EJ pax stage sit-in at LFMN
Shining Example, apparently...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lone Star State
Age: 50
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlapsOne: In this case, on reflection, my comment was wide of the mark. But to those who advocate arrest of the passengers, I reiterate: Authority should be discharged in a responsible manner.
IMHO, it is reasonable to change an aircraft's roster for operational reasons. It is less reasonable to change the roster after boarding. If customers respond in a 'less reasonable' manner, the response should be constructive, not combative. Save the cavalry for the emergencies.
Airlines need respect from their passengers in order to operate safely. On this occasion, that respect was eroded. But I don't know the full circumstances so I'll leave it there.
[Edited to minimise conjecture.]
IMHO, it is reasonable to change an aircraft's roster for operational reasons. It is less reasonable to change the roster after boarding. If customers respond in a 'less reasonable' manner, the response should be constructive, not combative. Save the cavalry for the emergencies.
Airlines need respect from their passengers in order to operate safely. On this occasion, that respect was eroded. But I don't know the full circumstances so I'll leave it there.
[Edited to minimise conjecture.]
Last edited by Crepello; 1st Aug 2002 at 15:03.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only an hour and a half delay
some posts have said the passengers should have got off as it would only have entailed a 90 minute delay until the other, broken, aircraft was fixed.
Methinks passengers, and I include myself in this, have grown cynical and wary of "just 90 minutes then we're off". Cos as sure as eggs are eggs, after the 90 minutes the board flips again and
-another- 90 minutes is added. And so on and so on, until who knows when. So I think the passengers here acted correctly, I'd have done the same thing and stayed sat in my seat.
Perhaps if airlines behaved a little more honestly when communicating on delays then there would be more faith?
Methinks passengers, and I include myself in this, have grown cynical and wary of "just 90 minutes then we're off". Cos as sure as eggs are eggs, after the 90 minutes the board flips again and
-another- 90 minutes is added. And so on and so on, until who knows when. So I think the passengers here acted correctly, I'd have done the same thing and stayed sat in my seat.
Perhaps if airlines behaved a little more honestly when communicating on delays then there would be more faith?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
groundbum
if you genuinely believe that sort of attitude is any way to resolve the situation like the one that occurred last week then please, as your user name suggests, STAY ON THE BLOODY GROUND!
if you, and people of a similar mentality, think that they can run an airline better than the operator then I suggest you give up your day job and start your own airline!
if you genuinely believe that sort of attitude is any way to resolve the situation like the one that occurred last week then please, as your user name suggests, STAY ON THE BLOODY GROUND!
if you, and people of a similar mentality, think that they can run an airline better than the operator then I suggest you give up your day job and start your own airline!
Delay? What delay?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst agreeing with the view that the pax in this case should have disembarked when asked to by the crew, I do think that groundbum has a point re. bad information to pax. In my experience working at various levels as a handling agent, from loading through dispatch, passenger services to general management, (over 10 years! how time flies), my current view is that pretty much the only honest information that I will trust, othetr than the mark one eyeball, is that given by the flight deck. The information that we regularly get from airlins ops, upline and downline handling agents etc etc can be taken with a large grain of salt IMHO. I do strongly believe that, if we were able to give better information to the passengers that they could have faith in, there would be a lot fewer situations like this arising. Oh and I won't mention that alcohol is often a factor, especially in a delay situation, because that would be off topic.
I would have stayed put, trading the certainty of getting home sometime for the possibility of not getting home at all.
As you sow, so you reap. Most airlines are pathological liars when it comes to telling passengers what is happening: they've noticed. No coincidence that it was a Nice flight, methinks. Affluent passengers, travel a lot, heard it all before.......
As you sow, so you reap. Most airlines are pathological liars when it comes to telling passengers what is happening: they've noticed. No coincidence that it was a Nice flight, methinks. Affluent passengers, travel a lot, heard it all before.......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect goes both ways. Once the SLF has been loaded, don't expect it to unload willingly unless it's a safety issue. The convenience of other passengers on another flight is not much of a consideration to someone who arrived in good time, got a low number so they can get the seat they want, and is then faced with losing their good seat, plus another few hours delay, possibly missing all public transport when getting back to Luton, so having extra cost in taxis etc.
We put up with delays (especially BA domestic), but sometimes can be pushed a little too far.
We realise the flight crew, and cabin crew have different pressures, and if we thought the job was easy, enjoyable and well paid we'd all be doing it. So, once we're strapped in, don't expect us to unbuckle until we get to the destination (unless it's a safety issue).
We put up with delays (especially BA domestic), but sometimes can be pushed a little too far.
We realise the flight crew, and cabin crew have different pressures, and if we thought the job was easy, enjoyable and well paid we'd all be doing it. So, once we're strapped in, don't expect us to unbuckle until we get to the destination (unless it's a safety issue).
Shining Example, apparently...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lone Star State
Age: 50
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GwynM: Well said.
FlapsOne: Without wishing to stir you up, I note that groundbum's approach did indeed 'resolve' the situation at Nice.
giza: Crepello was a racehorse from many moons ago. My connection wasn't with the horse, but (ahem) a BR diesel locomotive that was named in its honour. I won't elaborate further, bet you're sorry you asked!
FlapsOne: Without wishing to stir you up, I note that groundbum's approach did indeed 'resolve' the situation at Nice.
giza: Crepello was a racehorse from many moons ago. My connection wasn't with the horse, but (ahem) a BR diesel locomotive that was named in its honour. I won't elaborate further, bet you're sorry you asked!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crepello
This approach at Nice did not resolve the situation at all.
It merely served to delay them even longer.
I have every sympathy with passengers messed around under these circumstances. As I have stated clearly before, it should never have happened and would not have happened had the decision been made somewhat earlier. I believe easyjet have made a statement that says something along the same lines.
We surely cannot, however, encourage or endorse or even mildly support actions that involve passengers taking over/occupying an aircraft because they do not like the decision that has been made - no matter what that decision is!
If such action is to be considered reasonable, or even understandable, then I believe that the future safety of aircraft, crews, and other passengers will be seriously eroded, irrespective of whether such action takes place on the ground or, God forbid, in the air.
A line has to be drawn somewhere and, despite their understandable disappointment and annoyance, the passengers at Nice last week over-stepped it.
This approach at Nice did not resolve the situation at all.
It merely served to delay them even longer.
I have every sympathy with passengers messed around under these circumstances. As I have stated clearly before, it should never have happened and would not have happened had the decision been made somewhat earlier. I believe easyjet have made a statement that says something along the same lines.
We surely cannot, however, encourage or endorse or even mildly support actions that involve passengers taking over/occupying an aircraft because they do not like the decision that has been made - no matter what that decision is!
If such action is to be considered reasonable, or even understandable, then I believe that the future safety of aircraft, crews, and other passengers will be seriously eroded, irrespective of whether such action takes place on the ground or, God forbid, in the air.
A line has to be drawn somewhere and, despite their understandable disappointment and annoyance, the passengers at Nice last week over-stepped it.
Grim Sleeper
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was one of those no-win situations that airlines increasingly find themselves in. There was one well-publicised incident which ironically was exacerbated by the "Airline" programme (bless em) where the passengers from the preceding (delayed) flight went ballistic in the terminal as the passengers on the subsequent undelayed flight went brfore them. The overriding attitude among these pax was "we should have gone first" - I think EZY was trying to do right, but i agree a decisioin should have been made earlier. Anyway, Nice passengers do seem to to be building a bad reputation!! Definitely not my #1 destination....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF3 and GWYNM. Try that on any flight in the future and you will have no choice. That bloody minded, self centred approach is what is causing the increase in incidents in aircraft. 'I would have stayed put'. Well I would have you arrested. See how that changes your mind. You wouldn't do it again.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Allendale, Northumberland
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit late here, but Flaps One post was absolutely right. An airline with a complex route structure demanding a/c and pax to be in certain positions at the end of the day for operational and technical reasons. Faced with unforseen circumstances the ops department of that airline can either:
make a decision that causes a bit of disruption spread about the network which might annoy a few people at the time but eventually benefits the whole of the companies pax for the next 24 hours, or:
cowtow to a bunch of arrogant, self-centered individuals that think that the world revolves around them and that they should have what they want at the expense of everyone else. It is no surprise that the vast majority of the discarded newspapers on EZ flights collected during the cleanups ar Daily Mails.
Those pax who refused to disembark that a/c on the day, despite possible PR mishaps by the crew, which I doubt, acted illegaly and could in the UK be charged with affray or any number of similar offences. I did note the Daily Mail the next day praising their actions!
make a decision that causes a bit of disruption spread about the network which might annoy a few people at the time but eventually benefits the whole of the companies pax for the next 24 hours, or:
cowtow to a bunch of arrogant, self-centered individuals that think that the world revolves around them and that they should have what they want at the expense of everyone else. It is no surprise that the vast majority of the discarded newspapers on EZ flights collected during the cleanups ar Daily Mails.
Those pax who refused to disembark that a/c on the day, despite possible PR mishaps by the crew, which I doubt, acted illegaly and could in the UK be charged with affray or any number of similar offences. I did note the Daily Mail the next day praising their actions!
"That bloody minded, self centred approach is what is causing the increase in incidents in aircraft."
Disagree: I don't think peoples attitudes have changed. If 'incidents' (whatever that means) are increasing, could that perhaps be related to the passengers having more to get upset about?
Please note the post on the 'rapidly evolving situation' regarding fixing the plane and the comments about the crew running out of hours. Next announcement: "Oh dear, the crew are out of hours / the plane can't be mended tonight, we will make a further announcement at 4.30 am tomorrow morning." Anyone heard that one before?
Disagree: I don't think peoples attitudes have changed. If 'incidents' (whatever that means) are increasing, could that perhaps be related to the passengers having more to get upset about?
Please note the post on the 'rapidly evolving situation' regarding fixing the plane and the comments about the crew running out of hours. Next announcement: "Oh dear, the crew are out of hours / the plane can't be mended tonight, we will make a further announcement at 4.30 am tomorrow morning." Anyone heard that one before?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverknapper, Algernon Lacey
If it comes to the convenience of the airline and crew over the fare paying passenger, it's obvious where you stand. This situation was due to poor management at the time, who should have prevented the problem from happening. They didn't, and it got worse for everyone. The airline got bad publicity, the passengers of both flights had longer delays, and the crews had two planeloads of disgruntled passengers.
However, the attitude that passengers should be locked up (and probably flogged or hung) for hijacking because the airline cocked up does not help anyone. It would be interesting to test in court whether it constitute hijacking (Collins: to seize, divert or appropriate while in transit) if you boarded a scheduled flight and want it to go to where it's meant to end up.
I don't condone the sit in, but can understand why it happened. The passengers pay the wages, so the airlines need to look after their interests.
And if you think this was bad, you should have tried flying to Scotland with BA last Tuesday...no sit ins, but total disregard of customers needs (dump everyone in Glasgow, and then ignore them).
If it comes to the convenience of the airline and crew over the fare paying passenger, it's obvious where you stand. This situation was due to poor management at the time, who should have prevented the problem from happening. They didn't, and it got worse for everyone. The airline got bad publicity, the passengers of both flights had longer delays, and the crews had two planeloads of disgruntled passengers.
However, the attitude that passengers should be locked up (and probably flogged or hung) for hijacking because the airline cocked up does not help anyone. It would be interesting to test in court whether it constitute hijacking (Collins: to seize, divert or appropriate while in transit) if you boarded a scheduled flight and want it to go to where it's meant to end up.
I don't condone the sit in, but can understand why it happened. The passengers pay the wages, so the airlines need to look after their interests.
And if you think this was bad, you should have tried flying to Scotland with BA last Tuesday...no sit ins, but total disregard of customers needs (dump everyone in Glasgow, and then ignore them).
