Tears as Lapland Trip cancelled

[captainspeaking]

"Children were left in tears after an air trip to see Father Christmas in Lapland was cancelled.
Hundreds of people were due to board the one-day round trip to Enontekio at Manchester Airport when airline Blueline announced it could not fly. A spokesman said the weather conditions did not meet "safe and operational" standards at the destination. "

So .... What sort of minima will FC accept on Dec 25?

[flybar]

BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Tears as Lapland trip cancelled (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7793568.stm)

Blueline cancelled MAN-ENF today as conditions at the destination did not meet 'safe & operational standards'.

Tears etc from the children expecting to see Santa who were understandably upset.

However Blueline operated LBA-ENF using Boeing 733-400 series EC-KBO and presumably didn't have the same concerns!!

Presumably MAN-ENF was to be operated by one of their MD83's?

Does little to endear people to the airline industry.

[atcomarkingtime]

What an absolute shame!!! I did the trip at the start of December from Manchester to Roveneimi with First Choice/Thompson and totally enjoyed every minute......as did my kids!!! :D

So I can understand the poor souls who missed this Blueline flight.....:eek:

[atcomarkingtime]

What an absolute shame!!! I did the trip at the start of December from Manchester to Roveneimi with First Choice/Thompson and totally enjoyed every minute......as did my kids!!! :ok:

So I can understand the poor souls who missed this Blueline flight.....:{

[Capvermell]

Enontekio is at 68 degrees North and deep inside the Arctic Circle and the thick snow and ice whilst Rovaniemi is at 66 degrees North and right on the edge of the Arctic Circle (in fact I know that the Arctic Circle runs right through Santa Claus village just to the north of Rovaniemi having been there myself in the mid summer).

But the bigger difference is that the runway length at Rovaniemi (supporting a substantial town) is 9842 feet (see Rovaniemi Airport (RVN) Details - Finland (http://www.world-airport-codes.com/finland/rovaniemi-6404.html)) while the quoted runway length at Enontekio at Enontekio Airport (ENF) Details - Finland (http://www.world-airport-codes.com/finland/enontekio-2177.html) is 2625 feet. On that basis I don't see how either of these aircraft can safely land or even more take off at Enontekio even with only passengers with hand luggage on board. Somewhere like Skiathos with a runway length of 5,200 feet cannot let a fully laden A319 make the 3 hour flight to London Gatwick without a refuelling stop at Thessaloniki and London City at 4948 feet had to be specially cleared to be allowed to accept the very small A318.

So is the runway length at Enontekio extended by a snow and ice surface in the winter or is the airport codes database simply incorrect and is it now 5,000+ feet in length after a tarmac/concrete runway extension?

I have an interest in this part of the world having driven all the way to the top of Norway at the Nordkap in 2004 in my MR2 Roadster and then back down through Finland and therefore I have some idea how truly remote and desolate somewhere like Enontekio is, especially at this time of year. God help you if there is ever a crash there is all I can say as the hospital facilities cannot be good with a local Sami population of only 2,000. On the other hand it clearly is the real lapland, much more so than Rovaniemi is.

[Capvermell]

This Pprune thread about an Enontekio trip suggests the runway is nearer to 6,000 feet as it would clearly need to be for these kinds of aircraft.

See www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/254994-20th-dec-bhx-enontekio-lapland.html (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/254994-20th-dec-bhx-enontekio-lapland.html)

[flybar]

Would suggest that the Information could be wrong.
Below taken from another source.

03/21 2001m 6565 feet Ashphalt

[Bealzebub]

2000 odd meters, it is some 6500ft long. I have been there in a 757 and I think I would have noticed if it was 2000ft.

Latitude: 68°21'45"N (68.362586)
Longitude: 23°25'28"E (23.424322)
Datum: WGS 1984
Elevation: 1005 ft (306 m)
Runways: 1
Longest: 6565 × 148 ft (2001 × 45 m)

[Capvermell]

And this Wikipedia page for Enontekio suggests 6565 feet. I suspect someone in Finland created it (may be the airport) so it is more likely to be accurate. Even though one cannot rely on a Wikipedia page not being sabotaged.

See Enontekiö Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_Enonteki%C3%B6)

Presumably it was extended to take advantage of the Santa trip opportunities as the suggested annual passenger numbers must surely be now many times higher than those given on the Wikipedia page.

Have any aircraft ever been stranded there for several days during a bad storm or whatever.

[Capvermell]

Answering my own questions further here is the definitive web article on Enontekio airport.

www.finavia.fi/files/finavia/history_pdf/enonteki.pdf

Extended to over 6,000 feet in the 1990s it apears.

Can seats on these flights ever be had cheaply at the last minute I wonder? I got a very cheap day trip to Iceland in November about 12 years ago.

Capvermell now seen heading off to tour operator websites to see if any cheapies are going to Enontekio tomorrow as he he lives only 10 miles away from Gatwick.

[Capvermell]

Too late. Santa trips already over for another year.:{

[WeekendFlyer]

Yeah, a bit disappointing for the kids, but hey, everyone will get their money back. And it's not as if Santa is real anyway...

[Capvermell]

This is not an easy part of the world to fly in to if anything starts to go wrong or conditions start to deteriorate in any way (especially this airport compared to Rovaniemi) so if they cancelled I'm sure it was with a good reason from a safety point of view. After all the airline would probably lose its money by not making the trip.

Given the passengers on board the consequences of going ahead in gung ho fashion could have been far more traumatic than the short term disappointment of not seeing Santa this time round.

[tablelover]

'does little to endear people to the airline industry'

Eh? Care to expand. Slightly confused as to your attitude. As I read it an airline had to take a decision to cancel a flight due to weather and safety, and you seem to be suggesting that was the wrong choice?! So what if they were using MD83's out of one field and 73's out of another?! A shame that kids had their xmas visit ruined but I cant agree with your sentiment that by choosing safety an airline has done anything wrong!

Many variables with individual aircraft, types, crew qualifications, defects being carried that made the decision correct.

[flybar]

Statement from Transun:

Statement: Cancellation of Lapland day break from Manchester on 20 December - Transun Holidays (http://www.transun.co.uk/press/cancellation_of_lapland_day_break_from_manchester_on_20_dece mber)

The Captain makes the decision based on the information he/she is given.

However from a media point of view this is exactly what they love.
This follows hard on the episode of passengers being taken to Paris and brought back without landing.

Clearly Transun, for which these flights are their bread & butter, have moved quickly to try and deflect the adverse publicity.

Possibly those of us who operate in the North have a different attitude to those who operate from Heathrow but I feel that more could be done to improve the current image of our industry.

Hence my comment.

[radeng]

Disappointing, yes. But it's better to be down here wishing you were up there than....

[tablelover]

What more could be done?

The flight was a one off daytrip, to a destination the company knew was enveloped with wx that made a landing unlikely. Diverting to another airfield was not an option as defeats the purpose of this flight, to visit the particular place for a short period of time then return. The logistics of this include arranging ground transport to the original destination, ensuring engineers are at the revised airfield, sufficient deicing equipment is available, the crew have adequate rest facilities then the passengers are all returned in time to meet the companies scheduled departure time, any slot they may have had, the rest of the airlines schedule, the crews duty times - all in known weather conditions that have already been considered unsuitable. Operating to such places often requires specialised training, certainly specialised handling that needs to be in place and cannot be 'winged' on the day.

Had they operated and gone elsewhere the media and passengers would be up in arms that the day and their money was wasted as the company knew they could not get in.

If making a decision based on safety doesnt endear a company to the public, well that aint the fault of the company. The way it is explained is more than adequate, nothing too technical or complicated - simple and concise the wx was crap, it would be unsafe to operate and are refunding everyone. I ask again what more could they have done?

With regards the Paris incident you refer to, I assume you mean Flybe, again safety and, following sop's and CAA/JAR regulations are what we get paid to do and are paramount. The way it is displayed in the media does not necessarily represent what actually happenned.

I will not be drawn into a petty little spat about the attitudes of those in the north and heathrow, but by making such a comment you give alot away about yourself. Suffice to say whoever is in the position of making safety related decisions must do so purely with regard safety, if it were me I would not let the industry's image in the media influence it.

[bacardi walla]

Enontekio at lunch time in a Boeing 757..............marvellous :D

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d99/andy757/f68f3bb3-1.gif

[flybar]

The flight was a one off daytrip, to a destination the company knew was enveloped with wx that made a landing unlikely


Noted. Unfortunately, for them, all other scheduled arrivals managed to operate satisfactorily.

bacardi walla

excellent photograph - Hope you enjoyed your trip!!

[Ad C]

Yeah, a bit disappointing for the kids, but hey, everyone will get their money back. And it's not as if Santa is real anyway...

What do you mean Santa isn't real?:{

[Prestonian]

Am finding this confusing. Were the First Choice trip from Manchester on 20 Dec that did take place and the other one from a different operator that was cancelled both destined for the same Finnish airport? If so which of the two airports mentioned was it?

[bardso]

I was one of the unlucky people who was supposed to be on the flight to Enontekio.... And so everyone knows what really happened i'll tell you. There were supposed to be 2 flights going to Enontekio on that morning and for whatever reason someone ( airport or Transun?) decided to put both trips together of 1 larger plane ( which they could not get till 8am, we were supposed to be in the air at 7.30am) so already we were delayed for 1 hour. When we were finally told to go to the gate we sat around for about 1 hour until anyone came to tell us anything. Next thing I heard was the pilot had gone due to ammount of hours he had worked and he'd been sat there that long he decided to leave (I personally don't blame him the whole thing was a farce!!!). So new pilots were brought in. No one was allowed to leave the gate because we were told when we board it will be done quickly and anyone who isn't there won't go. Again we were left for another 30 mins and finally someone came back and told us we were waiting for a weather report it will be 10 mins when they know what is happening. Yet another half an hour later ( 10.30 by this time) a representative came and told us the trip wasn't taking place due to weather conditions.
However we were also told if they had stuck to the original plan..... the 2 smaller planes would have got there fine!!!!!!!
And to make everything worse we had to be decontrolled back out the airport which meant waithing another at least half an hour till they sorted themselves out and we actually got back into the real world!!
A complete disaster from 5.30 till 11am.
I just feel sorry for the children and the families who have spent out a small fortune and have had their christmas ruined by from what i can tell was just bad management!!!!!

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Too late. Santa trips already over for another year.

How come I'm doing one tomorrow then:rolleyes:

Shame for those involved:{, but as has been said, these situations occur occasionally:sad:. Unfortunately the media make a big deal of it and mix the pot by making irrelevant comments like other aircraft went, and other companies went. Well other aircraft and other companies can have different limits, so they could go, but unfortunately this one couldn't. Sounds to me like a difficult decision was well made by the captain:D.

There's always next year, better to put it off till then than go and end up on a wild goose chase for the day with no refund at the end of it, and no santa visit either.

Happy X-mas.

[NutLoose]

That pic would make a cracking card if you could get rid of the blurred kid..

[bacardi walla]

NUTLOOSE

Amended picture shown for your delight :ok:

[WHBM]

This appears to have all the hallmarks of yet another ops nonsense being blamed on "the weather" to avoid exposing the real situation.

[RingwaySam]

This appears to have all the hallmarks of yet another ops nonsense being blamed on "the weather" to avoid exposing the real situation.

Sounds like it. F-GNLH (Fokker 100) positioned into Manchester to operate the flight (arrived 0315) and then positioned back out at around midday.

[shonaauty]

Hi,

I was also supposed to be on that flight and its ok for these people who say it is no big deal but to see those children and even my father in law in tears that morning is unforgettable.

If it was the weather or a technical fault I can cope with that but its the fact that we were told at 5:30am that they were using a bigger plane so why did it take until 10:30am to tell us they couldn't fly it.

Also we were told by the staff that one of the smaller planes had been sat on the runway all the time.

The bit which is most annoying is that someone made the decision to save money by using one plane and they are not taking the blame.

Also in Transun statement they said that we were informed the whole time. We heard nothing until 10:30am when their insurance obviously kicked in.

Love the reports that we were escorted off the plane. It would have been nice to even get on it.

[TightSlot]

This appears to have all the hallmarks of yet another ops nonsense being blamed on "the weather" to avoid exposing the real situation.

Couldn't agree more WHBM - This one smells like year old reindeer carcass! It's right up there with the recent LGW runway closure due to an un-forecast cold snap (alleged to have actually been caused by the application of incorrect de-icing fluid and/or procedures).

It seems a curious choice of airline to operate the service in the first place. Presumably no lift was available from UK operators?