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.

Wow. Really?

The DOT's use of "unfair and deceptive practices" against Mesaba is thin at best!:rolleyes: In order for that to really apply per the regs; Mesaba would have to have been acting as a "commercial carrier" engaging in "Air Trans portation" per referrence#6 on Mesaba's consent order;
Yes; Mesaba is an "Air Carrier", but by definition per the regs it was not it acting as one and was not engaging in "Air Transportation". The aircraft was not owned or operated by Mesaba; was not carrying passengers for ExpressJet or Continental, nor was there a contract between Mesaba and ExpressJet for ground handeling services. Mesaba is in no way resposible to Continental's passengers. Mesaba was voluntarily acting in a ground support operation only; which is not bound by Section 41712. If this were in the legal sytem it would hold it's weight in court.

They might not of been flying around but while they were operating the gates at the airport they also fall under the rules of an air carrier. The fact that they accepted the flight and then told them no when they got on the ground is where the problem lies. If they had already closed up shop for the night or even said no from the start then they wouldn't of been liable. However, when they said they would service the flight they then became accountable for unloading the passengers into the terminal as promised.

So DGS and Regional Elite would fall under Section 41712 as an "air carrier" when they're operating gates and performing ground hadling functions? Don't think so...and the DOT will tell you the same thing. If this happened yesterday I can bet you the only ones getting fined would be CO and Xjet.

DGS and Regional Elite would probably have been fined under different regulations that pertain to them. Your argument is strictly a technical one and not one on the merits of the case. The fact of the matter is that all three air carriers made mistakes and so all three are being held accountable. In Mesaba's case, they were wrong to not allow passengers to deplane, (especially when they had accepted the responsibility to ground handle the flight).

Ridiculous....
 

The consumerist cheerleaders all seem to be having a field day over this one, while seeming to forget that these fines will be paid for by the passenger. Not like the money is going to come right out of Kellner's personal bank account or anything. Keep fining, and the passengers will keep paying through fare increases. Typical government non-solution.

Incorrect, the monies will be taken out of future gains in crew contracts. Everyone knows the only way for the airlines to make more money is to stop overpaying these pilots! :mad:

coughtrollcough

Constructive! Thanks.

Which means in the future no carrier will ever except responsibility for another carriers flight. They will just say no. Mesaba made no money from this flight yet was held liable for payments that amount to 3 yearly salaries of an FO. Think another airline will ever try to help out another airline again? Now where does XJet divert to? At which point does this become a safety issue? I think Mesaba should have been penalized but for some reason something doesn't seem quite right. Mesaba had nothing to gain from this situation and everything to lose.

Stations cant refuse to service an aircraft without good reason. Some alternates do not provide any services other then fuel from an FBO and the required equipment.

They put the airplane down safely and waited out a storm. Obviously it wasnt an ideal situation but there wasnt a smoldering hole in the middle of nowhere. If you are desperate enough you dont care where you divert to but you can figure out the logistics later. Let the bean counters worry about the money and let the pilots do their job and operate the flight safely.

At the end of the day everyone got home... screw the money

If that alternate is not served your company or mainline; no other airline is required by law or regualtion to help you out. It was more of a industry wide courtesy to help one another out when events like this happen. The major reason to refuse this type of courtesy going forth is for legality purposes. I can see contracts being required as a result of the RST fiasco; for diverts to non serviced airports that are alternates.