Passengers charged £300 a seat to be evacuated out of Cairo

[crewmeal]

I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 yesterday and he was interviewing George Galloway on the present situation in Egypt and one of the comments raised was the Govt were charging £300 a seat to fly back to the UK. Is this Govt so desperate to raise money that they will do anything to get it? I'm truly appalled by this. I guess if they have to evacuate from SSH they will make a fortune from some people.

I would love to know which carrier it was that they used.

[EGBE0523]

I'm truly appalled by this. I guess if they have to evacuate from SSH they will make a fortune from some people

Nobody forces you to go abroad you make your own decision and presumably do some research before going. That the government is assisting British nationals well done that they should recuperate the costs again well done Why should taxpayers fork out just because somebody's holiday got curtailed. This is not new back when Turkey invaded Cyprus and British citizens were in some cases literally picked up from the beaches the repatriation costs were recovered.

I have twice been unfortunate to be caught in military coups in far more inhospitable countries than Egypt. I knew and accepted the risks when going and didn't try to sue anybody and anything for compensation on my eventual safe return.

[Capetonian]

If £300 represents the cost to the government of that seat, then I see no reason why the person who occupies it should not pay for it. Evacuation of government employees working in Egypt is a different story, but people who chose to go there must accept the potential downside.

[dhc83driver]

Last minute charter of aircraft to pick up people, extra costs due to the circumstances, No scratch cards, hire cars, package deals to hide the true cost of the flight so £300 is about right. Decent travel insurance should cover your costs.

Bear in mind that the government is suggesting that carriers don`t fly people there so it would of been a charter

People forget that is cost money to fly aircraft. LOCO`s offset this cost with other items to give you a low ticket price but the costs are still the same its just that its covered by other travel related items.

[Evanelpus]

Last minute charter of aircraft to pick up people, extra costs due to the circumstances, No scratch cards, hire cars, package deals to hide the true cost of the flight so £300 is about right. Decent travel insurance should cover your costs.


£300 is a small price to pay for your own safety and a bit of peace of mind. Why should someone else have to pick up the tab for it.

I'm just wondering though, how many of the "bucket and spade, tracksuit brigade" thought about buying travel insurance?

[Tolsti]

Would that by any chance have been George Muhammad G'allah'weh, North Africa's best friend? I'm surprised he's not in Cairo right now!!!

[PAXboy]

Very sensible. Whilst unfortunate for the individuals - that's life. As the adverts say, people turn up at British Consulates all over the world saying "I've had my wallet stolen - can I have some money?"

If the OP was not due to leave the benighted country for another week but got to the airport and found that they could pay £300 and get out NOW? Fair deal, wait a week to see what happens or pay now.

No issue to discuss here.

[Wannabe Flyer]

There has been a hue and cry in India also about Air India charging $1000 per seat to evacuate and asking people who do not have the resources to give an undertaking. After much shouting and screaming about day light robbery, the minister in charge clarified as under

1) This is not termed as an evacuation as during the gulf war which the Indian govt footed the bill.
2) The tourists and people in Egypt from India requested from the embassy to organize a charter that they would pay for to assist them to get out.
3) The consulate in a matter of 24 hours organized an aircraft to fly empty to Cairo and bring passengers back and do this loop multiple times till all were evacuated.
4) Many did not have papers as they could not go back to the hotel or for other reasons so the consulate set up a desk at the airport to assist with this.
5) There were minimal or no services at Cairo airport and the crew agreed to overlook their flight time restrictions for this carrying extra fuel and food from Bombay.

A 747-400 is being used for this purpose. Average load is about 280 pax so far

I am assuming therefore a $1000 is a fair charge to cover all these expenses.

I am also assuming similar maths is being done by other carriers and therefore do not feel anyone is making a killing doing this. In the same token do not expect a free lunch. :ok:

[fincastle84]

£300.00 to sleep soundly in a UK bed, safe from the rioters & the noise of guns being fired.

BARGAIN!:ok:

[Avitor]

Since the crews of these aircraft are surely indefatigable, the price is a small item.

[LH2]

I think Wannabe Flyer gets it right in one sentence, when he says:

1) This is not termed as an evacuation

In other words, it's not just about people "choosing" to go there, it is mostly about people choosing to run away from there like scared rabbit. After all, nobody asks for an "evacuation" when demonstrations get interesting in France, so if people decide to overreact it's their problem after all.

On the other hand, there might be those who find it impossible in the current situation to go ahead with their plans (holiday, business, whatever it might have been) and therefore no longer have any reason to stay in the country. If regular flights back home are fully booked or unaffordable, it is a very nice gesture for the Government to organise charter flights at a reasonable cost, so if anything that's something to be welcomed.

Mind you, I haven't read the news today yet, so for all I know the **** may have hit it big time :uhoh: I'll go check Google News--wonder if I'm going to have to eat my words now :ouch:

[LH2]

£300.00 to sleep soundly in a UK bed, safe from the rioters & the noise of guns being fired.

BARGAIN!:ok:

If you don't get stabbed by a chav on the way home, that is :E

[ShyTorque]

I have twice been unfortunate to be caught in military coups in far more inhospitable countries than Egypt. I knew and accepted the risks when going and didn't try to sue anybody and anything for compensation on my eventual safe return.

EGBE0523,

Please do me a favour and let me know where you're planning your holiday this year, there's a good chap...

I won't be on the flight... :eek: :p

[Joao da Silva]

LH2

it is mostly about people choosing to run away from there like scared rabbit.

Anyone who knows the middle east recognises that it can go from apparently stable to tinder box to all out fire in a day or two.

If I was in Egypt, I would be making tracks out of there, toute de suite.

Nothing to do with being a scared rabbit, more like wishing to avoid being caught in the crossfire.

[muppetbum]

British Government weren't the only ones charging , Canadian goverment was to.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me . I've moved to Canada by my own choice , if things go tits up here ( I know , how likely is that?)why should the UK pay to bail me out.

[fincastle84]

I've moved to Canada by my own choice , if things go tits up here ( I know , how likely is that?)why should the UK pay to bail me out.

You might get invaded by the inhabitants of St Pierre & Miquelon!

[crewmeal]

Would that by any chance have been George Muhammad G'allah'weh, North Africa's best friend? I'm surprised he's not in Cairo right now!!!

He's been thrown out of Egypt because of his connections with Gaza I believe and therefore barred from the Country

[Haven't a clue]

Wannabe Flyer hits the nail squarely on the head when, with reference to the Indian government charters he says:

The consulate in a matter of 24 hours organized an aircraft to fly empty to Cairo and bring passengers back

Same would apply to the British operation. So no revenue from the outbound sector, all revenue coming from the inbound. £150 would be a very cheap fare for a four hour flight. £300 is thus very reasonable given the one way load.

[compton3bravo]

For those interested the aircraft is a B757 of Astreaus a British charter airline and you might have Bruce Davidson (he of Iron Maiden fame) in the front.

[lurkinginSTO]

Bruce Dickinson, you mean ;)

[crewmeal]

Ah well I take back my words!! Bargin!!!

[BetterByBoat]

"Is this Govt so desperate to raise money that they will do anything to get it? I'm truly appalled by this."

I know, it is ridiculous isn't it - asking people to pay for things they use. And making people take responsibility for their own decisions such as to go on holiday.

I agree that this sort of thing never happened under the previous government :hmm:

[SLF3b]

My company got most out with an Astraeus charter and the balance using two corporate jets. We gave away the spare seats. I suspect it cost a lot more than GBP 300 per person.....

[LH2]

Anyone who knows the middle east recognises that it can go from apparently stable to tinder box to all out fire in a day or two.

Yup. That's the beauty of it, amongst other things :ok: (lived there for seven years). I concede it's probably not for everyone though. :)

[Rico 25]

What about when British Airways was flying into Tunisia when all the troubles started over there. The Foreign Office told people that it wasn't a great place at the moment but BA still continued operations as normal. Even check-in staff said everything was fine. I know some smartarse will probably say that we all need to watch the News but surely the airline must have some moral responsibilities or is it another case of money before safety??:*

[davidjohnson6]

Rico - as a transport provider, safety is important, but the obligations of the provider presumably stop at some stage. If a passenger wants to go somewhere, can an airline say "we know best and will not let you fly" ? Just because one section of the capital of a country is suddenly news-worthy, doesn't mean the rest of the country is as well !

If pre-booked passengers are in an area of the world which has seen recent dramatic events and want to get out, an airline presumably also has moral obligations to send the plane from their home base to get those customers to safety.

Yes - an airline has a moral obligation to ensure you're safe during passage. An airline may have a moral obligation to ask a passenger at check-in "are you sure you want to fly", but at some point the passenger has to take on some kind of responsibility for their own safety.

[Evanelpus]

What about when British Airways was flying into Tunisia when all the troubles started over there. The Foreign Office told people that it wasn't a great place at the moment but BA still continued operations as normal. Even check-in staff said everything was fine. I know some smartarse will probably say that we all need to watch the News but surely the airline must have some moral responsibilities or is it another case of money before safety??

The FO's standard line is to advise against travel unless you really have to. It would take something drastic to prevent airlines operating as normal.

I went to Romania just after the riots in the early 90's. I stayed at the Intercontinental in central Bucharest. There were bullet holes in the upper floor windows and just opposite was the smoking remains of a public building.

That's life I'm afraid.

[TightSlot]

but surely the airline must have some moral responsibilities or is it another case of money before safety??

Does a Taxi Driver have the same responsibility when asked to drop a fare off in an area known to be high-crime/unsafe? Or a bus company?

It is surely the responsibility of the customer to decide where and when they wish to travel - the airline has responsibility for safe carriage while in their care, but not a responsibility to determine where is safe and where is not, with the exception of the welfare of their staff and equipment. On that basis, there are theoretical arguments for not flying to Tehran, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Cali, Rio de Janeiro and that's just my list - other people will have other places that they would feel uncomfortable going to.

The "money before safety" quote is somewhat bizarre. All safety is a financial compromise, not just in aviation, but in almost all industries - so is life. We expect a higher standard of debate than this which is frankly, infantile mud-slinging.

[Joao da Silva]

Tightslot

You might wish to read the link below, before making such a strong rebutal of the question.

BA must pay pounds 2.5m to Gulf hostages - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ba-must-pay-pounds-25m-to-gulf-hostages-1106613.html)

I do agree that there is also a strong degree of personal responsibility.

[TightSlot]

Thanks - interesting link and a fair point - I'm not convinced that is quite the same issue, in that we are discussing the intention to travel to a known trouble spot (known to the passengers and airline that is :E) whereas with BA149, the passengers were unaware, which is rather the point of the court action I would suggest.

[west lakes]

You might wish to read the link below

There seems to me to be one slight difference in the two cases.

Taking the Tunis flight, the aircraft was going there as advertised so it would have obviously be going to a sensitive location!

In the case detailed in the link the aircraft was supposed to be going to Kuala Lumpur and made an unplanned landing in Kuwait.

In the first case a passenger has a choice go or not to the advertised destination, in the second case they had no choice

[Rico 25]

Infantile mud-slinging??

Some taxi drivers I found whilst travelling in other countries have actually been helpful-a couple of times advice was given to me that a couple of places I suggested would not have been safe to walk around during daylight hours-needless to say I took their advice!

TightSlot-I know that there are plenty of dodgy places out there all over the world but Tunisia and Cairo have suddenly had massive political instability in a short space of time. Clearly nobody is rushing out for cheap flights to Iraq or Afghanistan but my point was that Tunisia and Egypt were considered reasonably safe and suddenly erupted but now some airlines carry on as if everthing is normal. As pilots and/or operators we need to protect some of these people from their own stupidity-after all how many times have you seen passengers forget their passport or they can't work out how to put their seatbelt on!:ugh:

Joao da Silva-thanks for the article (not the first time for BA then!).

[ShyTorque]

but at some point the passenger has to take on some kind of responsibility for their own safety.

Yes, before they get on the aircraft, and when they get off.

I think all that most pax need is correct and timely information. Let them make up their own minds about what they do. Was anyone forced onto the aircraft? I presume they were given an option to remain and return on their normal flights.

[Rico 25]

If most of these airlines thought it was OK to go, initially, then why did so many of them send a load of 'rescue flights' out to pick up most of their passengers recently ie.TUI and others?

I take your comments about passengers being given information and making a responsible choice for themselves but I'm beginning to wonder if a few of these people were given the full facts at the airport or was it case of 'everything's fine' if someone were to ask any of the check-in staff. Also does any advice by the Foreign Office get taken seriously by most operators or do some airlines choose to ignore it?

[TightSlot]

TUI and others were "rescuing" customers on their own branded Package Holidays - In other words, the passengers had bought both flights and hotac from the Tour Operator, thereby rendering the Tour operator liable for their welfare overseas and repatriation by flight. Scheduled airlines are only contracted to carry people from A to B - their legal (and I would suggest, moral) responsibility ends there.

The Foreign Office advice is precisely that - advice: It doesn't override free will, and doesn't affect non-UK passport holders, or those UK nationals who choose to ignore it. Airlines and Tour Operators pay careful attention to FO advice, because ignoring it can sometimes affect insurance liability, both for customer and airline company.

[WHBM]

I understand that the Foreign Office has ALWAYS charged the "equivalent commercial fare" for any evacuation they arrange from troublespots, so no difference to previous procedures over the years. If you haven't got the cash, as so often in such circumstances, they will still carry you, but take your passport (which is their's, not yours) when you get back, until you pay up. I presume all these rules etc have long been in place.

As it is traditionally the Standard airline fare which is charged (because this concept comes from long before the days of Yield Management), and having a look at BA's standard fares over the next week or so to a comparable destination, Tel Aviv (Cairo not providing appropriate fares at the moment, for obvious reasons), the one-way fare is £659. So charging £300 seems something of a bargain. I presume £300 x 100 pax (because they are apparently nothing like full) = £30,000 comes nowhere near the 757 round trip charter costs.

[Hartington]

In 1979 I don't believe the FO were issuing warnings. I was in Peru and travelled to Lake Titicaca by train where I took the overnight steamer (built in Hull in 1928!) across the Lake. When we arrived in Bolivia we were told the trains were on strike and to take the bus to La Paz.

Half way to La Paz someone on the bus had a radio and said "I think there's been a revolution". El Alto (the town above La Paz) was heaving but as we descended into La Paz there were no people around. The bus dumped us by the station and left. At 16000 ft with a back pack walking isn't easy but we found our way around the road blocks through back streets to our hotel.

The next few days were boring while the two sides argued and one night took pot shots at one another outside the hotel (we spent the night in the bath room - at least one more layer of breeze block to protect us). Eventually a Peruvian bus company decided to take their bus out and sold us tickets. At the 2nd try (the road was blocked the first day) we got back to Peru. I believe that the following day all the foreigners were taken to the airport and shipped out by the military.

Even today I'm not sure I would have even seen the FO warning if it had been present - who foretold Tunisia or Egypt? Did I try and get the bus fare back from the FO? No. I simply took the view I had got into this; I needed to get myself out.

That experience taught me a few things but it doesn't stop me travelling and, even now, I rarely look at the FO site except for amusement. I'm the only person who can keep me safe; I have to take responsibility.

Oh by the by that Peru/Bolivia trip was our honeymoon and she hasn't divorced me yet!

[Rico 25]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is wrong for airlines to operates into politically unstable hotspots or am I going to be beaten down by self-righteous tossers who tell me that everything is alright?

[Fernanjet]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is wrong for airlines to operates into politically unstable hotspots or am I going to be beaten down by self-righteous tossers who tell me that everything is alright?

Well...clearly it isnt "wrong" is it?

if the demand is there....they will go.....its a business.

if the demand stops....they will stop.

Where would an airline go if it couldnt go to a politically unstable hot spot?

did flying stop in and out of the UK because of a hung parliament? it was after all..."politically unstable"....

did we stop flying to belfast because of the IRA...

get in the real world

[davidjohnson6]

Rico - it all depends on how much of a duty of care an airline or tour operator has with regards to the passengers. If it's a tour operator which in February is still selling packages to Luxor, while glossing over FCO advice, then this is irresponsible to say the least.

However, even when a country is undergoing revolution or at war, life still has to go on. Businesses still need to trade, families need to have the capacity to reunite, and some people want to be able to get out to safety.

It's all about different people needing varying levels of care. The young family who want to take their small children somewhere safe for a week's annual holiday need more attention. The person who lives in the unstable country and is returning home after a business trip can look after him/herself

In January 2010, I voluntarily chose to go as a tourist to a *very* unstable part of East Africa. I knew full well of the risks and spent many hours Googling it, but there was something I really wanted to see. Had there not been scheduled flights, I would not have gone. I was happy to take the risk, the airline was happy to take my money, and the airline crew were happy to get their wages. The hotel, restaurant, driver, tour guide and others were happy to have my money as well.

A ready flow of foreigners to a country tends to bring perspective, new ideas and prosperity and pacify a population. Remove scheduled transport to politically unstable countries, and it becomes much easier for a North Korean style despot to hold power.

[Hartington]

Rico.

I think there is a point when airlines begin to question whether it is correct to consider operating. BMI turned an aircraft around one day recently. I know that on the night the Gulf War (1) started BA had a 767 en route to Saudi which turned around somewhere over Egypt. They have to consider the safety of passengers, crew and the aircraft.

But... they are in business and when situations like Egypt and Tunisia occur there is business to be had and suprisingly it's two way. We've heard a lot in the UK about our citizens trying to get home. There have been a couple of stories about high profile individuals who have gone home to Egypt and there will be many less public people who will have gone home to Egypt and how do you think all the journalists we see (with their support crews, security men etc) reporting live got to Egypt?

Quite often demonstrations are surprisingly localised. For instance when the students had their day in London recently, or even the Poll Tax riot all those years ago, Heathrow, Gatwick etc didn't close. The same seems to be true in Egypt at the moment. The airport continues to operate.

Believe me, the airlines aren't going to take silly risks. The potential cost is too high.

[Rico 25]

Hartington-I see what you're saying. I guess even during war there will always be transport-just glad to see that sometimes airlines do stop and think.

Regards Rico

[Joao da Silva]

West Lakes


In the case detailed in the link the aircraft was supposed to be going to Kuala Lumpur and made an unplanned stop.

Incorrect, the flight was scheduled London Kuwait Madras KL.

[west lakes]

JdS

Thanks for that, I was confused by this paragraph in the newspaper report

The ruling, by France's highest court, ended a long-running dispute in which the passengers accused the airline of making an unscheduled stop to drop off British commandos and pick up British intelligence agents operating in Kuwait

But then again newspapers are not known for accuracy

[6chimes]

I think Hartington's points are moving the thread in the right direction.

Schedule carriers are not simply taking people from the UK to somewhere else and then bringing them home once they have finished. It is a two way business. Airlines don't just sell the few seats left over by the Brits, in fact many routes have much bigger sales the other way round. CAI is one of those routes. I work for bmi and can assure you that the seats sold in Egypt is vast. The airline might be based in the UK, their passengers aren't, that's why the airline alliances are such big business.

Quite a few Egyptians wanted to get home to their families.

If there are more people wanting to leave the country than there are seats on the scheduled carriers then it's fantastic that the FO get them an aircraft. Those who opt to use it should pay for it.

6

[LH2]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is wrong for airlines to operates into politically unstable hotspots

No. Not at all. Plenty of other people live sheltered lives too. :ok:

or am I going to be beaten down by self-righteous tossers who tell me that everything is alright?

Are you offering? :E

Now please cue in comment about how Foreign Office (and their equivalents in other countries) issue politically motivated announcements, and how many areas you are probably familiar with are objectively speaking far less safer than the places you see on the news (e.g. a significant part of Latin America for a start). One also has to have in mind that not everyone who travels is going on a holiday--some of us have to take a plane to go to work too, riots or no riots, war or no war. Then you have people like journalists and others who have to go to unstable places precisely because they have become unstable--how are they supposed to get there? rowboat?

In short, yes it is big and dangerous out there, and a bit of a riot is hardly the end of the world. :rolleyes: