Funny, I routinely use the plane stairs to get on/off regional jets here in Bloomington. They have the moveable ramps, but most planes just park near a door and people deplane directly onto the tarmac using the plane's built-in stairs.

ALL regional jets I have flown on use stairs, at least at about a dozen major airports I have been into and out of, they park them on the ramp and bus folks back and forth.

I have no choice, it's what the flight crew tells me to do. SmileWavy

I have flown many, many times and i have never once used those stairs.

Go figure.

Has anyone ever been CONVICTED of a felony for walking off a commercial airliner contrary to the demands of the flight crew? Being charged with a felony is one thing but being convicted is another thing altogether. I think I'd take my chances as long as I knew I wasn't putting others at risk of any real harm.

I think there was an episode of LA Law many years ago where Douglas was stuck on a place in a similar situation. He managed to get a judge on the phone and got an injunction to be let off the plane. The capt. made the announcement over the PA in an attempt to embarrass Douglas, but all the passengers applauded him.

+1 US Airways, American, United, etc.. they all use them at certain airports. Examples are San Diego's commuter terminal, Palomar airport, PHX Sky Harbor (with the turbo props and some regional jets), LAX American shuttle terminal, all that I have used extensively for years. Hell in Puerto Vallarta MEX we boarded the US Airways Airbus on a portable stair - the old school one mounted on a pickup truck.

imagine Nazee on this plane...

Rika

Even the marines can't get away with "I was just following orders".

I only read the first page of this thread, I'm out of time to continue and while I am sure someone has explained why airlines do this but just in case...........

Airlines do this to avoid refunding tickets. If the flight does not occur, or if the flight does not occur within a reasonable time window, then the airline has failed to hold up its end of the bargain. Had the plane returned to the terminal and had the passengers been allowed to deplane, few would have enplaned again. This is deregulation at work. Unfettered capitalism. The "market" will solve the problems. Yeah right. Have you read the thread about pilots' salaries?

Throw a few plastic snakes in the aisle.:D

I'll say it again. I agree with the concept of "What's the big deal? Let us off..."

I'll say it again. I do not condone the actions of this airline.

I am used to 'thinking out of the box'. It has gotten me out of lots of hairy scenaios. It has gotten me into trouble.

I can speak to the (dumb) reasoning by the airline in here. Also, that people (in here) are asking WTF.

OK, the legalese. When you board an airliner in commercial service, the airline accepts responsibility (yes, up to the financial limits spelled out in the Geneva/Warsaw Convention, among others) for your safe conduct from intended departure to intended destination. ANYTHING other than that is their 'responsibility'. Yes, you can use those words next time.

OK, the other night. The aircraft diverted going into Minneapolis. Having been based there, I even know why. Rochester (MN) is a great alternate. Only 70 or so miles from destination, as soon as the wx moves thru (usualy a matter of an hour or so), it's a quick 20 minutes from launch to gate in MSP. So Far So Good.

Crew checks in with their dispatch on landing at divert. Are told to hold pax aboard because delay is estimated to be 'short'. Being so close to dest will mean a quick notice launch when there is a window. Can mean like 10 minutes notice to be wheels off the ground. SoFarSoGood.

Time goes by, no window. Late at night means WX has not moved, or worse, is likely between ROC and MSP. That time of night means no easy fuel to go long way around, they have to live with fuel that is already aboard, and it is being burned at rate of 250-ish pounds per hour by the APU. Somewhere in here, crew times out. Maeans while wx divert allows for a longer than normal day, after a certain point that only gets you a longer existing flight airbourne. No more takeoffs at that point.

By Now, not so good. We can rationalize all we want, and Monday Morning QB the thing, but my guess is that the crew was following direct and explicit orders.

Now you and me see the obvious. Escort the pax (who would be GLAD to carry their bags from the cargo hold to the terminal) across the TSA forbidden ramp to the terminal under escort from the crew, and with approval from the airport management, even in the abscence of the TSA.

I could have made that fly, pardon the pun. Get the pax on a bus (arranged and paid for by my own OPS guys for the 70 miles to MSP airport). That could have been set up. I am absolutely positive that the pax would have been relatively OK with that, as long as they were kept in the loop. I have had some experience here. There will be some 'bad social behavior' from some pax, but for the most part, if I am being honest and forthcoming with pax, they can be made happy if they know I am trying to get thru an unforseen incident.

But put a modern crew in that airplane, and have them be given (stupid) direct orders from their OPS, and the stage is set. It's the crew's butt if they disobey, and even those jobs are hard to come by. A good OPS would have seen the situation developing, and been ready with a 'Plan B' ready to go should things go south.

Sorry, I see the anger and resentment above and am frustrated (having been there with this exact situation before, and had to endure a butt chew and/or worse days later for solving the problem at the correct time). I was usually senior enough by the time I was 'suggesting strongly' over the phone to OPS that they would comply, or at least make a call to someone above their pay grade looking for help. I feel for the crew because they took the hit (both here and that night) when they were following explicit and direct orders that night.

It's a sad state out there with the airlines right now. It's why I got out early, and went back to government work (where, believe it or not, problem solving prior to it getting in the news is rewarded).

Everything changed after 9/11. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you DO NOT want to invoke the Patriot Act in an airplane. Seen it, used it myself for really unacceptable social behaviour, and those people rue the day. You think it's bad on an airplane, try Greyhound or Amtrak.

If it had been me in back? Action news on the cell. The 'false report' thing is probably just as bad as a rebellion.

cool!!

Fing, I know where you're coming from 100% - I am familiar by relation with flight crew operations and military operations. Not directly but I do understand the logic and the law.

It still doesn't matter one bit and you're explanation changes nothing. I'm sure you would have done different because you're clearly far far far from being an idiot.

Just following orders is not good enough and never will be. People who are not intelligent enough to make informed command decisions shouldn't be put in command. It is unfortunate that the company in question has management who simply shouldn't be.

Were it me on that flight for one moment past what my wife or kids could handle (maybe 1 1/2 hours TOPS for the mobile 11 month old) I'd have been on the phone with 911 or some other emergency service.

Of course the next step will be as soon as somebody DOES do this on a flight light this airlines will start confiscating cell phones or banning them from flights entirely. The stupidity train rolls on.

What gets me steamed was that the CREW had timed out could disembark themselves but the passengers were left in the hole. It amazes me how polite it seems these passengers were. If I had my two kids with me for that long on an airplane going now where...

Clearly the industry cannot be trusted to care for the basic welfare of the people who they are transporting. There aren't enough airlines out there for people to simply vote with their dollars so the only answer is to regulate these things to the point where there simply is no question how long an airplane sits with passengers on it going nowhere.

From the article:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's aviation operations subcommittee, said the incident underscored the need to pass legislation setting a three-hour limit for an airplane to sit on the tarmac without passengers being allowed off. A so-called passenger bill of rights that would do just that recently passed the Commerce Committee and awaits action in the full Senate.

"There needs to be some common sense used in these cases and it seems to me these folks have a right to complain very seriously about what happened," Dorgan said.

The Air Transport Association, which represents a group of airlines that includes Continental, has resisted the legislation in the past. Spokeswoman Elizabeth Merida said the group continues to believe the legislation "will ultimately end up inconveniencing passengers rather than helping them."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the bill would be considered by the Senate "at some point in the fall."


So, the airlines are correct - requiring that the passengers be disembarked for long waits WILL ABSOLUTELY inconvenience the passengers. Absolutely, passengers will end up waiting MUCH longer but at least they won't be held up in a sweaty aluminum tube with nowhere to go and no way to get comfortable for teh 6 hour wait they might have. So these folks waited 6 hours, I imagine if they had been allowed to disembark it would have increased it to 9.

In the scheme of things I think the 9 hour wait in the terminal is much more acceptable than 6 hours in an airplane with screaming babies (one of them being my own probably).

Martin, I hate to tell you this, but you have no idea as to what actually happens with the Air Traffic Control system, Airlines, their dispatch of flights into that system, and how weather wreaks absolute havoc on said system. Why would we lie?

Read Michael's (fingpilot) narrative above. He spell it out nicely. His explanation of the likely sequence of events is likely nearly dead-accurate. We, as flight crew, have ZERO interest in sitting on one of these airplanes for one second longer than need be. Flight crew and cabin crew are but low level decision makers in this business. We have no say whatsoever on when or whether we launch into the system - that would be up to ATC and the airline's dispatch department. We have no authority to cancel a flight - only dispatch has that authority. Flight crew have no authority to simply open a cabin door and let passengers out of the airplane when they feel like it - that would be a felony, and when all is forgotten, the authorities would prosecute the crew for allowing this to happen - and the authorities would win. Don't believe me? Remember, this is the federal government we are dealing with here.

Trust us when I remind you that flight and cabin crews would much rather deplane with the passengers early on in the process, than sit inside the rather cramped and hot aircraft waiting for weather to clear or a decision to be made by those with the authority to make decisions.

Like Michael, Joe, and others have said, the media or other higher authorities could have been alerted to this situation through a cell phone. Possibly, this might have prompted those with the given authority to make the cancellation decision. Interestingly enough, btw, there is an atmosphere within the corporate structure that puts a huge negative pressure on those who have been given the "authority" to cancel a flight. Through veiled threats by management NOT to cancel flights for fear of down-line retribution, many of those who have the power to make the common sense decision fail to act - for fear of making the "wrong" decision, in a corporate sense, and being punished for it somehow. This atmosphere is very pervasive in this business. It is one of the strongest reasons why flight crews, for example, will not make a decision which on the face of it seems like a no-brainer, yet which ultimately will likely lead to the crew's dismissal for insubordination and failure to follow company and FAA procedures and protocol.

We are constantly reminded through internal memos exactly what authority we have to do anything - and it certainly isn't much.

I feel sorry for the customers and crewmembers on this flight. Maybe this will finally lead to some much needed change.

The blame for this idiocy is on 'shareholder profits' and 'capitalism'?

It will be much better once the Govt takes over everything in our lives, aka the new health care bill.

Mike, believe it or not, the crew did not (could not) leave the plane on the ground with pax in it, and the APU running, even though they were timed out from flying any further. The pax are still pax until they are delivered to MSP. The crew had to stay until their relief showed the next morning (6 hours after touchdown in Rochester), after driving down from MSP. The original crew then drove the rental car to MSP and checked into the hotel.

I agree something has to be done, but it was the existing regs which got this thing so out of whack. More regs won't stop this from happening agan.

My grandfather (the Sheriff that warned me about old man drivers wearing hats) used to always say "Ya can't fix stupid...".