Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

FlyBe - 6

Old 11th Jan 2011, 21:58
  #1361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,252
I have to agree that not informing you an your fellow passengers that your bags have been left behind was wrong. I am suprised that there wasn't a nosey passenger on board that spotted the bags coming off the aircraft.

I have been in similar case in the past where the crew have decided not to inform passengers at the other end or during flight in case they kick up a fuss and actually leave the handling agents the other end to break the news.

Yes passengers book bags in advanced however it is in individual passengers reservations as then they have the option to check-in the bag or not. It is not practical to go through all passengers individual reservations for every flight and work out if their male, female, child and if they have any bags booked.

Once the passengers check-in the system automatically breaks the passengers into Males, Females, Children & Infants including the number of bags checked-in in the system.
mathers_wales_uk is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 22:30
  #1362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Isle Of Man
Age: 36
Posts: 441
sounds to me like the problem wasnt icing but just that the runway was wet which increases take off distances and stopping distances cos the brakes dont work so well in the wet, just like on my mini. So MTOW is fine on dry but cant be achieved when wet wet wet.
IOMspotter is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 23:54
  #1363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 31
Hi Gaza,

I certainly appreciate your frustration having your bag left behind, it is incredibly annoying.

Hopefully this might answer your query. I suspect, like the Captain mentioned and you have passed on, that the aircraft was over MTOM, more specifically in this case the RTOM (Regulated Takeoff Mass). Whilst with a full load of passengers, sufficient fuel and baggage you wouldn't expect this to be an issue for an aircraft at an airline's main base, however, in icing conditions for the Q400 it can become a problem.

For clarity Icing conditions exist on the ground and for takeoff when the Static air temperature is 10 degrees celcius or below and visible moisture is present or visibility less than 1600m (Fog). As you mentioned it was raining, this coupled with a temperature which is likely to be below 10 degrees at this time of year meant that an Icing departure would be required.

For the Q400 this means our Propeller Anti icing equipment is on for takeoff, which takes away power from the aircraft's engines and therefore degrades the aircraft performance. This isn't particularly noticeable with two engines operating, but all performance is calculated on the assumption of an engine failure. The level degradation in performance depends on many factors, such as wind direction, Pressure, temperature, runway length, up or down slope, airport elevation etc. I have seen an icing departure reduce the MTOM by over 2000kgs in some instances which as you can see leads to quite an issue for a full aircraft which was already close to the aircraft MTOM of 28998kg. Southampton is a relatively short runway therefore performance losses are very likely, Gatwick or Manchester there are likely to be no issues.

The runway being wet itself would not have decreased the MTOM, it would have simply reduced V1, this is the speed at which if we have an engine failure, we must continue the takeoff.

In terms of leaving bags behind, this is frustrating and is something which rarely happens. A combination of factors could lead to this: A full passenger load, icing departure, high required fuel (SOU - MAN is a short hop, however the fuel uplifted will depend not only on the actual weather conditions, but also the forecast weather conditions, so if MAN and diversion airfields were forecasting poor weather such as Fog, then the fuel carried can be quite a lot more than just required to get to Manchester) and unusually high number of bags. Whilst I don't want to be making excuses, I'm just trying to explain how a number of factors can lead to bags being left behind. Why this wasn't communicated is something I can't comment on due to not being there.

I hope this helps a little bit.

Last edited by Flyer2007; 12th Jan 2011 at 00:07.
Flyer2007 is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2011, 01:32
  #1364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tyne and Wear
Age: 30
Posts: 125
Flyer 2007

Your response was very informative and detailed, and i realise that extra fuel is required for diversions etc. But can fuel just not be taken off the aircraft, obviously leaving enough for eventualities? Or enough to reduce the aircrafts weight to fit in with the limitations and just have a fuel stop en-route if needs be?

As from the publics perspective it is stupid to swap an aircraft for a aircraft which is potentially always going to have this problem in Southampton during the winters months? Obviously their could be operational requirements whilst this is done, but surely Flybe should know this.

As this problem about aircraft weight was also documented in the news today, except with a different airline and at a different airport. As for the tension and upset of course it is going to happen, but passengers should have a right to know that bags are getting removed. From working on a ground operations role, i have had to deal with this situation and we do not get given much inforation why it has happened. Having to tell a passenger that their dialysis machine was removed for weight issues does not bode well.
Ph1l1pncl is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2011, 10:49
  #1365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Flyer2007 - Excellent response. Thank you.

The captain did refer to "modifications" on that particular aircraft (G-JEDV) that were a contributing factor.

The good news was that as I walked in to the hotel last night to check-in the courier was dropping my bag off with the porter so thankfully I didn't have to visit the Trafford Centre!
Gaza is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2011, 11:02
  #1366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,252
The issue of bags being left behind used to happen weekly on a Boeing 737-800 operated by XL Airways from Cardiff to Sharm el Sheikh.

Approx 50 bags used to be left behind every week however passengers never knew of this and had actually been lied to guranteeing that all bags were all loaded after a passenger spotted bags being removed from aircraft.

Bags would be taken by courrier and loaded on to another flight from London arriving at Sharm el Sheik 2 days later.

Reason given was to load more fuel however Thomson Airways operate Cardiff-Sharm el Sheikh with no such issues. So not sure if it's dependent on engine type or if the XL aircraft had no winglets.

Gaza

If the incident referring to you in the paper is the Easyjet one at Birmingham then that was an allmighty cock-up of another sort especially to over fill the aircraft with fuel.

Ph1l1pncl


Fuel can only be removed from an aircraft if there is a empty fuel bowser available. They cannot offload fuel and put it back into the bowser as all the fuel will then be contaminated.

However i am not sure if this is possible on all aircraft as some are over wign refuelling and others are under wing refuelling. Last request i had for this was on a Boeing 777-200 but it was too complicated and time consuming to do so in the end it was agreed with the Captain and Fuel bowser not to proceed.
mathers_wales_uk is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2011, 11:40
  #1367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 31
Gaza,

I'm glad you got bag in time, whilst clearly not ideal, I'm pleased to see they got your bag to you quickly, it does save trekking around the Old Trafford Centre . Glad it cleared things up, I know as a passenger you can sometimes think "how is this possible?" but when the holes in the swiss cheese line up unusual issues can occur. On occasion only with a long explanation can fully explain what's happening and why. For most passengers this long explanation would be baffling, therefore the simple reason is normally given, often followed by passenger's pulling funny face's and thinking its all "rather ridiculous and that BA wouldn't have this problem".

Ph1l1pncl

As WingoWango mentioned taking off the extra fuel would unfortunately defeat the object of carrying the extra fuel in case of diversion. If for example they were unable to land in MAN and needed to divert, but didn't have sufficient fuel, the situation would be a whole lot worse, dire in fact. As an example a few weeks back our diversion fuel was considerably greater than our trip fuel (fuel that would be burned between our original departure and arrival airport) due to the fact that most of the UK had fog forecast for the best part of the day. So hopefully you can see that a route that may only burn 800kg's of fuel en route may actually require something close to 2500/3000kg onboard, if the weather or other factors dictate.


As others have also brought up, the question of mentioning the bags is difficult. It can lead to outrage amongst the passengers, demanding whose bag will make it, whose won't and why should the person next to them get their bag and not them? Consuming more time than if some were taken off and put on the next flight two hours later. It's a tough call to honest.
Flyer2007 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 12:06
  #1368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Something strange is happening on this thread. Yesterday and today I have notifications of replies (and what they contain) but by the time I open the thread they are gone.

Yesterday's post gave a view on what the modifications were and today's expressed a view on why it may have been overweight.

Have these posts been deleted by the mods?
Gaza is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 12:13
  #1369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 65
Posts: 1,037
Hi Gaza
is that the one from flyer 2007, if so it is still there

Ian B
Ian Brooks is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 12:29
  #1370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Ian

I can see that post but there were at least 2 others that seemed to have ben posted but are no longer there. I have the names of the posters on the email notfications along with what they posted but they are not on this thread.
Gaza is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2011, 13:00
  #1371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 443
Some things are posted on here by people who then realise it's against company policy or just risks getting themselves in trouble saying it. Mentioning specifics of aircraft mods is not very clever to do, even though you might think it's relevant.

Some aircraft types have non-structural fiaring parts that are made of lightweight fibreglass and in places where you wouldn't think they'd make a difference. Spares are not always kept and thus occasionally you'll see a gap and bit of light green paint on the back of bulges or fairings on wing trailing edges or undercarriage legs, etc. The original part may have cracked and been removed and something called a configuration deviation List is carried in aircraft manuals to allow operation in these cases while the new parts are painted up and sent out to meet up with the aircraft asomewhere where they and engineers co-incide.

Happens for all types and companies. Some of these pieces actually cause a significant penalty as the drag increases. Hence the weight reduction for performance. Actually giving details for a particular company or aircraft type is not best practice- as it changes from time to time and is calculated when required. You just need to know it happens and is cheaper and less annoying than grounding the aircraft and cancelling your flight.

I hate leaving bags behind. However, it's better than leaving passengers or finding yourself running low on fuel with nowhere to land.....
RVF750 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2011, 09:57
  #1372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Leeds
Age: 59
Posts: 165
Depends on your circumstances and the reason you are travelling. I can think of a number of reasons why it might be better not to travel if your baggage has been offloaded, indeed your baggage may contain items which are vital to your trip. With bar coded baggage tags it would take only a couple of minutes to identify which passengers have had their baggage offloaded, and to tell them so that they at least have the option of not travelling if they wish.
BKS Air Transport is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2011, 10:47
  #1373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Indeed. As I said at the start my bag had papers and books in it that I needed for the day. Other passengers were in the same position with some having put their laptops in their bags. People are forced to do this due to he business-traveller-unfriendly policies adopted by FlyBe. I would guess that a substantial number of pax on routes such as SOU-MAN are business travellers so some recognition of this would not go amiss. Easyjet mange to have very business traveller friendly policies so it would be good to see BE do the same.
Gaza is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2011, 23:46
  #1374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 735
Gaza, could you clarify just how Flybe adopt an unfair approach to the business traveller which by coincidence is their main market?

As far as I see it, passengers in economy and economy plus may carry a piece of hand baggage that fits within a certain size. The bag itself is still big enough to accomodate more than a laptop but when travelling on the latter ticket you get to carry that in addition to the laptop. Any person that checks a laptop in to hold baggage is asking for trouble in my opinion.

As it happens if customers follow their restrictions and conditions you will find Flybe offer a far more superior business package to passengers over EasyJet. Look at Business Express, Economy Plus, Rewards4all, business lounges etc. Its all about reading the restrictions on the ticket and adhering to them.
Cloud1 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2011, 00:47
  #1375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: BHX
Age: 40
Posts: 90
Cloud1
Actually, it's about us listening to the business passengers needs and adapting to accommodate as many of these as possible, without jeopardising the aircraft safety or our business model. Of course, passengers need to know the rules but...

They pay our wages


Economically it is better business practice to off load pax.

500kgs = 5 x pax + 5 x bags (approx) and equals 5 x pissed off pax

500kgs = 40 bags and equals 40 pissed off pax
G-FLYB is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2011, 01:54
  #1376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 735
G-FLYB -I am confused....and I shall explain why. I have not queried any of the offloading issues, nor have I questioned safety, nor indeed have I mentioned anything about how these customers pay our wages.....so not sure which route you are going with that. It did sound slightly patronising but I dont expect it was meant to sound that way?

Whilst I agree any company should take onboard passenger feedback I find it incredibly hard to believe that each passenger will agree that the baggage restrictions prevent or make business travel difficult. All I am saying is compared to EasyJet which Gaza used as an example Flybe operate a much more superior business product. I am simply asking for clarification as to which aspect of the baggage model is unfair to business travellers....
Cloud1 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2011, 22:29
  #1377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: BHX
Age: 40
Posts: 90
Sorry Cloudy, and thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I didn't phrase it very well - did I?
What I meant was we should accommodate the pax when we can and as you say, within the rules specified.
Thereafter, we should offload pax, not bags - otherwise we upset more pax (who pay our wages), which we don't want to do.
G-FLYB is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2011, 01:53
  #1378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,508
i know that BE's codeshares with BA are few and far betwen but does anyone think that BE would/could consider codesharing with BA on the NQY-LGW rotation to allow easier onward connections ?

cs
cornishsimon is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2011, 12:09
  #1379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 354
I see that they have changed the online pricing so that the headline fare now includes 'taxes and charges'. Sensible idea.
Tonyq is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2011, 12:41
  #1380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 37
Posts: 208
I see that they have changed the online pricing so that the headline fare now includes 'taxes and charges'. Sensible idea.
Isn't that now required under EU law?
redED is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.