ZB 533 01/09/06 ex PMI

[cessna l plate]

Firstly, if you were part of the operating crew of this flight, then await the call from your bosses, my letter is in the post!!

I have never witnessed such a shambles of an in flight service before. Nothing appeared to be in either galley, thus the CC spent much of the flight ferrying stuff from one galley to another. The supplies were woeful, please don't tell me that you can sell out of sandwiches inside 15 rows!

But, I would most like to know why it took the senior crew member, someone who should really know and deliver better, 50 minutes to carry out a drinks service to a mere 9 rows.

Furthermore, I personally don't appreciate the "heavy" sales pitch for "hello magazine". That was obviously a crew member sat at the back with a copy on his lap trying to make it sound interesting, by reading the front cover, in order to shift a few. I personally couldn't give a toss who got married last week. And neither should you! It sounds un-proffesional in the extreme. Perhaps if a little less time had been spent in the "staff shop" at PMI, and a little more on board the aircraft, then this might not have happened.

That is the whinge over, now we move onto the rant......

I fully appreciate that cabin service is an "added extra", and that the primary function of the CC is that of flight safety. Please then explain to me why from where I was sat, I could see at least 6 pax who thought that the daily telegraph was more interesting that a video on how to get out of a burning aircraft. If they want to die in ignorance, that is their choice, however, there is a duty on the commander of an aircraft (I assume delegated to CC) to ensure that all passengers are aware of emergency procedures, how to use life vests, operate seat belts and doors. (If anyone wants to be pedantic I will happliy quote the appropriate section of the ANO) Yet the crew, who have this done for them by a video walked past several of these numpties without a word!!

This is shocking, the worst service I have ever experienced, and from what appears to be a somewhat inept crew that cannot even perform a very basic primary function.

My letter to Monarch is in the post!!!!!

[SXB]

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience. I would normally give any airline at least 2, possibly 3, goes before I dumped them, everyone can have an off day.

Most of your complaints seem to be based around bad service from the CC, generally speaking most airlines are so customer focused that this part of their business is generally pretty good. You may just have been unlucky and the victim of a set of unusual circumstances, I don't have any experience with Monarch but it maybe that if you took the same flight tomorrow the service would be a lot better.

As for the safety demonstration I hear what you're saying but I've lost count of the number of times I've heard 'even if you're a frequent traveller please take a moment to study the safety card in the seat in front of you' from the PA announcer. I'm not really sure what else they can do. Personally I always watch the safety demonstration even if I'm familiar with the aircraft, I think it's basic good manners, if I was at work and giving a briefing to a group of people I would not be happy if I saw some of them reading the Daily Telegraph. I even watch the automated safety messages, I like watching the guy bump into the sign and then putting on his glasses:)

[sofa]

I take it you expressed your dissatisfaction with the inflight service to the senior crew member on board ?

[Final 3 Greens]

Personally I always watch the safety demonstration even if I'm familiar with the aircraft, I think it's basic good manners,

Agreed; it's irritating when others don't, but difficult for the crew to intervene, unless the pax start talking over the audio, when I've seen the crew ask the offenders to be quiet.

[pamann]

there is a duty on the commander of an aircraft (I assume delegated to CC) to ensure that all passengers are aware of emergency procedures, how to use life vests, operate seat belts and doors. (If anyone wants to be pedantic I will happliy quote the appropriate section of the ANO) Yet the crew, who have this done for them by a video walked past several of these numpties without a word!!
In all fairness here in the UK regulations require that a safety briefing be given, be that by manual means or by video. There's no requirement which stipulates that YOU (pax) have to watch it. Yes agreed you won't find the safety info in the telegraph but CC can not stop anyone reading it whilst the safety briefing takes place, it's just common courtesy and for your own good. Otherwise I'd need a stick to prod all those passengers asleep at 0500 in the morning as I point out the nearest exit. Running round like a prison warden at the beginning of the flight is generally not such good practise.
Furthermore, I personally don't appreciate the "heavy" sales pitch for "hello magazine".
ZB = Monarch Scheduled = Low cost - get used to it I'm afraid. If you want a quiet flight fly BA, if you don't speak a word of Spanish fly Iberia that way you won't understand a word they say, thus you won't wind yourself up over it.
I personally couldn't give a toss who got married last week. And neither should you! It sounds un-proffesional in the extreme. Perhaps if a little less time had been spent in the "staff shop" at PMI, and a little more on board the aircraft, then this might not have happened.
Now call me stupid, but what does the crew shop have to do with the sale of Hello magazines on board a flight??? Or if I'm being really silly what does someone's wedding, Hello magazine and the Palma crew shop have to do with any of your rants??? On that subject does Palma still have a crew shop???
I have never witnessed such a shambles of an in flight service before. Nothing appeared to be in either galley, thus the CC spent much of the flight ferrying stuff from one galley to another. The supplies were woeful, please don't tell me that you can sell out of sandwiches inside 15 rows!

- Oh yes the crew cater the aircraft too these days!!! :ugh: Have you ever seen that truck attached to the back of an aircraft??? Well it's a catering truck and generally the guys on that catering truck cater the aircraft! Oh but of course that’s the crew's fault that the caterer's catered the aircraft badly, same as it's the crews fault that the passenger in 14E lost their passport, and that Mrs Jenkins in 4A forgot to cancel her milk order for the week.

Now just a hypothetical situation:

- Day 1 - 50 Sandwiches on board, passengers not very hungry, 14 sold = waste (think 3rd world countries now!)
- Day 2 - 100 Sandwiches on board, passengers starving (sorry meant very hungry, starving is what children are in parts of Africa) all sold had complaints. Well hang on while my batch rises in the rear galley, oh and Deirdre get buttering those sarnies, our fault again!
50 minutes to carry out a drinks service to a mere 9 rows.
Ok, now sometimes it takes ten minutes sometimes an hour. Unfortunately my batteries in my crystal ball died whilst trying to work out how many sandwiches we may need on a flight. You've obviously done a drinks service have you????

Now just for the record Pam does not work for Monarch just understands the issue's that arise during the "Sandwich Famine".

Just trying to point out that not everything is the cabin crews fault. Including when the check-in lady tells you 11C is a window when it's quite obviously an aisle.

If you really hate flying so much Wally Ollie do some fab excursions round the UK by coach:O

[cessna l plate]

If you really hate flying so much Wally Ollie do some fab excursions round the UK by coach:O

What the hell sort of pilot would I be if I hated flying?????

I appreciate that catering is external, however, if CC had paid more attention to what was happening at turnround then this might not have happened. I understand that sometines things get put in the wrong place, but everything was in the wrong place, the whole lot.

I find that on the odd occasion I go to Liverpool to fly ezy, the CC at ezy are very particular with the safety breifing, and will become very objectionable with those that don't pay attention. My point here is that although you think you cannot force pax to watch a safety demo, as your first priority is flight safety, then you should make a point of enforcing it. The person reading the paper, will not know where the exit is in a crash and will then either panic and cause problems or become so dumb as to become a bigger problem altogether. Either way, I don't mind dying of my own ignorance, but I refuse to die of someone else's arrogance!!!!

And no, I didn't report my dissatisfaction to the senior crew member, she was the cause of it!!!

[10secondsurvey]

Now just a hypothetical situation:
- Day 1 - 50 Sandwiches on board, passengers not very hungry, 14 sold = waste (think 3rd world countries now!)
- Day 2 - 100 Sandwiches on board, passengers starving (sorry meant very hungry, starving is what children are in parts of Africa) all sold had complaints.

It makes me quite nauseous when any airline tries to imply a reduction in catering is due to concern about waste and how it compares to third world famine.

It's about money, and just how much (or how little) the airline concerned thinks it can get away with.

[surely not]

The caterers provid the sarnies etc, but the cabin crew are supposed to check the right carts are in the right galley with the right things inside.......aren't they?

[lexxity]

if CC had paid more attention to what was happening at turnround then this might not have happened.

Wrong, the crew were probably getting a quick bite to eat during turnaround. They are entitled to a break you know. And if the caterers had been doing their job properly.

[SXB]

That doesn't really wash, certain tasks need to be performed and checked at each turnaround. If the crew need a break all these tasks still need to be performed, if they were late arriving they still need performing and if that makes the flight late then so be it. That said I doubt if the problems on this particular flight were caused becaue the CC were having a break.

[topdog1]

I think there is more important things in life to worry about! :ugh:

Just get yourself a life!

You obviously think you know it all because you fly puddle jumpers!!

[10secondsurvey]

Teamilk&sugar,

Cessna has already explained why he did not talk to the senior cc, as she was the cause of the problems. Didn't you read the thread?

As SXB rightly points out, this forum is entitled 'passengers and self loading freight', and so people will post of their experiences good and bad. It is not for you to determine what a poster can and cannot discuss.

If I pay for service, whether on an airline or not, I would normally expect to get it. Cessna Plate is just highlighting what he sees as a failure in service delivery.

Whether someone has a tough job or not is kind of irrelevant (although such people do have my sympathy).

[topdog1]

If it was the person in charge's fault then he should have given her the chance to rectify his problem, he may have been pleasantly surprised!

[SXB]

Top Dog

The only way to have done that would have been to ask to see the Captain once the flight had landed. Of course any chance of correcting the original problem would have been too late on this occasion.

Personally I would have gone up to the galley and asked the senior cabin crew member if there was any particular reason as to why the service on this particular flight was so bad.

[Bangkokeasy]

Ah, a dissatisfied customer! I always laugh when I see comments from such as TMS and Sofa (I've long since stopped cringeing!). However, you hear them most from spokespeople for companies that persist in providing inferior service. It is pretty much customer service 101, that complaints you actually receive from customers are the tip of the iceberg and that if one complains, there will be four or five that remain silent, but will instead slag you off behind your back, or just not use you again. You therefore, welcome the complaints you receive and use them as an opportunity to do something about it. Of course there is a chance, if CIP deigned to raise the matter with the senior cc, the problem could be fixed. BUT, the onus should NEVER be on the customer to complain.

CIP's rant is also pretty typical, in that it's indiscriminate in its target; everything is at fault. This happens quite a lot - if someone is ticked off at one aspect of service sufficiently to put pen to paper, the chances are they will take the opportunity to get everything off their chest. If you are to deal with the complaint in a constructive way and get something out of it, you need to condense it into the salient points and deal with them objectively. You may never know what orginally sparked the rant. While it may be necessary to address all the customer's complaints, some can be explained, rather than action taken. I doubt if Monarch would actually do anything about the Hello thing, they are operating in a low cost environment, but they might like to address the slow cabin service and lack of refreshments, for instance.

It is interesting to see some of the reactions in this thread!

[topdog1]

SXB

I think you will find that the Capt has absolutely nothing to do with the inflight service.

Cessna

If people feel the need to complain about the service they should stand up and speak to the manager, you cannot just walk away and then write a letter to the company, you need to give that company the opportunity to put things right, then if nothing has been corrected or you still feel unhappy then write to the company.

[cessna l plate]

TMS
Where does "racist" come from. I wasn't aware that being a scouser was now a "race", perhaps some elements of PC has passed me by. Just for the record, I spent several happy years learning at Liverpool, and have freinds there that I tell "scouser" jokes to, in the same way that they aim "Manc" jokes at me.

Although the cabin service was appauling in the extreme, that is not the main hub of my original post, my problem was about the safety breifing. The catering side of things whilst dissapointing, was not really going to endanger my life in the event of an accident.

I am not a "stab in the back merchant", there is a letter in a similar vain winging its way to Luton as we speak. No matter what operation an airline run, be it legacy, mainline or lo-co, the fact remains that I have paid for a service and expect it to be delivered. Again, for the record, there was nothing low cost about the fares that I paid, over £600 for me, the missus and daughter. I didn't complain at the time as I was tring to get off an airliner with a 5 year old bored to tears little girl, hardly the time to hold up the rest of the cabin to have a rant!!!!

I have no problem with crew taking a break. They are entitled as we all are at work. I take my breaks at work, that doesn't prevent my boss from giving me a kicking for poor performance. A break is one thing, ensuring that the crew got all their duty frees is another. I fully appreciate that the crew have a difficult job to do, and I don't assume to know it all because I drive a "puddle jumper". As I work in a related industry, that works along side crews at times, I know what the job entails.

To be fair, had I paid £20 each way I probably wouldn't have an issue, I would accept that I get what I paid for, but when I could have taken the family to New York for only a couple of hundred quid more, then I expect £600 worth of service. You might note that I am not complaining about the flight down to PMI, the service was outstanding, with a professional crew, that required those listening to I-pods and reading to pack it in for a few moments, which they did.

As for TMS your first post was original and witty. Sadly the original bits weren't witty and the witty bits weren't original. Is there any begining to your talents??????

[TightSlot]

The first post in this thread contains the subject matter: If you are not posting something related to that subject, then you are wandering off topic. Shouting at somebody with whom you disagree contributes nothing to the debate, except to raise the temperature, and for this reason, some posts have been deleted.



Now, back to the original post... and posting as a private individual, not as a mod.
Nothing appeared to be in either galley, thus the CC spent much of the flight ferrying stuff from one galley to another. The supplies were woeful, please don't tell me that you can sell out of sandwiches inside 15 rows!
Yes, you can sell out of sandwiches in 15 rows: You can do it in 10 or even 5, if everybody asks for them. An airline does not carry sandwiches on a 1 per passenger basis, in the hope that all will purchase. Doing so would incur significant cost and wastage. The stock of sandwiches carried is usually based on historic purchase data. This means, inevitably, that on some days there will be insufficient and on others, too many. There is no obligation (moral or otherwise) for an airline to carry sandwiches to cater for all possible or theoretical demand. The ultimate responsibiliy for food lies with the customer: They can bring their own food with them, eat in advance of travel, purchase an in-flight meal from the airline, or, take the chance that they can purchase on board.

Galley loading of stock is based around the premise that stock should be evenly loaded front and rear, complicated by weight and volume restrictions within each galley/cart. If demand for particular products on a given day is high, then a certain amout of running between the carts and galleys is inevitable, and becomes more pronounced if the demand tends to rise, as it does when people see you holding a particular product in your hand.
I would most like to know why it took the senior crew member, someone who should really know and deliver better, 50 minutes to carry out a drinks service to a mere 9 rows
Surely, it took that long because that is how long it took. I assume the CC concerned was actually working on the bar service during this time and not doing something else? If 50 minutes is too long, it is unclear what period of time should have been taken to make it acceptable - 20 minutes? 30? 40? Should the bar service have been started 1 row away from you, or more, or less? Monarch will need to understand what you feel is an acceptable answer to these problems in order that they can review their cabin service and make necessary changes.
Perhaps if a little less time had been spent in the "staff shop" at PMI
May we assume from this comment that you observed first hand the CC involved visiting the staff shop, and also the subsequent related impact on their turnaround duties? I imagine this must be the case, since it would be unwise to write to Monarch and make a claim based on assumptions: To do so might detract from the strength of your position.
there is a duty on the commander of an aircraft (I assume delegated to CC) to ensure that all passengers are aware of emergency procedures
The actual words in the ANO are that passengers "are made familiar with...": The ANO may be found here (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm#53). Lamentable though it may be, some passengers choose to behave as you describe. There is no specific instruction in the UK for CC to approach passengers so doing and require them to close their newspaper, unless it is obstructing the view of others. It is impossible to prove in law, that a customer is not watching the demo, even though they may appear not to be. As a scenario - I approach a passenger and ask for them to stop reading their newspaper and they refuse: I insist: they refuse again. I inform the Commander and we return to our parking stand for an offload and a baggage i.d. with a consequent delay. Alternatively, when asked, the passenger tells me that he can see the video briefing over the top of the newspaper. I demur and off we go again. The fact is, surely, that as in all areas, a degree of compromise is required? The only certain way of ensuring that all passengers were "familiar" with the equipment and procedures, would be to question them individually after each safety briefing, and only allow carriage to those that answered correctly. This doesn't happen because it is a commercially unrealistic proposition. Instead, airlines provide the information, and assertively ask passengers to take note of it, policing it as best they can without rendering operations ineffective.


The original post made use of phrases such as "shambles", "woeful", "shocking", and "inept" and in a later post "appalling". Clearly, perception is all, and I wasn't there, and therefore cannot judge or defend the crew: They may have been as atrocious as they have been portrayed and when you pay £200 for a round trip fare to somewhere in peak season, you are entitled to be treated reasonably. Despite attempts to ignore it however, I keep hearing a nagging voice that tells me that this is something of a storm in a teacup? Based on what I have read, I would not have chosen to use any of the words shown above, since they are (for me at least) somewhat overly emotional and subjective - but maybe that's just me?

[boyo25]

Interesting...
Monarch's SOPs regarding safety briefings may differ from the (Big) airline I work for, but ours are very clearly laid out in black and white -
'Whilst the airline is required to provide the demonstration (by means of video or manually) passengers may choose whether or not to watch'.
I'm not saying that I agree with this or not. It does, however, mean that crew cannot insist that a passenger put down his/her paper and watch the demo, like the example you used of Easyjet crew. Besides, this would be absurd - how could a few members of crew police a whole cabin to enforce this, whilst simultaneously performing the demo or pointing out exits?
So if a passenger is blocking his/her own view of the demo - fine. What is not acceptable is when that passenger is blocking the view of others (same goes for noise disturbance). In these situations the crew can take action.
In addition, the Captain will usually stress the importance of the safety briefing, and the watching of it, during the welcome PA before departure.
If Monarch has the same SOPs regarding this I'm not sure that part of your complaint will stand ground.

[teamilk&sugar]

To be fair, had I paid £20 each way I probably wouldn't have an issue, I would accept that I get what I paid for, but when I could have taken the family to New York for only a couple of hundred quid more, then I expect £600 worth of service.

Ahhh...so Cessna plate...we have actually found the crux of your complaint! You say you were concerned about the level of professioanlism with the crew regarding safety, but somehow feel short-changed because you paid what you did.

As for running out of food....well, this sometimes happens believe it or not. Shame they run out before they got to you, but hey.

Topdog1s comment:
If people feel the need to complain about the service they should stand up and speak to the manager, you cannot just walk away and then write a letter to the company, you need to give that company the opportunity to put things right, then if nothing has been corrected or you still feel unhappy then write to the company.

...is absolutely spot on, and the reason why I'm posting on this thread.
I still fail to understand why during the course of the whole flight you couldn't have spoken to the CSD/Purser and explain your feelings, but feel you have to do it here instead....?

[Bealzebub]

Cessna,

I am sorry you had such a bad flight and found the points you raised frustrating as I am sure they were to you and your family. Although I was not there on this flight I can assure you that as far as the crew are concerned, it is nobodies idea of a good flight when the customers are seriously unhappy, particularly if it concerns something that might be within their control.

As you make no mention of it, I am assuming the contracted service of transportation was provided and reasonably on time ?

To deal with the points you do raise : The galleys would normally have been stocked in accordance with the standard dispatch for that particular flights service. As you will appreciate the sale of consumables on board is a profit centre, and it is very much in a companies interest to be able to properly satisfy the level of demand. On short haul aircraft there are normally two galleys, one at the front and one at the rear of the aircraft. It is often the case that the volumetric capacity of these galley stowages is biased towards the rear. In other words the back one is bigger and stores more. For this reason it is often necessary to seek certain items from the back. Although it might have appeared that nothing seemed to be in either galley, the fact that there clearly was a service seems to negate that as a reality.

Sales service normally commences from two points on the aircraft, if you like the front and the back. Often it is the case that the aircraft is divided into halves and the service will commence from the front of the 2 halves (if you see what I mean) and progressively work aft. This means that by the time the front cart has worked its way back 15 rows the aft cart has done the same, and 30 rows have been serviced by that time. On occaisions and perhaps inevitably some high demand items will have been exhausted by this point, as seems to have been the case on your flight. Tightslot and others have already stated that the amount of product loaded is based on a historic and projected figure that may or may not be adequate on the day. On poor sales flights, the perishables ( sandwiches etc) are discarded at the end of the flight obviously at a loss. Demand is normally met on a first come first served basis, and as the service progresses there will inevitably be more call to seek products from whichever galley or cart still has it, and this seems to have been very evident on your flight, frustrated by the fact that by the time you were served some of it had run out.

You ask why the drinks service took 50 minutes to travel 9 rows ? Although this would seem a long time, on a narrowbody airliner 9 rows is in the order of 54 seats and if all of those passengers required service from one cart that would amount to around 56 seconds per passenger for two cabin crew members to, deal with the questions, take the order, pour the drink, serve the food, take the money, sort the change, obtain any necessary additional supplies and move on. I know it can seem a long time when you are waiting, but it doesn't when at the point of sale. 50 minutes can fly by.

On the subject of sales pitches, I have some sympathy with you. It can be very irritating to be bombarded with PA's for all sorts of periphery that may be of no interest to you personally. From a companies perspective there is a requirement to use that facility to advertise and promote. The crew have little discretion in the matter. Certainly what the crew did on the ground would have no bearing whatsoever on this issue.

On the subject of staff shops, I am not sure what they have in Palma these days. There used to a van that visited the aircraft selling wine and beers and garlic and the like. few people seem to avail themselves of it these days as there is often precious little price advantage in making these purchases. Duty free is not an option because this was abolished between EEC member states a few years ago. In any event if a couple of crew wish to avail themselves of this facility during a turnaround, it would only be with the Captains permission on the understanding that all other functions had been completed and the complete turnaround would not in anyway be time compromised.

Dealing with what you call your rant :

I believe you raise a valid point about passengers not paying enough attention to the safety briefing. As aircrew I always give the crew my full attention, even though I am very au fait with the emergency procedures, and am regularly tested on them and indeed rely on them. This is because it is important on 3 counts. (1) Refreshing even the obvious reduces the opportunity for omission and error should a sudden event occur. (2) It sets a good example to others around (3) It is simple good manners. However as we all know and regularly observe not everybody feels the same way. On scheduled flights in particular, frequent travellers are often satisfied in their own minds that they do know what to do, and are much too bored to be able to give any impression to the contrary. We are required to provide a safety briefing, but you cannot know or insist that it is understood. The only case where you may have a valid complaint is if the video screens ( if applicable) are being obstructed by said passengers paper. We do stress the importance of the crews pre-flight briefing in the flightdeck introductory welcome and again at the start of the safety announcement itself.

Just from what you have said, I have to take issue with the idea that the crew where in any way "inept". Nor do I agree from what you have said that they "couldn't perform a basic function". It sounds as though they had a busy flight with high demand. It sounds as though they briefed properly even though some passengers chose not to put down their papers as one might expect or hope.

I am sorry this service did not meet with your expectations, and in many regards I can see why. The lack of available products on board and the time you waited in order to be dissapointed by the fact, would be frustrating to most people. It is certainly worth a complaint in this regard, and perhaps the level of stock, number of carts and crew will be increased in the future ? These days of low lost flying have set up a new dynamic that is still subject to the basic economic rules of profit and loss. It is not in any companies interest for its customers or potential customers to be dissastified or driven away by an inability to deliver what may be promised, and the best way of making this point is to write to them and let them know.

I travel on other airlines a lot and see much of the same problems you have described, albeit perhaps with a marginally better understanding of the realities. Like you that understanding still doesn't always mask the annoyance I feel as a result.

One final point on the cabin service. There are normally commission incentives to achieve high sales on individual flights. It is therefore very much in the crews interest to maximize sales on board, and that can best be achieved by ensuring as much demand as possible is satisfied in the time available and the constraints of product level. I know that crewmembers often raise, via their flight reports, complaints about the stock levels on particular routes and services. Adjustments are often made but it is still an inexact science.

Finally I am sorry that this flight was dissapointing for any of the reasons you have given, but I do feel the crew did nothing that was obviously wrong. On reflection I suspect you might agree that it is a case of citing everything and anything because of the dissatifaction ?

If I can address any other specific point go ahead and ask. Truth is we as crew ( front or back) only want happy customers, and although we are to a large extent constrained by the product the management give us to sell to the customer, we do take a pride in what we do, and we do feedback complaints and information to that management.

[Slugg]

Tightslot, an excellent post explaining many of the facets of airline operation, both accurately and succinctly. As you say, you were not there at the time. I do know someone who was, however, and the following information may shed more light on the flight and close the thread. The aircraft was on time at PMI, but was allocated a takeoff slot only 50 mins later. This reduced the effective turnround time, as the minimum time between push and takeoff at PMI is 10 mins. Monarch endeavour to meet the published departure times. To that end when the cleaners did not turn up at the aircraft, and were unlikely to do so until 10 mins to pushback, the cabin crew did the cleaning. This prevented the oncoming passengers having to sit in the litter, detritus, and general mess that the public seem unable to avoid generating on aircraft. The cabin crew did not get a break other than one member who managed a couple of bites before the passengers arrived. The ‘staff shop’ was not used as there was no access from the stand to the terminal. Cessna Student will recall very well the welcome address by the captain, I certainly do, which specifically asked people to pay attention to the safety brief. Overselling of products on aircraft occurs on all flights, irritating though it might be to all of us it is a fact of the industry. The aircraft pushed on time, and landed 8 mins late due to strong headwinds (probably Monarchs’ fault). There was a slight delay positioning the airbridge, and unusually the captain was available in the cabin during disembarkation; no one presented themselves to comment on the service.

[SXB]

Interesting and informative posts by Tightslot, Beezelbub and Slug....

[SISOSIG]

Agree - Tightslot, Bealzebub and Slugg have put some very objective and informative comments.

Cessna - let it go - save yourself the ink, the postage and, more importantly, the heartbeats - Life is too short to get worked about these things.

[cessna l plate]

Fair comments from everyone (nearly). I accept that the effects of filty commerce play a huge part. I now stand corrected as to crew leaving the aircraft for shopping purposes.

As I previously said, had I paid £20 per ticket this thread would probably never have been started, but I paid in the region of £600, this is not a lo-co price, and to be fair, for that amount of money I expect a decent level of service, although I can now see some of the reasons as to why this didn't happen, and working within the field of the industry, and not being a total numpty, I accept that on this occasion, maybe I have been a little over the top in what I said, although I still stand by the original point that the in-flight service was lousy, even if there are mitigating circumstances.

As for safety, I have read what has been written along the "lead a horse to water" line, and indeed would fully accept that crew being carried as pax always pay attention to safety briefings. I am aware that the captain made the usual pre departure announcement about safety. Sad thing is, in this day and age of locked cockpit doors the cockpit announcments are generally quiet to the point of inaudible in some cases. What I find different is that today I went to GLA and back on BAC, and the announcments were clear. What was said by the captain was not "please pay attention", but "it is a legal requirement that you pay attention" On both sectors today, everyone, and sat at the back I could see everyone, paid attention, fully!

In my experience, a plane load of arrogant business types is more likely to read the paper at safety time, than a bucket and spade plane load. But no, everyone paid attention, all because we weren't asked, we were told to, nicely, but were told to pay attention.

This is a problem that I undestand appears all over the world, and not just on the one flight I took. As operating crew, what are you opinions on being more forceful at briefing time?

One final thing. There was a huge sales pitch after landing for new routes, that took the entire post landing taxi to complete. My point is it was scripted by the company, and delivered in a professional manner, the sales pitch for hello wasn't. It doesn't servce anyone in the indusrty to be unprofessional in any way.

[Bangkokeasy]

One point that comes back again in this thread is the lack of attention by some passengers to the safety announcements. I have to admit I am sometimes guilty of this. I try to be polite and sit up and listen, but sometimes, I am just too tired or fed up. I usually glance round to make sure I know where my nearest exit is, but that's it. Some may say I am taking a risk, but the only thing I am doing is being a tad impolite. As an example, in the US, they usually say even FF should pay attention as individual aircraft vary in subtle ways. However, a year or so back I decided to play anorak and noted the names of the aircraft I was flying in. Within a year, I had flown in over half of TG's entire fleet and had indeed, flown in the same individual aircraft on many occasions. I, and millions of other FFs are completely familiar with the way to open and close a seatbelt, or that the plane is a no smoking flight and smoking is prohibited, even in the toilets, etc, etc, etc. It is therefore, nonsense to suggest that I am somehow taking a personal risk by not giving the PA my undivided attention. I can only think that possibly, my inattention might somehow influence some rookie SLF to do the same. In which case, some way needs to be found to get FFs to pay lip service to this. The only way people like me are going to put down our newspapers, is either for there to be something new in it, or for CC to appeal to our sense of politeness.

[22/04]

Bangkok easy really don't agree. It's like those of us ( me amateur) who fly not doing checklists because we know item X is not fitted. But we stll check and say not fitted each and every time. We still look round because today it might be different. May be you're seated next to a senior citizen who you might like to help in the event of an emergency.


As a pax you are in aviation even though you might like to pretend it's your living room or your office! It's not!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Bangkokeasy

As FQTVs we should realise that we have a supportive role (to the crew) to play in paying attention and demonstrating the behaviour that all should adopt in taking on board the briefing.

In an incident, we want everyone to know what to do.

[Getoutofmygalley]

One point that comes back again in this thread is the lack of attention by some passengers to the safety announcements. I have to admit I am sometimes guilty of this. I try to be polite and sit up and listen, but sometimes, I am just too tired or fed up. I usually glance round to make sure I know where my nearest exit is, but that's it. Some may say I am taking a risk, but the only thing I am doing is being a tad impolite. As an example, in the US, they usually say even FF should pay attention as individual aircraft vary in subtle ways. However, a year or so back I decided to play anorak and noted the names of the aircraft I was flying in. Within a year, I had flown in over half of TG's entire fleet and had indeed, flown in the same individual aircraft on many occasions. I, and millions of other FFs are completely familiar with the way to open and close a seatbelt, or that the plane is a no smoking flight and smoking is prohibited, even in the toilets, etc, etc, etc. It is therefore, nonsense to suggest that I am somehow taking a personal risk by not giving the PA my undivided attention. I can only think that possibly, my inattention might somehow influence some rookie SLF to do the same. In which case, some way needs to be found to get FFs to pay lip service to this. The only way people like me are going to put down our newspapers, is either for there to be something new in it, or for CC to appeal to our sense of politeness.

Actually it isn't nonsense to say you are taking a personal risk. What if the 'nearest exit' to you is unservicable? It is perfectly legal for an aircraft to fly with one exit unserviceable, and whilst you have glanced around the cabin and spotted what you thought was an exit, you might have missed it wasn't in use. The cabin crew would in the safety brief make ALL pax aware that the exit in xxx location is unserviceable and is not to be used under any circumstances. :)

[SXB]

Getoutofmygalley

Under what circumstances is it legal for an aircraft to fly with an emergency exit out of service ? Whilst it might appear reasonable for a 747 to fly with one out of use exit out of use when it's not full I wouldn't be happy about one exit being out of use on a CRJ-200.

In these circumstances who decides if the flight can operate ? Are there established parameters for this or is it decided, on the day, by an outside party ?
Thanks
SXB

[Getoutofmygalley]

Getoutofmygalley

Under what circumstances is it legal for an aircraft to fly with an emergency exit out of service ? Whilst it might appear reasonable for a 747 to fly with one out of use exit out of use when it's not full I wouldn't be happy about one exit being out of use on a CRJ-200.

In these circumstances who decides if the flight can operate ? Are there established parameters for this or is it decided, on the day, by an outside party ?
Thanks
SXB

It's all dependant on what the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) specifies for that aircraft. There would be certain restrictions imposed on the aircraft i.e. it can only operate a certain number of sectors with the door U/S and it would not be able to leave a base where repairs can be made.

Also, there would be restrictions on the amount of pax that the aircraft would be allowed to carry on the flights when the door is U/S as well as restrictions on where the pax can be seated within the cabin.

And a CRJ-200 might be covered by the same rules as I have just mentioned, but it certainly would not be allowed to be despatched full!!

[Bangkokeasy]

If something was wrong, such as a faulty emergency exit, I can guarantee CC making such an announcement would have the undivided attention of FFs! As I said, this comes under the heading of "something new". And, yes I do check the condition of my chosen emergency exit in my glance. It didn't take more than that to notice, a while back, a Lion Air (Indonesian domestic loco) overwing emergency exit sealed with duct tape. I guess it would have taken more than the usual "being able to lift 15kg" to dislodge that!

Some of the posters assume that because a FF doesn't pay attention, they don't know. The point I made was that we don't pay so much attention because we know it off by heart.

Instead of forcing bored FFs to sit through the same inane announcements, why don't we get creative and serious about making the cabin a safer place? May I suggest:

- If there REALLY is something different about that aircraft, such as carrying a unique design of life jacket, then say so.

- Issue FFs with "proficiency" cards, after being tested as to whether they know the safety features of that aircraft. Then enlist those card holders to help others become aware.

- Include something different in every announcement, such an anecdote to accompany one or two explanations.

[peakp]

Returned to man on this flight last Tuesday 19 Sept.
Crew safty annoucement OK and they did ask passengers to stop reading and pay attention. After release by the captain they did the bar run, followed by the meal service about 60 mins. after takeoff. After the meal service, we then had duty free sales followed by the game card and then a request for loose change for charity.

So,all in all, six cabin announcements,of these only one contained any sales pressure, (duty free). Could not fault the cabin crew,sat in row 4 extra leg room seats,which when you are tall are very welcome.

Arrived on stand on time 20:40, had no baggage,and made the 21:04 train from the airport into Manchester.

Would suggest the first thread on this post,was unlucky or just anti Monarch.

Just to finnish off,outward flight was on jet2 757 also sat in the front part of the A/c and have to say it was noisy (lack of insulation perhaps) and a touch more leg room would have helped,but you only get what you pay for.

Regards
peakp

[TG345]

I think Final 3 Greens has a very important point here. We, as the experienced ones, have our own interests at stake in showing the occasional traveller how to behave.

Believe me, I could recite to you here and now, word for word, the safety briefings of about a dozen airlines (don't worry I'm not going to). Yes, it bores me rigid, and yes, I find it a little frustrating to be told how to open a seatbelt buckle. Notwithstanding that, I never, ever, fail to put away the magazine and at least give the impression of paying attention.

Many years ago in my homeland of the UK, it was considered fairly normal to drive your car to the pub, have half a dozen pints of beer and then drive back home again. A concerted campaign by government (rightly) has led to a situation where this is no longer socially acceptable.

I would submit to fellow Ppruners that it would be to the benefit of us all if we could strive to make it similarly un-acceptable to neglect to pay attention to that which one day, and let us hope it never arrives, might save our skins.