Mesaba, Not ExpressJet, to Blame for Overnight Ordeal: DOT

by Staff on August 21, 2009

In a statement responding to the DOT finding, ExpressJet notes that it was one of the few regional airlines that voluntarily participated in the DOT’s task force on developing contingency plans during extended tarmac delays.

“Safety of flight must be the top priority for any aviation company. I commend our crew and dispatch personnel for remaining committed to this standard,” says Jim Ream, ExpressJet’s president and CEO. “However, customer service and comfort is also imperative, and I’m pleased that the DOT findings support ExpressJet’s belief that our crew made exhaustive efforts to help customers through this weather event.”


ExpressJet says CO2816 departed Houston Bush Intercontinental Airport at 9:23 p.m. Central time bound for Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. While the flight was enroute, severe weather developed in the Twin Cities region. The flight held for approximately 30 minutes trying to land at Minneapolis/St. Paul but the severe weather continued so a decision was made to divert to Rochester, Minnesota.

The flight landed safely at 12:28 a.m. Central time in Rochester, Minnesota. The sole discretion to deplane an aircraft rests with the pilot in command, notes ExpressJet, adding that the captain of the ExpressJet flight began inquiring about options for deplaning customers almost immediately after landing and these requests were repeated throughout the night.

“Unfortunately, the captain’s requests for terminal access were denied by ground handling agents,” says ExpressJet in its statement.

ExpressJet says it and Continental completed an exhaustive review of the events that transpired after landing in Rochester, Minnesota with the DOT to determine the cause of the extended tarmac delay. It says the evidence gathered during the review showed that:

● Safety of flight was the priority.  Despite enormous pressure to take off in severe weather conditions, the ExpressJet crew and dispatcher never compromised the safety of flight;

● Both airlines continuously tried to deplane customers, but were denied.  During the 5-hour-52-minute delay, more than 30 recorded phone calls were made trying to resolve the situation, but despite these continued efforts the customers and crew were denied access; and

● The ExpressJet crew remained with the aircraft.  They provided beverages, pillows, blankets and air conditioning during the entire duration of the delay.  They also kept the flight deck door open so that customers could approach with any questions while the crew diligently worked to operate the flight or deplane customers.

“We realize that, despite these efforts, the situation was unacceptable to customers on board and we are sorry that they had to endure this situation,” says Ream.

The regional airline adds: “ExpressJet believes that this event highlights an important point in extended delay programs ― it takes cooperation of airlines, airports, ground handling agents and government agencies to deplane customers in a timely manner. Everyone must know the standard and work together to follow it. ExpressJet and Continental are committed to being a part of the solution and have already taken steps to address the lessons learned during this event.”

Related to this story:

Pages: 1 2

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: