TOM flight diverted CWL to BRS from SSH. Why?

[Smile!!!]

Does anyone know why tonights SSH to CWL TOM flight- TOM1508 was diverted to Bristol, the flight was due into Cardiff at- 21.30 tonight-
Info-

Flight No. Airport STA Flight Status
TOM1508 Sharm El Sheikh 21:30 Diverted To Bristol/Coaches ETA 2355



Any info would be appreciated.

Smile

[Standard Noise]

Officially the runway edge lights at Cardiff were a bit wonky. They lost one phase and the Thommo captain used that as the reason to divert.
The more cynical of us decided it was because we had an early morning Thommo flight this morning and Cardiff didn't (so we found out) and that the crew were possibly going to be too short of hours to position over to BRS ergo land at Briss and bus the cattle over the bridge. Job done.
Airlines eh, don't you just love them!?

[TightSlot]

Standard Noise

Please take a moment to re-read and re-consider your own post - remember that this forum is read by flight crew as well as our customers. I'm sure that you would not wish to embarrass yourself publicly in front of your fellow professionals?

[Fredairstair]

You should withdraw that post right now. :*

[RobT100]

The more cynical of us decided it was because we had an early morning Thommo flight this morning and Cardiff didn't (so we found out) and that the crew were possibly going to be too short of hours to position over to BRS ergo land at Briss and bus the cattle over the bridge. Job done.


Sounds about right :ugh:

[caaardiff]

G-BYAU was due to position into BRS this morning to operate the BRS morning flights anyway. Due to AK diverting to BRS, AU was then sent to CWL instead.
The MYT A330 that was due into CWL was unsure whether they would be able to land or not. Not sure if it did in the end!

[brummbrumm]

The MYT A330 planned to divert to BHX (it's final destination after CWL) but the decided to go into CWL and routed to BHX as planned after dropping off the CWL punters

[Stampe]

Simple lighting fell below allowed company minimum standard aircraft diverted to BRS.Degradation of runway edge lighting is not allowable for night operations in company operating procedures.CWL based crew and pax completed journey by road.Safety is no accident.Just the sort of Commander I like to fly behind when I,m a passenger.:D

[Standard Noise]

Tightslot - My first two sentences were correct. The third was a cynical observation by those of us on duty in the tower at Briss on Thursday evening. The last was tongue in cheek.
If you have any problem with that, then pull the post. I suspect that you won't because I was there and you weren't, which makes me eminently better qualified to state what was being thought at Bristol last night. As for my fellow professionals, well, having been at work today and spoken to them, they thought my post was funny, not embarrassing. If you are referring to what ATCOs at other units may think, well, I'm not one for caring much as you would know if you read any of my other posts on here in the last 6 years. The post did not personally attack anyone, nor did it using offensive language, why should I pull it?

Fredairstair - careful now, you might burst something.

[Astrocaryum vulgare]

Standard Noise, you've had an explanation from Stampe. Your post was inaccurate and yes, it does amount to a personal attack on the individuals involved and Thomsonfly employees in general.

[Fredairstair]

No really, you should withdraw that post. Now. You are slandering my company and it's not on. Think on fella.

[TightSlot]

Standard Noise

I won't pull your post - as you rightly say, the post is not explicitly offensive in tone or content.

I had hoped to warn you however that to professional airline pilots your comments would make you look at best uninformed and at worst, foolish. The opinion of your water cooler office chums is not what this is about.

Anyway...

Smile!!! - Hopefully you questions has now been fully answered by Stampe?

[Scimitar]

Standard Noise,

I worked for Britannia/Thomsonfly at Bristol from the late '80s to '05 and always considered that we and ATC had a pretty good working relationship and mutual respect. The tone of your post was offensive (deliberately or not) and it was inaccurate. I hope your chums in ATC are not in hysterical agreement with you - and feel that an apology would not go amiss.

My regards to your colleagues!

[Standard Noise]

Oh deary me, I've upset the poor wee lambs now.
It might actually surprise you lot as to what I really think of Britannia/Thommo crews but you're probably not interested.
As for this diversion, I have spoken to one of my colleagues at Taffy Tracon and he told me that the problem arose out of an ambiguous phrasing on their ATIS as to what was and wasn't serviceable. We've had problems with that sort of thing at BRS before but thankfully, it hasn't resulted in a div out.

As forwater cooler chums, well, I could say that you are being insulting to the ATCOs at BRS, but I've got a strong back, I can take a bit of banter, shame the rest of you get a bit too serious about it sometimes.
No need to reply to this post folks, I'm back off to JB where people have sense of humour.

[RobT100]

I happen to think the reason this post caused a stir was because it was possibly true. Why else ?

I have seen this type of thing before in all aspects of life - people do tend to go on the offensive when guilty. Maybe not, but who will ever know :(

[TightSlot]

Enough already...