Hi all,
Just reading some of the interesting and varied replies, although most definately land in two distinct camps.
Whilst I agree that this was possibly, alright most definately was, a bad decision in terms of company
PR, as some have already stated the whole picture is usually far more complex, and one that I would assume most here are unaware of. Please dont take offence at that last statement and correct me if I am wrong!!
From my incredibly blinkered 20 year plus operational slant, fleet unserviceabilities, flight and cabin crew issues, maintenance and commercial pressures, passenger convenience, airfield closures and restrictions, weather, to name but a few can and probably did all come in to play at some stage. Not to mention the Duty Manager/Executive/Dog - delete as appropriate - having his/her say so, would all have to be considered, and not just the affected flight, aircraft and crew.
That said, couldn't have happened on a worse sector. What does annoy me a little is this percieved passenger power that is creeping in to society these days. Yes they had paid handsomely for probably the trip of a lifetime which nobody could deny, but unfortunately operational, engineering/technical and commercial issues do crop up from time to time (sods law always on the most sensative of sectors) and tough decisions need to be taken to maintain some sort of commercial integrity for the airline. Of course, this would never be reported as it would never be perceived as the right thing to do, regardless.
I would be interested to know how the reversed decision affected the operation?
I wouldn't be as rude as to criticise my opposite counterparts in Monarch Ops as I didn't and dont have the overall picture, but I would venture that at some stage the decision was removed from them entirely. Always a good Ops bunch in my opinion, especially the Manchester lads. Luton were ok too, they just couldn't drink as much!
Happy new Year to All..