View Full Version : easyJet reason 4 diversion?

Viscount Sussex
27th May 2004, 15:34
Any info on an easyJet flight working the Palma freq 119.15 last night, that "needed" to divert to Alicante?

The a/c requested to divert to ALC.
When questioned by the controller, the reply was "for commercial reasons".
The controller a bit confused (and so say say all of us!) asked again for the reason for the diversion and the reply again was "for commercial reasons".
The controller then asked if a flight plan had been submitted for the flight to ALC. So the crew then said it was for "technical reasons", they were now leveling off at FL120 and they were proceeding to ALC (i.e. no longer they were requesting it, but doing it!) So, the controller asked what kind of technical problem they were having. So back to the old tune, and it was again "commercial reasons".
We changed freq to BCL and didn't get to know the rest.
Very strange...is it not?:confused:
And I heard people say Spanish controllers are not very good!!!

Hotel Tango
27th May 2004, 15:44
Pure speculation, but they might have been playing that old trick of filing to PMI (or whatever their filed dest was) with ALC as diversion to avoid lengthy restriction to their intended destination ALC. Be warned that CFMU do watch out for this and take action against the guilty.

Shaka Zulu
27th May 2004, 17:16
Nonsense. I was on the original easy flight last night to PMI. The other aircraft was G-EZYF and was destined for ALC anyway.
We were asked by crewing to do a PMI - ALC sector to pick up some punters and then fly back to LTN. Was too far into discretion so they found another solution.
YF was never destined for PMI

Viscount Sussex
27th May 2004, 17:24
Shaka Zulu

What is nonsense?

What I have stated it's what we heard. The time was approx 22:15z. I don't know the a/c reg or anything else.

Just a question for the reason to what we heard.

Any more info? i.e. the real reason for the diversion?



Shaka Zulu
27th May 2004, 17:31
Nonsense what Hotel Tango was saying mate.
Don't know what's up but it seems it will be out for the count for a couple of days Ops said to us.....
We almost got stuck in PMI yesterday with nmb 2 symbol generator failed.
YB and YF the pride of our fleet ;)
I'll try to find out some more about it.
Maybe this aircraft you heard diverted into ALC to pick up those pax we were meant to pick up but sure I am not...that would explain the "commercial reason" they gave to Radar

Hotel Tango
27th May 2004, 18:10
Glad to hear it was nonsense on this occasion Shaka. But believe me it has been done many a time in the past (not necessarily by EZY I hasten to add).

27th May 2004, 22:00
I would suggest perhaps the aircraft received HF message from ops whilst enroute to PMI asking them to call at ALC first and collect said punters. Not an entirely unusual request in an operation like EZY.

27th May 2004, 22:25

That sound like a bit of a dig at EZY. I hope it wasn't as given operational problems that leave pax stranded, the airlines I have worked for and flown as pax with, will occasionally divert to 'rescue' these paying customers.

Is there a problem with this?

27th May 2004, 23:54
<Is there a problem with this?>

Thats what I was thinking.
I know it was 10 years ago but on a private jet out of Linkoping en route to Munchen one of the directors on board said he thought we were going to Amsterdam so would we divert. B***ocks said the other (senior) directors so, as we were overflying Copenhagen (more or less) we spoke to our controlling agency-can't remember who it was-age is a troublesome thing) explained the situation and asked for a re-route to land at Copenhagen. No probs (except we were working like one arm paperhangers) she said and we duly dropped said director off. In fact we also arranged his onward flight.

So now I'm long retired from this type of activity, am I to believe that one cannot change plan when airborne?

Shaka Zulu
28th May 2004, 00:08
It's just a cause of having an aircraft tech and pax stranded....
Another 73 in the area with a halfload needs a half hour diversion to pick the majority up. At night very likely to make up time with straight ins coming back to the UK, so overall not likely to be major delays....
Methinks its a win = win situation. Maybe not ideal but hey we're flying mechanical monsters

28th May 2004, 03:12
I "rescued" some stranded pax in Calcutta a few years ago. They had paxed DXB/CCU and were supposed to be continuing via SIN to BWN but there was a problem (cant remember what) and we lobbed in to CCU to pick them up. Only snag was that we were operating BWN/LHR via AUH! Pax ended up going to AUH with us (after an unplanned nighstop CCU) before eventually getting a flight to BWN. Took them 48 hours to get back (almost) where they started from!

28th May 2004, 08:26
Whatever the reason was, it may well be company policy in Easy (as it is in mine) to not state the nature of the problem unless it's a Mayday or Pan situation.

There are far too many people listening in on frequencies and what may be a minor technical problem can end up with one of the typical "jet with children on board plunges from the sky" type of misguided headline we have become all to familiar with. By stating commercial or technical reasons, these situations can be avoided.

28th May 2004, 08:47
Notwithstanding the companys right to do with its a/c exactly what it wants to do, it wouldn't have done any harm for EZY ops to pick up the phone and call either CFMU or the PMI/BCN watch manager to explain the situation.

On the odd occassion in my past existence when it became necessary to reroute or divert a/c it made the crews jobs so much easier if the contoller was already aware of the request before he heard it on the r/t. Spanish ATC's english is generally good but how many could translate 'commercial reasons' without any fuss?

Over the last few years computers really have damaged 'proper' communications in this industry. a quick chinwag with the chap dealing with the problem often makes the problem go away.

Viscount Sussex
28th May 2004, 09:03

Yes, I can see where you are coming from.

There was a big bubble over the controller's head and everybody else listening.

If there was a commercial need for the a/c to go to ALC, why not tell the controller that they require a change of destination for commercial reasons rather that require diverting?

Subsequently when questioned again by ATC they said technical problems and obviously the controller asked what kind of problems (ATC would have to plan accordingly) and then as I said before it was changed to commercial reasons.

A few things went through my mind as it did to my colleague in the flight deck as to what was actually happening to the a/c.


28th May 2004, 09:35
I was merely intending to mean, that an operation like EZY with several close destinations, that this is an ideal solution to tech problems. :O

ATC have no right to ask why the diversion, if you have already said 'commercial reasons'. They get far too nosey about things that arent their business. The airlines are their customer - NOT the other way around!

If it were tech reasons, I am sure almost all crew would admit it, to seek as much assistance as possible... :ok:

28th May 2004, 10:01
ATC have no right to ask why the diversion, if you have already said 'commercial reasons'. They get far too nosey about things that arent their business. The airlines are their customer - NOT the other way around!

Seems to me that the Spanish Controller was simply trying to make sure that he fully understood the situation. If you think ATC have time to be 'nosey', for its own sake, you are sadly mistaken! :rolleyes:

Viscount Sussex
28th May 2004, 10:23

As spekesoftly was saying I think that was exactly what went on. The controller was clarifying or making sure of the reasons for the diversion.

When (as I previously said) the crew replied “commercial reasons”, he then asked if a flight plan had been submitted. Then the crew changed it to technical reasons.
It didn’t sound to me as if the controller was probing for any more info than he required.
And as I said before, the crew also said “we are levelling off at FL120 and proceeding to ALC”. In other words they were not requesting or discussing a diversion but informing ATC of what they were actually doing.
That to me gave it the tone of something more serious than a commercial change of destination.

28th May 2004, 11:08
When BA used to fly RUH-LHR with the Tristar during summer days with high loads, I believe they often filed to FRA and then 'diverted' to LHR once they knew they could make it (e.g. winds more favourable than anticipated).

True, or bollocks?

Hotel Tango
28th May 2004, 11:25
ATC have no right to ask why the diversion, if you have already said 'commercial reasons'. They get far too nosey about things that arent their business. The airlines are their customer - NOT the other way around!

Wooooa there! You are way out of synch outofsynch ! Wind your anti-ATC neck in for a minute and reflect a little about the times we live in. We have responsibilities towards our customers' safety beyond just ensuring seperation.

Shaka Zulu
28th May 2004, 13:21
Bahrainlad, that happens loads of times........
And you can reduce on the contingency fuel aswell by re-file in the air once you know you have fuel for the original (further) destination. But not in any way it's a diversion, it's standard practice to do this.

Yeah you're right about that one HT, especially if this flight just levelled of at FL120 for their diversion to ALC, without 'proper clearance' coming back to the original topic.....

28th May 2004, 23:13
If the crew had told ATC twice that it was commercial reasons, I cant understand why he should have expected the crew to elaborate any further.

However I also agree that the crew should not have done anything without clearance. Perhaps the language barrier was playing its part.

That is why the original story doesnt quite add up to me. I certainly cant think of any reason to divert to ALC for technical reasons at that point. I would suggest the crew gave that answer to try and expedite reclearance. :ugh:

I apologise if I offended any ATC friends with my 'nosey' comment. Surely as long as the reason isnt an emergency or technical, what difference does it make? Can you file a plan for an in flight diversion? :confused:

Viscount Sussex
29th May 2004, 00:06
And there was me thinking I was going to bed…

Outofsynch what doesn’t quite add up to you in the original story?

If you kindly go back to the very first post and carefully read it you’ll see there is no maths involved.
Exactly what it says is what happened. No hidden agenda, just wondering if anybody else had heard it and knew more about it. That’s it.
Don’t worry, it’s not that important.
Hey, I’m off to PMI again tomorrow, but this time I’ll keep it to myself if I hear anything like it.
Good night.

Z z z z z

Hotel Tango
29th May 2004, 13:27
Can you file a plan for an in flight diversion?

Come on mate, as a commercial B737 driver you should know the answer to that :E

31st May 2004, 11:13
Not so long ago (March/April) CSA did exactly the same at STN a BHX-PRG flight visited us on the ramp...I am led to belive they called a PAN as the AFS met them and followed them to the stand - a very bemused crew wondered why when they eventually made contact as they were diverted by ops to pick up a tech aircrafts pax!!

Little Blue
31st May 2004, 11:39
We used to file plans to enroute alternates a few years back.
GLA-LCA on a 737-400 was always a challenge...so PFO or RHO were often used....
Not anymore....fuel policy was changed and it hasn't happened since.
Not sure whether is a company thing or not...
It got us out of loads of scrapes !

31st May 2004, 12:48
The local rumor has it that in fact declaring very little at all made the police squads board the aricraft and I fully understand why if that was the case.

Sad thing is that they brought no extra pax back at all since the situation was solved otherwise by the time they had landed. The crews will never jump the ops bait so easily any time soon.

Viscount Sussex
31st May 2004, 13:43


Are you suggesting that perhaps the reason was to do with a security problem?

Can you please explain?


31st May 2004, 15:51
On the contrary, my friend. They only jumped OPS rushed request, only to find upon arrival they were not needed anymore. Sad for them, could have saved the efforts for next time.

Local rumor says the "commerical reasons" got garbled at some point on the way and thus the treatment. I only mean to say that emergency and security services cannot take any chances and this is understood. It was such non eventful that they became suspicious so to say. No one's fault.

I am a poor writer but try to read Cythereas and my previous posts in sequence and I am sure it'll add up for you.