Pax sit-in at MAN
Smug and easy for you to say whilst you sit nice and snug in your ops room Little Blue. If you had kids (you obviously don't), I'd love to be a fly on the wall if it happened to you. You would probably be shouting loudest! Read my post above and think again.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wherever my current employers wish to send me !!
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning Avman...
I have two children, so thanks for assuming that I don't.
I have been on the receiving end of a lot of "operational" disruption, and, yes,
it is a pain in the ass, but sh1t happens sometimes and it's usually for very good reasons.
I don't shout about it 'cos I'm in the industry and there is nothing worse than a know-it-all staff member mouthing off to all and sundry on the a/c, or sat in the gate.
Take some time out to find out what other departments actually do in times of disruption and the thought process behind it all.
You could be very surprised !
I have two children, so thanks for assuming that I don't.
I have been on the receiving end of a lot of "operational" disruption, and, yes,
it is a pain in the ass, but sh1t happens sometimes and it's usually for very good reasons.
I don't shout about it 'cos I'm in the industry and there is nothing worse than a know-it-all staff member mouthing off to all and sundry on the a/c, or sat in the gate.
Take some time out to find out what other departments actually do in times of disruption and the thought process behind it all.
You could be very surprised !
[quote=Little Blue;3038319]Jeeeez !!
It's bloody obvious that none of you actually work in Ops/crewing.
Don't work for Monarch, but the scenario is a familiar one for me.
Needs must, sometimes, I'm afraid. I know it's a huge cliche, but the "Bigger picture" has to take prioroty on occasion.
quote]
Well I know it's some time since I was running an Ops department, and I agree that the "bigger picture" has to be taken into account, but I would never have dumped pax from a serviceable aeroplane 5 hours coaching distance from their destination - let alone in the circumstances of this particular flight - just because it was commercially expedient.
I remember chartering a 737CF from a certain large European charter airline for an important freight flight to RTM. The departure was running late and they wanted to re-route into AMS to reconfigure the aircraft for an imminent pax flight. I refused to agree so they confirmed they would operate to RTM as planned. Immediately after departure, on contacting airways, they requested diversion to AMS. I never used that operator again. In those day your word was your bond (sorry if that sounds terribly old fashioned) and a contract was a contract. Monarch should also have honoured the spririt of their contract, as undoubtedly they now wish they had.
It's bloody obvious that none of you actually work in Ops/crewing.
Don't work for Monarch, but the scenario is a familiar one for me.
Needs must, sometimes, I'm afraid. I know it's a huge cliche, but the "Bigger picture" has to take prioroty on occasion.
quote]
Well I know it's some time since I was running an Ops department, and I agree that the "bigger picture" has to be taken into account, but I would never have dumped pax from a serviceable aeroplane 5 hours coaching distance from their destination - let alone in the circumstances of this particular flight - just because it was commercially expedient.
I remember chartering a 737CF from a certain large European charter airline for an important freight flight to RTM. The departure was running late and they wanted to re-route into AMS to reconfigure the aircraft for an imminent pax flight. I refused to agree so they confirmed they would operate to RTM as planned. Immediately after departure, on contacting airways, they requested diversion to AMS. I never used that operator again. In those day your word was your bond (sorry if that sounds terribly old fashioned) and a contract was a contract. Monarch should also have honoured the spririt of their contract, as undoubtedly they now wish they had.
Qwertyuiop, I have to use MON as they are (at the moment) the only operator MAN-BCN.Prior to that situation we always used Iberia.
A large number of people ( C class was always full on IB) on this route go via LHR rather than travel with MON on the BCN route.
It is the only MON route I use. Every flight I have used both ways has been late, the last one charged me twice for the same extra leg room seat, whilst at the same time non extra leg room pax were asked to move to fill the vacant exit rows free of charge.
Now they try and dump a load of tired kids on a very long expensive day out 5 hours from home.
Previous poster has referred to their sliding charter performance.
FCA has upped the game in the longhaul stakes with Star class, shortly to be follwed by an alleged even better Thomson product. MYT are to refit the A330s with extra room in economy, and Monarch are to..............er, do nothing it would appear.
I'd be happy if my flights left on time & I wasn't overcharged, nor charged for things they then give free to other people.I'd be even happier if Iberia came back.
A large number of people ( C class was always full on IB) on this route go via LHR rather than travel with MON on the BCN route.
It is the only MON route I use. Every flight I have used both ways has been late, the last one charged me twice for the same extra leg room seat, whilst at the same time non extra leg room pax were asked to move to fill the vacant exit rows free of charge.
Now they try and dump a load of tired kids on a very long expensive day out 5 hours from home.
Previous poster has referred to their sliding charter performance.
FCA has upped the game in the longhaul stakes with Star class, shortly to be follwed by an alleged even better Thomson product. MYT are to refit the A330s with extra room in economy, and Monarch are to..............er, do nothing it would appear.
I'd be happy if my flights left on time & I wasn't overcharged, nor charged for things they then give free to other people.I'd be even happier if Iberia came back.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did Ops do the right thing?
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..
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..
Mr A Tis, as much as it pains me to say it regarding the charter work, you are correct IMHO. The company seems to go through fazes where it concentrates on certain area's. Recently the MON management have used a very blinkered and short sighted approach to charter work, and I hasten to add, they have been able to get away with this purely on the back of the success of the scheduled ZB services.
What isn't widely known however is the fact that the charter business accounts for close to half of the year in year out revenue, and it is also a more profitable endeavor.
MON as a company was previously innovative (the introduction of the 757 is a good example) and was staffed by some of the best thinkers in the industry, it is now however rapidly being over taken by the cost of everything & value of nothing brigade.
Going full circle, the success of the ZB services is down to the innovation of a certain individual, the team he has surrounded himself with, and the staff who operate to the best of their ability on a daily basis.
On the charter side, there are things happening (like the 787) but in the interim, as ever recently, MON has failed to innovate, failed to foresee the blindingly obvious, and will be reacting to the competition, rather than setting the standard that it once used to.
Rant off
What isn't widely known however is the fact that the charter business accounts for close to half of the year in year out revenue, and it is also a more profitable endeavor.
MON as a company was previously innovative (the introduction of the 757 is a good example) and was staffed by some of the best thinkers in the industry, it is now however rapidly being over taken by the cost of everything & value of nothing brigade.
Going full circle, the success of the ZB services is down to the innovation of a certain individual, the team he has surrounded himself with, and the staff who operate to the best of their ability on a daily basis.
On the charter side, there are things happening (like the 787) but in the interim, as ever recently, MON has failed to innovate, failed to foresee the blindingly obvious, and will be reacting to the competition, rather than setting the standard that it once used to.
Rant off
OK Little Blue, we will just have to agree to disagree. I've been in the industry for 38 years and I'm well aware of the many constraints that influence a decision. Only on this occasion I just don't believe that a great deal of "thought" actually went into the thought process! And I'm sorry to get personal but your attitude "sh1t happens" shows a remarkable lack of respect for your customers. I stick to my guns that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE it was a very poor decision.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the EZY stn flights this morning (24/12),
G-EZKE was used on the 0640 NCL-STN (EZY512) which would have returned as EZY513 then back down to STN as 514 and back up again as 515 then onto FAO at 14.10. What happened was....
STN were an aircraft down and had 149 pax checked in to go to LYS at 06.15 so a/c G-EZKE operated this route (leaving the NCL pax to be coached) it departed around 9am bound for Lyon and returned to STN around 2pm, a/c then operated the delayed EZY515 back to NCL arrive approx 15.45!
G-EZKE was used on the 0640 NCL-STN (EZY512) which would have returned as EZY513 then back down to STN as 514 and back up again as 515 then onto FAO at 14.10. What happened was....
STN were an aircraft down and had 149 pax checked in to go to LYS at 06.15 so a/c G-EZKE operated this route (leaving the NCL pax to be coached) it departed around 9am bound for Lyon and returned to STN around 2pm, a/c then operated the delayed EZY515 back to NCL arrive approx 15.45!
