Easyjet Evacuation at Belfast International
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet Evacuation at Belfast International
Smoke terror on Easyjet flight from Liverpool to Belfast - Liverpool Local News - News - Liverpool Echo
BBC News - Chutes used in Belfast International airport emergency
This would be two pages long if it were a Ryanair event.
BBC News - Chutes used in Belfast International airport emergency
This would be two pages long if it were a Ryanair event.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 71
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the way that
becomes "smoke terror".
Are newspapers trying to scare SLF into giving up flying? What's in it for them?
But some people were quite distressed.
Are newspapers trying to scare SLF into giving up flying? What's in it for them?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are newspapers trying to scare SLF into giving up flying? What's in it for them?
Maybe contracts require some journos to use so many sensational words per hundred or their bonus depends on it?
. Clearly not the case in the BBC, as their report seems straightforward.Must be a journo's guide to sensational words and phrases somewhere - anyone point me in the right direction?
Anyway, this incident seems to have gone as per SOPs, so another non-story really. Well done to all concerned
Suzeman
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brazil
Age: 76
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suzeman
Plenty of sites
here is just one
50 Trigger Words and Phrases for Powerful Multimedia Content | Copyblogger
here is just one
50 Trigger Words and Phrases for Powerful Multimedia Content | Copyblogger
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Front Stands
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any more news on this one? Also why do the media class any bit of tarmac airside as 'the runway'? It clearly says in the 1st link that it was taxying to stand!
Another example of the media making a story where it doesnt really need to
Another example of the media making a story where it doesnt really need to
As viewed from the cargo ramp, the A/C appeared to be parked on TWY D between D1 and D2.
Certainly well clear of the runway as we took off on 25 while this was going on.
Certainly well clear of the runway as we took off on 25 while this was going on.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Easyjet spokesman said..."All passengers and crew safely evacuated the aircraft and returned to the airport via coach. Safety is our number one priority and at no point was the safety and well being of our passengers compromised."
Smoke in the cabin means the "safety and well-being" of the passengers WAS already compromised.
Evacuating by slides further compromised their "safety and well-being", since they usually lead to at least some injuries.
I'm not challenging in the slightest the decision of the EasyJet crew. They were there, I wasn't.
Howver, that "spokesman" should be locked into a teargas-filled cabin for five minutes, then be tossed headlong down an escape slide.
aviation journalism
Must be a journo's guide to sensational words and phrases somewhere - anyone point me in the right direction?
The Lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Quote
So what exactly do you think a company spokesman for Easyjet might say in such circumstances? Do you imagine he is there to provide a detailed post-incident report to the gathered media, or might he just be inclined to say something suitably non-litigious to soothe troubled brows and prevent passengers trying another airline.
I'm certainly not questioning that what he said was nugatory and largely meaningless, but it's his job to protect the business, not scare the passengers.
:
An Easyjet spokesman said..."All passengers and crew safely evacuated the aircraft and returned to the airport via coach. Safety is our number one priority and at no point was the safety and well being of our passengers compromised."
Cr@p speak from the other extremity of the spectrum....
Smoke in the cabin means the "safety and well-being" of the passengers WAS already compromised.
Evacuating by slides further compromised their "safety and well-being", since they usually lead to at least some injuries.
An Easyjet spokesman said..."All passengers and crew safely evacuated the aircraft and returned to the airport via coach. Safety is our number one priority and at no point was the safety and well being of our passengers compromised."
Cr@p speak from the other extremity of the spectrum....
Smoke in the cabin means the "safety and well-being" of the passengers WAS already compromised.
Evacuating by slides further compromised their "safety and well-being", since they usually lead to at least some injuries.
I'm certainly not questioning that what he said was nugatory and largely meaningless, but it's his job to protect the business, not scare the passengers.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...say something suitably non-litigious to soothe troubled brows and prevent passengers trying another airline.
I'm certainly not questioning that what he said was nugatory and largely meaningless, but it's his job to protect the business, not scare the passengers.
"You mean to say you got no idea where the smoke came from? You mean those slides are 'safe', when I just twisted my ankle?"
I still think that spokesman should have been sent head down on that slide.
It might have woken him up to reality.
CJ
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cranfield University / Department of Transport and fumes?
Christiaanj.
The only people who know the 'substances in a fume event' are Cranfield University and the Department of Transport as they were asked to identify them URGENTLY in 2007 by the UK House of Lords.
As they still can't bring themselves to publish this long overdue, crucial information which is strongly suspected of being the cause of the CAA grounding 28 UK pilots due to toxic air inhallation and long term ill health, the media will continue to talk about 'bad smells' and 'no health implications'.
Aviation: Air Quality: 21 Dec 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)
House of Lords - Air Travel and Health: an update
They would say that - wouldn't they?
DB
However, that "spokesman" should be locked into a teargas-filled cabin for five minutes, then be tossed headlong down an escape slide.
As they still can't bring themselves to publish this long overdue, crucial information which is strongly suspected of being the cause of the CAA grounding 28 UK pilots due to toxic air inhallation and long term ill health, the media will continue to talk about 'bad smells' and 'no health implications'.
Aviation: Air Quality: 21 Dec 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)
House of Lords - Air Travel and Health: an update
They would say that - wouldn't they?
DB
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That lazy journalists thing is a load of crap, its almost accurate. I put in Boeing 737 and it printed Boeing 737, that's no good! It should have printed Boeing A340 or Saab 146.
Shan't be using that again.
And there's no option for "I thought we were all going to die" or crashing into a school, hospital, sunday-school outing or football stadium.
Useless. Leave it to the journos, it's a gift, you can't learn it.
Shan't be using that again.
And there's no option for "I thought we were all going to die" or crashing into a school, hospital, sunday-school outing or football stadium.
Useless. Leave it to the journos, it's a gift, you can't learn it.
It's actually quite a useful phrase, because you can be assured that anyone who is saying this (and the precise word order is always exactly the same) is some Dolly Daydream who is the press on-call contact at the airline PR department, who doesn't know one end of an aircraft from the other. So once you see this you can be assured that all the rest is some Pangloss Autospeak just being read out of the PR manual as well. So totally ignorable.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on WHBM - & it's not just dumb PR people - whenever the Police or Fire Brigade block roads or shut down railways, the senior officer 'spokesperson' always trots this mantra out first. 
The only shock/horror is that it took them 30 minutes to get an airside bus out to the aircraft, if that part of the story is true.
On a probably cold and possibly wet day, with passengers who have not been able to bring their coats etc, this is disgraceful. It's called "turning a minor incident into a much worse one by bad management".
On a probably cold and possibly wet day, with passengers who have not been able to bring their coats etc, this is disgraceful. It's called "turning a minor incident into a much worse one by bad management".
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JohnR
I've thought carefully about what you said there,
1) Safety is not the airline's 'number one priority'. That's returning value to its shareholders. It is hopefully the number one priority of any crew, but not the airline's.
Actually, it is indeed the overriding priority for the organisation (airline) as a whole to place safety of the operation at the fore, and as an ex-postholder with said airline, I can tell you from the MD down ensuring a safe operation is the number one business priority, after that comes pleasing the shareholders. Fail to ensure a safe operation and you compromise shareholder value so it must be the business's first priority. Of course on the day, the crew's places the safety of passengers and crew and operation of the aircraft as the number one priority, as clearly they did. But the organisation behind the them; maintenance, flight ops, etc. the finance that supports it all, if you were to ask anyone of them where the airline's first responsibilities lie, you're going to get a 'safe' operation as their first answer. Have to disagree with your take on that one.
I've thought carefully about what you said there,
1) Safety is not the airline's 'number one priority'. That's returning value to its shareholders. It is hopefully the number one priority of any crew, but not the airline's.
Actually, it is indeed the overriding priority for the organisation (airline) as a whole to place safety of the operation at the fore, and as an ex-postholder with said airline, I can tell you from the MD down ensuring a safe operation is the number one business priority, after that comes pleasing the shareholders. Fail to ensure a safe operation and you compromise shareholder value so it must be the business's first priority. Of course on the day, the crew's places the safety of passengers and crew and operation of the aircraft as the number one priority, as clearly they did. But the organisation behind the them; maintenance, flight ops, etc. the finance that supports it all, if you were to ask anyone of them where the airline's first responsibilities lie, you're going to get a 'safe' operation as their first answer. Have to disagree with your take on that one.
