JMC counts £10K cost of squabbling couple

[ECCM]

from e-tid.com
<>
JMC is £10,000 out of pocket after a lovers’ tiff led to 180 outbound passengers sleeping in the departure lounge at Manchester Airport while the same number ended up spending an extra night in Greece.<br>

In Wednesday’s incident, a woman demanded to be let off the A320 flight from Manchester-Rhodes after a row with her partner. JMC agreed, ‘to protect the operational safety of the flight’.

However, CAA rules state that no flight can operate with luggage in the hold if the passenger is not on board. By the time the suitcase was found, the plane had missed its slot.

JMC’s problems were compounded by the fact that the next available slot took the current crew over its working hours limit, meaning another crew had to be brought in. Passengers would have been put up in a hotel at the airport, only they were all booked.

Customers in Greece, due to return on the delayed flight, were put up for an extra night in Rhodes.

Police were called in to remove the couple ‘for their own safety’ and JMC refused to allow them to travel on the rescheduled flight. It is not clear whether the woman's changing her mind and deciding that she didn't mean it after all contributed to the couples’ safety needing protecting.

JMC has passed details over to its legal team to see whether the company might have a claim against the couple.
<>

I'm not an airline pilot, but I think if I was I'd be a bit p*ssed off! Can't believe some of the things professional pilots have to contend with :eek:

[partagas]

Am working for European scheduled and charter operator and am interested in this post since I have faced this situation several times and would appreciate a legal perspective. Passengers have requested disembarkation for the following reasons:
Flight delayed on ground for technical or weather problems leading to the occasional nervous flyer wishing to get off , business passengers travelling solely to attend a specific meeting wanting to travel on another date on realising that they will miss the appointment due to the delay, and even once a passenger whose circumstances had genuinely changed since check in ,following a telephone call advising her that she was no longer required at destination.

[takeoffallgreen]

ECCM,

Nearly accurate but not quite. In fact the flight, after a technical delay, was boarded and once complete the crew were advised by the handling agent that they were one missing.

It transpired that the missing women had been told, by the boyfriend, to "f-off" in the terminal and so she left. The boyfriend didn't bother to tell anyone that he was travelling alone and by the time this all came to light the crew were out of hours to depart.

The police were asked to be in attendence to monitor the situation, nothing else.

Slots had nothing to do with the delay. The crew ran out of hours having used their maximum discretion.

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: takeoffallgreen ]

[kfly]

In this situation I think the best possible solution was to have the pax offloaded. By doing so it diffused what could have been a volatile situation.

We are all aware of the too many previous incidents that have been well documented about irate or disturbed pax on board. :)

[ECCM]

Takeoffallgreen:

Thanks for the info, once again some poetic sensationalism from the journo's.