less get up and use the bathroom.
Life is a Mine Field.
 
Alitalia744
Posts: 3777
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:22 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28):
Further, I highly doubt the FIS at BWI was open at 3AM to clear these pax once it was obvious they wouldn't be flying for a while, nor was the catering facility open to serve them (nor could they bring food on, since they hadn't cleared customs/agriculture).

Which would in theory be fine Ikramerica, but the aircraft landed at BWI at 1:50PM when FIS would be open.


This is getting ridiculous.
Some see lines, others see between the lines.
 
fraT
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:32 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:04 pm

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 36):
I don't understand it at all. Airliens are experts at logistics. They sent hundreds of planes across the world everyday.

If a plane is diverted to a place where an airline doesn't have a station and I was a manager at Continental operations I'd radio the pilot and tell him to take out his credit car and call the airport police and ask them to bing over 150 subway sandwich and 150 bottles of water. If the airport police wouldn't do it I'd call the airport manager. if they wouldn't do it I'd keep calling.

All of us understand that weather and mechnaical problems are something to be expected. But this kind of thing is not to be expected. Does anyone have any brains?

Sounds perfect in theory. But in reality an airport works a bit different than a Drive Through where you can order and pick up your stuff a minute later.

Normally during these kind of delays the crew gets a short notice about their slot when the weather is improving. So I don't think they were expecting such a big delay.

And as it was said above, why should an airline pay for the sticking with the law. Neither CO nor any other airline are responsible for these laws. So everybody who wants to sue CO, should think twice.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13201
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:20 pm

A couple of things, first Federal Officials would not let them off the plane how is that CO's fault? Second for anyone in the US familiar with flights to Venezuela they would be familiar with the rigorous interrogations and investigations that go into screening passengers that are coming and going from Venezuela due to the poor US/Venezuelan relations.

Homeland security does not treat arriving flights from Caracas the same way they treat arriving flights from Ireland, there's a big difference. If this flight was coming in from the Dominican Republic instead of Venezuela they would have been allowed off the flight much sooner than they were, this is not a result of a policy at CO but rather a stringent US policy towards Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan Government and people.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:53 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 45):
Homeland security does not treat arriving flights from Caracas the same way they treat arriving flights from Ireland, there's a big difference. If this flight was coming in from the Dominican Republic instead of Venezuela they would have been allowed off the flight much sooner than they were, this is not a result of a policy at CO but rather a stringent US policy towards Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan Government and people.

While the situation was crazy to say the least, I have to agree if you're going to blame someone blame the US Government for the laws. It's never pleasant to be stuck on a flight that long but given the situation there wasn't much CO could do.

There will be finger pointing anyways on this matter so were not all going to agree here.
 
D L X
Posts: 11657
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting Sacamojus (Reply 15):
Quoting 28thguy (Reply 12):
They were subject to FALSE IMPRISONMENT on an aircraft without access to food or working toilets.

The article states that a federal law would not let them off the plane.

THANK YOU!!

I was beginning to wonder if anyone had actually read the article before flaming Continental.
 
757drvr
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:28 am

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 14):
I'm not sure what the big deal about "pregnant women with small children" is - they'll either have to sit on the plane or sit in the terminal.

Like the other poster said....you obviously don't have kids!

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 17):
Any diversion, and let's not focus on the CCS-(BWI)-EWR flight per se, but rather any one that is unscheduled enroute to it's destination due to weather forcing the airport itself or routes enroute closed, are exactly that, gas-n-go situations. Sometimes, an international flight runs out of options where it can land at an airport that even has a customs/immigrations facility (I'll use CLL College Station, TX for example). When a plane lands at CLL, the only thing it can do is get gas, new paperwork and wait until the airport of destination has reopened, or the route has reopened due to weather moving off. Passengers can't get off, trash can't be emptied, food/water can't be added as the plane is still in transit to it's first port-of-entry airport, be it DFW, SAT or IAH in this example.

That particular day, I believe there were upwards of 12 planes that landed in BWI due to this route closure, DL/AA/FL/CO/WN even. If you go back on a flight tracker like red1aviation.com, you can see how planes didn't depart BWI to the north for at least 60-75 minutes.

I understand what your saying, but that still doesn't make it right for passengers to go without food or water. Whether it's CLL or any other airport, contingency plans need to be in place. As the skies get more and more crowded, this is going to happen more and more. I think it is completely unacceptable to make passengers and crew go without basic necessities such as food and water.

[Edited 2007-08-15 17:29:34]
 
COewrAAtysAZ
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:15 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:29 am

Quoting MattRB (Reply 9):
With 7 airlines providing scheduled international service to BWI, why weren't these passengers deplaned, allowed to go through customs and then rescheduled on other flights departing from BWI to their final destinations?

The last time I checked, weather did not affect only ONE airline. Chances are if one airline is experiencing irregular operations due to weather, they all are. So, rerouting becomes somewhat pointless.

I will never understand when a passenger asks to be put on another airline when weather is affecting operations. It is not like airline A cannot fly through the thunderstorm but airline B can.
Continental Airlines: Trabajar con empe�?��?�±o, Volar con Pasi�?��?�³n
 
AASTEW
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 10:47 am

RE: Passengers Threaten To Sue CO

Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:27 am

AA used to cater all A/C and ground stations with non-perishable snack items. Maybe another AA employee can recall this. This was around 2000-2001. These items were stored in the last row of all airplanes or in storage room at the ground station. It was a wonderful idea while it lasted but due to cost control that quickly went away. These items were only to be distributed during an extensive ground delay/diversion.

AASTEW