Pax sit-in at MAN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax sit-in at MAN
Sky news this evening
Due to a lightning strike on another aircraft in Ireland Monarch decide to land a 757 at manchester on its way to LGW from a day trip to Lapland.
The passengers were told that they would continue the journey by coach.
Well thats when it fell apart and the passengers decided to stage a sit in.
Of course the police were called and a stand off was in the air.
The Airline eventually caved in (maybe it was the demand for DVD's and mince pies by the passengers).
Eventually the 757 took off again after the airline made an agreement with the passengers.
All very well and Bah Humbug but will this set a very dangerous precident with passengers getting what they want by throwing a hissy fit and slinging the rattle out of the cot?
Due to a lightning strike on another aircraft in Ireland Monarch decide to land a 757 at manchester on its way to LGW from a day trip to Lapland.
The passengers were told that they would continue the journey by coach.
Well thats when it fell apart and the passengers decided to stage a sit in.
Of course the police were called and a stand off was in the air.
The Airline eventually caved in (maybe it was the demand for DVD's and mince pies by the passengers).
Eventually the 757 took off again after the airline made an agreement with the passengers.
All very well and Bah Humbug but will this set a very dangerous precident with passengers getting what they want by throwing a hissy fit and slinging the rattle out of the cot?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on them !!!!
Do you know how far Lap Land is from Manchester ??? It would take a long long time by coach, they would not be home for days.
They paid for a day trip to Lap Land for their excited kids and they deserved to get it, not a trip up the M6 by coach to look at Aberdeen.
Do you know how far Lap Land is from Manchester ??? It would take a long long time by coach, they would not be home for days.
They paid for a day trip to Lap Land for their excited kids and they deserved to get it, not a trip up the M6 by coach to look at Aberdeen.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bucks
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on them !!!!
Do you know how far Lap Land is from Manchester ??? It would take a long long time by coach, they would not be home for days.
They paid for a day trip to Lap Land for their excited kids and they deserved to get it, not a trip up the M6 by coach to look at Aberdeen.
Do you know how far Lap Land is from Manchester ??? It would take a long long time by coach, they would not be home for days.
They paid for a day trip to Lap Land for their excited kids and they deserved to get it, not a trip up the M6 by coach to look at Aberdeen.
Did you actuallly bother to read the original post, they were stuck on their way back so simply would have had to sit through a drive to Gatwick. Seems even PPRUNE readers are taken in by the sensationalist media who felt fit to put up a video of 'poor, saddened children' who were told by their parents to chant "We want to go home!" at a camera phone and sent it to the news of the world.
Next time, let them carry on to LGW until they are struck by lightning, all the kids would die, but at least they wouldn't be grounded by the big bad airline! I'm sure the good old quality papers would point fingers at the carriers for not grounding the flight.
Edited to add a Happy Christmas to all.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they were on their way home and faced a bus ride from Manch home.
Last edited by WideBodiedEng; 23rd Dec 2006 at 22:49. Reason: Crossed with the more eloquent reply above
"...will this set a very dangerous precident with passengers getting what they want..."
Sorry flaps to 60 - I see what you mean, but comments like that sound like the old joke about the attitude of railway workers: the job would be so much better without the passengers.
Reminds me of a comment made by Zig Ziglar (a respected US motivational speaker) about the US airlines, he said "The biggest mistake the (US) airlines made (years ago) was to think they were in the transportation business, when, in fact, they are actually in the people business (in common with every other business)". What he was saying is that good business is about establishing and maintaining good relationships with the customers/end users.
What beggars belief is that any sane person in the commercial sector of the company would think that this sort of action (ie by the company in bussing the pax MAN to LGW) would be a good decision. Think of the loss of business this type of bad publicity might attract. The best (and worst!) type of advertising is "word of mouth" like "we flew with xxx airline and the flight was on time, the cabin service was excellent etc..." as opposed to "whatever you do don't go with xxx airline because of etc..."
What beggars belief is that any sane person in the commercial sector of the company would think that this sort of action (ie by the company in bussing the pax MAN to LGW) would be a good decision. Think of the loss of business this type of bad publicity might attract. The best (and worst!) type of advertising is "word of mouth" like "we flew with xxx airline and the flight was on time, the cabin service was excellent etc..." as opposed to "whatever you do don't go with xxx airline because of etc..."
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me see if I have this correct
a/c was on return leg Iceland to Gatwick with many child pax and parents on day trip. EGCC was scheduled en route stop
a/C WAS NOT u/s at Mcr but retasked for commercial reasons
Mcr - Gatwick flight time ~ 1 hr, Coach time 4+ hr
If airlines can transfer pax to road for operational reasons then most will go by train or coach whilst paying the higher price for flying inc extras such as security tax, baggage surcharge, passenger tax for a £20 coach ride Compensation should be payable for en route operational delays at same rate as departure delays.
If the coach had crashed who would have been liable? I doubt the airline despite the journey being provided on the airline ticket. I have no problem with safety or weather delays, provided I am kept informed and treated as a sentient being but too often treated as SLF for 'operational' reasons
In this case, as Monarch prob realised, they would have been in breach of contract, hence the re-think.
a/c was on return leg Iceland to Gatwick with many child pax and parents on day trip. EGCC was scheduled en route stop
a/C WAS NOT u/s at Mcr but retasked for commercial reasons
Mcr - Gatwick flight time ~ 1 hr, Coach time 4+ hr
If airlines can transfer pax to road for operational reasons then most will go by train or coach whilst paying the higher price for flying inc extras such as security tax, baggage surcharge, passenger tax for a £20 coach ride Compensation should be payable for en route operational delays at same rate as departure delays.
If the coach had crashed who would have been liable? I doubt the airline despite the journey being provided on the airline ticket. I have no problem with safety or weather delays, provided I am kept informed and treated as a sentient being but too often treated as SLF for 'operational' reasons
In this case, as Monarch prob realised, they would have been in breach of contract, hence the re-think.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'For your comfort and convenience and because of passenger demand, we're putting you on a bus'.
More time to sell 'Charity' gamecards though
Sorry, but a cynic is just a realist that's been about a bit.
Merry Christmas all.
More time to sell 'Charity' gamecards though
Sorry, but a cynic is just a realist that's been about a bit.
Merry Christmas all.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like may have been a sound operational decision. Of course the 80+ pax who would have to bus MAN/LGW wouldnt agree but the 400+ pax who the a/c was used to get away/home probably have a different view!
tangocharlie
That's quite right tangocharlie, it may have been in the best interests of the company. But the 80+ on the cancelled flight aren't part of the company. They have no responsibility to the 400+, that's the company's job. A company should never put a customer in the position where he or she is expected to see things from the company's point of view. That's not part of the deal, and is the quickest way of p*ssing off customers.
That's quite right tangocharlie, it may have been in the best interests of the company. But the 80+ on the cancelled flight aren't part of the company. They have no responsibility to the 400+, that's the company's job. A company should never put a customer in the position where he or she is expected to see things from the company's point of view. That's not part of the deal, and is the quickest way of p*ssing off customers.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All too much now ...
Unfortuneatly, this is what low cost (low cost of sales that is) has done to the industry.
Ironically, the same pasengers who demand ever decreasing ticket prices (fuelled by negative influences like ... ?!) are the ones who end up taking it on the chin when these companies can no longer afford to keep/run spare aircraft (because it doesn't fit into the low cost model).
I already here people say things like "if there is a non low cost option, I will always pay the (not very much) extra to take it".
When it starts to go wrong in low cost, it really goes wrong. There is just no slack left in the system. If we turn up an hour late at some of our destinations, we have problems getting fuel, bags, services or anything else because the handling companies have moved on to the next schedule ... and the locos just don't pay the handling companies enough for them to keep any slack in their systems ... and on it goes.
I believe we are getting to the stage where the travelling public (the now well travelled public) are beginning to realise that unless ticket prices go back up (by a moderate amount), that there lives in the air will become more and more difficult ...
Lets hope that our very clever comercial departments start to realise this too ...
A loco skipper
Ironically, the same pasengers who demand ever decreasing ticket prices (fuelled by negative influences like ... ?!) are the ones who end up taking it on the chin when these companies can no longer afford to keep/run spare aircraft (because it doesn't fit into the low cost model).
I already here people say things like "if there is a non low cost option, I will always pay the (not very much) extra to take it".
When it starts to go wrong in low cost, it really goes wrong. There is just no slack left in the system. If we turn up an hour late at some of our destinations, we have problems getting fuel, bags, services or anything else because the handling companies have moved on to the next schedule ... and the locos just don't pay the handling companies enough for them to keep any slack in their systems ... and on it goes.
I believe we are getting to the stage where the travelling public (the now well travelled public) are beginning to realise that unless ticket prices go back up (by a moderate amount), that there lives in the air will become more and more difficult ...
Lets hope that our very clever comercial departments start to realise this too ...
A loco skipper
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time, let them carry on to LGW until they are struck by lightning, all the kids would die, but at least they wouldn't be grounded by the big bad airline! I'm sure the good old quality papers would point fingers at the carriers for not grounding the flight.
I'm with the pax on this one the A/C could have gone straight to Gat then back to Man. or would that involve thinking?
Isn't it about time you realised who pays the bills ???
This was clearly not a low-cost cattle haul (as I know some of you like to refer to your "customers") but a gourp of people who, up until this happened, were having an enjoyable Christmas outing.
Shhheeeeeesh yopu people bloody annoy me sometimes !!!
This was clearly not a low-cost cattle haul (as I know some of you like to refer to your "customers") but a gourp of people who, up until this happened, were having an enjoyable Christmas outing.
Shhheeeeeesh yopu people bloody annoy me sometimes !!!
INLAK, I know you're joking, as nobody in airlines or any competitive service industry has thought like that since Soviet era Aeroflot. However irritating it is, customers of a competitive supplier are allowed to be smug b*stards, the suppliers are not (unless they want to go out of business).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold everyone, not one person here knows the whole story. By moving these pax this way it may have held intact crewing and aircraft wise for a subsequent couple rotations of around 800 pax total for that night or next day possibly. By, unfortunately, inconveniencing this one load pax by 5 hours they may have saved a worse case for many more pax. This weeks disruption, lack of capacity on the run up to Xmas and slot problems on such trips may have proved that it may have been an inspired decision which has been ruined and so last night or today a whole new batch of many more pax are feeling let down on Xmas Eve! Don't think these decisions are taken lightly at this time of year and not without much thought with the whole picture in mind. Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to you all!