The Obama administration did a very good thing!

[proud2BlibKansan]

Just heard this on the radio. There are new regulations for airlines when planes sit without taking off. If they sit for two hours the airline has to feed the passengers and provide a working restroom. If the plane sits for three hours they have to let the passengers get off. If the airlines don't comply, they are fined $27,500 PER PASSENGER.

Radio report said Obama administration insisted on these new regulations.

Great move. My thanks to our president and his administration.

I can still be upset about health care and the war but appreciate what our president does right. :patriot:

[ClarkUSA]

1. As someone who has been stuck on planes, I applaud this move on behalf of millions of consumers.

President Obama is always trying to advance the ball for the little guy.

[Blue Owl]

2. It's a victory

Maybe not one that will conquer the sweeping fascism in our nation, but it does make air travel slightly more appealing.

[AspenRose]

3. Excellent

[no limit]

4. That $27,500 should go to the passenger

[AllyCat]

23. that's what I thought, but we won't see a red cent in this 'democracy'

I'm sure it will go to insurance, defense, or banking. You might get a $50 flight voucher for next time you fly though.

[Xipe Totec]

5. How about free drinks after an hour?

Southwest Airlines used to do that in their flying cattle cars without any prodding.

(pun definitely intended)

[Donnachaidh]

6. how much of that fine goes to the passenger?

It would truly be a good thing if that was the case.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Good question

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoNothing]

9. Unintended consequences

A someone who flies fairly regularly, I can guarantee you what will happen: after two hours or so waiting, they will simply cancel the flight.

I'm don't really think that's better.

Thing is, the airline aren't keeping you out there just to piss you off, it's because they have a place in the takeoff order and if they let you off the plane then they have to go back to the end of the line. So what's going to happen is that if the airport is busy, you're basically never going to be able to wait long enought to take off because you have to return to the gate every couple of hours and get back to the end of the line; meanwhile, other later scheduled flights are trying to take off too. So they'll just cancel the flight and you're SOL.

The real problem here is the severe overcrowding of our air infrastructure, and particularly, a shortage of runways. This rule does nothing to help solve that problem, except by causing a lot more flight cancellations, which I suppose will free up the runways somewhat. But it doesn't strike me as a net benefit to the customer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. I'd rather sit in the terminal waiting for the plane to be ready to take off

[NoNothing]

16. That won't be an option

First of all, that's not the problem. The plane is ready to take off when you board. The question is when is the *runway* ready. The airlines really have no control over that - it's all up to the control tower - and they don't really have any idea how long it will take when the flight rolls away from the gate.

No, you won't get to wait in the terminal. The flight will be cancelled because they will want to try to keep the later flights on-time (because, after all, they don't want to get fined!), and the airplane can't just hang around forever at the gate, where other flights are taking off and landing.

[WestSide BB]

22. This is why we need a better rail system

For trips of 200-600 miles, trains are the ideal way to go. A true national rail/bus passenger system, with at least two trains a day through every town served, could free up air space and take a bunch of cars off the road.

[uponit7771]

8. ...but did he save Bambi ?!?! No? well....there you go..

[vaberella]

10. Bambi's not dead..he was twitterpated....his mum on the other hand...n/t

[tom_paine]

12. K & R

[Cha]

14. That seems like it would be an incentive to comply

and treat the passengers with the respect they deserve.

[NoNothing]

19. It's not about respect

It's about lack of runways. If the airlines could make ground control let them go, they would. After all, it costs them a fortune in fuel to sit around for hours, not to mention customer dissatisfaction.

The problem is *not* the airlines! It's not like they profit by keeping you locked in the airplane on the tarmac, it hurts them too. So I don't really see how punishing the airlines does anything to fix the real problem, which is LACK OF RUNWAYS. All that will happen is the airlines will find it cancel the flight if it can't get out in time. Which I guess solves the congestion problem, but isn't really a benefit to the person who wants to get where they are going ASAP.

[Cha]

20. Yes it is..the airlines can get them off the plane before

3 hours are up and they can feed them and have a restroom available after two hours of just sitting there.

Common courtesy.

[NoNothing]

21. Sure they can

They can also cancel the flight when that happens.

And they will.

Big win!

[dcsmart]

15. Very nice...K & R..

:fistbump:

[bigwillq]

17. After an hour, I would be ready to get off the plane and go home

This is why I don't fly. I do agree with the new regulations, but two and three hours still seems like a long time.

[bigwillq]

18. "Feed the passengers"

I heard Ray LaHood say it would be peanuts or chips or other "snacks" and water.

[Skittles]

24. that is indeed good

I know the airlines do a very tough, complex jobs but there's certain things that JUST.AIN'T.RIGHT