A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 02:49 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

On 11/2/2011 4:33 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Sancho wrote:

On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
The US government constitutionally can take anything they want
for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking
clause).


Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration.



It is a little bit of superfluity, but not all that much. At least at
the Fed level, there has to be some public purpose, but the courts have
pretty much said public purpose is whatever the government says it is.
The ability to invoke eminent domain has always been around, viewed by
the courts as being inherent in sovereignty. It rests in the legislature
to say what can be condemned, but can be delegated to others.. say RRs
or utility.
The "public purpose" is the use defined in the constitution, statute
or ordinance. Berman v Parker set the modern definition of "public use"
when it decided the government could take the land and lease it to a
private developer for $1 a year. The same with Kelo v New London (CT).
In that case a resort hotel and conference center, new state park,
80-100 new residences, research, office and rental space, was a public
use and New London could condemn it. (Although these are related to
state or local condemnation, they all raised Fed constitutional
questions of what was a public purpose under the US constitution.
Find me a FEDERAL ruling that says differently from what I
mentioned.
States can, and do, add things to their laws on emmenient domain.

The fact that Kelo's land remains a vacant lot after all these years is
not lost on the public or the courts.

  #32  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 03:51 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

DevilsPGD wrote:

But with regard to holding me on a plane for 7 hours against my
will, here we have a corporation (a legal person) interfering
with my liberty.


Say someone takes it to court and the court rules that people have
the unqualified right to leave whenever they want. Now what?


The court will aways factor in "reasonable expectations".

If I bought a ticket for a flight that I know will take, say, 4 hours to
complete, then it would be unreasonable for me to claim that at the
2-hour point in the flight that the airline is infringing on my liberty.

While in the air, it's clearly unreasonable to expect the airline to
stop the plane and let me out.

But while parked on the ground, during irregular operations, at a
non-regular airport, that's a whole other ballgame - one for which the
airlines shroud in more mystery than area 51. They are sacrificing my
liberty for the sake of some cost that only they know, a secret cost.

You're flying from city X to city Y, you've landed in city Z and
are stuck on a plane for 6 hours and decide to leave. What's
your next move?


A law needs to be passed that compels an airport (upon pain of massive
fine or criminal charge against airport manager) to positively respond
to a pilot's request to de-plane all passengers within 30 minutes of the
request being made to the ground control tower.

Another law needs to be passed that compels a pilot (upon pain of
massive fine, stripping pilot's flying license, criminal charge, or any
combination thereof) to request that the airport tow the plane to a gate
or direct the plane to a tarmak area and bring air-stairs to the plane
within 2 hours of the plane landing at the airport, or within 2 hours
after the plane has been fully boarded but has not yet taken off.

If the plane is still at the gate at 2 hours after scheduled departure
(regardless if all doors are closed or not) then the pilot must declare
the flight as cancelled and he must de-plane all passengers.

If a plane containing passengers is still on the tarmac 3 hours after
all passenger loading doors have been closed, or has been landed for 3
hours, then a third federal law would grant complete immunity (legal and
financial) to any passenger(s) that open any available exit or door on a
plane (emergency exit, regular door exit, etc) and who exit the plane
through said open exit and make their entrance into the airport terminal
through any available means. This law would make it a crime for the
crew to interfere with the passengers' attempt to open the exit doors
and disembark the plane and for airport staff to prohibit the passengers
re-entry into the airport terminal.
  #33  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 12:07 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article ,
Sancho Panza wrote:


The fact that Kelo's land remains a vacant lot after all these years is
not lost on the public or the courts.

I h aven't seen anything that indicates the Courts have noted to any
important degree. IIRC, there was a flurry of state law changes right
after that.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #34  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 12:18 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article , Fly Guy wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:

But with regard to holding me on a plane for 7 hours against my
will, here we have a corporation (a legal person) interfering
with my liberty.


Say someone takes it to court and the court rules that people have
the unqualified right to leave whenever they want. Now what?


The court will aways factor in "reasonable expectations".

Which would include what would reasonably happen in these
circumstances. You have a relatively small airport that all of a sudden
got ~15-20 extra planes they weren't expecting, during a major snow
storm. IIRC one of the problems was that they had arrived after the
terminal had closed (but I could be wrong on that one).
Even if the terminal was open, how do you get that many planes to
the gates? Where do you all of a sudden "store" all those extra planes
on the field? Even using the airstairs, you need to have a safe place to
deplane the passengers. How do you get them from where ever they
deplaned to shelter? Do you pull people from snow/deicing duty to do all
of this? CAN you under FAA rules actually pull people off of these
tasks.
..

But while parked on the ground, during irregular operations, at a
non-regular airport, that's a whole other ballgame - one for which the
airlines shroud in more mystery than area 51. They are sacrificing my
liberty for the sake of some cost that only they know, a secret cost.


Maybe. Maybe the receiving airport was simply overwhelmed by the sudden
influx. Maybe both.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #35  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 01:52 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

Kurt Ullman wrote:


The court will aways factor in "reasonable expectations".


Which would include what would reasonably happen in these
circumstances. You have a relatively small airport that all of a
sudden got ~15-20 extra planes they weren't expecting, during a
major snow storm. IIRC one of the problems was that they had arrived
after the terminal had closed (but I could be wrong on that one).


Even if the terminal was open, how do you get that many planes
to the gates? Where do you all of a sudden "store" all those extra
planes on the field? Even using the airstairs, you need to have a
safe place to deplane the passengers.


What we know from similar past events is that there has been NO attempt
to immediately off-load passengers despite a REASONABLE expectation that
they will be spending many hours on those planes. Any offloading has
happened after many hours of needless passenger and crew distress and
confinement.

Even before you consider the physical problems of unloading passengers
where-ever the plane may be sitting, you MUST remove the proceedural
impediments and instill and enforce the perogative to make passenger
deplanement a high priority or SOP.

Maybe. Maybe the receiving airport was simply overwhelmed by
the sudden influx. Maybe both.


Even when overwhelmed, you don't just throw up your arms and say "if I
can't deplane ALL of them, then I will deplane NONE of them" (that's
what you seem to be implying).

In this case, we know that 10 to 20 unscheduled planes landed at that
particular airport. How many of them were "irregular" - I don't know.

We also don't know if the airport was truely overwhelmed by these planes
(overwhelmed from a parking / access / deplanement POV).

The dynamics of the interaction between all parties (pilot, tower,
airport management, FAA, airline management) need to be put under a
microscope to uncover obstacles, roadblocks and costs associated with
the timely deplanement of passengers arriving at airports during
irregular operations and conditions.

You will note in a previous post that the Jet Blue pilot stated that a
police car (local municipal police?) was parked in front of the plane.
What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being excercised
here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't assisting a private
corporation to limit or interfere with the liberty of the citizens on
that plane?
  #36  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 02:52 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article , Fly Guy wrote:


Even when overwhelmed, you don't just throw up your arms and say "if I
can't deplane ALL of them, then I will deplane NONE of them" (that's
what you seem to be implying).

I haven't heard anything definitive on what was done. Did the
deplane none of them? Or was Jet Blue just down the line? Actually,
since you appareently have nearly as many unscheduled planes as you did
gates (the website indicates 30 gates) , how can you deplane them all?

In this case, we know that 10 to 20 unscheduled planes landed at that
particular airport. How many of them were "irregular" - I don't know.

The news reports said specifically that 20 or so were diverted from
other airports. Besides if they are unscheduled how could they be
anything BUT irregular. Maybe I missed an additional point you were
trying to make.. certainly wouldn't be the first time (g).


The dynamics of the interaction between all parties (pilot, tower,
airport management, FAA, airline management) need to be put under a
microscope to uncover obstacles, roadblocks and costs associated with
the timely deplanement of passengers arriving at airports during
irregular operations and conditions.

That I'll agree with, but to arbitrarily put a time line on deplaning
(in emergency conditions) seems untenable. Another option should be for
the FAA to work on an algorithm that would help disperse the flights in
a more workable manner. Seems like this little airport got socked badly
and maybe the FAA could have spread the pain a little more evenly.


You will note in a previous post that the Jet Blue pilot stated that a
police car (local municipal police?) was parked in front of the plane.
What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being excercised
here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't assisting a private
corporation to limit or interfere with the liberty of the citizens on
that plane?


Depends on who put them there. If it was at the behsest of the
airport so the pilot did not do something (they felt) was rash and move
the plane, then nope.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #37  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 03:34 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 193
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I haven't heard anything definitive on what was done. Did they
deplane none of them? Or was Jet Blue just down the line?


I don't know. The only people that know are the ones that apparently
don't talk to reporters.

Actually, since you appareently have nearly as many unscheduled
planes as you did gates (the website indicates 30 gates) , how
can you deplane them all?


Huh?

If the number of gates and the number of planes is roughly equal, then
doesn't that mean there's maybe 1 gate for every plane? Or close to it?

And again, you continue to ignore the possible use of air stairs for
those planes that are lacking a gate.

The news reports said specifically that 20 or so were diverted from
other airports. Besides if they are unscheduled how could they be
anything BUT irregular.


By irregular, I mean that the plane in question (as in the carrier
operating the plane) has no ground operations at the airport in
question. That is what I mean by an "irregular plane".

but to arbitrarily put a time line on deplaning (in emergency
conditions) seems untenable.


I question your use of the term "emergency".

Weather or infrastructure conditions that prohibit safe landing at one
airport does not constitute an "emergency" condition at a nearby "safe"
or otherwise normally-operating airport.

You will note in a previous post that the Jet Blue pilot stated
that a police car (local municipal police?) was parked in front
of the plane.


What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being
excercised here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't
assisting a private corporation to limit or interfere with
the liberty of the citizens on that plane?


Depends on who put them there.


No it does not. Unless you're saying that the police can play different
roles and enforce different rules / laws depending on who calls them for
service.

If it was at the behsest of the airport so the pilot did not
do something (they felt) was rash and move the plane, then
nope.


If police are called to block the exits of a shopping mall by the
owner/operator of the mall given a situation where no crime or code
infraction is being alledged, and you are confined within the mall
against your will for 7 hours, is that not a case where some level of
gov't is violating your constitutional right to liberty / personal
freedom?

What if that police car was blocking the plane's access to a free / open
gate? What argument would you put forward to support the action of the
state (as carried out by the police) in that situation?
  #38  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 04:29 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article , Fly Guy wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I haven't heard anything definitive on what was done. Did they
deplane none of them? Or was Jet Blue just down the line?


I don't know. The only people that know are the ones that apparently
don't talk to reporters.


That makes them smarter than the average bear.


Actually, since you appareently have nearly as many unscheduled
planes as you did gates (the website indicates 30 gates) , how
can you deplane them all?


Huh?


There were ~20 extra planes trying to sandwich into 30 gates. Plus, I
am assuming many of the scheduled flights.


If the number of gates and the number of planes is roughly equal, then
doesn't that mean there's maybe 1 gate for every plane? Or close to it?


Not necessarily. I am assuming at least some of the gates were for
the Delta Connection type planes that would have no jet way, for
instance. There were probably already regularly scheduled jets sitting
there. Does the FAA or other entity require some sort of staffing level
at the gates and, if so, how were the appropriate personnel allocated?
Where there enough "drivers" to get the gates to the planes? How well
did the gates match up with the types of planes coming into the airport
(I am not familiar with jetways to know if they all would mate properly
with various flavors of Airbus and Boeing or if you maybe had some gates
that would only mate with specific kinds of airplanes). Where can they
put the planes once they move off the gates? (The main thing that
allowed IND, for instance, to take as many planes as they did
immediately following 9-11 was because of the Fed Ex ramp space
available. And that was on a nice clear day when you did not have to
keep runways, taxiways AND THEN extra ramp space free of snow.)
Just because the number of gates available is close to what is
needed, doesn't mean that the actual availability of gates is
sufficient.


And again, you continue to ignore the possible use of air stairs for
those planes that are lacking a gate.


And you keep assuming that there was a clear space to actually move
the airstairs to. ANd that there was a clear space near enough to the
terminal to get them inside in an safe manner. Or that that there was
clear space somewhere else AND a bus or some other transportation to get
them to safety. At a busier than usual airport, it isn't just a matter
of parking a plane at some random space and trucking the airstairs up
and letting groups traipse around until they find warmth.


The news reports said specifically that 20 or so were diverted from
other airports. Besides if they are unscheduled how could they be
anything BUT irregular.


By irregular, I mean that the plane in question (as in the carrier
operating the plane) has no ground operations at the airport in
question. That is what I mean by an "irregular plane".


Okay


but to arbitrarily put a time line on deplaning (in emergency
conditions) seems untenable.


I question your use of the term "emergency".

The middle of a nor'easter where you suddenly have 20 flights show
up at your doorstep with snow falling. That certainly qualifies in my
book.


Weather or infrastructure conditions that prohibit safe landing at one
airport does not constitute an "emergency" condition at a nearby "safe"
or otherwise normally-operating airport.


I beg to differ, especially in this context.

What aspect of law enforcement and police duty was being
excercised here? Could this be viewed as a level of gov't
assisting a private corporation to limit or interfere with
the liberty of the citizens on that plane?


Depends on who put them there.


No it does not. Unless you're saying that the police can play different
roles and enforce different rules / laws depending on who calls them for
service.

I am exactly saying that. They always enforce different rules and
laws depending on the situation.


If it was at the behsest of the airport so the pilot did not
do something (they felt) was rash and move the plane, then
nope.


If police are called to block the exits of a shopping mall by the
owner/operator of the mall given a situation where no crime or code
infraction is being alledged, and you are confined within the mall
against your will for 7 hours, is that not a case where some level of
gov't is violating your constitutional right to liberty / personal
freedom?

Maybe. But then you have a lock down of a school or mall where
public safety is an issue where the exact same thing happens. A case can
certainly be made that a pilot going off and moving a plane on his
accord without okay from the FAA officials responsible for the area is a
public safety issue. I don't know why they were there, any more than
you do, I was just putting out a couple of alternatives that fit the
situation.
Even assuming they were there.


What if that police car was blocking the plane's access to a free / open
gate? What argument would you put forward to support the action of the
state (as carried out by the police) in that situation?


See above.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passengers Trapped on Runway for 8 Hours at JFK Agent_C Air travel 106 February 20th, 2007 03:24 AM
JetBlue Passengers Stranded for Almost 11 Hours Ablang Air travel 0 February 18th, 2007 08:42 AM
AA holds passengers hostage in airplane for 9 hours James Robinson USA & Canada 0 January 11th, 2007 03:22 PM
Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours Larry R Harrison Jr Air travel 296 January 10th, 2005 11:31 PM
USA detains BA passengers for 3 hours nobody Air travel 28 January 4th, 2004 10:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.