Posted on 02/16/2007 8:46:39 AM PST by EveningStar
"Southwest Airlines: we don't imprison our passengers"
ROFL
That would be rather counterproductive. Being caught in a lie tends to compound the liability.
There is certainly no indication from gubmint that private industry has the ability to handle their own affairs. In the immortal words of the Pit Yorkie "You can't professionalize unless you Federalize".....
I can see the rule if both flights have the same destination. But across the board the rule would be idiotic.
I agree with you as well. I fly pretty often and I've been stuck on the tarmack for upwards of 4 hours before. One time in particular, they pushed us away from the gate to get an ontime departure and then announced we wouldn't be taking off for 30 minutes. That became 4 hours before it was all said and done. To add to the insult, when we finally got clearance to take off...they had burned up too much fuel running the AC/lights and we had to go back to the gate. It was infuriating.
After about 90 minutes they should be required to deplane everyone. At least in the airport I can walk around and get something to eat.
Have Boxer consult with her friend albore about...now what's that he's been promoting...oh, yes, global warming. albore will have a ready answer to the weather conditions. BARF!
You have a point.
I imagine that depends on the nature of the lie...if they can exaggerate something that has a modicum of truth in it then it would be difficult to fight that one through. But again, I'm not condoning lies...just offering my opinion why an airline (or any other business) might utilize them.
I have no problem with ensuring that the laws regarding airport procedure should include a provision whereby passengers may disembark (even if requiring a waiver) from a grounded aircraft if the wait is going to be longer than a certain amount of time.
Keeping people in planes on the tarmac for seven hours really ought not to be allowed, let alone required by federal regulations, as appears to be the case today.
Although I'd rather see the Airlines take action instead of Congress, I agree that there needs to be a time limit set as to how long a plane can sit outside of the gate. I'd be pretty steamed if I sat in those planes for up to 11 hours with no food and a smelly restroom.
Unfortunately, the airlines are asking for it by being so arrogant. The bad publicity from this should be enough for airlines to fix the problem. But it's too late now. This fiasco should never have happened. These new regs are going to sail through Congress with bipartisan support.
They shouldn't need a law. The airlines should do this on their own. But they haven't. That invites government regulation.
A few comments/questions:
1.) Boxer's legislation probably has only to do with rights of Queen Nancy to have the Space Shuttle fly her and her mob between DC and San Francisco.
2.) Why didn't the airline roll a portable staircase out to the plane so that passengers could exit the plane? Probably because they were afraid of being sued by some clumsy ass-hat in this litigious society.
3.) Anyone that advocates government intervention in this matter is out of their mind (O'Reilly included). It's partly due to government intervention that this occurred. (Planes can't depart when there are ice-pellets in the air.) This is a business issue only. JetBlue can deal with any fall-out as a business entity; they shouldn't have to deal with more governmental bulls**t.
4.) Who on earth is watching the government?
5.) If the opposite of pro is con, then what is the opposite of progress?
Seems folks were trapped in their cars overnight on I78 in PA. They were forced to sleep in their cars in sub zero weather. Where is a drivers' bill of rights? I'm sure Long Island commuters would love a LIRR passenger bill of rights. When is enough enough?
I 'good' lawyer will claim Jet-Blue kidnapped their clients and earn them both a fat pay-check.
Except that those people "forced" to stay in their cars didn't have to deal with somebody locking them in.
>>Seems folks were trapped in their cars overnight on I78 in >>Where is a drivers' bill of rights?
The big difference is that they knew there would probably be delays or problems with near blizzard right conditions. The question should be, why were they on the road to begin with?
That ain't government intervention, bub- it's the pilot's instinct for self-preservation.
Please read my other posts on this thread.
"We think that one size doesn't fit all," said ATA spokesman David Castelveter. "We think the best solution continues to be to allow the flight crews and their operational experts to make these type of decisions."
He forgot the passengers. If they don't like the decisions made by a particular airline they can fly a different carrier the next time around. We don't need congress to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.