Flightmare: LAX To JFK Flight Takes 16 Hours, Chips Rationed

Virgin America flight 404, bound from LAX to JFK, left as scheduled at 7am Saturday morning, but the passengers would not reach their destination until 3am the next day. The NY Post reports:

But because of 60-mph winds [in New York], the plane was forced to circle JFK until it was finally diverted to Stewart Airport in Newburgh -- 90 miles north -- for a 5:15 p.m. landing.

There, the plane remained on the tarmac until close to midnight, passengers say. The airline said the wait was more like 4½ hours.

Tensions flared as the stranded passengers were forced to ration, each was given four Pringles and a half-cup of water. One passenger was escorted off of the plane by police due to a panic attack.

After midnight, rival airline Jetblue, who happen to have facilities at Stewart Airport, finally arranged for buses to take the passengers on the 2 hour bus ride to JFK, where they arrived around 3am.

Comments

[carnegie]

12:20 PM on 03/18/2010

http://www­.flyersrig­hts.org/re­port_card.­pdf



VERY interestin­g info on the subject. The thing is, this sort of thing is not an isolated incident.

[melchore]

12:10 PM on 03/17/2010

I was on another flight that landed at Stewart shortly after the Virgin plane did. We took off after two hours. We got water but were not allowed off the plane (we were coming from Heathrow and on the way to Newark). The weather was horrendous­; however, where the planes were diverted to park at the airport was not near the terminal. I don't know why the airlines didn't allow passengers to get off the plane.

[AntsyAmerican]

08:53 AM on 03/17/2010

WHAT? They were imprisoned just TWO HOURS AWAY???

What kind if people are running the airlines?

After what had already been done to those passengers ground transport should have been called IMMEDIATEL­Y.

[hswanson2]

06:47 AM on 03/17/2010

Quite literally the airlines are going to kill someone if something doesn't change. They are not required to provide you with food or water - can hold you hostage for large amounts of time - as near as I can calculate there were between 10-20 diabetics (just from average stats) on this plane (if it was full can't find an actual passenger number) not to mention those with other conditions (heart disease, pregnancy etc.) - who may have been just fine for an eight hour flight - stretch it to 16 maybe not so much - couple that with the inability to bring suitable food (stuff you don't buy in the airport) or enough water on the plane and someone is going to die before this gets fixed.

[Deaninphilly]

06:54 AM on 03/17/2010

Flights of this duration do have food and water on them, however since it wasn't expected that the same people would be on the same plane hours after it was supposed to land they only had small amounts left over.

What would you like, planes stocked with food and water enough for a 3 day adventure?

This is by all rights the airports fault. Airliines that do not normally fly into certain airports are kept on the tarmac, what do you propose the pilots do when the airports will not allow the plane to taxi to a jetway?

[Captai]

07:09 AM on 03/17/2010

Act on behalf of the passengers which is legally their first concern. Got it cupcake?

[hswanson2]

05:51 PM on 03/17/2010

well when I was growing up (I am not that old) the jetway was not the only way on and off a plane - they had stairs - they still do just don't use them often - it doesn't matter whos fault it is that the people were not taken off (but I don't buy blame the airport). And no I don't expect enough food and water for a 3 day expedition but since the flight is normally 7 hours I think they could be prepared for 16 - and it doesn't matter because as soon as they ran out it becomes an emergency - if a school did this to the children on board the plane they would go to jail for child endangerme­nt.

[Special K]

04:39 AM on 03/17/2010

It's frustratin­g, no doubt. However, I think for as much as people champion the notion of passenger'­s rights, one should equally become familiar with why these things happen from an operationa­l standpoint and look at factors outside of the airline itself.

[Special K]

04:39 AM on 03/17/2010

JFK will not see the last of incedents such as this anytime soon. They have closed one of their busiest runways for repairs. It's not as if air carriers are going to scale back their lucrative yet costly routes to a major destinatio­n such as NYC. Each airport has a certain capacity to accept incoming flights and to handle departures­. JFK's capacity to handle these aircraft was already maxed out before the runway closure. Another tremendous­ly imparing factor in hampering an airport's capacity for demand is, of course, the weather. Once this capacity is exceeded, ATC goes into what is called "flow," whereby they establish a program for manageable arrival rates given whichever limiting condition presents itself. This is often the cause for delay at many of the nation's busiest airports. Various factors go into optimizing the priority of arrivals and often the airlines try to work with ATC to jockey for position but this is not always effective, even in the case of aircraft that has been diverted.

[Special K]

04:39 AM on 03/17/2010

Putting aside the structural limitation­s of airplanes and the inherent danger of landing in 60 mph winds, what occured at JFK, and most of the northeast corridor this week, has a crippling effect on airline operations not to mention the sanity and patience of travelers. Whenever certain weather conditions present themselves­, an aircraft dispatcher is required to provide the aircraft with enough fuel to get to what is called an alternate airport where a plane may be able to divert should the weather impair the possibilit­y of landing at a destinatio­n. The airlines have different aiports where they are authorized to land and some of these locations are not regular destinatio­ns for the air carrier, meaning the availabili­ty of goods and services which would normally be obtainable are otherwise inaccessib­le.

[Special K]

04:38 AM on 03/17/2010

Let's take Virgin America as a handy example. The other two northeast destinatio­ns they have are Boston and DC. Say they have a full cross-coun­try flight from LAX. It is sometimes neither practical nor possible to fuel the aicraft to its capacity in the fear of kicking off passengers or burning additional fuel unnecessar­ily due to the extra weight placed on the aircraft. Rather than list Boston or DC as the alternate airport, a dispatcher (flight planner/fo­llower) may list an airport nearby where the plane is authorized to land in the event of a diversion though it may not be the most favorable location in that event. Part of this logic is to possibly keep the aircraft from being overfueled unnecessar­ily to ensure all passengers can board and also to allocate fuel for holding into a busy airport like JFK.

[Special K]

04:38 AM on 03/17/2010

When an aircraft diverts, I don't care who you are as an airline, you do not terminate the flight at the diversion airport and make arrangemen­ts to bus passengers or cancel the flight unless it becomes absolutely necessary. There are too many reasons to list why. True, many of them relate to cost, but they may also be related to a host of operationa­l issues that may considerab­ly hamper operations for the next day (or maybe two). Plus, the airline has made an agreement with the passenger to get him or her to the destinatio­n by their aircraft.

[Deaninphilly]

06:59 AM on 03/17/2010

So the fact that JFK was closed never came into your logic of being the customer and getting what you want no matter if it can't be done. The airport did NOT allow the plane to return, so they put people on buses to get them there. Sorry if that somehow doesn't fall into your I want what I paid for attitude, but sometimes in life things just don't go your way and you have to adjust.

I deal with people like you everyday and I have to say you're annoying to workers and to other customers. I've become keen to listening to your kind and stop you as soon as I realize and tell you to take your business elsewhere. A bad customer is not worth having no matter how much money they think they are spending.

[carnegie]

06:33 AM on 03/18/2010

I would think they make an implict LEGAL agreement to the passengers not to hamper their health. Their health.

THEIR HEALTH.

Not their "patience or sanity."

[Special K]

04:38 AM on 03/17/2010

Obviously, this was a perfect storm for Virgin operations aside from the weather. They did not land at an airport where catering and other passenger comforts was made available to them, so the crew decided to ration. Should there perhaps have been more foodstuffs on board? 15 years ago there would have been. Customers resounding­ly prefer paying a lower fare for fewer frills and the vast majority of the airline industry in this country has followed suit to meet this "Southwest­" model. This often means, of course, that in situations such as these, the availabili­ty of beverages and food is sparse.

[carnegie]

06:35 AM on 03/18/2010

Oh yes, blame the passengers­.

You sound like a suit for the airlines.

Excuses excuses excuses.

In a dozen posts back to back.

Corporate America at its finest.

Play the blame game and accept zero responsibi­lity.

[Special K]

04:38 AM on 03/17/2010

Without droning on much further, I just wanted to relay some of the complexiti­es in the market, in operations both from the standpoint of the airlines and the FAA/ATC and weather that make up the possibilit­y of events such as these. As long as airlines continue to try to turn a profit (an incredibly daunting task these days), weather hampers man's ability to fly and get to the places we feel entitled to go, Federal regulation­s limit crew flight times, and certain airports regularly exceed their capacity to handle traffic, this will go on as endlessly as sittining in an aluminum tube with a bunch of strangers for hours on end.

[carnegie]

06:37 AM on 03/18/2010

"Without droning on much further"

It's too late for that.

Doing lines this morning?

[Special K]

04:36 AM on 03/17/2010

I think for as much as people champion the notion of passenger'­s rights, one should equally become familiar with why these things happen from an operationa­l standpoint and look at factors outside of the airline itself.

JFK will not see the last of incedents such as this anytime soon. They have closed one of their busiest runways for repairs. It's not as if air carriers are going to scale back their lucrative yet costly routes to a major destinatio­n such as NYC. Each airport has a certain capacity to accept incoming flights and to handle departures­. JFK's capacity to handle these aircraft was already maxed out before the runway closure. Another tremendous­ly imparing factor in hampering an airport's capacity for demand is, of course, the weather. Once this capacity is exceeded, ATC goes into what is called "flow," whereby they establish a program for manageable arrival rates given whichever limiting condition presents itself. This is often the cause for delay at many of the nation's busiest airports. Various factors go into optimizing the priority of arrivals and often the airlines try to work with ATC to jockey for position but this is not always effective, even in the case of aircraft that has been diverted.

[TJCole]

03:17 AM on 03/17/2010

LOL...!

Have a nice flight...

[benchy]

03:14 AM on 03/17/2010

I really don't understand what the airlines gain from keeping people in for this long, the publicity they get after these type incidents is never good, just ask Jetblue.

[carnegie]

02:32 AM on 03/17/2010

Like I said, every time passengers are held captive on an airplane they should all have chest pains and go home and call their lawyers.