7
New tarmac rule may cost passengers
A Southwest airplane taxies at Los Angeles International Airport.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: International aviation's not doing so badly as the world economy slowly bounces back. The industry's main lobbying group said today that total losses are going to be about $3 billion, a lot of money, but half of earlier guesses. American carriers are doing their part to be profitable.
A new rule from the Department of Transportation is going to go into effect next month. It's going to slap huge fines on airlines that keep passengers waiting on planes for more than three hours without giving them a chance to get off. It sounds great, obviously. But airlines say it's going to have all kinds of costly consequences. For passengers.
Marketplace's Stacey Vanek-Smith has more.
STACEY VANEK-SMITH: Airlines that keep passengers on the runway for longer than three hours will face fines of more than $27,000 per person. On a big plane, that could add up to millions.
David Caselveter is with the Air Transport Association, which represents airlines. He says carriers will just cancel flights if there's a bad storm coming or a really long line for take-off.
DAVID CASELVETER: Rather than take the chance of a pretty hefty fine, carriers will proactively cancel those flights.
The Department of Transportation came up with the fines in reaction to a spate of cases a few years ago, when some passengers were stuck on planes for as long as 11 hours.
Industry consultant Mike Boyd says the airlines are usually not to blame for the delays.
MIKE BOYD: This makes DOT seem like they're really standing up for the consumer, but when we do have airplanes stuck, 90 percent of the time, it's because we have an air traffic control system that the Department of Transportation hasn't upgraded in the last 30 years.
Airlines like Delta and JetBlue are asking for exemptions at congested airports, like New York's JFK.
But aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia says airlines have options.
RICHARD ABOULAFIA: Going back to the gate, deploying stairs and getting them off the plane and back to the terminal. And that does create disruptions in the schedule and of course, that means higher operating costs.
Aboulafia says canceling a flight is also expensive, so don't rule out that two hour and 59 minute wait on the tarmac just yet.
I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith for Marketplace.
Don't want to beat a horse, but ...
Thanks to C. Tracy for looking up "tarmac." I don't know what reference source Tracy used, but his/her meaning is still wrong. Airplanes get to runways on taxiways, after they leave the ramp. No tarmac in there anywhere. I was a bit sloppy suggesting that "tarmac" and "runway" were interchangeable. They are not. Most airplanes are parked on ramps while the passengers suffer. No tarmac anywhere. Tarmac is roughly equivalent to American "asphalt," which is infrequently used on airports because it sags under the weight of heavy airplanes.
"Tarmac" remains a journalists' cute word (= jargon)for "someplace on an airport. It still means "asphalt" in other places.
Now, back to the real issue of stalling planes and making customers suffer.
You know, I really wonder if the airlines are just crying wolf about the new rules. I mean, really. You have a storm rolling in, you get on the pa, tell everyone there will be a delay, stay tuned. Everyone goes back to their reading, running around the terminal, shopping, whatever and just wait. Any annoyance would be minimal compared to being locked inside a plane for hours that just backed 6 feet away from the ramp and then parked! This happened to us several years ago. Thankfully, only for an hour or so. But, long, long lines for take off? If you can't get a plane through the line and in the air in under 3 hours, that's a severe scheduling/Air Traffic Control issue that needs to be effectively addressed by all the parties involved. We're already treated like cash cows. But if we're paying for service, why treat us like cattle in a cattle car too?
Now about the story -
I'm glad to see such rules, and I do empathize with the carrier when things happen that are out of their control. However, as a passenger, I would much rather a carrier cancel a flight than to have me wait - like cargo - for 8-10 hours to fly. In fact 2-3 hours is also too long, but better than the alternative.
I wouldn't mind paying more if the airlines were going to help the FAA upgrade air traffic control system, which is of great benefit to everyone. But then, I don't trust the airlines to be particularly wise with their money.
At KK's suggestion, I looked up tarmac and it is indeed a road surface. But the journalist used the word correctly. At an airport the tarmac is the roadway leading to the runway. Runways are for takeoffs and landings, not for waiting in line to takeoff.
RE: New tarmac rule may cost passengers
Modern airlines are under extraordinary financial pressure; pressure to take off promptly; pressure to get planes to their correct stations for the next flight, and so on: Is it any wonder that they occasionally lose sight of the fact that they are transporting human beings? I think the new penalties may be a useful wake-up call that egregious and inhuman behavior must stop.
Let me tell you a tale- about 7 years ago I was to fly overnight from New York’s JFK airport to London Heathrow on British Airways. We boarded the plane in the face of an imminent snowstorm, which predictably hit after we were on the plane. It was a big one – at least 12 inches of snow and the airport closed- hardly the airlines’ fault. We (myself and my 6 year old son) spent 9 hours on that plane. No meal was served, no movie was shown, and the heat could not be controlled so the back door was opened to the tarmac to prevent us all from overheating. This let the snow in so the carpet by the rear toilet and galley was soaking, making a trip to the ‘bog’ more like venturing into a Sherlock Holmes novel set on wild and woolly Dartmoor. But here’s the rub – we never pushed back, the jetway was still attached...and yet we were still not allowed to deplane, even into the gate area, lest our slot in the departure queue was lost when the airport reopened. To this day my son boo’s and hisses when he sees the livery of ‘The World’s Favorite Airline’. Without singling out this particular airline, I truly think such behavior merits the new fine. Don’t you?
I was pleased to hear the whole report done without the use of the journalist's jargon word, "tarmac." She even used "runway!" Then the reporter used "tarmac" in the last sentence. Couldn't help it, I guess. If it's an airport it has to have "tarmac," which does not exist at most airports.
Look it up.
Then you used it in the online headline.
Please try to get over your journalistic addiction to the word "tarmac" in relation to airports. It is a road surface not an airport feature.
KK
re today's "final note" about a "wasted crisis"
(pasted down below):
You are so right-- the last year's worth of single-minded Republican obstructionism, designed solely to defeat every Obama or Democratic proposal, regardless of merit, and regardless of how much compromise offered, has in fact caused untold enormous waste.
It is a horribly backwards tactic that has prevented many important reforms and harmed all Americans.
---
Continuing an occasional theme of mine -- that what we have in the government's response to the financial crisis of late 2008 was a crisis wasted.
That is, no real or substantive reform as of yet.
Today's exhibit A: Senator Christopher Dodd. The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee said today he's going to release his regulatory overhaul plan on Monday.
His plan -- as in one without any Republican support. Maybe I'm wrong, but this whole thing is starting to look a lot like the health care debate.
---
