63 responses to “Continental’s Overnight Excursion in Rochester, Minnesota”

1. 

   Dan

   Aug 24, 2009 at 8:24 am

   Crank,

   You got a point there about regulation… we speed all day long, and don’t get in trouble, don’t we? Fines/refunds after the fact may simply be an issue that escapes the front line grunts who actually have to handle the passengers in this situation.

   What I want to know is why they couldn’t even get their toilet serviced. Signature RST is open 24/7, and there’s no reason they couldn’t have pulled up with the lav cart, given that they’re likely the ones who fueled the plane.

   Reply
2. 

   DRG

   Aug 24, 2009 at 8:32 am

   I wouldn’t want to be the pioneer passenger who takes things into their own hands and barges off the plane, but I would take my hat off to the guy who does become that pioneer and gets arrested for it. And you know it will happen eventually.

   Reply
3. 

   Chuck

   Aug 24, 2009 at 8:33 am

   The stairs are built into the door on these kinds of planes…no airstairs are required. Now it may be they couldn’t get anyone to pull a jetbridge up to the plane…but stairs should not have been an issue.

   Reply
4. 

   CF

   Aug 24, 2009 at 8:52 am

   Chuck wrote:

   The stairs are built into the door on these kinds of planes…no airstairs are required. Now it may be they couldn’t get anyone to pull a jetbridge up to the plane…but stairs should not have been an issue.

   That’s what I thought, so I specifically asked. ExpressJet spokesperson Kristy Nicholas told me that they do not have airstairs built in on that plane. This image would seem to confirm that:
   http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/19/194/194171/mediaitems/437/coex5_LG.jpg

   Reply
5. 

   Andrew

   Aug 24, 2009 at 9:00 am

   It’s easy to say, “Why didn’t someone with the physical ability just get up and jump off the plane?” (and presumably encourage others to do so). Easy to say, harder to do. There are entire sub-fields of Sociology and Psychology that study people’s behavior in groups. The sort of “individual action” you often see in movies where one person fearlessly sets themselves apart from an otherwise equal group and charges forward is actually very rare in real life (not impossible, but rare). If there is perceived equality within a situation or circumstance among a group of individuals, there is very little chance any one member of that group will act independently to change the status quo. A lot of it has to do with the expectation of change — the passengers on the plane, no matter how absurd the situation got or how long it dragged out, had the expectation that there were others in authority positions (the pilots, their bosses, people on the ground, etc.) working on their behalf to solve the problem. It’s only when through repeated, extended failure of that expectation do people begin to freely act in defiance of the stability of the group. It’s part of our social training as humans.

   This is something known to most good managers and politicians. Well, “good” … “Successful” would be a better term.

   Reply
6. 

   Kent

   Aug 24, 2009 at 9:20 am

   If an airport does not have the capability to get people off a plane within a short period of time — regardless of the reason or the atmospheric conditions — it should not be allowed to continue to operate as an airport. Period.

   And are passengers really stuck with the following options?
   1. Jump
   2. Stick it out with your legs crossed
   3. Set the plane on fire and wait for the fire trucks

   Let’s face it — in the absence of a law forcing them to do otherwise, airlines will continue to treat passengers like cattle. There is plenty of blame to go around but only one possible solution.

   Reply
7. 

   Robert

   Aug 24, 2009 at 9:22 am

   Excellent post Andrew. I was wondering when someone would get into the psychology of why this didn’t happen. I think 5 years ago, myself and my family would fit the sterotype of waiting it out and expecting change. These days, after discussing this with my wife and 11 and 14 year old sons, I think the four of us would have just “jumped” and taken our chances with the airport police. Sometimes, common sense just has to take precedence. Too bad the folk/s at Mesaba didn’t see it that way.

   Reply
8. 

   Chuck

   Aug 24, 2009 at 9:23 am

   My bad; I guess I was confusing it with the Canadair RJ model. Thanks for clarifying.

   Reply
9. 

   james

   Aug 24, 2009 at 9:26 am

   Andrew your comment made me think of times you’re at a red light that stops cycling – and there are a few lanes of cars realizing it’s been way too long.

   Once one person makes the decision to run the broken light, the rest have no problem following. And you rarely see one person go but another stay put.

   Safety in numbers I guess.

   Reply
10. 

    Jeff

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:27 am

    Same thing happened to us with continental from TPA to IAH and diverted to Austin… Sat on the ground for 6 hours… no water.. no air and lots of other planes around us… weather bad in Houston was the cause.. but the kicker was the other planes took off way before us and although we were early in line we did not leave Austin until the very end.
    Would not let us off the plane and sent me a “too bad- So sad” letter after when we complained…
    So to get even we have not flown them and will be using all of our miles and going to other airlines in the future…

    Reply
11. 

    Oliver

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:30 am

    The government is already regulating things like overbooking (IDB compensation). Sure, it’s always easy to say they don’t understand the business of air transportation and more regulation isn’t needed or the right approach. But leaving it to the industry to solving the problem is clearly not working either. Hefty fines payable to the passengers in cases like this would give airlines an incentive to come up with better processes to deal with situations like this (where was ExpressJet’s escalation procedure?)

    Has anyone at any of the companies involved in this incident been fired yet?

    Reply
12. 

    Steve

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:30 am

    If passengers had just gotten off the plane, they would have threatened them with a felony and they would have been incarcerated at the Rochester jail.. maybe better than the ERJ.

    Having been held hostage by Northwest a few years back in Detroit (airport closed, yada yada), I can sympathize. Thank god I had been upgraded to First and had a window seat. The poor folks in coach (110% full DC-9, with screaming babies: 110 coming from lap children) were much worse off.

    Reply
13. 

    Vidiot

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Given how touchy airlines and airline personnel are these days about not following their directions, I would not have wanted to risk federal charges (even bogus ones) by leaving the airplane.

    I think, though, that if I had been on that flight, I’d have called every media outlet I could find, to say nothing of the local cops.

    Reply
14. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Quick Question CF…

    “They should have at least let them into the terminal.

    Seriously. They should have. It appears that it wasn’t really ExpressJet’s fault, entirely. There were plenty of communications with the Mesaba people trying to get them off the plane. First Mesaba told them the terminal was closed and they couldn’t send anyone in. Then they said that they couldn’t get a jet bridge and they didn’t have a place for them in the terminal. That’s just awful.”

    Did you hear any of those communications? From the tapes I listened to (including this one: http://rickseaney.com/2009/08/24/audio-pilot-pleads-to-deplane-calls-situation-ridiculous) it sounds like the pilot is complaining to the EXPRESSJET dispatcher about not being able to offload (though earlier she said it was unsafe to do so) and the dispatcher said that he was building her a flight plan to get out.

    If she’d really wanted those pax to get off the plane, she’d have found a way.

    RST has no empty jetbridges at night (all occupied by RON planes) and this diversion happened ~ 2 hours after their last arrival. It came in AFTER the NW A320 which would obviously have had priority with respect to bussing & ground handling (ignoring that Mesaba = NW) because it was there first & there were more pax on the plane.

    Seeing that the ExpressJet captain didn’t believe the weather was good enough to take off, do you think that it was safe to have ramp personnel or passengers on the tarmac? That would have been necessary to get pax off via airstairs OR a jetway since one would have to have been opened up.

    Finally, what would the pax have done in the terminal. There were no facilities available other than a few vending machines. I would bet that the mesaba people didn’t have keys to the bathrooms etc… as those are controlled by the airport authorities.

    I don’t get how the DOT is blaming Mesaba and relieving ExpressJet of blame. They were trying to get the plane to MSP as late as 4:30am. Doesn’t really seem fair.

    Reply
15. 

    JM

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:52 am

    This whole disaster reflects an epic lack of common sense.

    Unusual circumstances transpire and meltdown occurs because no one with common sense intervenes in time. Sometimes the “playbook” and contingency plans don’t anticipate every situation.

    A lack of common sense seems to be a general problem these days– and a malady not unique to airlines. How about this Amtrak delay in 2005 of one of its Florida trains of 20 hours or so? :
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=990CE5DD1030F932A05751C1A9639C8B63

    Clearly, there are some folks here who need to look for a different line of work– especially the Mesaba RST station manager.

    If only the commonsensical Dan Roman or Joe Patroni had been on hand to assist!

    Reply
16. 

    DRG

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:53 am

    @ james:

    Here here. All it would take is one particularly annoyed person and the herd mentality would take over to the opposite effect.

    Reply
17. 

    JM

    Aug 24, 2009 at 9:55 am

    Correcting link above:

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DD1030F932A05751C1A9639C8B63

    Reply
18. 

    Oliver

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:02 am

    @Chris

    what kind of crime-ridden city is Rochester that they need to lock up the airport bathrooms in the sterile area overnight

    And are you serious suggesting that there is no advantage to being in the airport building over being crammed into a ERJ? I mean, seriously, you are asking what the pax would have done in the building. How about stretching out? How about sleeping on the benches? How about walking around? How about…. jeez, I don’t even know if I should take that seriously…

    Reply
19. 

    Dave

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:06 am

    Actually, airstairs are not built into the doors of ExpressJet’s ERJs as they requested their aircraft without doors for ease of docking at jetways (a.k.a. no RJ adapter needed with these planes).

    Cranky – where did you read the door was open? The articles/PR Releases I read stated that the cockpit door was open so that passengers could ask the flight crew questions, not the main cabin door.

    Reply
20. 

    Oliver

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Easy way to get off the plane:

    – complain about shortness of breath or chest pain.

    Reply
21. 

    A

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Talking amongst co-workers that share my disdain for RJ’s all agree that in that situation they would just open the emergency hatch and jump off the wing. Yes, you certinaly would get arrested in the short term but I feel the public and politicians would pick up your cause and no serious charges would hold up. This has happened all too frequently for it to continually be brushed off. Psychology aside, someone taking this type of situation into their “own hands” is the breaking point we all need.

    Secondly, FAA and other regulations aside, it’s simply asinie that when a plane is on the ground stopped, not taxing, you have zero rights to get off regardless of reason. I think some kind of legislation is necessary to stop false imprisonment situations like this. If someone leaves the plane on their own will, of course don’t make the airline responsible for getting them to their destination. But if I want to get off that plane it should be my right to do so.

    Reply
22. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:10 am

    @Oliver:

    I wasn’t suggesting that the ERJ was more comfortable than the terminal but since the flight crew kept trying to get to MSP that night… how was the TINY terminal going to be any better? The crew would have timed out, there was no bus, the Mesaba employees didn’t have any food/water for the PAX and there is no way to keep the people there. So good luck with getting bags to those who checked them and/or re accommodating displaced pax. No hotel vouchers. No food vouchers. Heck, if the weather was so bad roads were washed out, good luck getting food delivered at 3am.

    The captain and ExpressJet made the decision to keep trying to get to MSP period. It’s obvious from the 4:30am-ish recordings that were released by ExpressJet.

    @Dave – The door was opened at around midnight according to Express Jet’s timeline of events. That is when the captain ordered more fuel and was provided with it.

    Reply
23. 

    Oliver

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:10 am

    @Dave — from the ExpressJet timeline:

    “00:30-01:30 In addition, the cabin door had remained open to augment cabin ventilation.”

    Reply
24. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:12 am

    Does anyone realize that if the weather was so bad the plane couldn’t leave, it was a liability to ALL INVOLVED to let pax off if there was no jetbridge.

    Additionally, to free up a jetbridge they’d have had to push back one of the RON planes thus putting a ramper out in dangerous conditions.

    Would you rather the story have been “Ramp agent struck by lightning trying to bring plane full of people to gate after insistence by captain”

    Reply
25. 

    David SFeastbay

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:22 am

    I still don’t get why people didn’t use their cell phones to find the local police number or (most) would call 911 to report being held hostage. I would have try to find the local phone number for the local TV station. That would have gotten at least TV cameras on the scene to show the plane and get in the face of the airport management about it.

    So there was Mesaba employees at the airport that late, a fuel company there that late, but no one who works for the airport itself? No airport night manager etc who would have gotten those people into the terminal since he/she would know they can come inside? Is RST like Walmart, lock workers in the store and then management leaves for the night!

    Reply
26. 

    Jason Steele

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:35 am

    Everyone is speculating on whether or not they could remain in the terminal and still reboard. I suspect there were plenty of people who wanted to leave the terminal and just find a motel or alternate transport. Why is that never mentioned?

    I am going to have to disagree with Cranky on the necessity of a law here. The only reason that they remained on the plane was that at least one idiot thought it was against the law to let them off. They will obviously do anything to avoid breaking the law. Until the law requires them to release the passengers, this will happen again and again. Legally speaking, doing nothing is the safest thing for everyone, except those trapped on the plane. Until that changes, this will re-occur.

    Finally, as a pilot, I know that every airplane and every airline has an operating handbook that details all of the steps they must take to deal with even the most unlikely occurrences. Diversions are a fairly likely occurrence and airlines should be required to have detailed plans and backup plans for such situations.

    Reply
27. 

    ShaneLAX

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Regarding stairs needed to disembark the passengers, is this not an E145 with built-in stairs?…

    http://www.embraercommercialjets.com.br/english/content/home/pop_up_img.asp?img=145_03

    Cranky, that photo link you provided above doesn’t seem completely conclusive. It seems like regular maintenance that might have required the stairs to be put away.

    Reply
28. 

    Vidiot

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:48 am

    RST also has an FBO — Signature — that’s open 24/7. I bet they had airstairs or could rig something up. They’d also have lounges and bathrooms. It sounds like Mesaba was being difficult, but I’m surprised the captain didn’t try the FBO right there on the field.

    Reply
29. 

    CF

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Andrew wrote:

    It’s easy to say, “Why didn’t someone with the physical ability just get up and jump off the plane?” (and presumably encourage others to do so). Easy to say, harder to do. There are entire sub-fields of Sociology and Psychology that study people’s behavior in groups.

    Great stuff, Andrew. I actually think that the pilots may have played a big role here. I was on a flight on Mexicana a couple years ago where we were already hours late and they parked us at a remote gate and we sat there. This was around midnight and people were getting antsy. The pilots didn’t say a word. So a few of us were actually getting close to popping the exit door and that was only 45 minutes in. They started moving soon and we got off normally.

    On this flight, the captain seems to have done a good job of communicating so I imagine passengers would be less likely to disobey.

    Kent wrote:

    Let’s face it — in the absence of a law forcing them to do otherwise, airlines will continue to treat passengers like cattle. There is plenty of blame to go around but only one possible solution.

    But that’s not true. There is a policy in place and the crew tried to get them off the plane. Would a regulation have changed that? The policy would probably be similar, and I don’t think we would have seen a different outcome.

    Oliver wrote:

    But leaving it to the industry to solving the problem is clearly not working either. Hefty fines payable to the passengers in cases like this would give airlines an incentive to come up with better processes to deal with situations like this (where was ExpressJet’s escalation procedure?)
    Has anyone at any of the companies involved in this incident been fired yet?

    So what would hefty fines have done here? The crew did what they could to get people off. Do you think that knowing that there was a fine would have changed anything for them? I think not.

    Chris wrote:

    Did you hear any of those communications? From the tapes I listened to (including this one: http://rickseaney.com/2009/08/24/audio-pilot-pleads-to-deplane-calls-situation-ridiculous) it sounds like the pilot is complaining to the EXPRESSJET dispatcher about not being able to offload (though earlier she said it was unsafe to do so) and the dispatcher said that he was building her a flight plan to get out.
    If she’d really wanted those pax to get off the plane, she’d have found a way.

    Yes, I linked to the communications in the post:
    http://press.expressjet.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194171&p=irol-overview

    The crew was concerned that there were other airplanes around and it was not safe to deplane.

    Seeing that the ExpressJet captain didn’t believe the weather was good enough to take off, do you think that it was safe to have ramp personnel or passengers on the tarmac?

    The weather was not bad over the airport the entire time. It was bad at MSP and then between RST and MSP but it wasn’t always bad there. It would have been easy to get people off considering the weather for much of the night.

    Dave wrote:

    Cranky – where did you read the door was open? The articles/PR Releases I read stated that the cockpit door was open so that passengers could ask the flight crew questions, not the main cabin door.

    As has been noted. It was in the timeline and it was confirmed to me by ExpressJet spokesperson Kristy Nicholas.

    Jason Steele wrote:

    I am going to have to disagree with Cranky on the necessity of a law here. The only reason that they remained on the plane was that at least one idiot thought it was against the law to let them off. They will obviously do anything to avoid breaking the law. Until the law requires them to release the passengers, this will happen again and again.

    I figured more people would disagree with me than agree with me on this point, but I still don’t think it’s going to accomplish anything helpful. I tend to think it will hurt more by causing airlines to be overly cautious and cancel or delay flights that might be able to get out.

    Reply
30. 

    David SFeastbay

    Aug 24, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Since this has been a big new event, hopefully airports everywhere will have gotten word to every airline and every worker what rules apply for their airport when something like this happens.

    And now hopefully the flying public has been educated to know just because an airline/airport worker says something, it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

    While this didn’t help those on the plane that night, events like this do help to make changes and educate people. With winter coming, it will be interesting to see what happens this season when flights are grounded or delayed due to snow. I think the airlines and airports will do much better to handle these situation as none of them will want to be the next big ‘hostage’ event played out in the news.

    Reply
31. 

    JK

    Aug 24, 2009 at 11:01 am

    It’s yet another example of poor planning for any and all types of contingencies in this industry. The same thing happens time after time. And, the fact that this involved a regional jet operation, even one between two major cities, IAH-MSP, raises more questions in my mind about the value of these types of operations. Not that the majors don’t screw things up themselves, but…!

    It’s a Continental flight, operated by an independent operator, ExpressJet, part of Express Holdings, trying to work through the main operator at Rochester, with Mesaba, owned by NW, which is owned by DL. Let the finger-pointing begin!

    Ultimately, isn’t the captain in charge here? And, who’s [CO, ExpressJet, airport operator, whoever] contingency plan guidelines are to be followed? Do we have to have a paying customer, voted on by the other PAX, get up before every flight and present to the captain the customers’ expectations and their bill of rights for each flight?

    In this case, if maybe certain passengers started taking their clothes off, making obscene gestures, or other terrible things, the captain would have known what to do? Obviously, there must not have been any pets on this flight. PETA would surely have had ExprssJet’s and CO’s operating certif. yanked within hours!

    Reply
32. 

    Oliver

    Aug 24, 2009 at 11:26 am

    @Cranky — a hefty fine (say, $1k per hour per passenger after 3 hrs on the ground) would have given ExpressJet operations an incentive to do something. After all, which operations guy would want to take the call from the CFO the next day to explain why they caused a $300,000 fine? Plus it would have given the passengers reasonable compensation for pain and suffering.

    Reply
33. 

    ttjoseph

    Aug 24, 2009 at 11:30 am

    @ Chris:
    It’s very rare for lightning to strike a person. Would you rather the story have been “pax dies of heart attack during imprisonment in plane”? That one is much more likely.

    Reply
34. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 11:34 am

    ttjoseph wrote:

    @ Chris:
    It’s very rare for lightning to strike a person. Would you rather the story have been “pax dies of heart attack during imprisonment in plane”? That one is much more likely.

    But the point is that it happens and if the weather was so bad that the pilot couldn’t take back off (evidenced by the tapes towards the end of the evening) was it safe for people to get in/out of the plane via the tarmac.

    Reply
35. 

    BenW

    Aug 24, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    @Chris:

    The weather was bad at RST for part of the night, but they landed at RST because of bad weather at MSP. As Cranky said, it was bad weather in the area. Yes, it was bad *at times* as RST, but not all night.

    Also, I’d love to see you tell the people on that plane that they wouldn’t have been able to do anything in the terminal, so why get off the plane. I’m sure they would love to hear that.

    One last thing, you said Mesaba wouldn’t have any keys to the airport facilities, but Mesaba is the operating agent at RST. I would doubt they couldn’t open bathrooms, if, in fact, they are locked at night.

    @ShaneLax:

    Yes, the EMB-145 has a set of stairs available as an option, however, ExpressJet’s 145’s do not have stairs. I know this for a fact, have flown on them many times.

    Reply
36. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    @ BenW:
    You miss the point. If there are planes that RON at the gates and the weather is not conducive to having rampers down there, how are the planes getting backed away from the gates and then the other planes getting brought up. You need at least 3 rampers to get the planes away from the gate. 2 wing walkers and someone to drive the tug.

    Were there 3 employees at RST 2+ hours after their last plane arrived, HIGHLY unlikely, it doesn’t take that long to clean a CR9 (last arrival at 10:15pm ).

    NW & ExpressJet planes landed around midnight BUT were there only to wait till the weather got better at MSP.

    Reply
37. 

    Jason H

    Aug 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    Jason Steele wrote:

    I am going to have to disagree with Cranky on the necessity of a law here. The only reason that they remained on the plane was that at least one idiot thought it was against the law to let them off. They will obviously do anything to avoid breaking the law. Until the law requires them to release the passengers, this will happen again and again. Legally speaking, doing nothing is the safest thing for everyone, except those trapped on the plane. Until that changes, this will re-occur.

    I have to take serious issue with the ad hominem in the above. The individual that thought it was against the law to allow the passengers off was trying to do their job. Could they have known the law better? Yes. But are they an “idiot”? No. Very likely they were afraid of violating a law that would lead to their arrest under federal statutes, which in turn would mean job termination. You may disagree with the actions taken, but resorting to ad hominem attacks does not make things better.

    Reply
38. 

    BenW

    Aug 24, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    @Chris:

    I’m not missing the point at all. I’m saying that the weather, for good parts of the night, WAS conducive. The weather was not bad at RST all night. So there were definitely times in between the storms when ground crew could safely perform their duties.

    Also, have you heard of Airstairs? I would be very surprised if RST didn’t have any. Yes, it might have been raining, but I’ve gotten off of planes via airstairs in the rain plenty of times. Again, it wasn’t storming all night, so there were time periods in which passengers could have gotten off the plane safely, without pushing a plane back from a jetway.

    Also, the FAA master record indicates that this airport is attended 24/7:

    http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=RST

    There were definitely people there to assist. They got refueled twice, so obviously some ground crew were able to do their jobs.

    Reply
39. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    @ BenW:
    If you are saying the weather WAS conducive, why didn’t they leave to get to MSP, that’s what ExpressJet was trying to do all night!

    An attended airport doesn’t always mean an open airport with respect to full ground services. At my home airport Delta handles ground services and I can tell you that they are gone by about 1 hour after the last plane has landed. In the time between then and about 2 hours before the first flight, the only people around are the airport police. MLB is considered open 24 hours.

    Finally, this note says that they are open 24 hours but to call.. “A026 24 HR PPR FOR UNSKED ACR OPNS WITH MORE THAN 30 PSGR SEATS BTN 2300-0500; CALL 507-254-1161.” That calls RST Airport not MESABA!

    By the time the ExpressJet dispatcher told the RST manager for Mesaba that if they didn’t leave within 1/2 hour they were coming inside it was 4:30am.

    Reply
40. 

    Jason Steele

    Aug 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    @ Jason H:

    According to the DOT report “There was a complete lack of common sense here,” If that is not the description of an idiot, I don’t know what is. I don’t think this is an offensive ad hominem attach if the person or persons that I am criticizing are unnamed.

    Reply
41. Turbulence On The Tarmac

    Aug 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    […] Cranky Flier has a great analysis of the incident if you want to know more, but in our view more than anything, this was a testament to just how incompetent and bureaucratic the airline system is a whole. The DOT report goes on to say “It’s no wonder the flying public is so angry and frustrated.” These runway tarmac “parties” happen all too often (SunCountry just had another one last Friday). And an analysis by USA Today has a graph of tarmac delays with – you guessed it – ExpressJet at the very top, followed by Comair and Continental. […]

    Reply
42. 

    Nicholas Barnard

    Aug 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    I haven’t read through the whole comments, but my telecom infused thinking says they should make a habit of esclating with the handling agent. The delayed carrier notifies the handling agent that they want airstairs/a jetbridge, etc. One hour later they escalate to the next level of management, at the handling carrier, and escalate every hour after that until they get to the CEO. (God Forbid it gets that high.)

    I’d be in support of a federal law that says they have to publish their handling escalation procedures. (In a federal tarrif or something along those lines, no need to post it on a customer facing website.)

    Reply
43. 

    BenW

    Aug 24, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    @Chris:

    They landed at RST because the weather at MSP wasn’t conducive. If the weather had been that bad at RST they wouldn’t have landed there! You don’t divert TO the airport with bad weather, you divert FROM the airport with bad weather.

    Reply
44. 

    Chris

    Aug 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    BenW wrote:

    @Chris:
    They landed at RST because the weather at MSP wasn’t conducive. If the weather had been that bad at RST they wouldn’t have landed there! You don’t divert TO the airport with bad weather, you divert FROM the airport with bad weather.

    Ok so you are suggesting they landed at RST and planned to offload immediately? NO. They landed at RST and continued to try to make it to MSP until 4:30am at which point, around 5am, they timed out.

    Originally they were expecting to wait an hour (until 1:30am) at RST. At that point it would have been almost 3 hours AFTER the last Mesaba arrival had landed and, one would believe, that the Mesaba ground crew left shortly after meeting the plane at 12:30.

    Reply
45. 

    Matthew Gulino

    Aug 24, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    I think some regulation is required…but not necessarily punitive as Cranky fears.

    The FAA’s traffic management program(s) is a federal program that works WITH the airlines to mitigate weather delays by controlling traffic flow to certain airports. This has arguably done a great deal to reduce the number of people stranded on grounded planes with no information.

    Maybe regulation could come in the form of specific procedures (developed in conert with the major/minor carriers…cause God knows they’re on the Hill in the form of their lobbyists) to “escalate” in these situations.

    Fines are great when you are trying to persuade people not to do bad things, but this wasn’t the problem here. Everyone here wanted to do the right thing…they just weren’t sure how. The problem here was a poor system of communication and/or procedure. By that I mean either the procedure was not understood or not defined.

    The FAA, as a central authority can do a much better job of propegating that kind of information to those in charge of these kind of problems. Furthermore, if the FAA is the authority desigated with enforcement of the policy (rather than airlines) then passengers would be able to see the full text of the policy rather than trying to guess at what might be posted in some Mesaba break-room.

    Reply
46. 

    Wonko Beeblebrox

    Aug 24, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    I guess this is where I point out that one does not need to be parked at a jetway to get into the terminal… Just park the plane in a place where it is not likely to be hit by anything, have the FA slowly jump to the ground and then, one by one, hand-help each pax down onto the tarmac. Then, as a group, walk over to a jetway and walk up the stairs. Open the door and walk inside.

    If none of those jetway-stair doors open, the pax can pretend that they are all oversized baggage and I’m sure there is obvious path to end up in baggage claim ;)

    Reply
47. 

    Oliver

    Aug 24, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    @Matthew Gulinom — fines are also a great way to incentivise companies to come up with proper procedures to avoid the problems that trigger them. And if they don’t, at least the people who got to suffer all night get compensated accordingly.

    Reply
48. 

    Kendra

    Aug 25, 2009 at 6:31 am

    If everyone had known that they would be stuck on the plane until 4:30, I think people would have jumped out on their own. But I think we have all been in situations that we think will be resolved very soon, only to have the issue drag on and on and turn into an entirely different beast. By then, you just know it will be resolved “any minute”, so you keep waiting it out. If we all knew from the beginning- how it would turn out in the end- we would do things differently (as far as passengers and maybe even crew go).

    As far as fines go, I definitely wouldn’t want to pressure a pilot to take off into conditions he wasn’t comfortable with due to pressure from above to not have any fines imposed, putting my life at risk. When it comes to flying, I will gladly take huge delays if it means saving my life. The fault here is with the airport- shouldn’t they have staff on call for occurences such as this- someone on call to let pax into the airport?? That is the issue here, in my opinion. There should be access to the airport 24/7, even during inclement weather.

    If I had been a passenger on that flight, I am sure I would have been tired, irritated, hungry, and even mad at the situation, but honestly I would probably be thankful that the pilot did not run us out of fuel trying to land in bad weather, maybe circle too much, running out of fuel. I guess I’m trying to say I’d rather be stuck on a plane for 6 hours than be dead. In February 2008, we flew from DIA to SDF on Frontier during a very unusual tornado outbreak in February here in KY. We left DIA @ 8 pm, flying right into the path of the weather centered over SDF. I think the original plan was to try to beat the system to SDF but we did not. We ended up circling for over 2 hours in the air. I assure you- I would much rather have been stuck on the cramped quarters for 2 hours on the ground than in the air for 2 hours possibly running very low on fuel. Our descent was the worst I’ve encountered, still in the middle of the storms, electricity out at the airport, 2 1/2 hours late. I personally wished they would just divert to another airport and get me on the ground. I’m sure I’m not the only one that felt that way. A 3 hour flight turned into an almost 6 hour flight.

    I do fly a lot, still get very anxious, but would much rather be stuck on the plane for 6 hours on the ground in all the horrible conditions than run out of fuel or crash trying to land in bad weather. That is the thought I keep going back to. Sure things could have been much, much better but we have to look at the big picture.

    Reply
49. 

    A

    Aug 25, 2009 at 7:05 am

    Full disclousure, I live in Minneapolis. One thing I didn’t think about prior. This was a late flight on a weekend. Given that, I’ll assume that over 50% of the passengers live in the MSP area and probably are familiar with the distance between RST and MSP. I’ve driven that highway several times (sometimes in heavy rain) and know full well it can be driven in under two hours airport to airport. Wash outs and flash flooding – complete BS. Couple years ago Rochester got 10+ inches of rain in a weekend and highway 52 was fine. Knowing that, I’m sure there were passengers that were willing to leave the plane in RST and find their own way back to MSP. I sure would’ve.

    If RST is supposedly a 24 hour airport it just makes no sense why nobody could leave? I have friends that live in Rochester so I called them to ask what the weather was like that night. “Some rain showers.” I also call BS on the “safety” of ground workers and blame Mesaba for being lazy. Totally a case of “not my job.”

    Last winter a similar thing happened where my spouse was trying to take a flight that was continually delayed by a snow storm. After sitting on the plane for over 3 hours of being pushed back and then returned to gate she finally asked to leave (with several other pax). They all deplaned and US Airways even returned their checked luggage to a baggage claim carousel…all at about 2am. Flight finally left another 2 hours later. Weather happens, but seriously, the passengers should have a right to deplane and cut their losses. Heck, if I’ve already missed my meeting there’s no point in taking the flight, right?

    And yes, I do believe that Cranky is right, the passengers didn’t get rowdy because they were docile midwesterners.

    Reply
50. 

    Vidiot

    Aug 25, 2009 at 8:26 am

    Kendra,

    You keep mentioning worrying that the plane was going to run out of fuel. Fuel’s a concern, but know that even while flights are diverted or are in holding patterns, they have plenty of fuel. Typically, a plane will have enough fuel for the flight, plus enough fuel for time to fly to an alternate airport and land, plus extra reserves. The captain always has ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight, and you know that s/he wants to land safely just as much as any passenger. When a flight is in a holding pattern, a pilot can always declare low fuel and ask for priority handling from ATC or to land at an alternate field. (And that doesn’t mean that the plane is running out of fuel, but rather that continued holding would take the fuel levels below the amount required to go to another airport and land + the legally mandated reserve.)

    Reply
51. 

    dan powers

    Aug 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Cranky, as an airline industry person , I think a lot of the blame goes to TSA…they have become a huge bureaucracy….and they are always pushing around their weight making threats of fines arrests etc, read alll the statistics Boyd has on them in his website. I was in SEA the other day and noticed a TSA person stamping customer boarding passes with a TSA logo stamp in red …seems to me more like red tape….have not heard much else about the incident in chicago where they damaged the pitot tubes on several aircraft….used the pitot tubes as step ladders.

    Reply
52. 

    Stephen Dutton

    Aug 25, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    It seems to be the old adage of to many chiefs and none making a decision because they were all in bed..so you have employees that won’t go over somebody’s head and do the right thing, plus the fact every company has their own little fifedom and won’t give, the fix is simple, the manger on duty of the Airport in question over-rules everything, like the Captain in the air.
    on IAG the Rochester Airport Manager said the they were not to blame and there was an area available for the passengers, but he didn’t state if he was at the actual airport in person, if so why didn’t he allow the plane to deplane and take control of the situation?..
    The real worry is because of this case and others like it, is that aircraft won’t divert to certain airports if they have a problem or a weather situation because it is not their company turf, so again the standing airport administration on duty should again take control of the situation, wasn’t that the case in the early days?

    Reply
53. 

    CF

    Aug 25, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    Matthew Gulino wrote:

    I think some regulation is required…but not necessarily punitive as Cranky fears.

    I’m all for this kind of thing.

    Stephen Dutton wrote:

    The real worry is because of this case and others like it, is that aircraft won’t divert to certain airports if they have a problem or a weather situation because it is not their company turf, so again the standing airport administration on duty should again take control of the situation, wasn’t that the case in the early days?

    I’m really not sure. In this case, they did want to stay on company turf, but they opted to try to go to a non-CO station b/c it could give them some more time to circle.

    Reply
54. 

    Michael C. Berch

    Aug 26, 2009 at 1:56 am

    I think the real cause of this incident is the low status
    and working conditions of pilots flying for regional and commuter
    carriers. If that had been a mainline CO aircraft (or any of the
    major network carriers) I believe the captain would have called
    airport ops and said, “I am the pilot in command of this aircraft and
    my passengers and I WILL BE DEPLANING. Have a jetway (or airstairs)
    ready, because we’re parking at Gate ___.” And his company would have
    backed him up. (I guess airstairs in this case if the jetways were all in use.)

    But I imagine that the ExpressJet captain and FO were worried that
    they would have been fired or disciplined if they had done that. In
    some ways it’s related to the root cause of the Colgan crash in
    Buffalo.

    One of my former apartment mates had been a commuter pilot for Great
    Lakes, and besides a salary of $18,000/year (eek!) the pilots were
    treated not much better than burger-flippers at McDonalds. He left
    Great Lakes to be a paramedic, which he said was a *much* better job,
    even though he loved to fly.

    Reply
55. 

    Barry

    Aug 26, 2009 at 6:32 am

    It was fear that the TSA would tell them they did something wrong…period. When you have such a heavy handed gov. then people won’t make sensible decisions!

    Reply
56. 

    Stephen Dutton

    Aug 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    @ Michael C. Berch:
    “I am the pilot in command of this aircraft and
    my passengers and I WILL BE DEPLANING. Have a jetway (or airstairs)
    ready, because we’re parking at Gate ___.” And his company would have
    backed him up. (I guess airstairs in this case if the jetways were all in use.)

    But I imagine that the ExpressJet captain and FO were worried that
    they would have been fired or disciplined if they had done that. In
    some ways it’s related to the root cause of the Colgan crash in
    Buffalo.

    Good Point…because it will cost the company money..as always.

    Reply
57. 

    steve

    Aug 27, 2009 at 1:52 am

    Its simple, the crew should have declared an emergency, because it was an emergency: by definintion: a state, esp. of need for help or relief, created by some unexpected event: ie: a weather emergency.

    Police have keys to the airport, firefighters have a ladder. The crew has carte blanche to do whatever they need to do once declaring the emergency and the TSA can’t touch them. Afterwards you might have to do a carpet dance, but it would have been worth it.

    Reply
58. 

    SD Flyer

    Aug 27, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    This is why Americans are scared when government takes over certain function in society; they all go by the book and as said in the article, lose common sense.

    I also don’t understand why the operator of this airport is not to blame for this disaster.

    Reply
59. National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation

    Aug 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    […] This week, The Cranky Flier posted his assessment of Flight 2816 too. […]

    Reply
60. 

    Joseph Blazewicz

    Sep 14, 2009 at 9:25 am

    Making a 3hrs law is one thing and enforcing it is another. There should be a law on this matter.

    Reply
61. 

    CF

    Sep 14, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Joseph Blazewicz wrote:

    Making a 3hrs law is one thing and enforcing it is another. There should be a law on this matter.

    What good is a law if you can’t enforce it?

    Reply
62. 

    KT

    Sep 17, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    I continue to say…..

    After 2 hours…ask the flight attandant to get off the plane.

    When refused…..USE YOUR CELL PHONE

    Call 911

    Tell the answering operator that you are being held against your will – AKA hostage – by the airline

    Call 411 and get the phone number for the local TV and Radio station

    Call both and tell them you are being held against your willl

    The more people do this, the less likely this will occur

    Reply
63. 

    steve

    Mar 30, 2010 at 8:22 am

    That sounds terrible. Every time I fly, I spend half the time asking myself why I did this to myself again. I hope we finally get some bullet trains in this country!

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.