Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 26 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 7242 times:
It is unbelievable what port-authorities manage do get away with...
If JFK are incapable to manage de-icing procedures correctly,they should outsource the service to companies who can do it ( maybe they ask a Russian company to manage the service..)
As a passenger stranded for 14 !!!! hours in a 747 on the tarmac,I would get me a good lawyer and sue the hell out of JFK op's...
FXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, RR: 93 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 7216 times:
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6788 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 3): Sorry this was the second one opened.
They deleted mine and warned me it was a double topic. Mine was hours ahead of yours. Moderators need to get their act together...
ORIGINAL TOPIC:
This may be posted somewhere deep in a thread, but it deserves it's own. B6 and CO and others did the right thing in canceling flights last night in NYC. Other international airlines decided they didn't need to worry about severe weather warnings and either decided to try to depart for the EU, Asia and elsewhere, or sent flights from the EU that had no chance of arriving.
Non-US carriers last night at JFK held their passengers hostage on their planes for ridiculous amounts of time. I use the term hostage intentionally because something has to be done and holding pax on a plane, on the ground for 14 hours without allowing them off should be considered a criminal act in my opinion.
Why? Because the PANYNJ finally explained that deicing is the responsibility of the airlines, and if they are not able to deice efficiently, it's their fault and they can no longer shift the blame like they have been. Long lines to deice? Buy MORE EQUIPMENT. Shortage of fluid? STOCK PILE MORE FLUID. Period.
Cathay: over 9 hours
VS: 2 long hostage situations, one over 7 hours
Royal Air Morac: 13+ hours
Something must be done about this situation. Canceling flights may anger pax, but it's well within the rights of the airlines to do so and if it's due to weather, they need not compensate for it. But ignoring the weather and trying to operate anyway, then refusing to deplane pax when your gamble doesn't pay off is a different story. It should not be allowed. There is no easy answer for sure, but the status quo of being allowed to keep pax 9, 10, 13 hours on the ground needs to end.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3693 posts, RR: 34 Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6523 times:
We have this problem too. Departing ARN we need a slot for LHR. But we need deicing at ARN, and the time it will take depends. So we have to order deicing, wait for it to be completed, and then take off 1. before the holdover time expires, and 2. at the slot time + - 5mins. LHR will not give us any leeway over lift off time. Sometimes it can take ages to get it right. What should happen is that someone in Slot control at LHR recognises that we are in the middle of a blizzard at ARN, and let the aircraft take off when deiced. But this doesn't happen. It really makes me mad when we have fought to get the aircraft deiced, started and off to the runway, and slot control says....you have missed your slot, come back in 45mins...Then it takes an hour to get deiced again, and then you need another slot, so you need deicing again. Its really infuriating. I bet the guys that work in slot control have never tried to deice a widebody in a blizzard.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6481 times:
I was onboard AI 144 at Newark departing for Paris and Mumbai for about 5 hours.
The weather was incredibly nasty, and ground facilities at EWR were trying their best. We left right after a BA 777 at 3:45 AM instead of the schedule 10:10 pm, but it really wasn't that bad. AI crew distributed snacks and beverages as we waited and while it was a full flight, most onboard took it in stride.
Pgh234 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 790 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6365 times:
I saw the Cathay and Royal Air Morac flights on the taxiways at JFK when I landed at 6AM Sat. morning. I thought it was wierd that they were still on the taxiway at 6:00AM waiting to depart.
I am assuming that they use Terminal 4? I landed on the first B6 flight from SJU in nearly two days and all B6 SJU flights arrive/depart from Terminal 4 (I have no idea why they dont use Terminal 6 for the SJU flights). Anyway, the crew said that we had to wait for a gate to open at Terminal 4 due to some "extreme gate issues caused by de-icing equipment near the terminal." Obviously, if those aircraft waited 10+ hours for a gate at the terminal...there was no chance we'd be getting one. Soon, the B6 "Bill of Rights" kicked in and 25 minutes after landing, they found a gate for us at Terminal 6 (and avoided giving a $25 voucher to everyone on board) and we quickly deplaned. The flight that was supposed to depart from our arrival gate was also delayed for about 20 minutes since we stole their gate and our plane needed to be towed away after we got off.
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 773 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5729 times:
Again, why not park it on the tarmac and use a bus, instead of keeping hundreds of passengers in agony for up to a half a day sitting in nowhere land. After a few hours wait, I think it was obvious to the crew that they were not going to fly. So, who promised them a slot if they got de-iced and then get de-iced again. This is getting ridiculous. Did we have the same problem last year?
Max999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 906 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5669 times:
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 1): It is unbelievable what port-authorities manage do get away with...
If JFK are incapable to manage de-icing procedures correctly,they should outsource the service to companies who can do it ( maybe they ask a Russian company to manage the service..)
As a passenger stranded for 14 !!!! hours in a 747 on the tarmac,I would get me a good lawyer and sue the hell out of JFK op's...
The terminals at JFK are either owned by some airline consortium or by private compaies. Each terminal is responsible for its own deicing operations.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) was not responsible for this mess. If a person tried to sue the PA for this, they would be laughed out of court.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5393 times:
Airlines from warm weather places may not have a appreciation for the winter conditions. RAM and Cathay should have never left the gate. The YVR-JFK-YVR part of the Cathay flightt should have stayed at Vancouver and returned to Hong Kong.
InTheSky74 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 546 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5234 times:
Of course the media won't cover this as much as they covered the B6 incident... And on top of that, the local NY media that has is talking about these aircraft sitting on the ground in JFK while they continue to show pictures of JetBlue aircraft in the background. Can we said media bias?
I thought it was funny that NY1 (the local cable news) had an interview with the GM at Royal Air Maroc (the plane that had people stranded on the tarmac for 15 hours before coming back to the gate) and they interviewed him in front of the JetBlue terminal.
Media - start reporting in a more balanced way! It really is not right. I think B6 did the right thing this time and should be commended. Not many people discussed how DL attempted to operate their entire International bank of flights on Friday night but after having customers stranded on the taxiway for over 2 hours, they decided to cancel the entire bank of flights and return them to the gate. They also don't seem to be picking up on how CO cancelled their entire operation on Saturday until 12pm as they could not recover after the situation on Friday night. CO never publicized the extent of their operation having issues on Friday night, but hen I pulled up nearly every flight that CO had scheduled on Friday - nearly every flight was cancelled. I know that they attempted to operate their International bank of flights on Friday night as well - I'm not sure how they faired in comparison to DL.
CactusTECH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 4614 times:
What happened to B6 and the rest of the airlines is not really the same. B6 has their own termianl and operations and they call their own shots, CX, VS and the rest who are getting blame have no control at all. Terminal 4 has more than 20 airlines all coming in and out and only 2 deicing providers ASIG and Swissport, airlines Don't have their own deicing equipment like B6 does, it's all contracted out to whoever is authorized to de-ice at the terminal. SOO if Swissport or ASIG ran out of fluid How are these airlines responsable?
9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 740 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 4424 times:
What is the deicing procedure at JFK? Do the aircraft get deiced before they get in line for take-off? Or are they deiced before they line up on the runway?>
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19708 posts, RR: 56 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4278 times:
Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 16): What is the deicing procedure at JFK? Do the aircraft get deiced before they get in line for take-off? Or are they deiced before they line up on the runway?>
There are several de-ice areas, none of them particularly close to any runway. From what I gather, a lot of the international carriers de-ice by the American hangars (near the American terminal) or by the United hangars (near the beginning of 13R). JFK was using 31L for departures, and neither of those places are close to 31L, so it's likely that holdover times were exceeded, and the aircraft would have to go back and get back in line to de-ice again. As far as other runways go, there's no area close to 22R to get de-iced, nor 31L - only 13R is convenient for planes that just de-iced next to the United hangars. There is a runup pad near 4L that could possibly be used for de-icing, but it's right next to Jamaica Bay, which is a wildlife refuge, and I doubt that having de-ice chemicals flying around would be something the environmental movement would appreciate (and since it is a designated area, they do have ground to stand on).
Basically, the answer to your question is that they get de-iced before they get in line for takeoff. Holdover times are about 20-30 minutes, so if they're not off the ground by that time, they have to do it all over again.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Ultrapig From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4065 times:
I don't get it. Why is so difficult with ATC, the airlines and the deicing thrid party srvices getting together and saying:
"Here is the order of departure, Each aircraft will leave thegate x minutes prior to its slotted takeoff time, and will be deiced y minutes later and then take off. If there is a dealy between deicing and take off more than the maximum it will get immediately back in line for deicing.
I know its not as simple as that because of restrictions on when planes can arrive at their destinations-
Also how can pilots sit with the doors shut for 10 y hours and not be timed out?
WJ From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 339 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 17): There are several de-ice areas, none of them particularly close to any runway. From what I gather, a lot of the international carriers de-ice by the American hangars (near the American terminal) or by the United hangars (near the beginning of 13R). JFK was using 31L for departures, and neither of those places are close to 31L, so it's likely that holdover times were exceeded, and the aircraft would have to go back and get back in line to de-ice again. As far as other runways go, there's no area close to 22R to get de-iced, nor 31L - only 13R is convenient for planes that just de-iced next to the United hangars. There is a run-up pad near 4L that could possibly be used for de-icing, but it's right next to Jamaica Bay, which is a wildlife refuge, and I doubt that having de-ice chemicals flying around would be something the environmental movement would appreciate (and since it is a designated area, they do have ground to stand on).
Basically, the answer to your question is that they get de-iced before they get in line for takeoff. Holdover times are about 20-30 minutes, so if they're not off the ground by that time, they have to do it all over again.
-Mir
Mir, incorrect.
Both 13-31 runways were closed the whole evening with 4L and 4R used (at times only 4L). There are no deice opportunities by the start of the runways, it all takes place by each of the terminals, except for those who use the radiant heat facility by 13R. No handler or airline has access to place equipment at the start of the runways. Holdover times vary greatly depending on type of precipitation and type of glycol used. The problem is that there are no approved holdover times for the type of precipitation that occurred that evening, it was in effect a zero holdover and therefore, almost illegal to fly unless you hit a window where the precip stopped for a bit and you had just been deiced. Eventualy, glycol ran out and no one could leave.
B6 called this one right on the money and avoided an even greater mess than Valentines day as the conditions were much worst. What may have been seen as an early trigger that day to axe the flights, was right on and they deserve the credit for making the tough decision.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3543 times:
To be fair, the icing conditions in the area on Friday (and a few weeks ago during the previous debacle) were pretty much the worst possible. Ice cold slush falling from the sky at just around freezing. This sticky mass is ideal for ice formation AND is tough to spray off once it as stuck to the planes.
Yes, it would be possible to time the whole ballet better, but there are so many parties involved (airline pilots, airline dispatchers, deicing companies, ground controllers, terminal traffic controllers, etc...) that it's pretty much impossible. There is no one authority that can put its foot down and order everyone around.
Seeing as this sort of thing happens only once or twice per year, I would say smart airlines (B6 in this case) just cancel their flights rather than risk these lovely SNAFUs. I live in the area. We all knew this was coming at least 24 hours in advance. I didn't even bother to drive to work. since I didn't want to be stuck at work unable to get home.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3417 times:
When I was attending Boston University in my college days, I was headed back to school on American Airlines flight 946, DFW-BOS on a 767-200ER. We taxied out to the runway and held short for a good 30 min. The captain then came on the intercom and said that we would be returning to the gate because of a problem with the right engine. Since I had Gold Status then on AA I was put in the "business class" section (sold as economy) of the plane. Anyway, we stayed at the gate for about 2 hours and they finally came on the intercom saying that the problem had been fixed. We again taxied out to the runway, taxied onto the active and the captain throttled up only to then throttle back again and we taxied back to the gate which took about an hour. We then sat on the plane for another two hours and were told then we could deplane. We deplaned and waited in the terminal for an hour and were told to board the 767 again and we did. This took about an hour, and we taxied to the runway, again we throttled up and then quickly powered back. You could hear a bunch of people groan at this point. It had been nearly 6 or 7 hours we had been going through this ordeal. We could have flown to Boston and back by then. Finally we taxied back to the gate and were placed on a 757 at the next gate and headed to Boston, which took about 3 hours. But, they upgraded me to first class on that flight. Anyway, about a month later I get a letter from American Airlines stating that they were terribly sorry about my experience on flight 946 and they ACTUALLY GAVE ME 10,000 AAdvantage miles! Which helped me upgrade my FRA trip to Business class!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3371 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 21): Anyway, about a month later I get a letter from American Airlines stating that they were terribly sorry about my experience on flight 946 and they ACTUALLY GAVE ME 10,000 AAdvantage miles!
Any delay over 3-4 hours I have received 6000-8000 miles. But this has mostly been delays while I was not on the plane. Beer in the bar type delays. For 6-7 hours mostly on the plane I would hope for more than 10k miles. Yech...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
B707Stu From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 918 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
AT, CX and VS win the award for longest delay during this storm. It would be unwise not to realize that all 3 of these airlines are not based at JFK and needed those aircraft for other service. Also, the cost of keeping the aircraft on the ground is not something airlines welcome, or additional gate fees. So, it's not just choice, of course there's economics being played out here too. B6 did the right thing and are back on top with image, within 1 month and 1 storm, not bad.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3693 posts, 
From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Apr 2005, 270 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 339 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
