How many more times must international pax, due to an emergency, be stranded on the ground in AUS?

[RooFlyer]

To everyone saying there should have been a plan who is they? Borderforce/immigration or JQ? If JQ are you saying that every international airline that flies over mainland Australia should have a plan for every domestic airport they fly over/near? How is that feasible?

Personally, I’m saying it’s the airline, retaining a local agent who would formulate a plan for various scenarios.

Not every airport, but those under or close to their flight paths which are likely to be an emergency landing point because of distance from larger ports.

ASP happens to be a prime example. An aircraft in the middle of Australia, going in any direction, would choose it in most emergencies, I think, over the hour or more to the larger ports on the edge of the continent.

 

[drron]

Jetstar in consultation with ASP airport.

The US requires this plan for their airlines.

Tarmac Delays | US Department of Transportation

What is a “Tarmac Delay”? A tarmac delay occurs when an airplane on the ground is either awaiting takeoff or has just landed and passengers do not have the opportunity to get off the plane.

www.transportation.gov

Mind you some of those provisions might not be so good for passengers.

If an airline offers me the opportunity to get off the airplane during a tarmac delay and I choose to get off, is the airline required to let me back on the airplane?

• No. Passengers should be aware that if they choose to get off the airplane during a tarmac delay, airlines are not required to let them back on the airplane. The flight may take off without them and passengers may be responsible for finding another flight.
  
• If passengers decide to exit the aircraft during a tarmac delay and the aircraft eventually takes off for its intended destination, the airline may not be required to offload any passenger’s checked bags before the plane takes off. Passengers will need to contact the airline about returning their checked luggage at a later time.

 

[justinbrett]

Mind you some of those provisions might not be so good for passengers.

If an airline offers me the opportunity to get off the airplane during a tarmac delay and I choose to get off, is the airline required to let me back on the airplane?

• No. Passengers should be aware that if they choose to get off the airplane during a tarmac delay, airlines are not required to let them back on the airplane. The flight may take off without them and passengers may be responsible for finding another flight.
  
• If passengers decide to exit the aircraft during a tarmac delay and the aircraft eventually takes off for its intended destination, the airline may not be required to offload any passenger’s checked bags before the plane takes off. Passengers will need to contact the airline about returning their checked luggage at a later time.

Sure, but it's up to the airline - that's the minimum standard.

The Qantas policy for the US is everybody off within 4 hours.

https://www.qantas.com/us/en/support/customer-service-plan/tarmac-delay-contingency-plan.html

The point is to have a plan, it's a starting point. Even knowing you could get off if you wanted to would help anxiety, even if that came at a price.

 

[Hvr]

Personally, I’m saying it’s the airline, retaining a local agent who would formulate a plan for various scenarios.

And if only used once every few years then you can see why it wouldn't be done.

Let's think differently. Have a way for the senior police member/public servant etc in the vicinity to access a 'Smartgate' app on a local computer kept in a secure place until required. There's lots of stuff kept aside for various incidents, this is just another piece of kit. A call to Border Force (BF) head office to get it running with access codes etc and 'virtually assist' with processing.

When the JQ scenario occurs they're deployed to the airport and if required can scan in eligible pax. These pax can then be treated as domestic pax for airport access etc.

For those who can't be granted immigration access to Australia the BF official can give guidance as to how to proceed with them. It would clear the majority of pax and relieve the immediate issues about being kept on the plane.

There will be 'Come from away' scenarios again and planning now is essential. A little lateral thinking will have a much better outcome for all.

 

[Hvr]

Here's an early television treatment of being stuck on a plane.

 

[Quickstatus]

Borderforce/immigration or JQ?

All stakeholders. The airport, federal government immigration, customs, quarantine. The airlines.

Come up with an agreed plan to deplane passengers to a secure holding location. May be very basic depending on the airfield. But at least have a plan. Don't make it up as you go.

And if the aircraft lands at TYB, their plan is this:

 

[justinbrett]

And if only used once every few years then you can see why it wouldn't be done.

I don't understand why people keep saying it's too hard when the US requires it - if a market that size (with that many airports) can do it, I'm sure ours with our 20 airports or so can too.

People getting hung up about the immigration side - that's not the point. In the end the pax were let inside without crossing the border, so clearly it can be done.

 

[RooFlyer]

And if only used once every few years then you can see why it wouldn't be done.

Not convinced, sorry. There are many plans laid that are hoped never to be implemented, from personal ones (bushfire plan) to state multi-agency ones (terrorist attack). Yes, we are talking about airlines who don't like to spend money and not about catastrophic outcomes, but - horses for courses. I said up-thread to put a few bucks on YQ - it would be cents in reality to fund a retainer for a local firm to have various phone numbers at hand to co-ordinate an appropriate response to an emergency landing on their turf. Or do it from head office - just have a plan.

I'm also talking in general, not about immigration scenarios, which as mentioned was solved - eventually - at ASP.

 

[Pushka]

Not convinced, sorry. There are many plans laid that are hoped never to be implemented, from personal ones (bushfire plan) to state multi-agency ones (terrorist attack). Yes, we are talking about airlines who don't like to spend money and not about catastrophic outcomes, but - horses for courses. I said up-thread to put a few bucks on YQ - it would be cents in reality to fund a retainer for a local firm to have various phone numbers at hand to co-ordinate an appropriate response to an emergency landing on their turf. Or do it from head office - just have a plan.

I'm also talking in general, not about immigration scenarios, which as mentioned was solved - eventually - at ASP.

How many billions did the world spend on the Millenium bug?

 

[Lynda2475]

the US requires it - if a market that size (with that many airports) can do it, I'm sure ours with our 20 airports or so can too

Not saying it cant be done, but the only times ive been held on a plane for hours on end was in the USA:

1. UA flight to SYD diverted to HNL due to strong head winds requiring a mid pacific refuel. Was just after midnight and we had to stay on board whilst refuel and rewatered for close to 5 hours, because supposedly no staff to clear us and some passengers only had single entry visas

2. AA JFK-LAX plane stuck at gate for 5 hours, due to weather delays just before scheduled departure then a fault , again no one allowed back into terminal. Ran out of drinks before we finally took off.

 

[drron]

I don't understand why people keep saying it's too hard when the US requires it - if a market that size (with that many airports) can do it, I'm sure ours with our 20 airports or so can too.

People getting hung up about the immigration side - that's not the point. In the end the pax were let inside without crossing the border, so clearly it can be done.

Population density is the main problem. not than many within 10 Km of ASP.

 

[justinbrett]

Population density is the main problem. not than many within 10 Km of ASP.

Not the issue. The issue is the absence of a plan. Same thing happened in NTL with QF.

And as we've seen, it can be done. Population density of the local town/city is irrelevant to getting people off an aircraft.

 

[RooFlyer]

1. UA flight to SYD diverted to HNL due to strong head winds requiring a mid pacific refuel. Was just after midnight and we had to stay on board whilst refuel and rewatered for close to 5 hours, because supposedly no staff to clear us and some passengers only had single entry visas

Maybe they needed a plan.

Sounds like things have gone backwards in 40 years . My first O/S trip was mid '70s across to Canada via LAX and a scheduled refuelling stop in HNL. We all disembarked in the middle of the night into a large hot terminal room with armed guys at the doors (the first time I had seen a gun!!) and most of the pax doing 'circuits' of the room for an hour or so. Then herded back on board.

 

[Quickstatus]

scheduled refuelling stop in HNL. We all disembarked in the middle of the night into a large hot terminal room with armed guys at the door

I remember doing a few of those AC 767 flights. It was the opposite feeling to JQ30 - "Why can't I just stay onboard"

 

[jrfsp]

Slightly grim thinking about 7 hours on the tarmac (after an 7 hours flights) but am I right in thinking the vacuum toilets wouldn’t work on the ground?

 

[justinbrett]

1. UA flight to SYD diverted to HNL due to strong head winds requiring a mid pacific refuel. Was just after midnight and we had to stay on board whilst refuel and rewatered for close to 5 hours, because supposedly no staff to clear us and some passengers only had single entry visas

I'm not an expert in US border regulations, but I would have thought the lack of outbound passport control leaving (JFK?) would mean your flight could be treated as a domestic flight to HNL, and then transmit the departure data from HNL.

It also doesn't take 5 hours to refuel a jet. I'm thinking the airline told you some partial truths mixed in with a whole lot of spin.

Strange, I thought UA was known for forcibly removing people from aircraft, not keeping them on

 

[milehighclub]

It also doesn't take 5 hours to refuel a jet

But it can take a while for a fuel truck. I diverted once as did a bunch of other airlines to a non normal port. Fuel was done on first in best dressed and we took 3 hours to wait for it.

 

[Lynda2475]

The flight was from LAX, pre esta days when they did take the paper slip out of your passport at check-in in LA. The 5 hours was because they had to wait for someone to show up to refuel, and then someone else to provide water, and also hoping for wind to die down a bit. There clearly wasnt a plan that involved passenger comfort. 20 hours from boarding to disembarking, we survived.

The one at the gate in JFK was worse, zero reason we couldnt have gone back into the terminal as hadnt even pushed back from the gate. The mechanical fault was related to air vents.

So if US had plans they didnt follow either time i was stuck waiting it out in Y.

 

[justinbrett]

The flight was from LAX, pre esta days when they did take the paper slip out of your passport at check-in in LA. The 5 hours was because they had to wait for someone to show up to refuel, and then someone else to provide water, and also hoping for wind to die down a bit. There clearly wasnt a plan that involved passenger comfort. 20 hours from boarding to disembarking, we survived.

The one at the gate in JFK was worse, zero reason we couldnt have gone back into the terminal as hadnt even pushed back from the gate. The mechanical fault was related to air vents.

So if US had plans they didnt follow either time i was stuck waiting it out in Y.

The rule was only made in 2011 - probably as a result of too many incidents like yours

 

[drron]

Not the issue. The issue is the absence of a plan. Same thing happened in NTL with QF.

And as we've seen, it can be done. Population density of the local town/city is irrelevant to getting people off an aircraft.

Although are you certain there is no plan?
ASP is certified for 777,747 and 380 planes to land. I would have thought that to be certified for those planes to divert and land at ASP there would be some sort of plan.

The problem is Australian airlines don't have a tarmac delay plan for Australian airports. Both QF and JQ have a plan on their websites but it specifically says it applies to US airports.

Also in the US if a foreign carrier diverts to a US airport when the original flight plan did not include a US stop it is not covered by the Tarmac delay regulation.