ISLE OF MAN
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if the handling agent is owned by the government, it is owned by the tax payer.
Any profit that the handling agent make is to the profit of the tax payer, so why should it not have to pay out for it's own mistake?
If the company was private then fair enough, but as it is government owned, the people have to live with both the benefits and the losses.
Any profit that the handling agent make is to the profit of the tax payer, so why should it not have to pay out for it's own mistake?
If the company was private then fair enough, but as it is government owned, the people have to live with both the benefits and the losses.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not get carried away here!. Damage to Easy airbus was minimal (composite fairing panel damage only ). Costs will come from the aircraft down time,less than 24 hours ,which was far less than the Flybe aircraft that was rammed by the IOM loaders last year (aircraft out of service for 2-3 weeks).
Lets not be too harsh on the loaders.They drive closer to the aircraft than anyone else,and its not as if the IOM is the only place that aircraft get whacked!
Lets not be too harsh on the loaders.They drive closer to the aircraft than anyone else,and its not as if the IOM is the only place that aircraft get whacked!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not be too harsh on the loaders.They drive closer to the aircraft than anyone else,and its not as if the IOM is the only place that aircraft get whacked!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Liverpool
Age: 37
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the hell is it easyJets fault that someone rammed one of their aircrafts causing enough doubt in Captains mind that it was sufficient to ground the aircraft until the Enginner could be flown out from LPL to check it and sign off the paperwork
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Isle Of Man
Age: 40
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way was it Easys fault it was loaders who hit the plane twice. Front steps and rear hold.
Stupid bit is that the baggage loading is done by unionised overpaid jobsworth government employees NOT the handling agent .
Stupid bit is that the baggage loading is done by unionised overpaid jobsworth government employees NOT the handling agent .
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the damage the loader has hit the aircraft at some speed/with force.
The dent has 500 mileanhour tape on it as a interim measure and fortunately there is no crack so the repair can be deferred but must be made within 1000 hrs. However it will require a new panel and the panel in question isn't cheap !
The dent has 500 mileanhour tape on it as a interim measure and fortunately there is no crack so the repair can be deferred but must be made within 1000 hrs. However it will require a new panel and the panel in question isn't cheap !
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt. Horrendous
Surely there must be some insurance in place to cover for such things.
I very much doubt that the loaders operate without insurance when they are in close proximity to aircraft valued at millions of pounds. In fact all of the airlines operating will probably require a minimum level of liability insurance to ensure their interests are protected.
In short the IOM taxpayer will not foot the bill for the EZY cock-up, the insurers will.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Royal County
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short the IOM taxpayer will not foot the bill for the EZY cock-up, the insurers will.
Yes, but you can be sure that next years insurance premium will increase as a result and the IOM taxpayer will foot that bill.
Yes, but you can be sure that next years insurance premium will increase as a result and the IOM taxpayer will foot that bill.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be quite a lot of ill feeling towards the loaders here. Does anyone know what inquiry the airport management has or will set up and what sanctions will or could be taken against the operative/s should they be found wanting?
Pwrsonally, I find that the baggage reclaim service has become significantly worse than it was 25 years ago despite there being limitations on baggage size these days. It was common to be beaten to the baggage reclaim area by one´s baggage despite todays more modern handling equipment!
Pwrsonally, I find that the baggage reclaim service has become significantly worse than it was 25 years ago despite there being limitations on baggage size these days. It was common to be beaten to the baggage reclaim area by one´s baggage despite todays more modern handling equipment!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the house
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris fella. This is the isle Of Man. I'll tell you what will happen. Fred the loader will saunter into the ops mans office with his T&G minder. Ops man will tell Fred this really is very bad and how much this is going to cost blah blah! Fred will tell the ops man to go take a flying f..... and saunter out to go and dent another plane. Yessir, thats the way it is here on Fraggle.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to the loaders (and I was one once upon a time) part of the problem is the machinery they use. For those of you not familiar with Ronaldsway the baggage is loaded onto a vehicle which is driven right up to the side of the aircraft. It's loading platform is essentially one large conveyor belt which runs a bit like the belts at the Tesco checkouts. Baggage is placed (perhaps not the right word) onto the belt at the side of the aircraft and as the belt fills up it winds the baggage along a bit to make way for more. It's a neat system, which makes the job easier than the conveyor belt to baggage truck systems more commonly employed. I have only seen these machines at Ronaldsway, but there must be more out there somewhere.
The problem seems to be that the vehicle has to be driven tight up to the aircraft so that the working platform at the front of the vehicle is against or close to the aircraft fuselage. Health and safety no doubt get upset if there's a gap. There's a soft strip along the edge of this platform which is supposed to cushion any impact with the aircraft, but probably doesn't work if the impact is on an angle. And these things are powered by conventional engines so brake/clutch control has to be spot on. And so human factors come into play, and mistakes are unfortunately inevitable.
No doubt this incident will give some impetus to the airport management to look at what went wrong, and work with the manufacturers to improve the machine.
(Actually that last paragraph is a bit tongue in cheek really....)
The problem seems to be that the vehicle has to be driven tight up to the aircraft so that the working platform at the front of the vehicle is against or close to the aircraft fuselage. Health and safety no doubt get upset if there's a gap. There's a soft strip along the edge of this platform which is supposed to cushion any impact with the aircraft, but probably doesn't work if the impact is on an angle. And these things are powered by conventional engines so brake/clutch control has to be spot on. And so human factors come into play, and mistakes are unfortunately inevitable.
No doubt this incident will give some impetus to the airport management to look at what went wrong, and work with the manufacturers to improve the machine.
(Actually that last paragraph is a bit tongue in cheek really....)