Snow @ LHR this afternoon (8/1/03)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Paris, Paris, France
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Muppet99,
I guessed that the SVO had been scrapped as when I took over the aircraft (in a style befitting of the Marie Celeste!) it was all wound up for blast off in cluding 20 tonnes of fuel - a little excessive for just a cheeky little CDG!
Suffice to say it was a long evening with many teddies being thrown out of the cot. For long periods, Terminal control just gave up and would not answer - useful.
However, as has been mentioned, is it worth spending loads on de-icing considering how often we would use it? Perhaps we should double LHR size with plenty more runways, terminals and then we could have mass de-icing rigs as in Europe - seem to work quite well. In addition to all those benefits, we would also concrete over Filtham, I mean Feltham.
A challenging evening and misery for the customers but goes to show we do not operate a bus service as many would like to portray us...
"Were you drafted for this?"..........."Oh Yes!"
Kind regards,
Leslie
I guessed that the SVO had been scrapped as when I took over the aircraft (in a style befitting of the Marie Celeste!) it was all wound up for blast off in cluding 20 tonnes of fuel - a little excessive for just a cheeky little CDG!
Suffice to say it was a long evening with many teddies being thrown out of the cot. For long periods, Terminal control just gave up and would not answer - useful.
However, as has been mentioned, is it worth spending loads on de-icing considering how often we would use it? Perhaps we should double LHR size with plenty more runways, terminals and then we could have mass de-icing rigs as in Europe - seem to work quite well. In addition to all those benefits, we would also concrete over Filtham, I mean Feltham.
A challenging evening and misery for the customers but goes to show we do not operate a bus service as many would like to portray us...
"Were you drafted for this?"..........."Oh Yes!"
Kind regards,
Leslie
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF31 at EGCC
As some of you will know, I am normally a staunch supporter of Manchester, but I have to agree with some of the earlier comments made with regards to the handling of diversions.
Having read the article in the Manchester Evening News in connection with the handling of QF31, I feel that I must put 'pen to paper'.
I know that when the captain of QF31 decided to terminate - due to slots being put back when LHR when back to single runway operations - he was quizzed very strongly by Speedbird Ops as to why there was no chance of the slots being brought forward and the flight operating. Regretably Ops appeared to be totally unaware of the deteriorating LHR situation and just wanted to be rid of the aircraft.
When the crew explained that they had already been on duty for 19 hours, they were told that it would be 2 1/2 hours before coaches could be arranged. No mention was made as to whether that was coaches to the aircraft or for bussing to LHR. By this time the captain was obviously a bit p****d off and so it would appear where a number of passengers. BA Ops were constantly saying that the terminal was unable to cope with 400 pax off a 747.
Now I don't know which terminal QF in theory are assigned to at MAN, but I suspect that it is T3. If so then it just goes to show that it is totally incapable of processing wide-bodied aircraft. Surely the airport and the handling agents should able to switch airlines to another terminal if the situation warrants it.
I know that MAA plc normally use a policy of only accepting passengers into the terminals once ground transport has arrived for onward bussing, but it is not as if there were that many diversions yesterday. I suspect that T2 was probably pretty well empty at the time. Would it not have been better to get the passengers landside, let them stretch their legs and start spending money in the retails units rather than have the normal bad publicity that has resulted?
It would be interesting to know how the other UK airports handle diversions.
Scottie Dog
Having read the article in the Manchester Evening News in connection with the handling of QF31, I feel that I must put 'pen to paper'.
I know that when the captain of QF31 decided to terminate - due to slots being put back when LHR when back to single runway operations - he was quizzed very strongly by Speedbird Ops as to why there was no chance of the slots being brought forward and the flight operating. Regretably Ops appeared to be totally unaware of the deteriorating LHR situation and just wanted to be rid of the aircraft.
When the crew explained that they had already been on duty for 19 hours, they were told that it would be 2 1/2 hours before coaches could be arranged. No mention was made as to whether that was coaches to the aircraft or for bussing to LHR. By this time the captain was obviously a bit p****d off and so it would appear where a number of passengers. BA Ops were constantly saying that the terminal was unable to cope with 400 pax off a 747.
Now I don't know which terminal QF in theory are assigned to at MAN, but I suspect that it is T3. If so then it just goes to show that it is totally incapable of processing wide-bodied aircraft. Surely the airport and the handling agents should able to switch airlines to another terminal if the situation warrants it.
I know that MAA plc normally use a policy of only accepting passengers into the terminals once ground transport has arrived for onward bussing, but it is not as if there were that many diversions yesterday. I suspect that T2 was probably pretty well empty at the time. Would it not have been better to get the passengers landside, let them stretch their legs and start spending money in the retails units rather than have the normal bad publicity that has resulted?
It would be interesting to know how the other UK airports handle diversions.
Scottie Dog
Last edited by Scottie Dog; 9th Jan 2003 at 16:57.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is rumour and conjecture, but I believe that BA Handling at MAN have not been very popular with the Manchester Airport Authority for years due to their reluctance to accept diversions, and their treatment of them once in (Diversions of widebodies = welcome cash for the Authority during the leaner winter months of course). Manchester on a winter afternoon is a relatively quiet place, and as you say, Terminal 2 could easily have handled them. Having said that although T3 isn't huge, it isn't snowed under (sorry - couldn't resist it) during the afternoon with just a gentle trickle of Embraers.
The BA spokeswoman in the Evening News article states that they only have 2 stands capable of taking 747s, and they were both occupied - by what is my first thought? The only widebodies on T3 nowadays are the AA and BA 767s, which were both long gone by the time QF31 arrived, so they must have been occupied by 146s or Embraers, which will have either been on a turnround, or not in use, and so moving something or making a gate change wouldn't have been a big deal at some point during the 5 hours that this was going on.
I could be wrong of course - one should never underestimate the Airport Authority's capacity for bizarre behaviour but on this occasion it smells of a local BA problem.
Edit to add the URL to the article online: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...ory=48800.html
The BA spokeswoman in the Evening News article states that they only have 2 stands capable of taking 747s, and they were both occupied - by what is my first thought? The only widebodies on T3 nowadays are the AA and BA 767s, which were both long gone by the time QF31 arrived, so they must have been occupied by 146s or Embraers, which will have either been on a turnround, or not in use, and so moving something or making a gate change wouldn't have been a big deal at some point during the 5 hours that this was going on.
I could be wrong of course - one should never underestimate the Airport Authority's capacity for bizarre behaviour but on this occasion it smells of a local BA problem.
Edit to add the URL to the article online: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...ory=48800.html
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just think how much money those wonderful accountants have saved though - I am so glad these people have their priorities right and know what is important in life.
Apologies - for people read d**kheads
Apologies - for people read d**kheads
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northern skyport
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF diversion at Man
ccording to the Manchester Evening News the passengers were sitting in the cold, despite a perfectly servisable and working apu !
The passengers were held on this aircraft because the flight had a slot at 1625 and not because BA staff would not handle. Also if the passengers had deplaned it would have had to be into the arrivals area because of security constaints.
Two other aircraft made their slots but ATC put back the QF slot shortly before start up and the crew went out of hours.
There was then a delay before disembarking the passengers because there were no spare ground staff.
This raises an issue about diversions nowadays. Is there an airport that has myriads of space and staff just waiting to handle diversions at the drop of a hat. I think not.
Do not believe all you read in the media, According to the Manchester Evening News the passengers were sitting on board in the cold. Not so, the apu was working and the temperature was fine
Some people are quick to criticise before they know the facts
The passengers were held on this aircraft because the flight had a slot at 1625 and not because BA staff would not handle. Also if the passengers had deplaned it would have had to be into the arrivals area because of security constaints.
Two other aircraft made their slots but ATC put back the QF slot shortly before start up and the crew went out of hours.
There was then a delay before disembarking the passengers because there were no spare ground staff.
This raises an issue about diversions nowadays. Is there an airport that has myriads of space and staff just waiting to handle diversions at the drop of a hat. I think not.
Do not believe all you read in the media, According to the Manchester Evening News the passengers were sitting on board in the cold. Not so, the apu was working and the temperature was fine
Some people are quick to criticise before they know the facts
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought LHR did very well - particularly ATC. I thought the idea of firstly getting people away when they had de-iced, and then (when the backlog got too big) queueing up people to tell them when to de-ice worked very well. The real problem was (for the most part) the handling agents, who have limited equipment, and were left struggling to interpret the situation from all their pilots who failed to communicate what exactly was happening.
Just one thing, though. The "free-market" approach of letting people provide their own de-icing vehicles on the stand was an accident waiting to happen. Taxying out to 09R from T1 was really pushing the holdover times for above freezing snow. Any slight deterioration would have meant that the trickle of aircraft coming back to stand for another squirt would have become a flood.
The safest way of doing this is stationing de-icing rigs near the threshold of the runway and cleaning the aircraft just before they line up. This gives maximum hold-over time, and gets rid of the shambolic process of trying to juggle slots, de-icing, pushbacks, taxying and boarding on the stand. However, this would require a change in procedures, and is dangerously communistic for UK air transport, so I guess it won't happen.
Incidentally, I assume the Air ***** 747 that said it didn't need to be de-iced in the height of the storm made it to its destination OK?!?
Just one thing, though. The "free-market" approach of letting people provide their own de-icing vehicles on the stand was an accident waiting to happen. Taxying out to 09R from T1 was really pushing the holdover times for above freezing snow. Any slight deterioration would have meant that the trickle of aircraft coming back to stand for another squirt would have become a flood.
The safest way of doing this is stationing de-icing rigs near the threshold of the runway and cleaning the aircraft just before they line up. This gives maximum hold-over time, and gets rid of the shambolic process of trying to juggle slots, de-icing, pushbacks, taxying and boarding on the stand. However, this would require a change in procedures, and is dangerously communistic for UK air transport, so I guess it won't happen.
Incidentally, I assume the Air ***** 747 that said it didn't need to be de-iced in the height of the storm made it to its destination OK?!?
