Pax sit-in at MAN

[flaps to 60]

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? :confused:

[Nogbad the Bad]

Can you really blame them ?

[wasteofcargospace]

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.:D :D :D

[AlexB]

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.:D :D :D
:rolleyes: 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.:hmm:

Edited to add a Happy Christmas to all.

[WideBodiedEng]

I believe they were on their way home and faced a bus ride from Manch home.

[Chesty Morgan]

Lock 'em all up. :mad:

[throw a dyce]

Since when is Aberdeen in Lap Land.:rolleyes: Beautiful wx for the last week and no snow or Raindeer.Bah Humbug indeed.;)

[FREDAcheck]

"...will this set a very dangerous precident with passengers getting what they want..."
Can't have that, can we? Anyone would think the airlines are there for the passengers.

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.

[fireflybob]

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..."

[Nov71]

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.

[spud]

'For your comfort and convenience and because of passenger demand, we're putting you on a bus'.
More time to sell 'Charity' gamecards though:ok:
Sorry, but a cynic is just a realist that's been about a bit.

Merry Christmas all.

[tangocharlie]

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!

[FREDAcheck]

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.

[AltFlaps]

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

[green granite]

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.

AlexB you didn't read the original post either, the lightening strike was in Ireland, nor did it cause the plane to crash and burn, yet people complain that the papers sensationalize things :ugh:

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?

[INLAK]

Lock 'em all up. :mad:

Possible, under the grounds of refusing an order from crew. Might teach the smug b*stards a lesson.

[Nogbad the Bad]

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 !!!

[FREDAcheck]

Possible, under the grounds of refusing an order from crew. Might teach the smug b*stards a lesson.
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).

[spud]

Yes, a company with that sort of attitude will get the customers it deserves, that's to say - none.

[Panops]

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!

[2engop]

Nov71 - Lapland is in Finland

[doublesix]

Why couldn't the aircraft continue to Gatwick as planned, drop the passengers and relocate to Manchester? Ok the passengers waiting at Manchester will have to wait, but that's not unusual. Sounds to me like the economic/convenience benefit to the company in not having to find standby crews took precedent over keeping the customer happy.

[WHBM]

Most of the Lapland charters leave at breakfast time and get home late evening. And are sold as a children-and-family day out.

We can be certain that when the aircraft returned to Manchester it would be late evening, that the buses would not have even been organised yet, they would doubtless not have got away from Manchester until well after midnight (it being not an easy job to find multiple bus drivers for a 10-hour round trip on spec at 10 pm at night) and with the misty conditions on the motorway would have turned up at Gatwick round about breakfast-time.

And this was an operational decision. The aircraft was not tech and the crew were in hours to go to Gatwick.

I can only presume the commonsense team at Monarch ops were not on duty that evening.

[flaps to 60]

Further to my original post the a/c sat at EGCC was shanghaied to operate the Alicante that the a/c struck by lightning in EIDW was supposed to operate.

Whether or not it was unreasonable for the EGCC pax to deny the Alicante passengers at least some chance of getting to their destination is not the point. Im not sure that they knew the whole story. But what does concern me is the militant attitude taken by the pax.

It is quite likely that they didnt know what was actaully going on but if asked to vacate an aircraft who knows why they have asked for this maybe there is a security problem and may be the easiest and safest way to get them off.

It is symtematic of modern society that to get what you want, you shout long and hard while quoting the law with a "Im going to sue you unles i get what i want" thrown in.

If it were me i dont know what i would do n(well i would if it was FR) but the pax made their intentions quite clear by texting camera phone pictures to the gutter press (news of the world).

By this time the line in the sand had been drawn.

Merry Christmas one and all:ok:

[hobie]

It is symtematic of modern society that to get what you want, you shout long and hard while quoting the law with a "Im going to sue you unles i get what i want" thrown in.


Listened to a very nice lady pas who said they had been threatened that their action was "mutiny" with all the well known implications ....... :{ I hasten to add, not by the pilots!!!! ......
(shot at dawn or thrown overboard .... I can never remember) :(

I was wondering if a Nat. Exp. Coach timetable was on board .... 7 hrs 30 mins up to 8hrs 50 mins for Man>Gat depending on time of day ..... wonder if that allows for Fog? ....

Not sure how much the Lapland trip in question cost but a buddie was quoted a day trip at 499.00 euro - child and adult at 599.00 euro ..... a couple of adults and a handfull of kids - say 4 grand for the day .... :hmm:

[spud]

"It is symtematic of modern society that to get what you want, you shout long and hard while quoting the law with a "Im going to sue you unles i get what i want" thrown in."
I'm afraid that what the British population needs is not a more apathy but rather they should be more inclined to point out how unacceptable the current piddle pot of mediocrity that passes for Blair's Britain has become and demand the standards that were the norm.
Sorry for the negative waves but accusing people of mutiny when they are only standing up for what they paid for cheapens us and is just bully tactics.

[TURIN]

Good one Spud, private company takes a private commercial decision and you blame the government! Class. :ugh: :D


Good on the SLF I say, more power to em.:D

[Avman]

I'm really astounded by the replies from some posters who are in the industry. Now let's all calm down and look at this a little more objectively. It's a day charter to Lapland. I would imagine that half the pax are children of a relative young age. A few of these children may have illnesses. It's a heck of a long day out for them - and their parents/guardians. Now, at the end of this tiring long (and not cheap) day the airline wants to renegade on their contract and transport them by road for the last sector - an eight hour plus overnight coach trip on foggy motorways. Is that really fair? Be honest with yourself, if it had been you would you not have kicked up a fuss? Being in the industry I'm a pretty tolerant person when it comes to weather/technical/other valid operational diversions. However, in this particular case I would say that ops got it 100% WRONG and I don't blame the passengers for their reaction.

[Monarch Man]

Sadly, its not something that surprised me on hearing this :hmm:

[Mr A Tis]

It is symtematic of modern society that to get what you want, you shout long and hard while quoting the law with a "Im going to sue you unles i get what i want" thrown in

It's symtematic of modern commercialism that companies fail to deliver what they have promised and been paid for.
They could have flown direct to Gatwick & onwards to Manchester, then done the stranded Alicante. Instead, more time & inconvenience was caused trying save a few bob.

[ryan2000]

Reading this from Ireland, Unlike us you've got motorways linking your major cities but it sounds a totally unreasonable decision by Monarch!

[Bagso]

well it makes a change from landing at LGW and being bussed to Manchester

OR simply being shuttled by BA into the South East in the 1st place on a scheduled service...!

[Centre cities]

In my experiance the main factor is cost to the company and everything else comes second, including company image. The reverse here is I suspect because the loss of image was to great.


Centre cities

[WHBM]

So whoever thought this was the best way to handle an AOG in the fleet ?

Has nobody at Monarch ops, when faced with the loss of an aircraft from the active fleet, ever heard of the word "subcharter" ? Or did nobody have the phone number of Titan or any of the others ?

I think the greatest disappointment is some of us here remember when Monarch were a class act. Here they are, charging substantial premium fares (which I assure you is what are charged on the Lapland flights in the final week before Christmas) and yet acting like the worst LCC plonkers.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

WHBM.
Monarch only supply the aircraft, they do not sell Lap Land Flights to Joe public.
So it makes no difference that as you quote they are LCC, it was a charter flight as is every Santa flight at this time of year.
You might also find that they were already Sub Chartering aircraft on Friday and Saturday.
However it was a bloody big own goal by whoever made the decision, someone should have known it would look bad in the press, after First Choices problem a few weeks before.:mad:

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Well, it may make for interesting reading in the next edition of Monline!

I suspect that the captain concerned made representations to Ops., on the company mobile, that what they were proposing was "Not a very bright idea." (I paraphrase.) They no doubt would come back with the thing about not being in possession of 'The Big Picture.' After further discussions, the 'Duty Exec.' probably got involved and the decision was made, to close up and fly on to LGW.

What a pity, as it spoiled a special day out, which everyone would have been trying their utmost to provide, of course.

As Mr @ Spotty M says, we don't know how hard-pressed Ops. were. In any case, I think I'm right in saying that the decision to sub-charter has long-since been taken away from the Ops. Controllers, through no fault of their own, and placed with higher management i.e. the 'Duty Exec'.

[nilcostoptionmyass]

MMMM, possible, but Monarch are falling to bits, they are under crewed, hardly suprising when you look at the package, now only comparable with the percieved bottom of the market startups, they have appalling management at the top who just won't listen to anyone. The rostering is a joke, they just won't invest any money into anything

oh and the company mobile was probably flat. :ugh:

[FlyZB]

Perhaps it's time for Monarch to concentrate solely on their scheduled arm and scrap the charter operation. Their scheduled (ZB) service appears to be going from strength to strength with passenger numbers seemingly on a constant increase. They're up there with the leading Loco's at both MAN and BHX and compete well with EZY at LGW and LTN. Their scheduled low cost product is one of the best of all the LCC's and they have formed a large 'fan base' of frequent fliers. Their charter operation however hasn't performed so consistently over recent years. The reputation of Monarch as a charter carrier is certainly not as good as it used to be and the many package holiday travellers would prefer to fly TOM/MYT/FCA especially on long haul, as the standards of both service and punctuality on Monarch charter have slipped dramatically.

Therefore I ask, is it time for Monarch to ditch their traditional charter services and free up aircraft to operate more ZB flights that are performing well. With this additional scheduled capacity they could start up a new low cost base or consolidate services at their additional bases. Certainly at MAN they could easily overtake LS and TOM with additional aircraft.

Anyway, back on topic... whilst the decision to bus the LGW passengers from MAN was a bad move by Monarch, I believe that the behaviour of the passengers on board was unacceptable. Of course they have a right to be angry but to stage a sit in against the direct orders of the crew is just out of order. And sending videos to the News of the World is utter madness. I'm sorry but whilst you're onboard an aircraft, the orders to the crew should be adhered to and i have a sad feeling that this will now open the gates for people to think they can do as they please and ignore what they're instructed by the airport/airline staff in charge. And that will be a sad, sorry state indeed if we get to that. Just my 2 pennies worth...

Hope everyone had a great xmas!

[Little Blue]

Jeeeez !!
It's bloody obvious that none of you actually work in Ops/crewing.
Don't work for Monarch, but the scenario is a familiar one for me.
Needs must, sometimes, I'm afraid. I know it's a huge cliche, but the "Bigger picture" has to take prioroty on occasion.
At least this was planned for the way back, and not outbound !
Mountain out of a molehill..(....and yet another bloody cliche !!):8

[Mr A Tis]

I'm afraid Monarch customer service sucks.
I've travelled as SLF with Monarch for 30 years, on 1-11s, B720s & B737s & they were always brilliant. These days, they charge more & offer less. Recently, we were charged twice for the same extra leg room seat due to a fault on their on line check in. I received my refund a week after the flight, my mate had to write 3 e-mails & 3 letters & wait 3 months before he got his refund. Both of us were just credited with the £15 overcharged, neither of us got an apology for their mistake nor an explantation why we were charged twice.
If we have a choice, neither of us would choose Monarch above somebody else.
I think they have forgotten where they get their income from.:uhoh:

[Avman]

Smug and easy for you to say whilst you sit nice and snug in your ops room Little Blue. If you had kids (you obviously don't), I'd love to be a fly on the wall if it happened to you. You would probably be shouting loudest! Read my post above and think again.

[qwertyuiop]

Mr Atis,
You have been moaning about Mon for years. If they are that bad, why do you keep traveling with them?:confused:

[Little Blue]

Morning Avman...
I have two children, so thanks for assuming that I don't.
I have been on the receiving end of a lot of "operational" disruption, and, yes,
it is a pain in the ass, but sh1t happens sometimes and it's usually for very good reasons.
I don't shout about it 'cos I'm in the industry and there is nothing worse than a know-it-all staff member mouthing off to all and sundry on the a/c, or sat in the gate.
Take some time out to find out what other departments actually do in times of disruption and the thought process behind it all.
You could be very surprised !:rolleyes:

[Expressflight]

[quote=Little Blue;3038319]Jeeeez !!
It's bloody obvious that none of you actually work in Ops/crewing.
Don't work for Monarch, but the scenario is a familiar one for me.
Needs must, sometimes, I'm afraid. I know it's a huge cliche, but the "Bigger picture" has to take prioroty on occasion.
quote]

Well I know it's some time since I was running an Ops department, and I agree that the "bigger picture" has to be taken into account, but I would never have dumped pax from a serviceable aeroplane 5 hours coaching distance from their destination - let alone in the circumstances of this particular flight - just because it was commercially expedient.
I remember chartering a 737CF from a certain large European charter airline for an important freight flight to RTM. The departure was running late and they wanted to re-route into AMS to reconfigure the aircraft for an imminent pax flight. I refused to agree so they confirmed they would operate to RTM as planned. Immediately after departure, on contacting airways, they requested diversion to AMS. I never used that operator again. In those day your word was your bond (sorry if that sounds terribly old fashioned) and a contract was a contract. Monarch should also have honoured the spririt of their contract, as undoubtedly they now wish they had.

[Mr A Tis]

Qwertyuiop, I have to use MON as they are (at the moment) the only operator MAN-BCN.Prior to that situation we always used Iberia.
A large number of people ( C class was always full on IB) on this route go via LHR rather than travel with MON on the BCN route.
It is the only MON route I use. Every flight I have used both ways has been late, the last one charged me twice for the same extra leg room seat, whilst at the same time non extra leg room pax were asked to move to fill the vacant exit rows free of charge.
Now they try and dump a load of tired kids on a very long expensive day out 5 hours from home.
Previous poster has referred to their sliding charter performance.
FCA has upped the game in the longhaul stakes with Star class, shortly to be follwed by an alleged even better Thomson product. MYT are to refit the A330s with extra room in economy, and Monarch are to..............er, do nothing it would appear.
I'd be happy if my flights left on time & I wasn't overcharged, nor charged for things they then give free to other people.I'd be even happier if Iberia came back.

[avgas321]

Hi all,

Just reading some of the interesting and varied replies, although most definately land in two distinct camps.

Whilst I agree that this was possibly, alright most definately was, a bad decision in terms of company PR, as some have already stated the whole picture is usually far more complex, and one that I would assume most here are unaware of. Please dont take offence at that last statement and correct me if I am wrong!!

From my incredibly blinkered 20 year plus operational slant, fleet unserviceabilities, flight and cabin crew issues, maintenance and commercial pressures, passenger convenience, airfield closures and restrictions, weather, to name but a few can and probably did all come in to play at some stage. Not to mention the Duty Manager/Executive/Dog - delete as appropriate - having his/her say so, would all have to be considered, and not just the affected flight, aircraft and crew.

That said, couldn't have happened on a worse sector. What does annoy me a little is this percieved passenger power that is creeping in to society these days. Yes they had paid handsomely for probably the trip of a lifetime which nobody could deny, but unfortunately operational, engineering/technical and commercial issues do crop up from time to time (sods law always on the most sensative of sectors) and tough decisions need to be taken to maintain some sort of commercial integrity for the airline. Of course, this would never be reported as it would never be perceived as the right thing to do, regardless.

I would be interested to know how the reversed decision affected the operation?

I wouldn't be as rude as to criticise my opposite counterparts in Monarch Ops as I didn't and dont have the overall picture, but I would venture that at some stage the decision was removed from them entirely. Always a good Ops bunch in my opinion, especially the Manchester lads. Luton were ok too, they just couldn't drink as much!

Happy new Year to All..

[Monarch Man]

Mr A Tis, as much as it pains me to say it regarding the charter work, you are correct IMHO. The company seems to go through fazes where it concentrates on certain area's. Recently the MON management have used a very blinkered and short sighted approach to charter work, and I hasten to add, they have been able to get away with this purely on the back of the success of the scheduled ZB services.
What isn't widely known however is the fact that the charter business accounts for close to half of the year in year out revenue, and it is also a more profitable endeavor.
MON as a company was previously innovative (the introduction of the 757 is a good example) and was staffed by some of the best thinkers in the industry, it is now however rapidly being over taken by the cost of everything & value of nothing brigade.
Going full circle, the success of the ZB services is down to the innovation of a certain individual, the team he has surrounded himself with, and the staff who operate to the best of their ability on a daily basis.
On the charter side, there are things happening (like the 787) but in the interim, as ever recently, MON has failed to innovate, failed to foresee the blindingly obvious, and will be reacting to the competition, rather than setting the standard that it once used to.

Rant off:ok:

[Avman]

OK Little Blue, we will just have to agree to disagree. I've been in the industry for 38 years and I'm well aware of the many constraints that influence a decision. Only on this occasion I just don't believe that a great deal of "thought" actually went into the thought process! And I'm sorry to get personal but your attitude "sh1t happens" shows a remarkable lack of respect for your customers. I stick to my guns that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE it was a very poor decision.

[skyman771]

tangocharlie
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.
Try telling this to EZY, they adopt this proceedure on a regualr basis as illustrated below :-
Regarding the EZY stn flights this morning (24/12),
G-EZKE was used on the 0640 NCL-STN (EZY512) which would have returned as EZY513 then back down to STN as 514 and back up again as 515 then onto FAO at 14.10. What happened was....
STN were an aircraft down and had 149 pax checked in to go to LYS at 06.15 so a/c G-EZKE operated this route (leaving the NCL pax to be coached) it departed around 9am bound for Lyon and returned to STN around 2pm, a/c then operated the delayed EZY515 back to NCL arrive approx 15.45!
Was a wonderful decision by some t*sser at EZY, one flight canx, pax from second bussed to NCL but got stuck in traffic on M1 so arrived later than the second NCL flight. LYS flight itself was 3 hours late even after p***ing everyone else off ! - A normal day I gather at EZY .......:sad: