Air India detains passengers at Gatwick for 9 hours

[oscarisapc]

I read a news report that an Air India flight to London Heathrow had to land at London Gatwick because of fog. For various reasons the flight could not depart for Heathrow for nine hours during which time the passengers were kept on board and forbidden to leave. My question is why? Is there any law that says you can't leave a flight until it has reached its declared destination? Flights are diverted all the time due to bad weather and the usual procedure is for passengers to be taken to their final destination by coach with the luggage following later. It is not as though the flight had landed in another country. It had landed at one London airport instead of another. Many passengers said Gatwick was as good as Heathrow as far as they were concerned. Air India obviously knew that the flight had ended because the pilots hours were declared spent and part of the delay was waiting for a relief crew. Unless it is a flight where a relief crew is already on board, for very obvious reasons you can't stop pilots flying in excess of their hours during a continuing flight so the flight was over as far as the airline was concerned. This sounds like a case of false imprisonment to me. The airline can't have it both ways - either the flight was over or it wasn't. The Police were called to deal with the passengers complaints and to prevent a breach of the peace - not to release them from being falsely imprisoned against their will. The Police were also reported to have stated that the passengers were in need of refreshment. It doesn't look good for the airline's competence or care. Any comments?

[redsnail]

Not wishing to comment on the specifics on this case but to get access to coaches to drive the pax to LHR is not as easy as it sounds.
It is possible that Air India did not have a handling presence in Gatwick and that makes arranging any thing extremely difficult. Such as access to a gate or stairs and the like.

However, having said that, 8 hours on the aeroplane does sound excessive and I am sure questions will be asked.

[ExXB]

My question is why? Is there any law that says you can't leave a flight until it has reached its declared destination?... Any comments?

No there is no law, rule or regulation that says pax cannot leave a flight at an unscheduled intermediate point. Think of 11 September 2011 when literally hundreds of US bound flights landed at Canadian airports on both coasts. There may be customs / airport issues but since Gatwick has a large sterile area these probably were not a factor here. The decision likely rested with the Airline who had an impossible task estimating or even guessing when they could go.

in this case I would say that Air India very much wanted to complete the flight to Heathrow as soon as possible. Of course that was where many passengers wanted and expected to go, that's where AI infrastructure was, and that's where the new crew and passengers were for the next sector. Selectively deplaning for people happy with Gatwick also problematic due baggage reconciliation. Even ignoring security issues passengers would not be happy without their bags for a couple of days (or having to get out to Heathrow to get them)

Weather is very unpredictable and after Heathrow reduced flights to deal with the fog various aircraft had to divert. All of them would be put into a queue to complete their flights ASAP but with Heathrow full from 0800 to 2200 squeezing them in once the flow control was lifted would have been very difficult.

A typical creeping delay. Everyone hoping that the flight could head off to Heathrow at a moment's notice once flow control was removed. Tick, tick, tick, Disembarking would be counter-productive as they wouldn't be even in the queue if they were not ready to go. An hour later, still no improvement, an hour after that, things may have eased and diverted flights being 'slotted-in' but likely a long list. An hour later the original crew probably timed out. Decision made to call crew in from Heathrow by surface means, taking flight out of 'ready to go status'. Finding transport etc. would take some time but probably not more than an hour to an hour 1/2 getting them their. Decision made not to disembark passengers to be ready to go when new crew arrived. New crew delayed another hour at security, passport control, flight briefing, etc.

So new crew on board and 'ready to go' 5 1/2 hours after landing. Fog at Heathrow gets back again - crew waits for OK to go for another 2 1/2 hours and off they go 1/2 hour to Heathrow and you are up to nine hours.

Believe that there was a twitterer on board providing a running commentary. Otherwise this would never have 'news'. 9 hours is probably a little extreme and making decisions on what should have happened, in hindsight, is quite easy. However it isn't on the day without an accurate crystal ball.

[James 1077]

I still don't understand why people put up with it. If I was on a plane, on the ground, for more than a couple of hours without being fed, watered and entertained then I would just walk off it. If I had to I would blow the slides to get off.

Yes, they'll probably arrest me but nothing will come from that in the UK. And I'm sure large numbers of people would follow so it is unlikely that they would even arrest.

Don't put it up with it and it will stop happening!

[crewmeal]

Maybe AI's credit rating with the handling agents is poor. Maybe no handling agent had been appointed for AI. if it had gone to MAN or BHX maybe the pax would have been off after it had come on to stand.

AI's rating in the world is not the best me thinks!

[ExXB]

James,
Leaving aside the consequences to you, and I think you are understating them significantly - but that's for another thread.

Blowing the slides would likely lead to panic on the aircraft, leading to an unsupervised exodus from the aircraft. Minor injuries would occur, scrapes bruises, broken arms, ankles, legs. Serious injuries are also possible. With 300 plus passengers milling around the ramp the airport would likely freeze all aircraft movements in the vicinity - and likely the same with ground movements until all passengers are accounted for. Other flights both inbound and outbound would begin pulling delays, compounding the existing problem.

And since the bottles and slides would have to be replaced (as many as 10 sets) you are likely adding many more hours before the flight could be completed

Even if it was only one door you would be making the situation much worse for everybody else.

From what I've seen in the press and here I've seen nothing that suggests that the passengers will maltreated. Since there are no complaints about heat, food, toilets, etc. I have to assume that AI treated their customers well. OK, so everyone would be bored to tears sitting in a tube for hours on end, but that's what air travel is all about, n'est pas ?

This problem was not AI's fault, and it appears they did reasonably well given the circumstances. This situation will be costing them a bundle, all because of the crap infrastructure at Heathrow that can't handle a little fog.

[Piltdown Man]

ExXB - I have read you posts and I wish we had (more) people like you to explain the realities of air travel to those affected when it goes 'wrong'. But I think you may have been a little to kind to LHR. That airport runs day in, day out well above what might be described as its 'rated capacity' which means as soon as the slightest hiccup occurs, airline operations grind to a halt. The fault certainly doesn't lie with ATC nor the airside operations people. Without their constant intervention the airport wouldn't get a fraction of the movements it does. No, the fault lies with senior management of the airport and to a degree the government. Unless they get their act together, LHR will become a regional airport feeding the likes of FRA/CDG/AMS. But there again, maybe that's not such a silly idea...

[Llademos]

Not AI's fault? While the diversion wasn't, the fact that a plane load of passengers sat for nine hours on a first-world country's runway with plenty of infrastructure available smacks of incompetence. And being held on an aircraft for eighteen hours (flight time plus time on the ground) is maltreatment - try it at home and see how you get on.

If they couldn't get a bus to take the passengers to LHR, National Express do one every ten minutes or so. I also understand that there are things called taxis available.

[radeng]

The BBC report said there was no food or drink.

So if the flight crew are out of hours and deplane (as was stated in a news report, what about the cabin crew? They would be way over discretion!

And how come AI haven't got CAT III capability, then? Or was LHR closed - in which case, surely we would have heard about it.

[PAXboy]

There is one item of REALLY GOOD news. This is unlikely to happen again.

The next time any carrier lands up at a LGW due fog at the other place - they will be sure to feed and water them first and then make a deceision to get them off and bus them, with their luggage to arrive later. Since a carrier rep could have been at LGW within an hour of the a/c landing to direct ops at first hand - you can be sure that will happen next time.

Yes, these folks have been VERY unfortunate but the public rumpus - yay for social networks and customers not afraid to shout in public - then this has been a wonderful lesson for everyone.

I am not joking. What they need to do now is publically apologise and send a little compensation to each pax. It's called damage limitation. This has been nasty but if we see this happen to AI again - then you will know that they ARE incompetent.

[TSR2]

Why could they not have simply transported the passengers from the plane into the terminal building airside just like a transit stop. Would have been far more comfortable with food and drink available.

[PAXboy]

That is the question TSR2 and their mgmt OUGHT to now be trying to answer it. If their senior mgmt (in India) are anything like other senior mgmts I have met they will be trying to blame the underlings. The underlings will be tryiing to point out that the rules they have been given to operate under did not permit them to take any action.

But then, I'm a dreadful cynic. :hmm:

[Hotel Tango]

This problem was not AI's fault, and it appears they did reasonably well given the circumstances.

As a well travelled aviation person I think that you're being far too generous and I beg to differ with you on this one ExXB. You just DON'T keep pax on board on the ground for 9 hours, and especially when they are at their destination (i.e. London), be it LGW iso LHR. I would say that it came down to some very poor organisation and decision making by the responsible Air India staff and there is absolutely no excuse for it.

[grounded27]

HMM, the AI crew was on the clock.

[oscarisapc]

My original query was about the legality of keeping people on board against their will when they had arrived at a point where the plane was declared to have landed. I still think this was false imprisonment, and the Police, instead of keeping the passengers calm, should have been helping them exercise their rights. Ironically, if anyone had been arrested and taken into custody, the Police would have been obliged to offer them food and drink at regular intervals, which is more than they were getting on the plane.

As far as Air India management is concerned, this situation has to be their responsibility and they should have plans for this. Even if they do not have a service base at Gatwick, they should have a "what if one of our planes loaded with passengers has to divert to Gatwick?" scenario in their contingency planning as part of running a responsible airline. At the very least, organising drinks and a hot meal once the delay was known to be significant, even allowing for the incremental nature of the delay, should have been a priority. If the plane was then given clearance to leave Gatwick before the passengers could have their meal, it would have been money well spent as insurance against poor PR - at what? £10 per passenger at most. If solving this problem was above the pay grade of the Air India duty manager, why wasn't someone more senior involved? I am sorry, but as a regular passenger I don't buy the "it was not their fault" argument at all.

[750XL]

It's not entirely AI's fault though, probably.

I'd imagine the Terminal Duty Manager would not allow 300+ passengers to disembark the aircraft to be kept airside like a transit lounge. At Manchester at least, if an aircraft diverts in and road transportation is required to get the passengers to their final destination, the passengers are not allowed to disembark the aircraft until the coaches are sat outside arrivals waiting for the passengers.

As bad as it sounds, it's a lot easier to keep 300 pissed off passengers onboard rather than swanning about the terminal ranting and raving

[PAXboy]

I'm sure it is easier to keep them sitting on board. But this situation crops up every year, often twice a year spring/autumn when the fog is around. There must be countless long hauls that have to make this divert and then wait. So LGW mgmt must have well polished plans to serve food and drain the lavvies AT THE LEAST.

What do other carriers do?

[750XL]

I'm sure it is easier to keep them sitting on board. But this situation crops up every year, often twice a year spring/autumn when the fog is around. There must be countless long hauls that have to make this divert and then wait. So LGW mgmt must have well polished plans to serve food and drain the lavvies AT THE LEAST.

What do other carriers do?

That's more down to AI management than the airport themselves. If AI have no service partner contracts (for waste/water, catering etc) then no one is going to bother coming out, until AI make phone calls and confirm payment for such services.

[ExXB]

OK, AI did not wine, dine and entertain them which shouldn't happen.

But behind the scenes some things that are not immediately obvious;

LHR did not close due to fog, it imposed a reduced flow control. The slots for takeoff/landing were reduced meaning fewer takeoffs/landing. AI was one of the unlucky ones, perhaps they were already late or perhaps the flip of the coin, or who knows ? They diverted to Gatwick.

Once on the ground AI would appeal for a takeoff slot out of LGW and a landing slot at LHR. Eurocontrol would coordinate these requests, but with LHR already slowed down it is unlikely that they would be given anything other than "we'll do our best" , and "let us know when you are ready to go".

It is likely they would have to take on fuel, enough for the short hop, alternatives and safety margin. Once this was done they would be put into the queue for both airports, and Eurocontrol. All this time the original crew would be watching their watches. Nothing more back from EC other than we are trying our best. They might have had an opportunity at one or the other airport but they needed both.

Once the crew timed out, that was it. Eurocontrol would have said simply, too bad, but Have your replacements let us know when they are ready to go, so back to the end of the queue for you.

The crew - and it's not that likely that AI would have more than one at an out station, would then have to get from Heathrow to Gatwick, and I'm sure they did everything in their power to do that as quickly as they could. Once they were in the cockpit they would let EC know they were ready to go and they would be put back in the queue.

AI had a valid landing slot which could not be honoured. That is why everything afterwards went tits up. Of course slots are not guaranteed and Heathrow will get paid anyway once the aircraft finally arrives.

[PAXboy]

Sure ExXB, that is an excellent listing of the problems they face and that many punters will have seen on the various Airport documentary programmes.

I go with the idea that they should have outline contracts in place ready to be activated at a moments notice. That moment would have been as the crew were approaching their time out. For then, it was inevitable that another 2/3/4 hours were in store. That is down to AI. Since they have operated at LHR for a very long time, they know how often flow control is invoked.

[grounded27]

We have laws in the USA that regulate just how long an airline is allowed to keep pax onboard. I googled passenger rites and found this.



"As of April 2010, airlines operating flights within the U.S. may no longer keep a plane on the tarmac for more than three hours, and they will have to provide "adequate food and potable drinking water" for any delays longer than two hours. There must also be functioning lavatories onboard during the delay, as well as medical attention when necessary. (The three-hour rule is waived if safety or security is at stake, or if air traffic control reports that airport operations will be disrupted if the plane returns to the gate.) Airlines who violate this rule must pay a penalty of $27,500 per passenger.

In 2011, the DOT expanded this rule to foreign airlines operating in the U.S.; a four-hour limit on tarmac delays applies to international flights."

27k x 4-500 pax on a 747, that would be a heafty fine.

[oscarisapc]

I don't think anyone is complaining about the need for a diversion in the first place or that the period on the ground at Gatwick lasted for 9 hours for reasons that have been explained. What is being complained about is that during those 9 hours, it appears that nobody took into account the needs of the passengers coooped up in their seats after a long haul flight without food or drink - and probably with full and smelly lavatories as well. I agree it is easier for the staff to keep all the passengers confined on board the plane and out of sight and out of mind. Which brings me back to my original point. Was it lawful to prevent those passengers who wanted to from disembarking? Staff convenience has nothing to do with justifying actions if those actions are unlawful. I don't have an answer which is why I ask the question.

[Rwy in Sight]

I am aware thanks to PPRuNe as well that a lot of things are happening behind the scenes to make up for a delay and pax are unaware of them. Often these things don't work as much the airline (and pax) would like and the delay is well preserved.

However I have two comments here: the first relates to an editorial read on the "airline business" magazine back in 1993 - a good carrier is one that handles irregular situations effectively. How AI fared here?

Second were pax kept informed of the situation? Where the only announcements made "ladies and gentlemen we landed at LGW please wait" and 8 hours later "we are leaving for LHR"?

Finally would a provision or buses airside-airside (for emergencies) would have helped? I understand 10 buses are not productive to lay around but they could have ferried crew and pax from LHR to LGW as well?

[Hotel Tango]

I remember a flight from NAS to LUX back in the 70s when, due to fog, we diverted to FRA. At FRA pax were given the choice to either get off and make their own way by ground transportation or wait it out with the crew for a wx improvement at LUX. It was also made clear that if wx improvement didn't come about within the next x hours (can't remember the exact figures) they would be transported by coach to LUX. The point was that pax were given a choice.

[750XL]

I remember a flight from NAS to LUX back in the 70s when, due to fog, we diverted to FRA. At FRA pax were given the choice to either get off and make their own way by ground transportation or wait it out with the crew for a wx improvement at LUX. It was also made clear that if wx improvement didn't come about within the next x hours (can't remember the exact figures) they would be transported by coach to LUX. The point was that pax were given a choice.

Giving the passengers a choice is probably the worst thing you could do. If let's say 50% of the aircraft opted to offload themselves and find their own way back, you'd then have to spend forever and a day shifting through 400 bags to find the 200 who have offloaded.

[Octopussy2]

I understand the point about how giving the passengers a choice could be problematic given the need to sort out baggage; surely the only sensible decision would have been to let passengers disembark, collect their luggage and offer to lay on coaches for those who wanted to be taken to Gatwick (probably with a substantial wait for those coaches, but hey, at least pax would have been given the option to make their own alternative arrangements). IMHO, the difference between arriving at Gatwick and Heathrow is neglible and I would imagine only a very few passengers (elderly/infirm) would be reluctant to make their own onward travel arrangements.

Keeping passengers on board for this length of time in these circumstances is completely unacceptable. Also, some people will have been travelling with children; I don't think my two are particularly unruly, but the thought of trying to keep them entertained for 9 hours [I]at the end of a long flight[I] doesn't bear thinking about.

[grounded27]

Just how long would it take to unload all pax and baggage, let those who wanted claim then recheck their bags and hang out in the terminal where they had access to services not available (even to just stretch legs) aboard the aircraft. While there may not be laws in the UK governing this there is sure as hell common sence. Sounds like there are grounds for a heafty lawsuit there is probably legal PRECEDENCE to work off of.

[Hartington]

Deep breath....

This is Air India we're talking about. Red tape central. Nobody breathes without being told to do so by their superior.

Here's my take. Aircraft diverts to Gatwick - these things happen. They've got passengers at Heathrow wanting to board as well as the passengers on board wanting to get off. Crew has enough hours to go for a quick refuel and hop over to Heathrow provided everything goes to plan. So they park off terminal. Will someone authorise fuel? The crew can't authorise and the request works its' way slowly through the red tape. By the time it's authorised the crew are out of hours. Where's a replacement? Probably in London. Can we call them? More red tape. Yes we can. OK get them to Gatwick. Find the plane. File a flight plan - no slot until....

In the meantime, apart from the fact that they've asked for fuel the guys on board know nothing. No feedback. So they say nothing; they don't want to promise something they can't provide (and get into trouble for doing so). Did the crew ask for food? I doubt it because they would be seen as causing even more problems, in any case "we're getting fuel soon".

I hate to see a great airline bought down in this way. It didn't used to be like this.

I wonder what they'll do when they have a plane stuck at JFK in a snow storm given US law?!

Will it happen again? I hate to say it but probably.

[Hotel Tango]

750XL you may be right but on the day it all went smoothly. Knowing they were going nowhere fast they unloaded the bags onto the tarmac, then off loaded the pax (by row numbers) and they identified their bags. The bags were then loaded on baggage carts and the pax bussed to the terminal (we were on a remote stand). Remember, these were the days when airline staff were encouraged to use initiative and had the brains to ORGANISE. Sadly lacking these days!

[PAXboy]

HartingtonThis is Air India we're talking about. Red tape central. Nobody breathes without being told to do so by their superior.Thanks for that. If I had have known that, I would not have made any of my other comments. If that's the restrictions on the staff, then they never stood a chance.

A repeat example is certainly on the cards.

[750XL]

750XL you may be right but on the day it all went smoothly. Knowing they were going nowhere fast they unloaded the bags onto the tarmac, then off loaded the pax (by row numbers) and they identified their bags. The bags were then loaded on baggage carts and the pax bussed to the terminal (we were on a remote stand). Remember, these were the days when airline staff were encouraged to use initiative and had the brains to ORGANISE. Sadly lacking these days!

Maybe that was possible back 'in the day', but not these days.

Firstly you need the equipment and a ramp team to offload the thing, then take all the bags out of the cans and line them up in some sort of fashion on the apron. You're probably looking at a minimum of 5 guys, 1 hi-lo, various EBTs and dollies. Once that's done, you'll need a few passenger service staff to escort the passengers off the aircraft to ID their bag, get the bag put to one side then load the passengers back onto the aircraft (up rear steps presumably) or onto a coach. The airport probably won't be able to afford to have a few coaches sat at the aircraft side for an hour or more while this is done. On top of this, you're going to need someone to load plan it for the onload of ULDs, then get a loadsheet prepared (unless the captain decides to do it himself). Where I work, and I'd imagine all other airports in the UK, handling agents can barely cover their own scheduled flights never mind diverts sat on the apron having bag ID's.

[wiggy]

What you describe sounds entirely credible. Some airlines are well aware that LGW is stretched for resources on a normal day and is not the best place to divert to unless it is the only alternate you can reach (fuel).

FWIW if we are headed for LHR we will usually have LGW as our nominated Alternate on the Flight plan but if a diversion is on the cards and obviously only if our fuel state allows then Stansted or Luton are the better options, simply because they are more "friendly" from a customer service/refueling/onwards travel point of view.

[jetset lady]

I still don't understand why people put up with it. If I was on a plane, on the ground, for more than a couple of hours without being fed, watered and entertained then I would just walk off it. If I had to I would blow the slides to get off.

Yes, they'll probably arrest me but nothing will come from that in the UK. And I'm sure large numbers of people would follow so it is unlikely that they would even arrest.

Don't put it up with it and it will stop happening!

There's always one!

Ok, James 1077. Let me add a few more scenarios to those already given by ExXB. There you are. You've diverted and you're a little disgruntled but not expecting too much of a delay. As you pull onto stand, in the background, a PA is made. "Cabin Crew, doors to manual and cross check." As a regular traveller that has heard some version of the above many times, it barely even registers on your radar.

Now fast forward four hours. You are way more than disgruntled and you know your rights! No one is going to keep you on an aircraft against your will. So up you jump, declaring, "If you won't let me get off, I'm going to blow the slides and get off that way!" Other, equally disgruntled passengers, start to cheer and follow you down the aisle. You are a hero! You have taken charge of the situation. As a certain ad would say, James, you are so mo**y supermarket! So you fling open the door...and look down into a gaping great hole. Remember that PA all those hours earlier? Sadly, those behind you can't see that there is no slide. So they keep pushing and out you go.

But lets say today is your lucky day. For some reason, the doors are still in automatic and out pops the slide. Sadly, it's not such a lucky day for the poor ground staff member that happens to be standing underneath when that slide comes down. Or maybe it's her lucky day too. But not the best day for the honey wagon, which is just pulling forward. Trust me. You do not want to slide down onto the honey wagon. :eek:

However, unbelievably a small part of your mind has retained a modicum of sense and you have checked outside to see that nothing is blocking the slide. (Unlikely but possible, I suppose.) Have you ever stood at the top of one of those slides, looking down. They are high. And very steep. All of a sudden, you're not feeling like much of a hero. But no time to stop! Everyone is coming down behind you, don't forget. And best make sure you get away from the bottom of the slide quickly. But as ExXB has already said, be careful not to run in front of that taxiing aircraft....

I'm sure you get the idea by now. So please can we drop this "I'll blow the slide" attitude once and for all? Those slides are there for one scenario and one scenario only. When the situation in the cabin is so bad that your life would be in immediate danger, were you to stay. They are not playground slides and injuries will and do happen. They are certainly not there because you want to make a point!

Going back to the actual incident in question, I'd be interested to know whether the airline made any requests for the passengers to be allowed into the terminal at least. Obviously, with some passengers possibly connecting directly onto other international flights from LHR and therefore not having UK Visa's, they would probably have had to stay airside but as others have said, at least they would have had access to better facilities or even the chance to stretch their legs. For those that know about ground operations, could the airport refuse to allow the passengers into the terminal? In other words, once they accept an aircraft into their airport, do they then share some responsibility for duty of care of the passengers with the airline? And if not, why not? True, it's not their fault if an aircraft has been diverted into their airport due to bad weather, volcanic ash etc but it's not really the fault of the airline either. In no way am I trying to shift the blame from AI as undoubtedly, they got it wrong but it does always seem to be the airlines that have to pay while the airports get away with doing the bare minimum.

[radeng]

A real problem with such a delay if there's no food is that you can have a medical emergency on your hands if a diabetic goes hypoglycaemic. Then the airport have to find the steps, escort the ambulance.........more trouble than getting food out to the aircraft.

[Hotel Tango]

I can't help but notice that the airline professionals here are quick to respond with what they believe are acceptable reasons/excuses. Sorry folks, keeping passengers (i.e. customers) virtual prisoners for 9 hours when they have effectively arrived at their destination city is simply not acceptable at all, whoever or whatever may be responsible. It is perfectly valid for those involved to complain and for the entire episode to be thoroughly investigated. I also believe that all pax should be handsomely compensated!

[wiggy]

.I can't help but notice that the airline professionals here are quick to respond with what they believe are acceptable reasons/excuses.

To be fair I think most of the professionals here have come up with explanations as to why in general you can't just arrive at an alternate airport and expect a rapid turnround or passenger disembarkation.....that doesn't mean the professionals here think what happened at Gatwick the other day was acceptable.

[jetset lady]

I can't help but notice that the airline professionals here are quick to respond with what they believe are acceptable reasons/excuses.

Hotel Tango,

Are we reading the same thread? I've not seen anyone try to offer up acceptable reasons or excuses, as you call them, be they from the industry or not. It's very easy for you to say..

Sorry folks, keeping passengers (i.e. customers) virtual prisoners for 9 hours when they have effectively arrived at their destination city is simply not acceptable at all

..but that was one of my points. Possibly, for some of those passengers, they hadn't effectively arrived in their destination city. Their destination city may not have even been in the UK, in which case they may not have had visas and therefore would not have been allowed to enter the UK to be bussed to LHR. Could they have been given emergency visas? I don't know. Hopefully, someone from the ground will be able to answer that along with my question on the airports responsibility.

Most of the airline professionals on here are the same people that are directly in the firing line in an incident like this. We don't want to be stuck in this sort of situation anymore than the passengers do. We were merely trying to explain some of the issues that may have arisen to escalate this mess into the shambles it became. That doesn't mean that we think the explanations relieve the companies involved of any responsibility or that what happened doesn't need investigating.

[grounded27]

Their destination city may not have even been in the UK, in which case they may not have had visas and therefore would not have been allowed to enter the UK to be bussed to LHR.

They certainly could have been provided with a gate at an international terminal and been provided with proper food and facilities until a resolution was provided. I am sure there are several solutions but deboarding is not that complicated of one.

[PAXboy]

grounded27 I am sure there are several solutions but deboarding is not that complicated of one. Uummmm, all the professionals have listed the reasons why it IS a complicated solution!!!


Air India staff not present on site
AI staff need permission to spend money - possibly from HQ
Airport facilities already fully assigned.
Airport space to be made available that would be safe and isolated from ALL other pax and the staff to monitor pax - for as many hours or days that it took. That space to have refreshements and toilet facilties for 250+ people
Then to sort those people into disenbarking and waiting to go on to LHR.
Then to sort their luggage / get fuelled / get crew / etc.
All the while - they might get the 'go' instruction from ATC at any time.

You cannot STRAT to disembark the pax until ALL of the other points are lined up. In the modern phrase, "It's complicated ..."

[grounded27]

Uummmm, all the professionals have listed the reasons why it IS a complicated solution!!!


Air India staff not present on site
AI staff need permission to spend money - possibly from HQ
Airport facilities already fully assigned.
Airport space to be made available that would be safe and isolated from ALL other pax and the staff to monitor pax - for as many hours or days that it took. That space to have refreshements and toilet facilties for 250+ people
Then to sort those people into disenbarking and waiting to go on to LHR.
Then to sort their luggage / get fuelled / get crew / etc.
All the while - they might get the 'go' instruction from ATC at any time.
You cannot STRAT to disembark the pax until ALL of the other points are lined up. In the modern phrase, "It's complicated


Wish this happened In the USA, all of those logistal issues should be balanced with the cost of a fine. A simple answer to streamline a better situation would be an interairline agreement to handle all the above common issues. Your last item, after 3 hours they should have been thinking about calling the "hold" off. Airports/Nations should mandate and be prepared for these circumstances. No excuse here.

I am SURE if they were subject to the fines imposed in the USA they would have found a way to do the right thing. Majic ain't it!

[PAXboy]

grounded27 It is quite possible that, had such fines been instigated here - that they would have put such provisions in place. We know that it works because of the changes introduced by carriers to the UK, after fines were brought in for bringing in pax that did not have the correct paperwork.

However, this country still lives with the legacy of 'light touch regulation' instigated by La Thatcher. Unfortunately, as the world becomes more complex, you need ever tighter regulation. The present govt would say, 'If AI treat their customers badly (and save money in the process) then their customers will no longer use them and they will suffer.' If only it worked that way! :hmm:

In this country (as in all others) nothing changes until either (i) Lots of money has been lost or (ii) People have died. Since neither of these happened - nothing will happen. This time.

[Hartington]

I wonder whether the same scenario would have occurred if this plane had ended up in Charles de Gaulle rather than Gatwick (it probably would). Is part of the issue here that Gatwick and Heathrow serve the same city and are in the same country? What should AI have done if the plane had been in CDG? Put everyone on Eurostar?

[ChicoG]

Air India looking for the cheapest option, as they always do, and sod the customers.

This is a company ethos and always has been.

The passengers should sue the crap out of them.

[750XL]

If they were to de-board all the passengers into the terminal then all passengers would require re-screening at security to comply with DfT regulations, which leads straight back to the shortage of staff argument... No spare bodies to escort pax to transit screening area and into departures.

[Hotel Tango]

750XL has come up with lots of "reasoned" explanations in defence of the airline, the airport etc., but at no time has he/she come up with any solutions. My reasoning is that an airport of LGW's size should NOT be understaffed and SHOULD be able to handle diversions effectively. An airline of Air India's stature SHOULD have contigency plans in place for such diversions and the staff to handle it. As a passenger if I was held on an aircraft on the ground for 9 hours (at my destination city) I would be seriously miffed and I would not be dissuaded by a salvo of excuses.

[PAXboy]

Hotel TangoMy reasoning is that an airport of LGW's size should NOT be understaffed and SHOULD be able to handle diversions effectively.They are a commercial company - who will pay for that? If they over staff 365 days for the occasional divert, that cost will be spread across ALL their customers. If the divert happens and all goes smoothly - the pax will think the carrier did it all, not the airport. The pax are NOT going to think, "Oh those lovely people at LGW, I'm going to use them again."

An airline of Air India's stature SHOULD have contigency plans in place for such diversions and the staff to handle it.Quite possibly, and put up all the fares to cover the cost at all their regular alternates. I have never travelled AI but this thread tells me that I might want to avoid them. That's the commercial reality.

As a passenger if I was held on an aircraft on the ground for 9 hours (at my destination city) I would be seriously miffed and I would not be dissuaded by a salvo of excuses.Sure, you would be free to sue them and never use them again and go onto public forums to denounce them.

Irrespective of standard operating procedures for the ground crew of all carriers - in a recession that is the worst since the Depression - and you have the shareholders breathing down your neck- watchya goin' ta do?

A friend of mine works at a private hospital where they are almost constantly under staffed - just to save money. The hospital trumpets how much they care for their patients. Same story, different place.

[Hotel Tango]

PAXboy, I'm sorry if I sound naive to you. I fully appreciate and am aware of what you're saying. But again, these are only excuses. What I'm saying is should we the public accept this sort of "service" as the norm? If it was Ryanair at some distant little airport I'd say yes. However, with a major carrier at a major airport for me it's a resounding "no". Perhaps all those protesters against the greed of capitalism are right after all. Nevertheless, having flown AI in the past and found them to be OK, I will now most certainly have to reconsider using them in the future.

[PAXboy]

Sure Hotel Tango, sorry of I sounded too sharp.
However, with a major carrier at a major airport for me it's a resounding "no".Correct!!

But, in the last ten years (at least) pax around the world have clearly shown that they want everything - and want to pay less for it than the last time. Accordingly, every legacy carrier has the same problem. There are countless threads in PPRuNe as to how BA is handling this problem (being a UK based forum) but EVERY carrier has the problem. I dare say that in India, there are many threads about AI and detailing similar problems.

If they get enough high profile 'stick' from one area, then they will probably address it and take teh money from somewhere else. The squeeze between expectation (based on the last 50 years) and what companies are willing/able to deliver for the price - are going to continue to be at variance.

[radeng]

If they had to reimburse passengers at some reasonable level such as £200 per hour and NOT allowed to either charge it against tax or increase fares above the RPI to destinations in the EU for 5 years - or not be allowed to fly to the EU - there would be a very different attitude.

But it won't happen.

[22/04]

Contingency and India - mutually exclusive!

[Rwy in Sight]

radeng,

It is a great idea but how do you enforce it? They will show an increase in cost in another area and here is a rise in fares!

It would be a great ideas in other industries too.


Rwy in Sight