Budget airline sewing a yarn?

[AnglianAV8R]

Here's the scenario... Flight is meant to go from Stansted this morning to a Spanish destination. Intended aircraft landed at Gatwick due to fog at Stansted. OK so far.

Passengers at Stansted are told that the aircraft can get out of Gatwick, but needs a "software update" to enable it to land at Stansted. Apparently, they're not sure if it can be done and they may have to bus the passengers down to gatwick.

Forgive my ignorance, simple GA pilot here, but what on earth could this software update be? Or, is it cheaper to use the bus and just baffle pax with B/S ?

[fox niner]

Maybe it is an ARINC thursday today? FMS databases get updated on a thursday. Databases are valid for four weeks. today could be such a day. The scheduled upload could have been planned on this thursday AT STANSTED. But they never made it to that airport. But even then, it sounds like a lame excuse. Flying with a database out of date is not impossible. Simply regard the FMS as unserviceable for the short hop (which will take place below RVSM airspace anyway) and problem solved.

[AnglianAV8R]

Yes, that makes sense. So,it would seem to be in their favour to do the short hop to Stansted and then be able to update the systems, rather than use it as an excuse.

EDIT: Just been told they're heading to the coaches. Gatwick it is.
Ah well, at least they're going to get there. I guess some others will simply not fly as the days schedule slips .

[Agaricus bisporus]

Why can't pax accept what they're told without assuming they're being lied to? Who would come up with a specific line like that if it wasn't true? get real! What advantage would the airline get from it? Makes no sense at all.

Knowing the trouble and difficulty it takes to get any kind of info to pax in an airport I think it's pretty impressive you've got that much, and for it to be so specific doubly so. That. to me, makes it convincingly true.

I'd have thought the term "software update" is a term well enough understood these days, and if you aren't thoroughly familiar with all the software and it's associated procedures on a modern airliner how are you in a position to doubt it's importance?

Why can't they? Use your imagination to think how many dozen reasons there might be...And as a non airline person how could you presume to even guess a tenth of them? Perhaps the bloke who does the updates is off shift, or the disks are at STN, or there are no couriers available, but why does it have to be bs?

:ugh

[DaveReidUK]

Today is indeed one of the 28-day AIRAC updates.

I suppose it's possible that Stansted has moved in the last 4 weeks. :O

[green granite]

Why can't pax accept what they're told without assuming they're being lied to? Who would come up with a specific line like that if it wasn't true? get real! What advantage would the airline get from it? Makes no sense at all.

Well first of all it will save the cost of moving the aircraft from Gatwick to Stansted, secondly, there is delay compensation which doesn't apply under certain circumstances, so excuses are made up that will avoid compensation payouts.

[212man]

Today is indeed the start of 1212 AIRAC cycle, but that doesn't explain how the aircraft is planning to depart LGW for Spain, if it hadn't been updated (in STN.)

[EW73]

Simples...we were forced to 'extend' the FMC navigation database several times whilst I was flying for Kuwait Airways in my younger days, on the B727 fleet.

The way it was done, at least in those days, was to tell the database the current date was within the date range, and away we went!!

The database was then updated when we eventually got back to Kuwait.

Didn't like it then, and still don't, but never had to do it since!

[Artie Fufkin]

Isn't the Nav database a deferrable defect if out of date? (10 days?) If it is out of date for operation out of STN why is it useable out of LGW?

However, do agree with the frustration that all pax infer that any operational delay will involve the airline lying to them in order to save money.

[jamestkirk]

And the FMS database is normally updated before it runs out so you can press a button and swap it over.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, AV8 is a clearly living example of how the customer is always right - pal, what is pompous about asking why you assume you're being lied to? Do you even know what pompous means? No, clearly not.

As others have made clear the "excuse" has a pretty convincing provenance.

I was just putting a more factually likely side of the story, that's all. Sorry if it isn't palatable.

[old,not bold]

Why can't pax accept what they're told without assuming they're being lied to? Perhaps you need a reality check; an a station/area/handling manager I've lied to passengers, for good and bad motives, hundreds if not thousands of times in the past, and every time I fly now I hear exactly the same lies given by handling and cabin staff. I am well aware that in most cases they are telling the lie they are told to tell, sometimes without having the experience, knowledge or nous to actually know that it's a porkie.

Lies about why an aircraft is late/broken/missing/never existed, and lies about why a flight is delayed/cancelled/rescheduled/overbooked are the most common and, unfortunately, are frequently driven by an ill-informed notion of not incurring extra costs in the form of claims by passengers and shippers.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, AV8 is a clearly living example of how the customer is always right - pal, what is pompous about asking why you assume you're being lied to? Do you even know what pompous means? No, clearly not.

As others have made clear the "excuse" has a pretty convincing provenance.

I was just putting a more factually likely side of the story, that's all. Sorry if it isn't palatable.

You don't have to be so offensive about it though.

[Artie Fufkin]

old, not bold just because you have lied to pax, you shouldn't tarnish everyone with the same brush. Where I work, the truth is always told to the pax, admittedly in a diplomatic way, but its always the truth.

edited to add Its always the "I know you're lying. I used to work at an airport and know what goes on" which feels the most annoying, and gets laughed at the hardest behind the flight deck door.

[wozzo]

Corporate communications as part of customer relations management is always designed to have minimum impact on finances and operations. If factual truth coincides with this prime directive, that's a nice benefit (as it is easier to communicate), but not strictly necessary.

[Avenger]

The MEL will allow dispatch with the navigation database out of date, certain criteria must be complied with, for instance the departure airport must be in the FMS and the first waypoint etc.. so it sounds like a yarn to me .. check the Boeing MEL..

[Johnny Tightlips]

Maybe the aircraft was downgraded to CAT I. Sometimes we have to do practise CAT II/III approaches due to some problem with the AFCS, and then an avionics engineer has to sign it off when enough approaches have been completed. We do not have avionics engineers at every base, but STN definitely would.

My theory is the aircraft was being flown to STN to get signed off by an engineer, STN was CAT II/II when they got there so they diverted as they could not perform an autoland. They are now returning empty to base and the aircraft will remain CAT I only. To keep it simple for the pax, they called it a "software update", which is not too far from reality when you think about it.

I could be completely wrong but it's the only good reason I can think off.

[OLNEY 1 BRAVO]

If it's the flight I think it is, then the diversion to Gatwick was because the aircraft was only Cat I capable and needed to do a Cat 3A approach at Stansted.

Maybe they hoped to position the aircraft to Stansted but I believe the fog at Stansted has been reluctant to clear.

[Crankshaft]

A "software update" could very well be the chosen wording for something of a similar nature but less comprehensible by the average traveller.

Was it still foggy in Stansted? If so it is possible that the aicraft was not released for autoland following some previous maintenance action. That normally requires a practice autoland in good weather conditions before being released.

Or as the aircraft had diverted, its 48 hour validity of the ramp inspection could have expired and an engineer had to be shipped from Stansted.

Some MEL's can be signed of by the captain, but some requires the engineer to take some specific actions before release.

Software update... yes maybe, but you all assume it's the nav data base. It could have been related to any computer or control unit in the aircraft.

Remember there's different sort of lies. Many of them are not to harm people but to not worry them or to create misunderstandings. It 's to simplify the message for things that can't that be told without a detailed explanation on how an aircraft works.

[boeing_eng]

Very unlikely to be an FMC Nav Database issue. The databases are updated well in advance of the due date because virtually all modern FMC's will hold an active and inactive database (which can be swopped over by a simple push of a line select button)

[Dave Gittins]

Which airline ?

I've just been driving round the ramp at Gatwick and it is still a bit murky.

[PENKO]

It's not going to be a database issue since the flight was already heading for STN before it diverted to LGW. :ugh:

Probably a CAT1 limitation as someone else said. Try to explain that to the pax.

[Deep and fast]

Maybe a CTC cadet fo who hadn't completed the low viz ops yet.

[Piltdown Man]

I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that PAX have been flanneled...
I can see where AV8 is coming from. I've actually given the exact reason for a delay to a certain UK handling company at STN and asked them to pass this information on to the passengers. The same bloody gate agent then invented a totally different "excuse" from top of their head. I heard them do so from the top of the airbridge. I would have told the passengers face to face, but couldn't - for "security" reasons - I'm not allowed enter the terminal from airside!

For what it's worth, the next AIRAC dates are 13 Dec, 10 Jan, 7 Feb and 4 Apr (ie. every four weeks).

[Shiny side down]

I can't for a minute see anything wrong with AnglianAV8R's question. Certainly not deserving of some of the response(s) given.

Having heard samples of the excuses created on the fly by handling agents who have chosen to reinterpret the information they have been given, or simply misunderstood it, and then issue a bizarre excuse, in some cases very damaging to their customer airline.

We come across it daily, now, in all walks of life, that the facts being reported are not the same facts as exist.

[FERetd]

In view of the now late depture ex LGW, I am sure that the crew "will be doing their best to make up for the delay".

How many times have you heard that. More flannel? - surely not!

Warp Factor 9 please, Mr.Scott.

[fireflybob]

There has been, generally, a "sea" change since 2008 as to how "consumers" view the authenticity of a company and it's statements. In simple language they are asking "can we trust these people to tell the truth?"

Recently when I saw Tony Robbins talking he said that it was no longer any good just to have "satisfied customers" and what you now need to have are "raving fans". An example of this is Apple; as soon as they bring out a new product they sell millions - they can even get away with a c**p map application on their latest iPhone because people basically trust them.

The really successful companies are those which have a large tribal following (such as Apple). Seth Godin's book "Tribes" is worth a read if you're interested.

So coming back to the issue of passengers not trusting an airline's reason for delay - maybe they just don't trust them! With all the modern social media such as Facebook, Twitter etc organisations are soon rumbled if they are telling a few mistruths or being economic with the truth.

[KBPsen]

I can't for a minute see anything wrong with AnglianAV8R's question. Certainly not deserving of some of the response(s) given.Had he just asked a question responses would likely have been different.

[Shack37]

Had he just asked a question responses would likely have been different.


Seems to me that's exactly what he did, adding some detailed info to clarify his question. Most responses were perfectly reasonably, only one was of the "How dare you question me attitude"

[old,not bold]

Artie Fufkin

Where I work, the truth is always told to the pax, admittedly in a diplomatic way, but its always the truth.

Something tells me you probably work on a flight deck, where you probably usually tell the truth, even if that's "in a diplomatic way". There's no real downside to telling people the whole awful story once they are on-board and settled.

What you may not realise is that starting from the check-in desk passengers are rarely given the unvarnished truth about their flights, if and when that unvarnished truth is likely to be unpalatable.

I was using the term "lie" in its strictest sense, which in my book includes "not the whole truth".

Crankshaft put it well;

Remember there's different sort of lies. Many of them are not to harm people but to not worry them or to create misunderstandings. It 's to simplify the message for things that can't that be told without a detailed explanation on how an aircraft works.

But the lies/half-truths/silences used by handling staff have always been so as to avoid having to deal with angry people before they get to the next stage of the process and someone else has to do it.

It never bothers me (obviously) and I never bother to produce the line about "I'm in/was in the airline business...blah blah." I've heard it so often! (Especially from, errr, pilots on their holidays or deadheading, who can be very stroppy.) But it is usually possible to find out, quietly, what's really going on just by good observation of all the clues, and sometimes by calling the airline operations and/or agent and/or the airport, as a meeter/greeter, and asking about one's flight's progress, if there's a delay with no information.

[Rwy in Sight]

old,not bold

You are right about some airline workers are more prone to tell the truth than others. Once on board crew tend to be more frank while ground staff tend to take a more optimistic view of the situation- even if facts are not supporting their views. I understand this will cause a reaction since I can't give some specific facts but is a general feeling I got from a number of flights in the last couple of years.

[KBPsen]

Seems to me that's exactly what he did...That is not just what he did otherwise the title of the thread would have been different and certain sentences which are irrelevant to the supposed question would have been left out.

The inability to ask a question without implying, insinuating or suggesting some level of deliberate deception is a modus operandi that has become too prevalent.

[PAXboy]

Here's the difference from when I was a child:


I don't believe politicians
I don't believe the police
I don't believe anything that ANY corporation tells me
I don't believe my doctor wants to say "Let's wait and see" just to save money
[fill your own entries here ...]

[Hotel Tango]

I don't believe anything my boss says

[Shack37]

That is not just what he did otherwise the title of the thread would have
been different and certain sentences which are irrelevant to the supposed
question would have been left out.
The inability to ask a question without implying, insinuating or suggesting some level of deliberate deception is a modus operandi that has become too prevalent.


Having re-browsed the thread I can only conclude you're in a minority amongst your colleagues. Do you accept as gospel all you are told by other professionals you deal with outside your own occupation?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[easyflyer83]

The question was whether the airline lied. From my personal experience working in the industry I have never come across a contingency based specifically on cost and been told to lie about it. As for this specific scenario, don't automatically assume that it was easier to bus pax. Quite often it can be a pain in the arse for a multitude of reasons. To organise buses lay minute, get across London etc tht will seriously impact further on the OTP of that aircraft that day as well as crew hours. Again, from experience airlines seldom make up cock and bull stories to deceive pax.

However, ground crew probably do give incorrect information from time to time. In many of these cases it could be down to poor communication or a fluid situation which is being dealt with behind the scenes and in the meantime the ground crew are having to deal with pax and through a misguided objective of keeping the pax informed, white lies probably do get dished out. In reality, the best option is simply to admit that they don't know but are working to establish facts. Facts being a vague description of what's happening. I.e weather, technical etc. passengers shouldn't expect technical information from ground crew. In my opinion that is down to the flight crew who can explain in lay mans terms.

One poster is correct when he said that some passengers assume they are being lied to, making judgement on information they don't really understand. Joe passenger doesn't understand slots, routings, flight time/crew limitations etc etc and why should they? By the same token though, why should they automatically accuse an airline for lying? Examples of comments I've heard recently. A long haul flight where I was a passenger, were a middle aged couple moaning that the flight had departed 30 minutes late. We had actually pushed back (departed) on time. A few weeks ago 2 passengers commented on our flight having to wait in line for take off with one telling the other that its because LCC's pay less. In actual fact if that was the case it would probably be one thing they would shell out on. Another common instance is a slot delay with you closed up and ready to go and a passenger accusing the airline of lying because the departure airport was quiet. We know that slot restrictions could be anywhere on the route but your average passenger doesn't so why are they qualified to assume they are being lied to?

You get to hear some right conspiracy theories from passengers and usually they are a mile away from reality.

[KBPsen]

Shack37,

You appear to be responding to something I did not write, which is peculiar since you quote my post in its entirety. Somehow you also managed to imply, or is it insinuate, something about me which was neither necessary or relevant.

To answer your dogmatically phrased question, I do not automatically assume that other professionals I come into contact with are out to deceive me unless proven otherwise. I do assume the opposite.

[crewmeal]

In the old days flights were delayed for operational reasons. Then passengers would accept that. If that is said now, it would raise more questions than answers. And of course people twitter at the slightest thing now!