Transportation Secretary Would Like To Ask Continental A Few Questions
The horrific tarmac delay in Rochester, MN has come to the attention of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. LaHood apparently has a blog, and on it he's asking some questions about the delay.
LaHood says:
Basically, we want to know what I think all of us want to know:
1. Why the flight was diverted to Rochester, Minnesota, in particular;
2. Which carrier, Continental or Express Jet, was responsible for the well-being of the passengers and, in particular, which carrier's contingency plan was implemented during the tarmac delay;
3. Whether Continental/ExpressJet had in place at Rochester procedures regarding the deplaning of passengers on diverted flights at diversion airports without TSA presence and if not, why not;
4. Whether such procedures were implemented with respect to flight 2816 and if not, why not;
5. Why flight 2816 was forced to stay on the ground at Rochester for as long as it did; and
6. An explanation of the passenger's treatment during the delay, including once they were inside the airport terminal.The letter also asks Continental for similar information about other recent delays.
What will he do with this information?
... DOT has a rulemaking in progress that proposes to require airlines to take certain steps to deal with lengthy tarmac delays, including establishing contingency plans that meet basic passenger needs during a lengthy tarmac delay. Some have proposed that DOT go further and set a time limit for carriers to deplane passengers. While I can't comment on the merits of the proposed rule yet, we will use the information Continental provides to help us reach a decision about what direction to go in that rulemaking.
Outrage on tarmac delays—you want to know, DOT wants to know [DOT Blog]
Post a comment
Comments:
He asks questions on a blog.
Whoopee.
This would mean a hell of a lot more if he called the carriers on the carpet--in public--and forced an answer from them as to why it happened and what's to prevent it in the future. Until then, nothing with meaning has occurred.
Say what you will about our new government, but it looks like they are at least trying to hold companies accountable, and there is less of a "free market", where the almighty dollar is all companies care about, customer safety/welfare be damned. Perhaps more socialist, but I think our market/housing crash pretty much proves you can't totally leave big business to their own devices, as they only care about making as much money in as little time as possible, then bailing out on their golden parachutes.
I like President Obama and the administration and the fact they try BUT big business runs America and owns Washington. At best, the airlines will get a slap across the wrist and a wink.
@Saboth: Agreed. And despite the events of the last couple of years, what people do not understand is that free markets are flawed in the same way that democracy is flawed. All it takes is a few not-so-honorable resourceful people to come to a tacit agreement, and everything soon goes to hell.
Warming up the frying pan now...
@Saboth: If you think asking questions on a blog to no one in particular "holding companies accountable", then, yes, change is upon us!
"That's why the letter to Continental simply seeks answers to a few questions. Basically, we want to know what I think all of us want to know"
Shouldn't there be a link to the original story here? The "tarmac delay" link is just a tag that apparently wasn't actually attached to the original story. (I haven't looked at Consumerist recently and I have no idea what this is about.)
@The-Lone-Gunman: You don;t think he's just posting this on the blog, do you? This is the equivilent of the calling them on the carpet in public you're asking for and giving a summary of what he's telling them he wants answers for. Undoubtedly the questions have been asked through more official channels and means as well.
I thought many of these questions had been answered already. There was severe weather at MSP so the flight was diverted to Rochester. The passengers weren't allowed to deplane and enter the terminal because the security screeners had gone home for the night. As for who is responsible (Continental or Express Jet) and why there weren't better contingency plans in place, those are questions that deserve addressing.
I don't think there's a stewardess alive that could have kept me hostage in that plane. But first I would collect names and numbers for a class-action lawsuit against Continental.
Lol, well I'm hoping the blog is just a sounding board for something he plans to initiate off the internet.
@wgrune: Except the airport has said that there's no reason why the airline couldn't still have deplaned the passengers, so the TSA issue seems to be a red herring.
@ThinkerTDM: If you'd actually read everything, it says a letter was sent requesting this information. The blog post is obviously a means of alerting the public that something is being done.
If continental gets in trouble we are going to end up paying deplane fee or excess tarmac time fee
@ThinkerTDM: I think you should try rereading the blog excerpt provided, particularly the last sentence.
I hope action on this matter will be swift and decisive, and that we'll see an immediate change in how passengers are to be "hosted" when their flight is on hold.
@wagenejm: Well, stop the presses! A letter sent to get the information! A new day has broken! Hallelujah!
Let's talk in 6 months, and see what has changed. My prediction: nothing. Nothing at all.
@ThinkerTDM: Because the previous administration's method of "shoot first, ask questions later" was so effective, right?
@TinkishDelight: It was basically finger-pointing. Stories made up after the fact, and then other people responding to those stories. The truth may or may not have anything to with what we've heard thus far.
@wgrune: TSA screeners are only needed if the passengers leave a secure area and want to return. No one leaves the secure area, no one needs rescreening. One of the items in several of the stories is that the airport would not let the people deplane because they did not have personnel on hand to manage the area where the passengers would be. Perhaps (like some gates in Kansas City), there are no water/toilet facilities in the secure area at the gate.
The bottom line is that every level of management totally failed these passengers. Continental (your name is on the plane and ticket...you are responsible), Rochester airport, TSA, etc. And everyone will be pointing the finger at everyone else. Mr. LaHood can step in as a 3rd (or would it be 6th?) party and be somewhat objective.
Come on, folks. Let's be honest here. The DOT, the FAA, and the other assorted alphabet-soup agencies have promised to investigate similar incidents before. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened, although being tarmacked for 20 hours or so may be a record (I have no idea).
These government folks know full well that airlines routinely treat passengers like prisoners and abuse their trust. It happens all the time. It's not news to anyone.
The DOT is just posturing here. There probably won't even be any investigation or inquiry to speak of. If there is, it will be pure theater ... the DOT will rule that the airline obeyed all the rules, did nothing wrong, and it's fabulous that they kept passengers imprisoned in a metal tube that long.
Bottom line is, nothing will happen because of it. Because if the alphabet soup thought there were anything wrong with it, they'd have already fixed it — long ago.
I think forcing open the door of an airplane, grounded or in mid-air, is generally frowned upon and would likely be accompanied by a felony charge.
@TinkishDelight: Ouch! Would this be considered a "straw man"? Because your argument really has nothing to do with current events. When I start seeing change, then I'll eat my words. Until then...
Jeez. Talking to a liberal. No wonder I feel like I am wasting my time.
@PsiCop: LaHood isn't my favorite person (he used to be mt congresscritter) but he is wise in the ways of washington and he gets things done.
@PsiCop: It wasn't twenty hours on the tarmac, it was six hours on the tarmac... still excessive perhaps but not the sensationalistic claim that 20 hours would be...
@ThinkerTDM: I haven't seen much change- people are still dying in foreign wars, people are still locked in Gitmo. But Wall Street has gotten a gabillion dollars; car companies got a big check from the government as well. There's still poisoned food out there; the new FDA has done nothing. And the unemployment rate is still climbing.
I realize that it might take some time for the "change" to happen- but until then, ALL politicians are corrupt. Old ones and new ones.
You are probably mad I called you names, though.
@ThinkerTDM: "Well, stop the presses! A letter sent to get the information! A new day has broken! Hallelujah!"
I'm pretty sure that was a direct response to above. You're basically laughing it off as if there is a problem with making sure you have all pertinent information so that you can make an informed, rational decision. I'm saying rushing to take action without information has often proven in the past to be the wrong direction.
As to the rest of your "argument" I'm afraid I can't argue with whimsy.
And I'm actually unaffiliated but I sure do love how you throw out the l word like it's something defamatory. Believe it or not you can disagree without pigeon-holding. It's like you think me being a liberal somehow makes your point valid.
@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: Yeah, but if you truly went 5 year old on Continental, you'd be abandoned at the wrong airport.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Sorry but I doubt he can personally overcome decades of industry-wide inertia which resists the idea that passengers are human beings who ought to be treated like human beings.
Didja know that the word "Liberal" used to be used to refer to the Ultra Conservatives back in the 1940's-1960's. I remember reading this somewhere, however cannot seem to find the article. I'll come back an link the source when I find it. (if my lunch lasts that long).
@fantomesq: Hmm, I have no idea where I got the "20 hours" from. But it also wasn't 6. According to the earlier Consumerist article it was 11 ([consumerist.com]).
Sounds like they're "taking it very seriously".
@PsiCop: The 20 hours claim came from Consumerists headline... which has been changed to 11 hours. Both claims are sensationalistic and inaccurate. Flight 2816 spent 6 hours on the tarmac after an unplanned landing at a closed airport.
This is still a wholly unacceptable situation but lets at least be accurate in what we are outraged over. It appears that the flight had to be landed because the crew had reached their maximum flight time. They had no legal option but to land a that point. The airport was closed, Continental/ExpressJet had no gates of their own at the airport so they couldn't just pull up to the gate. They were trying to work out an agreement to use Delta's gate. There was also apparently and issue with TSA about deplaning into a closed airport. They didn't have a crew available to relieve them, so they couldn't just take off again. They landed at 12:30 and deplaned at 6:30 after the airport reopened - that is six hours, not 11 or 20.
I consider myself a liberal. People seem to associate that word now (due to the efforts of right wingers), with PETA, hippies, bleeding hearts, etc. However, I believe in small government, less taxes, death penalty, right to choice, etc. Why do I think myself a liberal? Because if something isn't working (like our current healthcare system), I believe in looking at new ideas and improvements over old policies to constantly improve society. Being "conservative" never advances anything. People love to complain about government, rising prices, rising healthcare, crime...but then they believe in "conservative" policies. Umm sorry, you gotta want "change" if you want things to improve. Staying the same and complaining about how things are just doesn't ring logically to me. Not saying Obama is the path to change, but at the very least, he has admitted there are a LOT of problems with our country and government. That is already a 100% improvement over the government of the last 8 years.
@TinkishDelight: It seems to be the airline saying that that's what the airport said, but at this point really what everybody is really saying very loudly is "It wasn't our fault."
@Smashville: Can't usually do it in mid-air because of the pressurization, though, so you're generally safe from the *splat*.
@fantomesq: Yeah, there's definitely a multitude of moving parts on this one. But I also suspect that several of those parts went for unnecessarily defensive rather than useful in a way they could have been without breaking rules. It's quite common, for instance, for diverted aircraft to deplane passengers at airports they don't service--why did it turn into rocket science here?
It reminds me a bit of an epic train trip I took in Britain, wherein the underlying issue was that nobody high enough up to make a useful decision was available at that time of night, and nobody who was available was willing to call somebody with actual authority.
Is this why I don't like to fly?
@fantomesq: The whole problem with the "but they didn't do anything wrong they did everything by the book" defenses, is a very simple one.
What would all these people making all these decisions think about this, if they were the ones imprisoned on the plane? Or if their friends or relatives were? You even admit this was unacceptable, yet you basically defend them as though it were.
Sorry but no one can have it both ways. It's illogical to say, "This shouldn't have happened, but it's OK that it did."
It's great that "they followed the rules," but the problem is, the rules clearly are not designed to handle EVERY possible situation. Once one decides the situation is not one that is well handled by the rules, one must then decide to do things not otherwise covered by the rules.
Apparently this obvious fact occurred to no one involved.
As I said originally, there's a reason things like this happen, and it's because the people in charge of the airlines WANT it to happen. If they didn't, then they'd never have let it happen in the first place. The assumption that all of a sudden the Transportation secretary woke up this morning and decided something was wrong with airline passenger treatment, and he's going to fix it, is utterly preposterous. No such thing happened.
These questions of the airline are nothing but theatrics. Count on it.
7) Whether AT&T was consulted in the rejection of the Google Voice application for the...oops, wrong list of questions.
Oh no, you used the L word! L is evil! L is wrong!
Try this one: you're a fucking asshole, dickface.
@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!:
You got that right.
A US Cabinet Member is asking questions of a company in a public forum? That is about has powerful as a US Senate Subponea demanding appearance before the whole committee.
@trujunglist: You use that phrase instead of calling someone a "liberal"? Ouch. That's pretty harsh. I must say, trujunglist, your way with words is borderline poetic. And I'm an independent, so I guess that saves me from being an asshole-dickface. Good thing, too.
This makes me want to go all 5 year old and say:
OOooommmmmm.. someone's in trouble!