http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1455		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/21/ai ... index.html

Quote:
A Department of Transportation rule announced Monday prohibits U.S. aircraft on domestic routes from remaining on a tarmac for more than three hours with passengers aboard.

"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.

Exceptions to the three-hour rule would be allowed only for safety and security reasons or if air traffic controllers advise a pilot that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations, the department said.

U.S. airlines operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States "must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers, with the same exceptions applicable," the statement said.

The rule goes into effect 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.


3 hours is still absolutely ridiculous and pretty unacceptable. This achieves nothing.
Author:  Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
Quote:
Exceptions to the three-hour rule would be allowed only for safety and security reasons or if air traffic controllers advise a pilot that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations


Soooo...exceptions are OK for the main reason thing like that happen anyway.
Yep, this is a pointless rule that will change nothing.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
flying sucks anyways. i wont do it.
Author:  Wyohomeboy [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
I don't know where I would begin my horror stories of traveling the friendly skies, but suffice it to say, I was planning on driving home this year to visit the folks in WNY this year, prior to a poor employment situation arising. It takes about thirty hours of driving to get there, which is way more enjoyable than experiencing the joys of flying and the inevitable luggage losses!!
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
I hate flying.
Author:  Sabres2Sabres [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
I don't mind flying at all. I usually try for just direct flights if possible - seeing as how I usually go to Florida, that's usually pretty easy.

Never had to wait on the tarmac except after landing when we caught a nice tailwind and got there early and no gates were open - but that was only a half hour or so. Still got in the airport by the actual arrival time.

I've waited in the airport a few times before though. Once waited in Buffalo while they kept delaying and then canceled our flight, ended up getting on a later one 6 hours later. That was not worth it - it was only a 45 minute flight to Baltimore, could have actually driven there faster.

Don't mind driving to Florida or places like that either, but if it's on my own I'd rather fly than drive. So much faster - even with getting to the airport early and getting luggage and stuff, it's 4-5 hours as opposed to 20.

But I'll never fly during the holidays. Not worth it.
Author:  ItsMe [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
After about an hour, I would be punching holes in the cabin walls to let me the fuck out. I wonder if them not allowing me to escape would constitute unlawful imprisonment?

Anyway, another useless regulation set forth by a government agency sending up a smoke screen to cover ineptitude and justifying its miserable and costly existence.
Author:  Skyline_BNR34 [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
I've sat on an airplane for around 2 hours due to weather in Orlando Florida, was quite fun just sitting there doing nothing.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
im afraid of heights.. when i get on ladders. 35,000 feet below me? no thanks. if im driving, and my car dies, i pull over. if im flying, and the engine dies, its the story of the century if there are any survivors.
Author:  Sabres2Sabres [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
Flying is still way safer than driving.
Author:  backthatSASSup [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
I hate sitting in a car for long periods of time. Absolutely hate it; I get massively carsick. I'd take flying any day.
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
Sabres2Sabres wrote:
Flying is still way safer than driving.


It doesn't matter. The scary thing is the inevitability of death should something go wrong.

When you ride in a car, you have a much greater chance of being in an accident than you do in a plane. But when I step into my car, I also know that there's a great chance I won't get hurt in that accident.

When you step on a plane, it feels like you're playing Russian roulette. Sure, there's not a very good chance that your plane will fail, but if it does, you're pretty much screwed.

I hate it.
Author:  Sabres2Sabres [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
You're more likely to die in a car crash than you are in a plane crash.
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
Sabres2Sabres wrote:
You're more likely to die in a car crash than you are in a plane crash.


Prove it!

I've always been skeptical of those statistics.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
Sabres2Sabres wrote:
You're more likely to die in a car crash than you are in a plane crash.


false. their are more car accidents then plane crashes, true. but when a plane crashes, how often do you hear "there were no survivors."
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
PuckSniperPensel wrote:
Sabres2Sabres wrote:
Flying is still way safer than driving.


It doesn't matter. The scary thing is the inevitability of death should something go wrong.

When you ride in a car, you have a much greater chance of being in an accident than you do in a plane. But when I step into my car, I also know that there's a great chance I won't get hurt in that accident.

When you step on a plane, it feels like you're playing Russian roulette. Sure, there's not a very good chance that your plane will fail, but if it does, you're pretty much screwed.

I hate it.


bullseye.

heres something to think about as well. the whole theory of flight is air aerodynamics. its fuckin freaky to me the whole idea is based on air going under the wing faster then the top. its fuckin weird.

i mean, when your car is moving, its wheels. moving. on the ground.

also, planes are VERY delicate. its like thin aluminum, and foil. thats all there is to prevent you from experiencing de-pressurization.
Author:  Sabres2Sabres [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
ironyisadeadscene wrote:
Sabres2Sabres wrote:
You're more likely to die in a car crash than you are in a plane crash.


false. their are more car accidents then plane crashes, true. but when a plane crashes, how often do you hear "there were no survivors."


I think you misinterpreted what I said. Obviously if the condition is that you're going to crash, more people will die in plane crashes than will die in car crashes. But if that condition doesn't exist, your chances of dying from a crash when you step on board a plane are far less than those when you hop in a car.

The statistics are out there, see for yourself. I could find some if you want me to - it's not that hard to find.

ironyisadeadscene wrote:
PuckSniperPensel wrote:
Sabres2Sabres wrote:
Flying is still way safer than driving.


It doesn't matter. The scary thing is the inevitability of death should something go wrong.

When you ride in a car, you have a much greater chance of being in an accident than you do in a plane. But when I step into my car, I also know that there's a great chance I won't get hurt in that accident.

When you step on a plane, it feels like you're playing Russian roulette. Sure, there's not a very good chance that your plane will fail, but if it does, you're pretty much screwed.

I hate it.


bullseye.

heres something to think about as well. the whole theory of flight is air aerodynamics. its fuckin freaky to me the whole idea is based on air going under the wing faster then the top. its fuckin weird.

i mean, when your car is moving, its wheels. moving. on the ground.

also, planes are VERY delicate. its like thin aluminum, and foil. thats all there is to prevent you from experiencing de-pressurization.


Well duh. Aerodynamics are what make planes fly. The whole idea, however, is NOT based on the idea of air going under the wings faster than it goes above them, as middle school science would have you believe. Bernoulli's principle is absolutely true - as the velocity of a fluid increases, it's pressure decreases - however that lift alone would not be enough to keep a plane flying. There's many other factors at hand, including using the wing to direct air downwards (thus propelling the aircraft upward, or keeping it at a steady altitude). It's entirely possible to have a zero camber wing (wing with no curve) that flies, however, it'd be quite inefficient.

I'd beg to differ when you say planes are very delicate. Yes, you definitely don't want anything to go wrong with them - it gets very ugly when something does. But they have high structural integrity. (When was the last time you heard of a plane becoming deformed during flight, losing part of its skin, etc?) It's quite unlikely to have a depressurization - but it's not the end of the world if you do - that's why there are oxygen masks. A depressurization does nothing to alter the ability of the plane to fly.

Yes, flying is much more complicated. Errors can be deadly. But great measures are taken to make sure that it is safe. (How many people do a pre-drive walkaround of their car, inspect the engine, etc?) It's still much safer than driving.

In a perfect world, where everybody was a safe driver and obeyed the rules of the road, and nobody was driving drunk or careless, driving may be safer than flying. But that isn't a reality, and flying is still many times safer than driving.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
Image

well, i know this is a one time deal, and happened 20 years ago...

but it CAN happen.
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
The air france A320 that went down not long ago experienced strong turbulence before they lost its signal.

It probably broke apart in the sky due to the chipping and cracking associated with composite materials.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: New DOT Rule Limits Tarmac Delays, Still a Joke
thats the one where the plane hit turbulance and broke up because the airspeed indicator froze, and the plane was going like... 650 mph?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/