Tarmac delay hall of shame: holiday edition

Anyone who thinks tarmac delays are dead was in for a little shock this week. Hundreds of flights were delayed in a series of powerful blizzards, and a few sat between the runway and the terminal for hours, waiting for the weather to clear.

The Transportation Department, which hasn’t fined a single airline for a tarmac delay since instituting its three-hour rule last spring, will almost certainly have to take some enforcement action this time. And, of course, there’s a big loophole: International flights remain exempt from the turnback rule.

More than two dozen international flights waited more than three hours from Monday to Wednesday to get to an open gate in New York, according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The worst delay appears to be a Cathay Pacific flight from Bangkok that arrived Monday evening and got to a gate 12 hours later at 7:45 a.m. Tuesday.

Cathay admits a total of 1,100 passengers “suffered” being trapped in its planes for between four and 11 hours as they sat grounded on the snow-covered tarmac “because gates were not available at the airport for passengers to disembark,” according to one report. It apologized for the way it handled the incident.

Aeromexico’s Flight 404 landed at JFK from Mexico City more than two hours behind schedule, but passenger Cristobal Alex said it was six hours before he could walk off the plane. He told CNN,

We were running out of food and water and the pilot came on to say he had been arguing with the folks at the airport to at least let the police come on board to deliver some food and water. And I guess he lost that fight — nobody came on.

The DOT is already working on a tarmac delay rule for international flights.

Domestic airlines reportedly pushed the envelope on delays, but there were no reports of major hold-ups exceeding three hours. Delta Flight 1940 was scheduled to leave San Francisco at 11:40 a.m. Tuesday, for example, but did not take off until 3:31 p.m. because of weather in New York. The airline was technically in compliance with federal law, according to company officials. Passengers did not feel any happier.

We won’t know the full extent of the delays until the Transportation Department releases December figures, and that won’t be for a few more months.

But here’s what we do know: Most of the big tarmac delays were on international carriers. Maybe that was a coincidence, but it probably wasn’t. Airports and airlines know they can keep those international flights waiting without any meaningful repercussions. That bothers me.

In the UK, which had its own little snow problem earlier in December, there’s discussion of a tough new law that would fine both airlines and airports. I doubt they’ll mess around by creating convenient loopholes for international carriers. But I like the idea of holding airports responsible for being unprepared during inevitable inclement weather.

My journalistic sixth sense tells me something is going on here, and if I had the resources, I’d start digging in New York. There are a few media organizations with the firepower to do a forensic analysis on the blizzard of 2010, and the resulting flight delays, and they all happen to be headquartered in New York.

Oh, who am I kidding?

(Photo: pocket dora/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • Tom

    Living in Florida, it must be hard for you to understand that it snowed heavily in the New York area this past week. It was the sixth biggest snow on record and almost two and a half feet fell near the Newark Airport. And although this is almost 2011, there’s still no Internet App for removing snow. It takes tens of thousands of people driving equipment around the clock to move the snow. Finding people to fine, scowling on Internet blogs, throwing a temper tantrum at the airport, demanding action from Congress — none of these moves an inch of snow. You might as well fine Florida beach towns when visitors get sun burns.

  • Eric

    This is New York, we’re far better equipped to deal with snow than most places. Once it stopped snowing early Monday morning, the airports have ample resources to clear runways, gate areas and tarmac areas. Unlike the city, there were no baggage trains, buses or other airport vehicles stuck and stranded all over the tarmac blocking snow plows from clearing up. Even if high winds and blowing snow kept planes from taking off and landing, it is a bit odd that planes on the ground were prevented for so long from getting to a gate to unload.

  • http://oussamastake.blogspot.com/ Oussama

    Waiting to get to a gate, sounds more of an airport problem than an airline one. However, to resolve it at the expense of the passengers should not go unquestioned. I refuse to believe that for 6 to 12 hours no gates became available for an aircraft to disembark passengers and be towed to a parking area.
    Airports and airlines should o better.

  • http://www.thetravelinggiraffe.com Crissy

    NYC is probably more worried about the people who died because EMS couldn’t get to them or couldn’t get them to a hospital. I don’t think a plane on the tarmac for a few hours is at the top of their list of concerns.

    The airports are managed by Port Authority, but the workers live in NYC, or NJ and getting around the city was a NIGHTMARE, so the workers getting the airports was an issue.

    But I always felt that tarmac delays are the responsbility of both the airlines and the airports.

  • DWM

    Regardless of the weather problems, it’s ridiculous that airports can’t manage their traffic, even in a storm to at least let people get off planes. Are we supposed to believe that the planes sitting in the occupied gates were all full of people? Of course not! So the airports left these empty planes in gates while planes full of passengers sat on the tarmac for hours on end, trapping those poor people inside. That’s ridiculous and borderline inhumane.

    For once, it would seem the airlines should not take the hit for this. The airport should actually care about the people using its facility. Send a bus out to the tarmac and unload the passengers, move an empty plane to open up a gate, at least show a mild amount of concern for the people on the planes. Snow or no snow, there are options; these were just ignored.

  • Cosmos Human

    Living in Northeastern Ohio, I am used to the snow, especially the “lake effect” we receive…or I should say “dumped upon”!

    The UK airports close when they receive five inches…that is just a dusting to me.

    NYC did as best as was expected. The storm was massive and people died, I hear a newborn baby died as the rescue squad was unable to arrive in time.

    Perhaps one day we can control Mother Nature!

  • Thomas

    @ DWN

    Agree. I know they have buses in N.Y., why not use them? I can’t even begin to count the number of international flights I’ve been on where you’re loaded onto a bus to get to Customs and Immmigration. From what I’ve read, Customs and Immigration officers WERE on staff at JFK. This si a clear decision by the Ports Authority, since they run operations. Fine the airport!!

  • cjr

    The obvious and logical solution would be to force airports to have a certain percentage of gates left empty in case of emergencies.

    But who needs logic when you can simply force people to sit in a plane for 12 hours?

  • Cathie

    “Airlines move planes away from the path of big storms to prevent them from being stranded. Now the airlines have to get those planes back to the Northeast before they can fly stranded passengers home. They may also have to ferry pilots and flight attendants into the affected areas.” from msnbc.com

    I find it interesting there were no gates available if the planes had been flown out of the area.

  • Tom

    So many posters claim that US legacy carriers are inferior to foreign flagship carriers and yet the legacy carriers were smart enough not to land planes in the storm; the villains were all foreign flags.

    That said, the suffering of elite flyers was minor compared with the problems of those stuck in subway cars, trains, cars, or in their homes with no access to emergency services. Yes, it’s a problem when an elite traveler can’t move swiftly from experience to experience or when the elite traveler has to go hours without being served a meal, but those are pretty minor compared to other problems faced by ordinary citizens. I’m sure one of the reasons they had to endure the indignity of waiting in their seats two hours for Customs to open is that the Customs officers were busy shoveling two feet of snow off their own driveways to get to work.

  • MVFlyer

    @Tom wrote: “So many posters claim that US legacy carriers are inferior to foreign flagship carriers and yet the legacy carriers were smart enough not to land planes in the storm; the villains were all foreign flags.”

    In defense of the foreign flag carriers (not that they’re right)–their flights start out many hours before the scheduled landing (14 hours in the case of Cathay Pacific), so they often don’t know what the real conditions will be. In many cases they’ll divert–which is probably better for them than canceling, since the aircraft and passengers may only be 1-2 hours from their destination rather than 14.

  • Carl

    I agree that the airport needs to be held accountable, not the airlines, since these were international airlines that don’t control their own gates. If the Port Authority declares the airport open for landings, that includes make sure they can get passengers off the planes – using stairs and buses when necessary. There is just no reason on earth to detain people for four or six hours. If they can’t get them off the planes, declare the airport closed and divert them to an airport that can handle them.

  • Tony

    What would be the trouble if passengers opened an emergency exist and jumped off the plane? If they all played dumb and claimed they smelled something burning I think it would be pretty foolproof.

  • http://www.thetravelinggiraffe.com Crissy

    @Thomas Port Authority does not own or run the buses in NYC, MTA does. Besides 600 of them got stuck in the snow on the streets.

    But there is no reason that a plane should sit on the tarmac for 12 hours, even an hour or 2 should be an extreme condition. One excuse I heard was the customs workers weren’t there, but that doesn’t mean they have to leave the people on the plane. I can’t believe that in 12 hours no one couldn’t come up with some better idea.

    But with everything else that happened in NYC during this storm, this is small potatoes. Try 11 hours in a subway car with no heat or bathroom. Or a bus for 20 hours. Or an ambulance for 21 hours…

  • Buckster

    I simply do not understand why this has to occur. If the weather was keeping planes from leaving and canceling flights then why not back those empty planes out of the gates and taxi them to where the full planes are waiting? This does not seem to be rocket science.

    At a minimum send shuttle busses and a staircase out to the planes waiting.

    The controllers handle far more complex logistics every day.

  • Jack

    Chris Elliott: Your previous posts on tarmac delays suggest this is a trivial issue; that people were getting upset over nothing; and, that tarmac delay regulation will make air travel worse, not better. NOW, you’re singing a different tune! Perhaps you would like to try to reconcile these contradictory positions.

  • Christopher Elliott

    @”Jack”, my position is unchanged. Tarmac delays still represent an extremely small problem, when compared to other aviation issues. Focusing exclusively on tarmac delays, as some misguided activists have, is harmful to the cause of consumer rights.

  • David Z

    The obvious and logical solution would be to force airports to have a certain percentage of gates left empty in case of emergencies.

    I simply do not understand why this has to occur. If the weather was keeping planes from leaving and canceling flights then why not back those empty planes out of the gates and taxi them to where the full planes are waiting? This does not seem to be rocket science.

    Perhaps to help understand a bit:

    http://crankyflier.com/2010/03/31/an-airline-dispatchers-view-on-why-ground-delays-happen-guest-post/

  • Sam

    I thought this was in large part a Customs issue — that customs agents had gone home and could not physically get back to the airport, so they couldn’t unload the planes. That would explain why the delays only affected international flights — not the lack of penalities.

  • Thomas

    @ Chrissy You’re right in that the Mass Transit Authority owns the buses, THAT RUN ON THE STREETS! The airport buses are owned by the port authority, the same that run the airport.

    I’d like to see you flying 14 hours, then sitting on an airplane for another 11. Thank you, I would have been arrested for inciting a riot, booked, released, and plead temporary insanity! No jury on the face of the planet would have convicted me :)

  • cjr

    “Perhaps to help understand a bit:”

    I don’t want excuses, I want answers.

    To quote from that article: “Should every airport have double the number of gates normally used “just in case” problems occur?”

    If that is what it takes to prevent a plane from sitting there for 12 hours, then yes, they should have that many gates.

    To be honest, I really don’t care what the air traffic controllers, or the airlines, or the pilots think. As a passenger, what matters in the end is what I think if I’m on a plane that is, literally, going nowhere for hours on end.

    The answer never has been and never should be to just cancel flights and figure that makes the problem go away. The answer should be to fix the problems in the system to ensure that such situations do not occur.

    And it’s just as insulting if those people sat in the plane for 12 hours just because there were no customs agents. Really? So if the agents couldn’t get to the airport for another day or two? How long were they expected to keep people on that plane? It’s a joke.

  • Sadie Cee

    “Imprisoning” people for 12 hours or even four hours is simply inhumane. It is the responsibility of airport authorities to ensure that arriving flights are accommodated and to make sure that such delays do not take place.

    However, when resources are in short supply for whatever reason, which of these is preferable? Forcing arrivals to stay on the tarmac or allowing them to deplane and face incidents such as the occurrence described below?

    Heard this from an eyewitness. A few Fridays ago at YYZ, more than 3000 people deplaned at one of the terminals at around the same time. Customs and Immigration staff was overwhelmed and unable to cope. The C & I hall was jampacked and travellers were backed up on escalators and staircases unable to move. Escalators were then turned off and when people saw a path being made for pilots and FAs to go through, people who had little time to make connecting flights to Europe and other parts of Canada panicked and started pushing, shoving and shouting. A near-riot ensued. The police were called and had to use force to restore order.

    It was a very hostile crowd and at the height of the melee my informant said that he was fearful of his safety. He also said that not even one announcement was made in all that time to inform them about the reason for the delay. Those closer to the front eventually figured it out, but those farther behind did not have a clue. They were simply furious.

    It took about three hours after arrival for my informant to clear the terminal and all he had was carry-on luggage.

    In the light of this, maybe staying on board until we are ensured of a proper reception might not be so bad after all.

  • Susan

    There should be a disaster plan in place for this type of emergency. Air traffic control knows how many planes and how many passengers are in the air.

    You cannot tell me that at JFK there is not a room somewhere, where you could deplane and keep these passengers until proper customs and immigration can happen. A hanger, something. Otherwise, there should be s procedure for taxing to a secure location – like a hanger and at least giving these people food and real time information, it is the lack of concrete information that gets mentally taxing.

    There should be a written plan and an org chart and a process in place for dealing with this type of situation.

    It really isn’t that hard, it is laziness and lack of planning on the part of the airlines and the airport. I am sick to death of people saying there is nothing that can be done – there is a flow chart in the cockpit that details what to do if the the lav shuts down at take off, mid flight, landing and on the ground – make a flow chart for what to do when a blizzard hits.

    Every airport should have a disaster plan, back up plans and they should run drills. Yes it cost money, yes it takes time and it is part of the cost of doing business. Figure it out, plan, then execute- otherwise, find a new line of work.

  • David Z

    I don’t want excuses, I want answers.

    Oh definitely. As the Dispatcher noted in that Crankyflier article, though, there’ll be some folks who’ll think their possibly-honest answers are excuses anyway.

    Not to sound cynical, but why then should airlines, dispatchers, etc. care what passengers then think if passengers themselves don’t care what they think either? Sure they’re in the business of accomodating people’s travel, and they’ll do what they can for the most part, but surely it can help lessen the tension if both sides “mutually” understand what both are potentially up against when things like this occur?

    Like I said before, it’s arguably easy to tell others what to do. I’m sure some (if not all) will figure it out somehow, but how do we know it’s that easy if we ourselves don’t know what it’s like on their side of the fence?

    Some of those who commented in that article I linked here already gave some viewpoints on their side. Of course, what can they do if people think they’re just making excuses anyway, even though what they said might nonetheless be realistically true.

    IIRC an airline executive (US Airways’, I think) acknowledged their fault/s and will deal with it. Given the $27+K fine looming over airlines’ heads if passengers are stuck for three hours, what practical choice do they have other than to conveniently cancel flights before such problems occur?

    Anyhow, I posted that link perhaps to help understand a bit how and/or why they happen. No one has to agree, accept or like it, and pretty much everyone involved is aware of that.

  • David Z

    As a parting comment I forgot to include: I do hope stakeholders will somehow come together and find points everyone can agree on. A practically realistic solution can somehow come out of that, although I guess one can dream.

    Note: I said can, which denotes possibility. Only time will tell if one will ever happen.

  • James

    Maybe get John Stewart on the Case :-) He seems to have the ability to actually shame people to get things fixed. Unlike the rest of the media, who simply layback and take what ever they are fed.

  • Bill

    I will reiterate that I am not prepared or in agreement with being “held hostage” on a plane at any time, for any reason. Especially after a 14 hour flight. We hear stories, there were no agents, there were agents, etc. I don’t really give a . Planes are too small to keep people on during most flights, never mind on tarmacs. I’ve never seen a reasonable excuse for keeping them on planes yet.

    The above described incident in YYZ (Toronto) could have been helped by having an announcement or two, even before people deplaned.

    There’s not going to be much that anyone can say where I’m going to agree people should be imprisoned on a plane on a tarmac for 11 hours, or even 3. I grew up in places with snow, and if anyone in any airport authority is “stuck” with what to do, I would be more than happy to come up with several ideas for them. None of them involve keeping people on the plane.

  • David Z

    I’ve never seen a reasonable excuse for keeping them on planes yet.

    As if anyone wanted to give an excuse in the first place? Those that probably “belittle” incidents like these, perhaps, though I’d imagine not all airlines do so.

    Anyway, they practically know what they’ve gotten themselves into and said they’ll deal with it. Just like everyone else affected will.

    Good luck to those affected.

  • Robin

    How about this, why not put the decision makers from airports, airlines, transportation authority, etc on a plane and KEEP THEM there until they can figure it out? Guess what? SOMETHING WOULD CHANGE. FAST
    There is NO excuse for TWELVE hours, not weather, not money, not even safety. I would take my chances and walk barefoot in a blizzard. UNBELIEVABLE what we tolerate from this industry.