Pax detained on board acft @ Birmingham

[off watch]

BBC web site has an item about people on a plane that boarded at 0930GMT which was meant to fly to Islamabad. At 1515GMT they were still waiting on the runway at Birmingham airport.
Report quotes 'a number of passengers have had panic attacks and that they are being held on the plane against their will. Passengers have been told if they try to disembark they will be arrested.'

Anyone with a legal background care to comment ? How long can they be held against their will ? If someone can get to them to arrest them, why can't they get them off ?

[darkroomsource]

Have had similar things happen in the USA. It's all due to "terrorist" precautions. Happened so many times over hear the Congress ended up passing a law to make it illegal for them to NOT provide water, air conditioning and restroom access. However they did not make it illegal to hold them on the plane, nor did they even put a time limit on it.

Supposedly, it has to do with, once they let you off the plane, they'd have to unload all the baggage, and then re-inspect all the passengers and baggage before reloading.

Don't flame the messenger, this is what has happened here in the USA.

[off watch]

thanks darkroomsource.
I should have made it clear that the problem was the adverse weather conditions, not the aircraft destination ! The Birmingham runway wasn't reopened until about 1830 GMT but I don't know waht happened to this particular flight.

[skhwoody]

these reports really annoy me, if someone is having panic attacks for sitting in a seat in the warmth, god forbid how they react when in the air.

Re the refusing to allow them off, its a case of if they want to offload themselves from the craft, they lose their ticket, and as mentioned the baggage has to be found and removed. No doubt when told of the loss of their purchased ticket, most would have realised it was best to hope the flight would be away.

Sometimes you wonder whether people realise how dangerous it is to take off and land in this weather / freezing temperature. You would think that they woudl be happier taking a risk than making sure it is safe to go.

[darkroomsource]

I once heard a motivational speaker say he's even happy about flight delays, because he could only think of three reasons why the flight is delayed.
1. There's something wrong with the plane.
2. There's something wrong with the fella gonna fly the plane.
3. There's something wrong with the weather the plane's gonna fly in.
And for any one of those three reasons, he's happy he's on the ground and not up in the air.

[darkroomsource]

I should have made it clear that the problem was the adverse weather conditions, not the aircraft destination ! The Birmingham runway wasn't reopened until about 1830 GMT but I don't know waht happened to this particular flight.I think that's the situation most of the time here also, they load the plane thinking they might be able to take off, then "The FAA has closed down the airport" (which is what they tell the passengers, cuz it could never be the airline's fault).
Then they sit, and sit, and sit, waiting for the wx to clear up.
The "solution" to the problem here, has been to pass a law that requires the airlines to provide water and toilets to the passengers IF the wait is over a certain length of time - something like 4 hours.
Just recently a man complained because his pregnant wife was unable to get water for four hours waiting on the tarmac, and according to the gubmint, it was OK, cuz it was less than the required amount of time.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Surely if they knew the slot delay why not taxi back to stand and offload the pax, if necessary re-screen them.

This kind of behaviour is just encouraging PAX to "pop" chutes.

[darkroomsource]

There's only one of a few possibilties here.
1. The pilots believe they're going to be released very soon
2. The tower believes they're going to be released very soon
3. Someone has told the tower or the airline, and based on what's been reported here in the US, it's airline management telling the pilots, that they can not return to the gate under any circumstances.
Why would they be told to not return to the gate?
One airline manager told a reporter that if they returned the plane to the gate, they'd have to reissue tickets, and the pilots might exceed duty hour limitations, as well as having to unload and rescreen all the baggage, so it would be cost prohibitive.

I am not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what's going on. It's not a simple situation.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It's not beyond the wit of invention that someone might decide to go to the toilet and "see/smell" smoke in there, and as the exits are next to the toilets just pull the handle on the door.

If Airlines keep on behaving this way then this is far more likely to happen, and eventually it will cause some nasty injuries.

[Bealzebub]

It's not beyond the wit of invention that someone might decide to go to the toilet and "see/smell" smoke in there, and as the exits are next to the toilets just pull the handle on the door. Yes, well that would certainly mean nobody was going anywhere that day. Except the offender of course, who would very likely become a participant in the criminal justice process.

It is worth bearing in mind that less worldly sections of the press (and public) do have a habit of reporting any piece of tarmac hardstanding that an aircraft might be using, as "the runway."

Whatever the delay, it is most unlikely that an aircraft would be allowed to volunteraly block a runway for any length of time.

The decision to board the plane and what to do subsequently rests with the Captain. However the Captain is constrained by the realities of the situation he finds himself in. Obviously any delay, but particularly a protracted one becomes very frustrating for the passengers and that would be a point not lost on an experienced crew.

With any delay, the best position to be in, is to be ready to depart as soon as the opportunity arises. This means having everybody on board, with all holds and doors closed, a tug attached (where required) and the ability to realistically be airborne within 15 minutes. In situations where a slot becomes available, or you put yourself in the "queue" when a restriction lifts, you simply will not be entertained unless you are "ready" as described. Obviously this cannot be done if you need 40 minutes to re-board passengers.

From a Commanders viewpoint, it is a simple decision when the delay is defined. For example an airport that is declared closed until a specific time, allows for re-planning. However rarely is this the case. The crew will be repeatedly asking for updates on the delay, and usually there will be no available new information, or simply a vague indication. All the time the FTL (Flight Time Limitation) clock will be ticking, and the crew will have to consider that at some point the flight will not be able to depart as planned simply by virtue of that.

All in all, it is a complicated juggling act. Safety is obviously paramount, but there are many operational considerations that are not always obvious or sometimes understood by the passengers. Good communication should hopefully aid on that front, but so often there is such a scarcity of hard valid information, that it is difficult to address all of the frustrations. Passengers have entered into a contract of carriage, and the captain will, subject to all the usual provisions, want to ensure that contract is fulfilled.

Ultimately the length of time the passengers should be held on board cannot exceed the length of time the crew could be on board and still perform the mission. Of course that may well involve a lengthy delay.

Another point to bear in mind is that stands, once vacated, may not be available to a returning aircraft. Steps, transport and other ground equipment may also be in short supply.

[radeng]

Probably one way that would sort it would be for a PAX to press the call button and state that they were unwell and having severe chest pains etc. Then they'd have to see about getting medical assistance......stairs or no stairs, something would get done.

[Joao da Silva]

However the Captain is constrained by the realities of the situation he finds himself in.

He is also potentially constrained by human rights legislation and if this type of nonsense continues, some smart lawyer is going to make a lot of money causing the airlines and authories a goodly amount of pain.

[jetset lady]

Probably one way that would sort it would be for a PAX to press the call button and state that they were unwell and having severe chest pains etc. Then they'd have to see about getting medical assistance......stairs or no stairs, something would get done.

In the meantime, someone who is genuinely sick is having to wait as the paramedics are dealing with the selfish, impatient idiot who thinks the world revolves around him/her!

I need to stop reading these threads. They all run alone the same lines now. Some one asks question. Someone else in the know comes along and painstakingly writes out a long and detailed answer. Invariably, that reply will not be what people want to hear so everyone then dismisses the reply whilst banging on about their "rights".

Could someone please stop the world. I want to get off....:(

[Slfsfu]

Back to the OP folk. The original question could be paraphrased as - when would reasonable delay transform to become unlawful detention.

Be assured that, if that should happen, then “prohibitive cost” is not a consideration in the over-riding obligation to comply with the law ;)

[west lakes]

Seems to me that if legal action starts being taken, the result will be airlines/crew reluctant to board, folks spending more nights on airport floors and picking up longer delays.

Choice is easy, sit on a warm comfortable aircraft or possibly an airport floor!

(and before you start shouting hotels, by all accounts there was no room at the inn anywhere)

[Ancient Observer]

JSL
Whilst I understand that, and appreciate your point of view, some airlines, including BA, just lie if they think they can get away with it. I was once kept for over 6 hours on a BA plane that was eventually delayed for 24 hours. As I was sitting right next to the open door, I heard the BAA person tell the CSD that whilst there was no reason not to let us off, ............"it would be inconvenient to let them in to the terminal right now...........".
That is not what the CSD announced. I wonder why?

[west lakes]

including BA, just lie


Which suggests thast the company instructs it's employees to lie - I doubt that somehow



That is not what the CSD announced


So that individual chose not to tell the truth, I would suggest if that action was reported managers would be less than impressed

[Skipness One Echo]

I have been in situations on the shuttle where people ask to get off at the gate as we were delayed due thunderstorms downroute and so the meeting and point of the trip was missed. No problem, bridge back on, peeps allowed off. Mind you that was 1999 so may have changed since.

If having endured a multiple hour delay trapped on a static aircraft and no longer willing to be a passenger, as in "I no longer wish to travel", which I could certainly see my self doing on a domestic, what rights do I have to get off assuming parked and engines off?

I don't find "none, sit down and stop moaning" to be acceptable. And yes I know if I have hold bags it's a pain but say I have no longer any need and wish to travel as the delay has made it pointless.

[radeng]

jetset lady

For those of us who ARE diabetic, it could well prevent a far worse situation developing. A bad hypo attack can lead first to violence and then convulsions preceding the lapse to unconsciousness. By that stage you have very severe medical problems to deal with.......which could have been dealt with by not keeping people on planes for hours going nowhere, especially if you're not feeding and watering them.

[west lakes]

For those of us who ARE diabeticor just plan your journey & dietary needs properly as advised by the medical advice we are given! (especially with the delays that arte occuring on the roads, don't tell me you are not carrying emergency food!)(or if you are stuck in a traffic queue are you going to blame someone for illegelly stopping you?)
Of course a Hypo is a genuine medical emergency (though avoidable)

[jetset lady]

Skipness One Echo, as far as I'm aware, your situation would be different in that you no longer wish to travel. I think I'm right in saying that the airline is obliged to let you leave the aircraft under those circumstances. From my point of view, I'd certainly want to assist you in any way possible. Apart from anything, if you've missed the whole point of your journey, then we'd get you there only to have to get try to get you back again, probably on my return flight! The only slight issue might be a delay in getting steps, loaders etc back to the aircraft depending on where it was but if that's what it took, then that's what would happen.

For those of us who ARE diabetic, it could well prevent a far worse situation developing.

Oh for heavens sake, radeng! We've now moved on from pretending to be ill to a genuine illness. Do you really think we'd refuse to assist someone that was genuinely unwell, even if they have, as Westie has said, turned up completely unprepared? And yes, I am extremely well versed in the condition of Diabetes, thanks.

Think I'll go and talk to the dobbin. She speaks more sense!

[off watch]

Thanks to all who replied to my original post.
Bearing in mind that, in England, even the Police cannot detain you for more than 12 hrs (& that's with several caveats) I wonder what legislation empowers airline staff to keep you onboard against your will for non-security reasons ?
In the Birmingham example quoted by the BBC, what would have happened if Max Clifford had been a pax ? - and don't anyone say he would've been treated the same as anyone else, (even if that's true) because I don't think he would let that happen ;-)

[Joao da Silva]

Seems to me that if legal action starts being taken, the result will be airlines/crew reluctant to board, folks spending more nights on airport floors and picking up longer delays.This will be interesting in the case of flights falling under EU261/2004, since peeps affected should be spending the night in a hotel, paid for by the airline.

I wonder how many people will take action when the airline fails to provide this?

There is already one firm of lawyers, Flight delays or flight cancellations? Claim your compensation | EUclaim.co.uk (http://www.euclaim.co.uk), specialising in these claims - the airlines will get the lawyers they deserve, if they play fast and loose.

As usual, JetsetLady shows the approach of a professional in the business and if all airline employees were so reasonable, the lawyers would be struggling to find clients.

[west lakes]

should be spending the night in a hotel,

J da S
The point I was also making was, that with the situation, there were at a lot of airports, no hotel rooms available. It's fine having EU decisions but if there is no room at the inn where are you going to put passengers to comply with it?

[Joao da Silva]

West Lakes

I understand your point, but if the legislation is not complied with, there is the potential for big trouble. There is no 'let out' clause in the regs, the airline must comply.

Recently, I was in Barcelona and it was closed by severe thunderstorms, with the cancelation of many flights - I was sent by taxi to a hotel in a town many km away, to comply with the regs.

To be clear, the taxi fares alone, there and back, must have cost more than the whole flight (including taxes.)

[west lakes]

It's a catch 22, need to put pax in hotel, no hotel, roads impassable (at LGW one member of staff took 8hrs to get home on Saturday, a journey of normally 90mins) (that would be a good headline "Airline passengers stuck 8 hrs on a coach (taxi) going to hotel).

If they are stuck at airport and EU rules apply airlines would just have to pay up I guess

[darkroomsource]

If having endured a multiple hour delay trapped on a static aircraft and no longer willing to be a passenger, as in "I no longer wish to travel", which I could certainly see my self doing on a domestic, what rights do I have to get off assuming parked and engines off?
In the US. None. You can not exit a plane once you have entered unless everyone aboard exits the plane.
This is a result of 9/11 legislation. If they de-board one passenger, they have to de-board the entire plane and baggage, and then inspect the plane, rescan the luggage, and re-inspect the passengers, and most likely issue new tickets to all passengers.
This has resulted in airlines waiting on the tarmac if there's going to be a delay of less than X hours (X is determined by the airline, probably based on costs of de-boarding, re-scanning, re-ticketing, and re-boarding). So, since this legislation was passed, after 9/11, there have been numerous instances where planes have waited for several hours - the longest, I believe was 12 - before being released or returning to the gate. There have been lawsuits, however, since the airlines were doing what they gubmint told them to do, they have been found NOT negligent, nor responsible, so they have not had to pay any fines (until recently, after congress passed another bill), and since it's just about impossible to sue the gubmint and win, no-one that I'm aware of, has received any remuneration for being 'kidnapped' by the airlines and the congress on the ramp.
As a result of airlines not returning to the gate for several hours, congress passed a bill (new law) that requires airlines to provide air conditioning, heat, water and toilets if the delay is more than four (4) hours. As far as I know, this requirement does not include any other resources - ie. food

[Joao da Silva]

West Lakes

Do you know if airlines can insure against this risk?

Just curious.

[west lakes]

No idea, though it is surprising what large organisations can insure against!

[L'aviateur]

If it's made bearable, i.e. the crew keep your updated with regular communication (even if to say no news!), they turn on the In-flight entertainment, and serve some drinks, then that solves a lot of problems. If they delay becomes even longer, and they provide snacks or even a meal, then people will be settled somehow.

But if you don't do any of that, and only give people a glass of water when the specifically request, well thats just poor customer service and low quality cabin crew/company procedures. The good crew are proactive and know what to do.

[darkroomsource]

If it's made bearable, i.e. the crew keep your updated with regular communication (even if to say no news!), they turn on the In-flight entertainment, and serve some drinks, then that solves a lot of problems. If they delay becomes even longer, and they provide snacks or even a meal, then people will be settled somehow.

But if you don't do any of that, and only give people a glass of water when the specifically request, well thats just poor customer service and low quality cabin crew/company procedures. The good crew are proactive and know what to do.

Sure, that's logical. But it's not what's happening.
That's why the US congress had to pass a law requiring the ariline to provide water and toilets AFTER FOUR HOURS OF DELAY.
I'm sure it has to do with $$, but I haven't quite figured out why they won't allow pax to use the toilets on the ground - do they not have a holding tank?

[Rwy in Sight]

darkroomsource,

For the A340 model, I think that the toilet flush does not work properly.

Rwy in Sight

[darkroomsource]

For the A340 model, I think that the toilet flush does not work properly.
And now, my friends, we get to the crux of the matter.
An airplane is not designed to provide comfort to passengers while waiting on the ramp.
And our governments have put in place laws that prevent the planes from being de-boarded.
Result?