New 3-Hour Rule on Tarmac Delays

(CBS/ AP)  Updated at 6:35 p.m. Eastern time

The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories, orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes to deplane after three hours.

With its new regulations, the Obama administration is sending an unequivocal message to airlines that it won't tolerate the delays experienced by some passengers, such as an overnight ordeal in Rochester, Minn., last summer.

Under the new regulations, airlines operating domestic flights will be able only to keep passengers on board for three hours before they must be allowed to disembark a delayed flight. The regulation provides exceptions only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers.

Airlines will be required to provide food and water for passengers within two hours of a plane being delayed on a tarmac, and to maintain operable lavatories. They must also provide passengers with medical attention when necessary.

During the snowy weekend, nobody had it worse than the passengers on AirJamaica flight 40 out of Baltimore, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Axelrod. The plane was set to depart at 7 a.m. Saturday and finally pushed back at 8:35. After getting stuck, freed, then stuck again, the plane returned to its gate at 3 p.m. to unload 148 passengers after eight hours.

The AirJamaica flight joins a long list of air travel horror stories like the JetBlue passengers stranded for 11 hours on the tarmac at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York three years ago.

From January to June this year, 613 planes were delayed on tarmacs for more than three hours, their passengers kept on board.

Airlines will also be prohibited from scheduling chronically delayed flights. Carriers who fail to comply could face government enforcement action for using unfair or deceptive trade practices.

The new regulations, which were published Monday in the Federal Register, go into effect in 120 days.

"Airline passengers have rights, and these new rules will require airlines to live up to their obligation to treat their customers fairly," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.

Airlines have strongly opposed a hard time limit on tarmac strandings. They say forcing planes to return to gates so that passengers can get off could cause more problems than it cures. They predict more flights will be canceled, further delaying passengers from reaching their destinations.

Last month, the department fined Continental Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines and Mesaba Airlines $175,000 for their roles in a nearly six-hour tarmac delay in Rochester, Minn. On Aug. 8, Continental Express Flight 2816 en route to Minneapolis was diverted to Rochester due to thunderstorms. Forty-seven passengers were kept overnight in a cramped plane amid crying babies and a smelly toilet because Mesaba employees refused to open a gate so that they could enter the closed airport terminal.

The case marked the first time the department had fined an airline for actions involving a tarmac delay. Transportation officials made clear the case was a warning to the industry.

Consumer advocates have been pressing the department and Congress for at least a decade to do something extended tarmac delays. However, past efforts to address the problem have fizzled in the face of industry opposition and promises to reform.

[fawalley]

$27,500 that the airline must pay to the government for each passenger. The government is not the one sitting in a can with wings. Why doesn't the government give a portion of the fine say $5000 to each passenger? The government will still be getting $22,500 for taking too long and really doing nothing.

[Dgunner]

Thirty seconds after the three hour limit. I guarantee you they will be ready to hurl me off the sob.-

[bubbadubba]

And yet another source of Republican amusement by watching people suffer bites the dust.

[armyoftwelve]

This is sooooooo overdue. It might not turn out to be as good as advertised but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[quotelawrence]

I can not actually think this is anything but a political exercise, if you can read the regulation, it says that the terminal will control the craft, and if it is a disruption to the terminal you will remain in the craft, where has everyone's ability to read gone, we applaud something that neither helps nor resolves the issue, we have now witnessed a shifting of blame, that is all and everyone who applauds, I hope you are on the tarmat waiting.

[kansas1946]

Finally!!!!! This is long overdue. There was no limit on the time people could be left on the tarmac, and sometimes people were left for eight, ten, hours or more. Water would run out, no air conditioning, toilets were overflowing, etc. Three hours is a huge improvement, and shouldn't unduly burden the airlines.

[nowhiningallowed]

An hour should be the maximum. I still don't understand why airlines can't deplane passengers stuck on the tarmac by using those exterior stairs. The airlines will never comply with even a three hour rule because they don't want to have to be responsible for the comfort and security of its passengers. All they want to be responsible for is collecting their fares and fees.

[pandamonium6]

So the government is essentially saying, "Stop stranding passengers...or I'll say Stop stranding passengers again."

No teeth = no compliance.

The article mentions the Rochester strandings. They don't mention that Northwest also had a plane sent to Rochester and, NW had an empty terminal to deal with too. Their response? Hire a charter bus and drive the passengers the extra hour to the Mpls airport. No security needed as once the people boarded the bus, they were no longer in the security area.

We have become a nation of people who can't think! One small solution was all it took. One company improvised and one did not - this time anyway. If the government put some teeth with thier rule, I think that more would be inclined to comply - or improvise.

[askagain]

myopinionpal - Half an hour is plenty. Having been stuck on the ground in planes for as long as 1 1/2 hours, half an hour should be the maximum. Sadly, decisions to keep people on grounded planes are often made by people who lack common sense and/or compassion. Although this law may attempt to solve the problem, it contains too many loopholes which enable airlines and airports to cancel out the rule's intent.

[SusanStoHelit]

$27,500 per passenger is teeth.

[myopinionpal]

How about 30 min and return to the gate.

[bobnjersey]

[The regulation provides exceptions only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations. ]

so then there's no regulation at all ... since this is their out when they choose to not comply.

the rule should be 3 hours in the plane and you get your money back ... five hours and you get double the money back ... beyond six and you can sue for punitive damages ... no special conditions.

there won't be a single incident of this ever again with this rule.

[canislupus16]

Exactly. Who decides what is a "safety or security" issue? If I recall, the very incident discussed in this report about the Rochester, MN delay supposedly required passengers to remain on board over a "security" issue, i.e., there was no staff in Continental's gate area within the airport to ensure passengers could be screened. The simplest excuse can be used to claim a safety or security issue. And if a pilot can cajole ATC to state that returning to the gate would disrupt airport ops that's another easy out; after all, NORMAL traffic conditions disrupt airport operations. As we know too well, all it takes is a sneeze to shut down an airport.

But the big thing is sanctions (I LOVE rules and regs that have no sanctions. Not) Any rule or reg can be put into place but what are the teeth? Subjective determination of fines by the FAA is a joke - the airlines and FAA have been sleeping together for decades. Instead of fining the airlines, mandate automatic triple refunds to passengers to cover 1) the cost of the ticket, 2) an allowance to recover other air travel related costs such as parking, ground transportation to the airport, opportunity costs, etc., and non-local travel costs such as hotels, cancelled meetings, lost vacation time, etc. Finally, allow passengers to sue the airlines if triple refunds are insufficient to make up for other "suffering" by passengers. Make it punitive and the airlines will shape up.

They say they can't comply or it's too much of a hardship. BS. This will cause them to re-think how they schedule departures and the number of seats in the air.

But all in all, there must be sanctions, or a rule or reg is worthless. Think of all the "laws" broken and ignored by the Bush-Cheney administration. Why was this? There was no sanction, no price to be paid, like prison.

[democracy1]

Is it just me or does anyone else foresee a tripling (or at least doubling) in airfare costs if these suggestions were actually adopted. Not that I think that they're bad ideas, but I think the airlines would pass the costs along to the consumers. Even if they did not actually incur fines that needed to be covered, they could use the excuse that "the possibility of incurring those costs may exist".