Thomas Cook TCX1639 Low fuel divert 20/3/15

[Motorizer]

Hi All


Apologies if this is posted in the wrong forum

I am a a rare poster so be gentle!!! I work in GA so am not totally aware of how things operate at the pointed end.... However after an interesting flight ome from my holiday last night I was just looking for clearer understanding of the situation I found myself in.

We departed an hour late from Hurghada last night at 1810 local time... appanently they took an hour to open the cargo door from the incoming flight because if was 'frozen' shut.

After a flight with headwinds we landed at 'Gatwick' which, when I looked out of the window saw was Stanstead.

After the hostie anounced we had landed at Gatwick the Captain announced we had diverted to Stanstead , with accompaning emergency services, because he didnt have enough fuel to hold for the 20 mins he was being told/requested to at gatwick..

He then announced that unless he could refuel and push back in 10 minutes he was out of time to fly us anywhere but was doing his best ( I was never convinced we would be flying anywhere)

we then had an onboard medical eergency and eventually were dumped in the terminal at about midnight after being onboard for about an hour and a half ( we were also told the terminal was to full to let us off!) with no reps from the company we were told to make our way home by some poor overun swissport rep because he said no one from TC was available.... there was also the Manchester flight there too which also diverted in on its way back from Hurghada with another medical emergency we are told.

Luckily we got the last taxi leaving behind 100's of stranded passengers.

So my question is

Is this standard practice to cut fuel levels so low so as to arrive home practiacally out of limits with no provision for a 20 minute hold or, have the headwinds caused unforseen problems ? Why couldnt he call for a straight in approach at LGW which was still closer than Stanstead?

Even when we landed the capatain was pratctically out of time so this to seems to have been cutting it fine.... I guess to and from Hurghada is a 10 hour stint but I am not sure how hours are worked out...

According to flight radar it seems we turned north somewhere around Maidstone, i guess when the decisison was made...

As I say i apologize if this is the wrong forum but I am just interested to learn more about the situation and how these carriers operate.

Many Thanks

[B737900er]

The minimum fuel on board
Trip
diversion
final reserve
taxi
5% contingency

The company, like most, take advantage of reducing the contingency down to 3% to save on fuel, this could of played a part if it was used.

Low level holding fuel is not added to the fuel calculations, hence why there was not enough fuel to do it. The plane has to land with no less than 30 minutes of holding fuel. The captain could of used his diversion fuel if he felt assured of a guaranteed landing at LGW. Obviously, this wasn't the case and the crew diverted.

The crew, now diverted, will make it a 3 sector day which will reduce the flight Duty Period, which in turn put them into discretion, if not already due to the late departure.

[Burnie5204]

I'm going to guess you were on an A321 (given A321s form the majority of the TCX fleet).

I'm told by an ex-Servisair colleague that Hurghada is close to max range for a fully loaded TCX A321 so even with a full fuel load they're close to the limits. With headwinds it's going to reduce their margins even finer. Throw in a 20 minute hold (which quite often get extended) and you've got next to no flexibility but if there's an option to Divert to somewhere relatively nearby (put it this way, unlike the MAN passengers at least you were at another airport on the opposite side of the city you were aiming for)

Of course it could be that they took the bare minimum fuel but unlike other airlines TCX aren't particularly known for doing that here unless they've changed policy since hitting difficulties.

[Motorizer]

Interesting stuff ... thanks...

We were actaully in a 757-300......

The Flight deck were very good in coming on the PA and explaining what was happenning but I am surprised given the cost to the airline of this happening why they keep the margins so tight but then maybe thats a reflection of the cut throat business this may well be.

[Piltdown Man]

Motorizer - Yes it is common practice to depart with no provision for holding. Legally we are not required to do so and in reality this is a purely a business decision, it is not a safety issue. The price of doing so is the occasional diversion because this is a trade-off. This is amazing when you look at the costs involved. Firstly, there are additional landing and handling fees, security charges, parking costs etc. To that the costs of taxis and buses will have to be added. Then the additional crew costs have to be added in. If this crew would have to rest for at least the same amount of time they were on duty and that would almost certainly restrict what they could do next. The we have the fact that the aircraft is now in the wrong place. Finally, we have the passenger costs. Diverting for the want of 20 minutes holding fuel sends the wrong message regarding the integrity of of your future holiday. Not surprisingly, most people don't like diverting and with modern social media, the world and his dog knows what has happened. This has a price as well.

Regarding the why you can't ask for a "straight in" approach question; that's simple. Most other operators would be in a similar position and only if you declare an emergency.

I also note your comments regarding unwell passengers. Passengers are the most unreliable things on modern aircraft and probably do as much damage to airline's schedules and bottom lines as slot delays. They are probably responsible for more diversions than poor weather. They regularly become unwell when things start going wrong and the effect of doing so causes untold damage to the operations of both airports and airlines. What's really galling is that when dealing with these passengers you often find that they have pretty dreadful medical backgrounds and pre-existing medical conditions and they don't mind inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers when their condition worsens under stress of travel. Maybe it's about time we asked for a contribution towards the costs they force all of us to incur?

The good news is that it appears you were flying with a "proper" operator and a good crew. One that employs and trains its personnel to do the correct thing and not bend or break the rules. It's also one that appears to do its best to get you to where you bought a ticket for, even when things don't go according to plan.

[Sop_Monkey]

Sometimes I do wonder if cutting the fuel on board to the bone is worth it. You will only need an expensive diversion and not that often, to wipe out any money saved flying around with fuel at minimum.

[nick14]

Depends on the size of your operation, carrying 10mins extra on every flight for a one or two ship operation will probably save you money on the odd diversion. Routinely doing it for 300+ would be very costly.

[B737900er]

Surely operating into LGW or LHR or any busy airport you could expect holding delays? Personally, if I was operating into any London airport I would uplift some extra fuel for a hold. Of course thats if I'm not performance limited etc.

[Motorizer]

Thanks for your observations....

I am in the 'is the risk worth it' camp although I must admit to not knowing what the operating costs of carrying additional fuel to allow for a 20/30 min hold at destination would be if this fuel is not required once you arrive.

I can certainly understand B737900er's comments with regards hoping for no delay

To carry said fuel, presumably you then have to upload yet more to carry this contingency fuel in case you needed it.

I would be interested to know the addtional cost of carrying an extra 20 minutes fuel over a 5 hour flight.

I guess TC gor unlucky that night as 2 aircraft were diverted and my taxi to gatwick was £150-00 just for me and the better half, although we did find another couple who we offered a ride back. I think the bean counters may have their work cut out for these two flights!!

As an aside, I am absolutley not questioning the crew or captain who I believe acted in the correct manner and who certainly kept everyone infomed of what was happening although i did feel the mention of uploading 10 tonnes of fuel and being pushed back within 10 mins was a bit hopeful!!

Your comments have certainly helped understand how this happened so appreciate that ... One assumes that people a lot more clever than I work out the odds and it plays within their favour but is still , none the less, quite worrying when you think about the margins these operators are working on.

[B737900er]

TCX Should have been organising transportation/accommodation. I would of thought the skipper would be on to ops asking for advice regarding passenger comfort and services. IM surprised they told you to make your own way home, when a coach or some sort of transportation/accommodation should of been organised by the operations team that run 24hours/365.

Poor show in my eyes. If the company wants to take the risk of diversions over uplifting fuel, then they should have the necessary services in place for such events.

[Capot]

Companies sometimes have to resort to rostering tricks like Level 2 variations to make them work (essentially using an hour of discretion at the rostering stage).

And there was me thinking that rostering discretionary time was a hanging offence.

One of the many good reasons it should be is, surely, that it is "discretionary" time, available for a Captain to use within severe limitations in certain unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances. If it's rostered it ceases to be discretionary, and the Captain is left with less (or no) further discretion to manage the unforeseen.

[Piltdown Man]

...quite worrying when you think about the margins these operators are working on.

Which margin? If it's profitability and they owe you money, then yes I'd worry. Not all airlines are brilliant at making a profit. But I wouldn't worry too much about the safety aspect. You start running out of fuel as soon as you start burning it at your point of departure. But more importantly, you don't continue unless you have a way out - ie. generally a destination and/or alternate with appropriate weather. If that looks in doubt, you stop off on the way an fill 'er up.

As for money, my little bit of the our operation does 100,000 flights per year. 20 minutes holding per flight would cost something like £2M. So we can do a few diversions before we are in a loss. And don't forget, if we think we will have to hold before we will put on extra fuel. And to put things into perspective, I've diverted about dozen or so times in 20 years (500 flights per year) and on each and every diversion I've had plenty of fuel. But I've regularly landed at my destination with less than alternate and final reserve fuel!

[Musket90]

Piltdown

Your comments about those flying with pre-medical conditions inconveniencing other passengers is out of of order and quite simply appalling. If ever you experience this situation you will think differently. It's those passengers who have no pre-medical conditions and cause problems who should be penalised. Think again.

[Piltdown Man]

Then who should pay? Reasonableness suggests that each of us owes a duty of care to others. So before we do anything we should make sure we are fit to do so and that activity won't adversely third parties. If we believe it will must we take appropriate action beforehand. Obviously some people will have unexpected medical problems every now and again; these sorts of things happen. But I don't think it fair that someone who has a pre-existing medical condition decides to fly and as a result costs an airline tens of thousands but worse of all, inconveniences hundreds of others. Reasonableness suggests that person should see a medical practitioner beforehand to determine their fitness to fly. Then that will place them above everybody else who has not, healthy or otherwise.

What I don't want to hear again is "He's had another one of his funny turns again. The last time we flew this happened as well." I also don't want to fly people who's doctor says they should not fly; I've had a few of those as well. I also don't want to fly people whose doctor will say they mustn't fly, so the don't bother asking.

Additionally an aircraft is not the place to have a medical problem. Over Europe you are rarely more than 20-30 minutes away from a paramedic but on trans-oceanic and same trans-continental routes you might be hours away from help. And all that time will be spent with a cabin altitude of 8,000 feet or so. Hardly conducive to a healthy outcome.

Musket90 - Airlines are not healthcare providers. We are not funded like the NHS. Our passengers pay for themselves and also a small surcharge for those who need wheelchair assistance and other items of personal support - which is reasonable. But if you need a med-evac flight you must hire an appropriate aircraft and crew - not use a scheduled airline.

[wiggy]

PM..

Airlines are not healthcare providers. We are not funded like the NHS. Our passengers pay for themselves and also a small surcharge for those who need wheelchair assistance and other items of personal support - which is reasonable. But if you need a med-evac flight you must hire an appropriate aircraft and crew - not use a scheduled airline.

+1

Musket, I know its sounds harsh, I know it's rare, but sadly there really are some quite naive or perhaps even selfish individuals who pitch up with some quite interesting medical conditions and expect to travel without prior approval because, as I was once told: "we know your Cabin Crew are trained in First Aid and we know you can get medical advice". Well they're right, but we have a duty of care to everybody on the aircraft and they often forget that we can obtain that medical advice before the doors are closed.

[B737900er]

Ahem Piltdown man

[Capot]

100,000 flights per year. 20 minutes holding per flight would cost something like £2M

Sure about that?

[Piltdown Man]

I've done the figures again and come out with a similar answer, which is similar to my company's quoted number. But maybe I did not make myself clear or there again or maybe my numbers are rubbish. What do you think the cost of carrying the fuel should be (20 minutes = 600 kgs and fuel at approx. £800/ton)?

[Motorizer]

B737900ER..

With respect to the skipper he did announce on landing he had been in touch with operations and that onward travel was being organised and we would be told by the Swissport agents in the terminal... As I mentioned before, I saw one rep who said he had been told nothing and knew of no buses etc and he suggested we make our own way home... given that it was 0100 in the morning I didnt hold out much hope for 15 odd coaches turning up so grabbed the taxi... i have no idea if a plan was put into place ,but just thought that from the time the skipper decided to divert to the time we got in the terminal was probaly a good 2 hours I did think the lack of any info was a bit poor.

Piltdown Man

Thanks for your input... I think I probaly used the wrong term in saying that the margins are worrying .... I accept the margins are dictated and upheld to by the Law makers et al but I suppose not fully understanding how these companies work out their fuel loads it is surprising to find how little margins are with regards the decison our skipper had to make considering he was facing a 20 min delay.

If I read you right another £800 worth of fuel may have saved the day?

re the discretion time as soon as we landed the skipper explained he was already in his discretionary time hence his announcement we had 10 mins to refuel and push back if we were going to make it back to gatwick which I doubted was ever the plan. I guess the run to the red sea and back is pretty close to the bone with permissable hours.

I still can't fathom what the cost of carrying the extra fuel would be... If he landed on time with no hold would the extra fuel not be available for the next flight or is it the cost of carrying said fuel, i.e a few tonnes, that comes into the equation as it takes more fuel to carry the extra weight?

Am I right in summizing if we had been given a clearance ahead of others then those guys may well have found themselves in an equally tight spot?

Gents... Thanks for the input and , for me ( someone who plys his trade on vintage aircraft) its been very interesting and enlightening so far...

[Motorizer]

Just as further aside....

We were told , by the skipper,that the runway was being changed at Gatwick , our ETA was 2200 and this was the reason for the 20 min delay which meant our diverson.

However having looked into this it would appear the same runway was in use for at least the time period between 2000 and 2330

I also recieved the following from TC customer support:

'' I have requested information from the Duty Coordinators regarding this diversion below is their reply:-
LGW change runways in the evening which can take 20 minutes. The holding time may increase depending on how much other traffic is also waiting to land. It is not unusual for an aircraft operating such a long flight (HRG-LGW) to not have much holding fuel.


I am happy they appear to be refunding my taxi fare but am also intrigued as to the reasons given for our diversion


Admittedly using flight radar all the other aircraft at that time appeaered to be landing on schedule at that time.



I am NOT on a witchhunt or anything but just curious as to our diversion .


As mentioned before we also appeared to have a full compliment of emergency vehicles with blue lights a glow waiting on our landiing.

It would appear the Easyjet flight i saw depart from Hurghada beofre us landed at LGW on schedule at about the same time we were due.