EJ pax stage sit-in at LFMN

[Ranger One]

Sounds like a party! :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2157893.stm

R 1

[Tiger]

£350! I thought EasyJet were low cost??

:p

Heidi come and fly BA, bmi with our low fares and we still give plenty of TLC :cool:

[brabazon]

Heidi may have been paying for £350 for her return, but some lucky passengers could have been paying around £50. That's the reality of the low cost pricing structure, some will get it cheap and others expensive.

It some cases BA and bmi may be cheaper than the likes of easyJet, but it really depends on individual cases. The key message that BA should be getting across is that easyJet are not always the cheapest, so it pays to check around and not just assume that because it's a "low cost" airline that their fare will always be the cheapest.

In Heidi's case it would be interesting to know when she saw that easyJet was £350 whether she checked what BA were offering at the same time.

[Tiger]

True true. Would be interesting to compare the fares. But even at £50 Heidi should not have been sat on a plane then told please get off. TLC some call it or just good customer service.
Some bad handling down in NCE. Paxs will except (in a sort of way) an aircraft problem if handled right. At least 3 times now I`ve return to stand and unloaded paxs because of tec a/c, so theres one or two paxs who aint pleased but never quite had a sit in. It all goes no how you handle the situation.
Yes even had the paxs who demands that they are let off the a/c "I`m being held against my will! I`m going to take you to court! You`re kidnapping me! Holding me hostage!!" at the time we were sat on a taxi way middle of LHR when there was the big computer crash at Swanwick. So it works both ways?

[quaerereverum]

Exactly, Brabazon.

It has astounded me for many years why BMI, BA, etc haven't exploded the "low cost" myth put about by Strokios, O'Lordy, Beardy & co.

Certainly, with the "low cost" carriers, if you make your booking when the seats are first released, you can pick up some amazing bargains. But, if you book close or very close to your travel dates, you will find yourself subject to some serious "price gouging".

In almost every circumstance, I have found (my preferred carrier) BMI to offer the cheapest fares on the routes I travel (most of which are also covered by the "Low cost"s). And now, with the move by BMI (and BA) to a "low cost" sales model, it is much easier to compare prices.

In fact, I "switched" (apologies to Apple) to BMI from Easyjet about 4 years ago, not only because the fares on British Midland (as then was) were lower, but because on the primary route I travelled (LON NCE) there wasn't even any availability on EZY in the summer season. Moreover, by using the BM EuroPass I was even able to travel biz class with guaranteed seat availability at a lower price than I could get on EZY cattle (sorry economy) class!

Of course, once I moved to BMI, with its friendly cabin service, I just couldn't face the prospect of the "every man for himself" boarding scrum, and the "we are sorry to announce that we haven't got any hot water to make tea" amateurism of EZY.

The sad truth is that "low cost" (which is a biz model / corporate costs issue) is not (necessarily) synonymous with "low price", and the consumer needs to made ware of this.

One way to overcome this "deception" would be to obligate ALL airlines to show price range (for the comparable seating class) in their adverts rather than headline "from" fares. This would be much fairer (no pun intended) to the travelling public.

Just to be clear, I am not averse to travel on "low cost" carriers, and have travelled on the excellent GO on many occasions; alas even this avenue will disappear once EZY import their "value proposition".

Finally, many of the UK "low cost" operators doff their caps to Herb Keleher as the man from whom they take inspiration. But, if you have ever travelled on SouthWest, you will know that the UK operators offer a very poor quality product by comparison!

My $0.02

[Tiger]

What I will say is this story is get a lot of coverage on the news, with interviews with the paxs. The watchdogs of this world and other "aviation specialist" all being wheeled in. I`m local to Luton as well so this news is top story. Wonder how ops feel now in the orange hut at LTN.

[slj]

Interesting that this story had major coverage on BBC when the Easy programme is on ITV this very evening.

I wonder if what might have been a spoiling story actually increases the numbers watching Airline or are the BBC confident that they can hold on to the audience with the Commonwealth games?

quaerereverum

Like you I have wondered why the esatblished airlines ghave not expoited the low price myth. Must be some marketing explanation somewhere.

[TightSlot]

My crew positioned GLA-LTN with Orange @ UK£160 each :eek: At those prices I'd rather take BA/BMI, and enjoy the trimmings.

I fly Orange only when my company tells me to do so - other times I'll pay any price and bear any burden to get away from them.

[Brakes to Park]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

[LatviaCalling]

Just to point out how utterly strange and uncomprehensible airline price structures are, I recently flew round trip RIX-LHR-FAO for $485 in the middle of the summer season on BA/GB. Had to wait two hours in that depressing Terminal one for connections, but what the hell. From here Riga-London-Riga costs $350.

I also recently flew to Hamburg (and flew almost over Hamburg) on BA for $450 round trip, also through LHR, yet again through that dismal Terminal 1. The local airBaltic/SAS connection wanted $695 with a stop in CPH.

All prices quoted are in U.S. dollars.

If you have to go from point A to point B with no connections, no family and no luggage, I wouldn't mind taking the so-called cheapies, but I think that I got a very reasonable deal with an established carrier who will even deliver lost luggage at your home the quickest way possible, even if they are other carriers.

Good for BA.

[FlapsOne]

Wonder why they are losing so much money then?

[silverknapper]

Another orange bashing thread!Great!! When I saw this on tv i knew what would be going on here. Why is it every time EZY make the news it turns into a thrashing. Apart from when they announce their figures that is. Then all goes quiet.
Are we losing sight of the fact these ignorant B£%&$@?s completely disregarded the instruction of the captain. They should be bloody well flogged. How dare they take matters into their own hands in such a derogatory way. What if it had been tech would these clowns still have had their petty sit in? I hope the EZY management see their petition for what it is and place it in the nearest loo to cut down on bog roll costs. Mind you it won't be very long. They should never be allowed on an EZY flight again.

If this had been BA would we all be getting stuck in. I was on a LGW_MAN 4 weeks ago when my flight was cancelled and the next one delayed an hour. The reason? Don't know no-one told us. At least EZY were honest.

Tight slot, I'm glad you find a sandwich in a box "all the trimmings". Until recently I was paying £250+ for GLA-LHR. The only reason prices are coming down is the competition from low cost sector. The Nigels had been stinging us for years and still would be if they could get away with it.

[Kalium Chloride]

Er...forgive me for pointing this out, Silverknapper, but those impressive financial figures are not generated by EZY, they're generated by the "ignorant" passengers who probably felt pretty narked about having to get off a flight that they'd booked and paid for.

What if the aircraft had gone tech? Um...I don't recall the passengers on the other EZY aircraft (the one that DID break down) staying on board.

I agree that the Captain is the authority figure on an aircraft, when it comes to flight safety and related matters. But he's not there to put his airline's convenience ahead of his passengers'. EZY can't have it both ways -- if it's going to crack the whip at check-in and be hard on late passengers to ensure punctuality, then it ought to lie in the bed it's made.

Next time you're on board one of British Rail's finest during a massive snarl-up, you might ask yourself whether you'd be prepared to get off your train so that it can be reloaded with other passengers who've been delayed longer than you, while you wait around for an eventual replacement. Call me cynical, but I doubt anyone would -- including me. And I'm not paying anywhere near £350 a ticket.

[Niaga Dessip]

About three weeks ago something very similar happened with KLM-UK in Amsterdam: Flight to Manchester delayed (tech) prior to boarding of pax. After just over an hour pax directed to board aircraft that had been due to go to Stansted. Presumably the STN pax got away without too long a delay...
I am guessing but, without making a judgement, it seems to me that the airline has the choice of one flight delayed several hours and the resulting compensation, or two flights with shorter delays and no compensation. One choice makes sense for the airline, the other will raise mixed feelings from the passengers depending on their personal situation.

ND;)

[Brakes to Park]

Folks , so sorry to let the truth get in the way of a good story................

A fare comparison in the latest issue of leading business magazine, Business Traveller, confirms what easyJet has been saying all along - traditional airlines continue to rip off travellers. Despite the introduction of "new low fares" by the likes of BA, the article concludes that "conventional airline fares remain stubbornly high at busy times".

Business Traveller compared the fares for a day trip to Amsterdam from London on Monday 1 July. The easyJet fare was by far the lowest at just £113. In comparison, Bmi charged £213, KLM £266, and BA a whopping £339!

A similar comparison on a day trip to Paris from London once again showed easyJet to be the cheapest option with a fare of £135, followed by Bmi at £203, and BA and Air France charging a staggering £289 and £299 respectively.

BA claims that 50,000 "new low fares" are being made available each month. But when you consider that easyJet sells one million low-fare seats every month, Business Traveller magazine's findings aren't surprising!

[spud]

Though easy might well sell a million seats a month, I doubt that they are a million low cost seats.

[jumpseater]

Spud, you are quite right they are not all low cost seats!. All of the LCA's that I am aware of make it quite clear that the earlier you book, the cheaper the seat, a very simple formulae, and very well publicised.

for example
easy today LTN-ABZ return tomorrow 01 Aug 143 up 144 down total price 166.30 gbp (cant book 141 its already gone)

same trip tue 27th Aug up on 141 down wed 28th on 144 total price 37.30 gbp

no offence spud, but see how it works?

By the way GNER rail return up today back on the first KX - ABZ £196.00 standard fare, you can get it much lower if you book early though :)

[spud]

No offence taken, I've no axe to grind (did a bit of driving for EZY in the early days myself).
It seems to me that you get what you pay for if you get an early bargain, you subsidise the cheaper seats by paying a premium if you book later. There are winners and losers and the losers get the same service as the winners.

Anyway, it's a free world, and that's why four of us are going LHR to AMS on the 11th August with bmi for £28.50 each plus tax.

easyChoice.

[silverknapper]

Just a quick aside on this argument, does anyone think these idiots would have reacted like this were it not for the Airline TV programme. Surely watching this week in week out makes people think that crew are there to be defied and argued with. The Reeds staff they argue with wear the EZY uniform so perhaps they think they can get away with it or get their way.
Kalium, would disagree on one point. The captain is there to put the airline convenience before passengers in my view. Obviously safety first but by getting the CDG pax away it would have prevented a refund situation occuring for 2 sets of pax, the ones on the original tech flight and the ones waiting at CDG for their flight. Obviously it was a terrible situation to be placed in but had they gone quietly EZY would not have the potential to be paying out 300 refunds. The pax going to UK would only have been delayed an hour apparently.

[FlapsOne]

Well I am no legal eagle, but did these people not technically hijack the aircraft?

If I were in charge, I would look into what sort of legal action might be taken against them.

silverknapper,

I agree entirely with what you say. It really is about time the passengers displaying this sort of attitude were made to realise that they are not the only people on the planet and their actions might just have of wider repercussions.

In my view, incidents of passenger action like this are likely to increase unless positive action is taken to stop it!

[spud]

Whether the pax were right or wrong, the publicity will make it more likely to happen again.

[giza]

I can not believe the arrogance of some people, to refer to passengers as idiots and have a total disregard for there individual needs is unbieveable, dispite thoughts to the contary, the Capt is not god, and these people have paid the airline for a service that they have not received. Don`t forget they pay our wages and without the customer service that they expect they WILL go else where

[Crepello]

I'm with the pax on this one. If the captain told them to strip and turn cartwheels, he'd be disregarded. Authority should be exercised with appropriate responsibility.

I suspect EZY's mistake was in being honest. Where large groups are involved, 'selective honesty' can be a better policy. ;)

I agree that the coverage sends the wrong message to the travelling public. Cliches such as 'flying will never be the same again' [BBC LDN News] border on the irresponsible.

[newswatcher]

Similar incident shown on "Holiday Airport - Lanzarote" last night(30/7). Flight to Bristol u/s. 30+ pax told they would be put on a Dublin flight which would now divert to Bristol. Dublin pax not told until last minute. Much mention of pax mutterings on board, and comiserations for cabin crew, but no actual in-flight footage.

[Chocks Wahay]

Surely the guilty party here isn't the pax, whose reaction was entirely understandable. The culprit is whoever thought it was a good idea to offload the pax once they'd boarded. If they'd swapped the aircraft before they'd boarded, and announced a 1 hour delay no-one would have known what was going on. When it was obvious that the pax had boarded, Ezy should have accepted that compensation would be due with good grace - it would probably have cost them less than the bad publicity (though watching Airline you have to wonder if they care about bad publicity.) Not Easy-bashing - I use them at least twice a week, and rate them highly - but dismayed at their approach to PR here.

[Land ASAP]

Written earlier, Brakes to Park laid down the gauntlet

Folks , so sorry to let the truth get in the way of a good story................

A fare comparison in the latest issue of leading business magazine, Business Traveller, confirms what easyJet has been saying all along - traditional airlines continue to rip off travellers. Despite the introduction of "new low fares" by the likes of BA, the article concludes that "conventional airline fares remain stubbornly high at busy times".

Well, matey, I took your challenge, imagining that I was one of your 'Business Travellers', looking to get to NICE for a business meeting next week at short notice. I was going to be there for 2 full days travelling late on Monday and home early Thursday.
Travel on Monday 5th August returning Thursday 8th August
British Airways -£128.60 return incl taxes (LGW)
Go - £165.30 return incl taxes(STN)
EasyJet - £104.85 return incl taxes (LTN) £134.85 return incl taxes (LGW)
Ryanair - Do not serve Nice
Air France £564.60 return incl taxes (LHR)

[giza]

hey land, you have too much time on yr hands !!!.
Also BA flies at reasonable times, not 06:00 or 23:00 to airports close to actual destination, bloody good value for a full service airline.

[no sig]

Chocks Wahay

Yep, in hindsight taking the pax off wasn't a good idea, but, in keeping with our desire to get all of our passengers to their destination, we made the decision and acted with the best interests of all of those passengers in nce on the two respective flights at heart. Had the shoe been on the other foot and those who refused to get off were the delayed nce-cdg sector passengers, I think they may have taken a different view.

Further, and I won't go into the detail, the engineering situation the Ops team was faced with was changing by the minute with crew duty times ticking away, had they all got off a delay of no more than 1.30 or there abouts was going to occur. But no blame for trying to get everyone home in my view.

[Scottie]

Giza wrote,

Also BA flies at reasonable times, not 06:00 or 23:00 to airports close to actual destination

Both easyJet & BA fly to Nice Airport from London Gatwick as Land ASAP states.

To which other airport do you think easyJet fly to near Nice?

Taking the whole easyJet network to which airports do easyJet fly which could be considered "secondary" to the main airport?

Or don't you have the slightest clue? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[FlapsOne]

giza.

nobody has said that all passengers are idiots. The 60 passengers involved in this particular incident quite definitely were!

This was not a case of disregarding the needs of those 60 passengers, it was more of a case of having a great deal of regard for a considerably larger number of passengers.

The passengers encamped on that aircraft were interested in themselves alone. Easyjet's responsibility extended not only to those 60 people but also to others delayed by a technical problem.

Obviously it would have been considerably better to have made the decision to switch aircraft before boarding time however, due to the ever-changing nature of the technical difficulties, that did not happen. It remains however arrogant in the extreme for a group of Passengers, no doubt encouraged by a small group of ring-leaders, to decide to effectively hijack an aircraft until it takes them where they want to go.

The revenue from these people may well pay our wages, but if we allow airlines to be dictated to in this way, the entire structure will fall apart at the seams and there will be no revenue at all!

Crepello

Authority should be exercised with appropriate responsibility.


Are you for some reason suggesting that in this case it wasn't ? If so, why?

[PaperTiger]

Without all the details, I can't say which (if any) ops decisions were wrong-headed. But having flown exclusively as a passenger for several years, I can empathise more now than I possibly would have before. Might not go along with a mutiny though :eek:

One thing which does intrigue me is the issue of compensation which has been raised. Admit I'm not familiar with EU regs, but do pax get comp simply for being late ? Doesn't work that way in the US - there are Denied Boarding (aka bumping) rules, but tech delays are exempt from them anyway. So what was the financial exposure in this incident, or is that a total red herring ?

Way back when, our policy was always to inconvenience the minimum number of passengers even if that meant severely inconveniencing them to the benefit of others.

[Chocks Wahay]

no sig Thanks for a sensible reply in amongst all the "Ezy are great / Ezy are crap" nonsense. Full marks for trying to resolve a very complicated situation. Lessons learned all round by the sound of it.

[giza]

2 points,

1. Scottie, I do not know EZ route structure by heart, so i am not able to comment specifically, although I was talking in general, not EZ to NCE. However I think u will find that as a general rule the routing with respect to timing and destination with "LoCost" airlines, Ryan in particular, is not as convienient as BA.

2. Flaps One, If a passenger has paid to travel from a-b on a particular flight, he has the right to travel, although to the insider within the airline industry it may seem selfish of pax not to concider others, but there is nothing on their ticket that says they will be required to subject themselves to great inconveinience to ensure that the airline does not have to pay compensation to two groups of pax.

I am sure if you needed to get home/away you would not subject yourself to a two hour delay.

[Scottie]

May I suggest Giza if you don't know the facts then don't cast sweeping generalisations which are devoid of them.

Comparing Ryanair's schedule/route structure with Go/easyJet's is like comparing apples with oranges (pardon the pun :D ).

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[giza]

generalisation are all that can be made if you dont know the specifics, read my last post again.

[FlapsOne]

giza

Those passengers had indeed paid to travel from a to b. At no stage were they being denied travel between a and b.

It had merely been decided, admittedly somewhat late, but for the benefit of a greater number of passengers, to reorganise aircraft and timings following some technical difficulties.

Such reorganisation of flights is commonplace within the aviation industry. Some airlines have spare aircraft to fill any gaps but many others do not. There was nothing particularly unusual in the circumstances that led up to this incident. I do however reiterate that this decision should have been made 30 minutes earlier.

Had these people listened clearly to what they had been told, and followed the instructions given to them, they would only have been delayed by approximately 1 1/2 hours. As it was, by their own stupid actions, both they, and another load of passengers, were delayed considerably longer.

Now if that sort of action is justified or makes any sense whatsoever we may as well all pack up and go home! :rolleyes:

[silverknapper]

Then stop making generalisations. EZY go to CDG, ryan go to beauvais, ezy and go go to GLA, ryan go to 'glasgow' prestwick. Not to mention ryans routes to the rest of europe, frankfurt in particular. Do at least a token amount of research before slanting operations you oh so obviously know nothing about.

Also without wanting to labour the point, it is not down to the pax to 'inconvenience' themselves. They are there to go from a to b and behave themselves. If they are told to get off an aircraft they bloody well do as they are told. I know of an EZY incident recently when there was a medium threat bomb warning. Did the pax get off quietly. Did they hell, they went off moaning, got back on moaning and gave the cabin crew nothing but abuse the wholw way down. It was a minority but you have to ask yourself where the hell does the line get drawn.
I believe that this incident has set a precedent. This will not be the last case of idiotic, and I do not apologise for the phrase giza, pax believing they can take the law into their own hands and get away with it. Next time arrest them. Then people may think twice about such tactics.

[giza]

point taken on the EZY route structure, my response was not researched. (A case of "they all look the same too me"). However I still believe arresting pax for demanding a service is bordering on the hysterical. Yes they ended up with a longer delay, but they should not have been put in that postion in the first place.
I, however have no sympathy for pax who moan and make the crews life hell when it comes to security issues, yes they are the idiots and should know differently, but that is a diferent case completly.

[Scottie]

Finally he sees the light :D

[giza]

Beam me up Scottie,

Not quite seen the light, I still totally disagree with you on attitude to passengers in this case, the other stuff was digression.

best of luck anyway, who gets paid more by the way, Easy or Go, is there going to be some fun there:) :)

[Crepello]

FlapsOne: In this case, on reflection, my comment was wide of the mark. But to those who advocate arrest of the passengers, I reiterate: Authority should be discharged in a responsible manner.

IMHO, it is reasonable to change an aircraft's roster for operational reasons. It is less reasonable to change the roster after boarding. If customers respond in a 'less reasonable' manner, the response should be constructive, not combative. Save the cavalry for the emergencies.

Airlines need respect from their passengers in order to operate safely. On this occasion, that respect was eroded. But I don't know the full circumstances so I'll leave it there. ;)

[Edited to minimise conjecture.]

[giza]

very well put Crepello, `cuse my ignorance, but where did u get a name like that.

[groundbum]

some posts have said the passengers should have got off as it would only have entailed a 90 minute delay until the other, broken, aircraft was fixed.

Methinks passengers, and I include myself in this, have grown cynical and wary of "just 90 minutes then we're off". Cos as sure as eggs are eggs, after the 90 minutes the board flips again and
-another- 90 minutes is added. And so on and so on, until who knows when. So I think the passengers here acted correctly, I'd have done the same thing and stayed sat in my seat.

Perhaps if airlines behaved a little more honestly when communicating on delays then there would be more faith?

[Ranger One]

very well put Crepello, `cuse my ignorance, but where did u get a name like that.

Maybe he's a relative of firehorse :D

R1

[FlapsOne]

groundbum

if you genuinely believe that sort of attitude is any way to resolve the situation like the one that occurred last week then please, as your user name suggests, STAY ON THE BLOODY GROUND!

if you, and people of a similar mentality, think that they can run an airline better than the operator then I suggest you give up your day job and start your own airline!

[Mishandled]

Whilst agreeing with the view that the pax in this case should have disembarked when asked to by the crew, I do think that groundbum has a point re. bad information to pax. In my experience working at various levels as a handling agent, from loading through dispatch, passenger services to general management, (over 10 years! how time flies), my current view is that pretty much the only honest information that I will trust, othetr than the mark one eyeball, is that given by the flight deck. The information that we regularly get from airlins ops, upline and downline handling agents etc etc can be taken with a large grain of salt IMHO. I do strongly believe that, if we were able to give better information to the passengers that they could have faith in, there would be a lot fewer situations like this arising. Oh and I won't mention that alcohol is often a factor, especially in a delay situation, because that would be off topic.;)

[SLF3]

I would have stayed put, trading the certainty of getting home sometime for the possibility of not getting home at all.

As you sow, so you reap. Most airlines are pathological liars when it comes to telling passengers what is happening: they've noticed. No coincidence that it was a Nice flight, methinks. Affluent passengers, travel a lot, heard it all before.......

[GwynM]

Respect goes both ways. Once the SLF has been loaded, don't expect it to unload willingly unless it's a safety issue. The convenience of other passengers on another flight is not much of a consideration to someone who arrived in good time, got a low number so they can get the seat they want, and is then faced with losing their good seat, plus another few hours delay, possibly missing all public transport when getting back to Luton, so having extra cost in taxis etc.

We put up with delays (especially BA domestic), but sometimes can be pushed a little too far.

We realise the flight crew, and cabin crew have different pressures, and if we thought the job was easy, enjoyable and well paid we'd all be doing it. So, once we're strapped in, don't expect us to unbuckle until we get to the destination (unless it's a safety issue).

[Crepello]

GwynM: Well said.

FlapsOne: Without wishing to stir you up, I note that groundbum's approach did indeed 'resolve' the situation at Nice. ;)

giza: Crepello was a racehorse from many moons ago. My connection wasn't with the horse, but (ahem) a BR diesel locomotive that was named in its honour. I won't elaborate further, bet you're sorry you asked! :D

[FlapsOne]

Crepello

This approach at Nice did not resolve the situation at all.

It merely served to delay them even longer.

I have every sympathy with passengers messed around under these circumstances. As I have stated clearly before, it should never have happened and would not have happened had the decision been made somewhat earlier. I believe easyjet have made a statement that says something along the same lines.

We surely cannot, however, encourage or endorse or even mildly support actions that involve passengers taking over/occupying an aircraft because they do not like the decision that has been made - no matter what that decision is!

If such action is to be considered reasonable, or even understandable, then I believe that the future safety of aircraft, crews, and other passengers will be seriously eroded, irrespective of whether such action takes place on the ground or, God forbid, in the air.

A line has to be drawn somewhere and, despite their understandable disappointment and annoyance, the passengers at Nice last week over-stepped it.

[Slim20]

I think it was one of those no-win situations that airlines increasingly find themselves in. There was one well-publicised incident which ironically was exacerbated by the "Airline" programme (bless em) where the passengers from the preceding (delayed) flight went ballistic in the terminal as the passengers on the subsequent undelayed flight went brfore them. The overriding attitude among these pax was "we should have gone first" - I think EZY was trying to do right, but i agree a decisioin should have been made earlier. Anyway, Nice passengers do seem to to be building a bad reputation!! Definitely not my #1 destination....

[silverknapper]

SLF3 and GWYNM. Try that on any flight in the future and you will have no choice. That bloody minded, self centred approach is what is causing the increase in incidents in aircraft. 'I would have stayed put'. Well I would have you arrested. See how that changes your mind. You wouldn't do it again.

[BTB]

Bit late here, but Flaps One post was absolutely right. An airline with a complex route structure demanding a/c and pax to be in certain positions at the end of the day for operational and technical reasons. Faced with unforseen circumstances the ops department of that airline can either:

make a decision that causes a bit of disruption spread about the network which might annoy a few people at the time but eventually benefits the whole of the companies pax for the next 24 hours, or:

cowtow to a bunch of arrogant, self-centered individuals that think that the world revolves around them and that they should have what they want at the expense of everyone else. It is no surprise that the vast majority of the discarded newspapers on EZ flights collected during the cleanups ar Daily Mails.

Those pax who refused to disembark that a/c on the day, despite possible PR mishaps by the crew, which I doubt, acted illegaly and could in the UK be charged with affray or any number of similar offences. I did note the Daily Mail the next day praising their actions!

[Algernon Lacey]

Hijackers the lot of them , they should have all been put up against a wall and..............:mad:

[SLF3]

"That bloody minded, self centred approach is what is causing the increase in incidents in aircraft."

Disagree: I don't think peoples attitudes have changed. If 'incidents' (whatever that means) are increasing, could that perhaps be related to the passengers having more to get upset about?

Please note the post on the 'rapidly evolving situation' regarding fixing the plane and the comments about the crew running out of hours. Next announcement: "Oh dear, the crew are out of hours / the plane can't be mended tonight, we will make a further announcement at 4.30 am tomorrow morning." Anyone heard that one before?

[GwynM]

Silverknapper, Algernon Lacey
If it comes to the convenience of the airline and crew over the fare paying passenger, it's obvious where you stand. This situation was due to poor management at the time, who should have prevented the problem from happening. They didn't, and it got worse for everyone. The airline got bad publicity, the passengers of both flights had longer delays, and the crews had two planeloads of disgruntled passengers.

However, the attitude that passengers should be locked up (and probably flogged or hung) for hijacking because the airline cocked up does not help anyone. It would be interesting to test in court whether it constitute hijacking (Collins: to seize, divert or appropriate while in transit) if you boarded a scheduled flight and want it to go to where it's meant to end up.

I don't condone the sit in, but can understand why it happened. The passengers pay the wages, so the airlines need to look after their interests.

And if you think this was bad, you should have tried flying to Scotland with BA last Tuesday...no sit ins, but total disregard of customers needs (dump everyone in Glasgow, and then ignore them).