Continental, Express Jet, and Mesaba
 

Fined by the DOT for the tarmac stranding in Rochester.

DOT fines airlines for six-hour tarmac delay - Business travel- msnbc.com

Mesaba ground crew scum.

good - hold companys accountable !

Six Hours On The Runway? Sure...

Nice reporting.

Oh whatever.

There are times when the media uses the wrong word and it matters.

In this instance you can call the ramp anything from runway to tarmac to taxiway and it doesn't matter, we all know the point was that they were stuck inside an EMB-145 for way too long with way too little.

My question, for which there may be reasonable answers, is how can they fine XJT and CAL when the very same DOT found XJT not to be at fault and blamed the Mesaba manager. Or am I over-simplifying it?

Had to do with failures in the SOCC communications chain...weren't fined for any of the crew's actions.

How? Companies spend $50,000 a day on jelly beans and twizzlers for their CEO's. How, exactly, did they teach them a lesson?

According to Mesaba, the evidence establishes that, throughout the night, ExpressJet dispatchers intended to continue the flight to Minneapolis and wanted the aircraft to be able to depart promptly if the weather-window cleared. For example, Mesaba points out that when the Mesaba station manager unambiguously asked the ExpressJet dispatcher in a recorded conversation at 4:44 a.m. whether ExpressJet wanted the passengers deplaned, the dispatcher rejected this offer and stated his intention to try to complete the flight. Similarly, Mesaba states that the evidence demonstrates there was an ongoing argument between ExpressJet dispatchers and the ExpressJet crew concerning whether the flight should be cancelled, until approximately 5:45 a.m., when ExpressJet dispatchers finally determined that the flight crew would exceed their duty time limitations. Mesaba contends that ExpressJet’s acts and omissions demonstrate an indifference to its own passengers and that ExpressJet should not, as a matter of sound aviation policy, be...

Regulations.gov

DOT 182-09
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Contact: Bill Mosley
Tel: (202) 366-4570

DOT Issues Precedent-Setting Fines for Rochester, MN Tarmac Delay Incident

The U.S. Department of Transportation today levied a total civil penalty of $100,000 against Continental Airlines and ExpressJet Airlines for their roles in causing the passengers on board Continental Express flight 2816 to remain on the aircraft at Rochester International Airport for an unreasonable period of time on Aug. 8, 2009. Continental also provided a full refund to each passenger and also offered each passenger additional compensation to tangibly acknowledge their time and discomfort. In addition, DOT assessed a civil penalty of $75,000 against Mesaba Airlines, which provided ground handling for the flight, for its role in the incident.

These precedent-setting enforcement actions involve consent orders that reflect a settlement by the carriers of violations alleged by DOT’s Aviation Enforcement Office. They are the first enforcement orders punishing carriers for extended tarmac delays, as well as the first time a carrier acting as a ground handler for another airline has been punished for failing to properly help passengers leave an aircraft during an unreasonably long tarmac delay.

“I hope that this sends a signal to the rest of the airline industry that we expect airlines to respect the rights of air travelers,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We will also use what we have learned from this investigation to strengthen protections for airline passengers subjected to long tarmac delays.”

The Aviation Enforcement Office’s investigation found that all three carriers violated the law that prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation for their respective roles in the incident, in which a Continental Express flight from Houston to Minneapolis/St. Paul operated by ExpressJet was diverted to Rochester due to bad weather in Minneapolis. The aircraft reached Rochester about 12:30 a.m. and the passengers were stranded aboard the aircraft until approximately 6:15 a.m. when they were finally deplaned into the terminal.

Prior to diverting to Rochester, ExpressJet contacted Mesaba personnel at Rochester to request assistance at the airport, which Mesaba, the only airline staffing the airport at the time, agreed to provide. Shortly after the flight arrived in Rochester, the ExpressJet captain asked the Mesaba employee handling the flight whether the passengers could deplane into the airport terminal. In response to this initial inquiry, and other subsequent inquiries, the captain was told that passengers could not enter the terminal because there were no Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners on duty at that hour, despite the fact that TSA rules would have allowed the passengers to enter the airport as long as they remained in a sterile area.

Continental and ExpressJet, in separate orders, were found to have violated the prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation because ExpressJet failed to carry out a provision of Continental’s customer service commitment requiring that, if a ground delay is approaching three hours, its operations center will determine if departure is expected within a reasonable time, and if not the carrier will take action as soon as possible to deplane passengers. ExpressJet also failed to take timely actions required by its procedures, including notifying senior ExpressJet officials and providing appropriate Continental officials with notice of the delay. Continental was found to have engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice since, as the carrier marketing the flight 2816, Continental ultimately is responsible to its passengers on that flight.

The consent order covering Mesaba finds that the carrier engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice when it provided inaccurate information to ExpressJet about deplaning passengers from flight 2816.

In November 2008, the Department proposed a rule to enhance airline passenger protections, including a provision that would require airlines to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays and incorporate them in their contracts of carriage. A final rule is expected by the end of this calendar year.

The consent orders issued today are available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2009-0001.