Whoops...

[Mike-Bracknell]

Pretty sure this is going to hit the news one way or another...

https://twitter.com/mattiasharris/status/1158638099121037315

[Ben_S]

Surely a non full flight and seat not in use but used for a photo opportunity?

[Dont Hang Up]

Pretty sure this is going to hit the news one way or another...

https://twitter.com/mattiasharris/status/1158638099121037315

A story lacking in factual detail. In particular if the seat broke during flight it is not even a story.

How they dealt with this passenger for the landing is the only point of interest.

[HammerHome]

A little more context....


Replying to
@mattiasharris
One has to wonder how safe the rest of the plane was. This was her seat. The lady was moved to a spare seat once the flight was fully boarded. Not sure what would have happened if the flight was full. My partner took the photo. -- end --

[Andy D]

Pretty sure this is going to hit the news one way or another...

Quite misleading really, several hours later he posted:

"One has to wonder how safe the rest of the plane was. This was her seat. The lady was moved to a spare seat once the flight was fully boarded. Not sure what would have happened if the flight was full. My partner took the photo. -- end --"

[DaveReidUK]

Doh.

This was her seat.

In other words, it was the seat number on the boarding pass she likely printed hours or even days in advance, probably before EZY had determined which aircraft was going to operate the flight.

The lady was moved to a spare seat once the flight was fully boarded.

Far easier to identify an empty seat once everyone is on board.

Not sure what would have happened if the flight was full.

If the flight had been full, then clearly x passengers would not have been allowed to board an aircraft with x-1 seats.

One has to wonder how safe the rest of the plane was.

Oh dear ...

[Hotel Tango]

Then again, Easyjet left themselves wide open to this kind of rubbish being spouted on social media!

[Ben_S]

Then again, Easyjet left themselves wide open to this kind of rubbish being spouted on social media!

Yep, would have been far better to just cancel the flight.

[JumpJumpJump]

There seems to be huge negative backlash about this ridiculous story that was tweeted for likes and shares.

Does the guybthat tweeted it and subsequent lies realise that by provoking passenger boycotts he could be directly responsible for causing people to lost their jobs. People really need to think before posting uneducated tweets, and maybe this guy going to court for this would make some people think twice.

I am not about the censuring of the public, however people must be aware that they must perform the minimum of research and due dilligence first.

[PanzerJohn]

If you look at the larger photo in the article the seat next to her also has it's back missing. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7326581/Extraordinary-picture-shows-easyJet-passengers-sitting-backless-SEATS.html

[bdm65]

Their big mistake was asking for the photo to be taken down before investigating the issue.

[DaveReidUK]

Easyjet left themselves wide open to this kind of rubbish being spouted on social media!

EZY requesting that the poster remove the photo and DM them instead was rather ill-judged. Far better to have found out the facts from the crew before responding.

Another c*ck-up by an airline's social media department, only a week or so after KLM's similar own goal.

[milhouse999]

Certainly an interesting one, Easyjet clearly had no intention of having a passenger use these seats and they planned to move anyone who had booked into these seats to alternatives once all had boarded.

It appears the whole row has missing backs - which begs the more interesting question in my head, those behind had no seat pockets, tray tables, and it would make a 'brace' slightly different. Would there be sharp parts sticking out of those broken seats? who knows.

[JumpJumpJump]

Certainly an interesting one, Easyjet clearly had no intention of having a passenger use these seats and they planned to move anyone who had booked into these seats to alternatives once all had boarded.

It appears the whole row has missing backs - which begs the more interesting question in my head, those behind had no seat pockets, tray tables, and it would make a 'brace' slightly different. Would there be sharp parts sticking out of those broken seats? who knows.

Seats would have been inspected for protrusions and any other physical interference with the row behind.

Vertical struts could cause an issue if the passenger is flung from the chair at an angle, likewise if an unbelted or walking passenger or CC happens to be thrown in to the air and lands on one due to turbulence, there could be an issue, however, as we know, this is about risk assessment;management and not risk elimination.

--------------

[golfbananajam]

Certainly an interesting one, Easyjet clearly had no intention of having a passenger use these seats and they planned to move anyone who had booked into these seats to alternatives once all had boarded.


Sorry, but that is just BS. IF it was known that the seats were not usable then it is pure negligence/laziness (call it what you will) to have not changed the seating of the affected passenger(s) prior to boarding. Seat reassignment at the gate seems a fairly routine activity these days on the flights I take, so why not this time?

[flight_mode]

Unserviceable seats (or overhead PSU) isn't such an unusual event. Here it's noted and briefed, a belt with the word "SEAT NOT IN USE" is placed across the armrests to physically stop people sitting on them and Ops will sort out the seat assignments so the outstation doesn't even need to know.

[Mike Flynn]

A seat like that would not be acceptable on a bus or train.

On an aircraft it is disgraceful.

[sycamore]

It should be quite f%%%%%$^G obvious the seat row should have been replaced before any pax got anywhere near the aircraft........

[flight_mode]

It should be quite f%%%%%$^G obvious the seat row should have been replaced before any pax got anywhere near the aircraft........
Easyjet are dammed if they do, dammed if they dont. It could have happened earlier that day. What should they do? Remove the broken bits, get it signed off and block the seats or take the aircraft out of service in the middle of peak season?

[Lord Farringdon]

It should be quite f%%%%%$^G obvious the seat row should have been replaced before any pax got anywhere near the aircraft........


Have to agree. I've changed out seats in our B727 after we've had some 'rough' army customers on a particular sector. It's a fairly painless task and absolutely should be done if the seat is obviously broken for both safety and appearance reasons. Not so much of an issue where the cushions have been soiled. Just remove them and the seat is not used but at least it is intact but obviously unavailable for use (although like most airlines, we carried spare cushions anyway) . I mean what happened to pride in your airline, it's offering, it's maintenance. We demand cabin staff dress and behave in a manner fitting to represent the face of the airline and then give them a cabin that looks like a piece of s***. Come on check in. It doesn't matter what was booked for the flight, the aircraft that has arrived on your pan is missing a bank of seats so reduce max seating by three and don't board passengers to go and sit in them. Wow!! The guy who posted the image and and made the senseless remarks is typical of what any company faces today as social media addicts hunt for other similarly senseless people to increase their 'likes". Can't fix stupid, but come on Easyjet, you just let all your passengers behind the curtain in the first Act while you were still putting your make up on. ...what do you expect?

[Lord Farringdon]

Well you would think that would be the end of the story but no. Apparently, and according to the NZ Herald who probably got this off Twitter:

"The plane G-EZBV, an Airbus A319-111 which formed the Luton to Geneva service, had also been missing the seats since at least Friday when it flew Luton to Berlin as service U22103".

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/602x860/easyjet_dedce615f307cbfb260ad0d1c06403e65c86dd5b.jpg
"Accompanying the message was a picture of what appeared to be the same seats, four days earlier, still minus backs. Although, at this point the seats had printed notes taped to them, apologising and telling passengers not to sit in them."

As an ex aircrew member I'm embarrassed for the cabin crew who had to fly in this and justify it to passengers, let alone the passengers who, as cheap as their airfare may be, probably didn't expect such a decrepit looking cabin.

[lomapaseo]

I don' get it? What caused all these seats to fail this way. Was it because the original passengers tried to recline into the knees of those behind?

I don't see much clearance in the photo

[pattern_is_full]

Bottom line - Easyjet allowed itself to look worse that Air Botswana (and that may be a libel on Air Botswana).

Doesn't matter whether anyone actually flew on these seats - their mere presence in the cabin is third-world s**thole stuff. As is the thinking of anyone defending it.

[FrontSeatPhil]

It looks like that's an emergency exit row; would that impact the availability of spare seating?

I've no idea if the non-reclining seats there differ from the normal seats, or if it's just a case of blocking off the recline mechanism.

[goeasy]

So... P.A. to pax in terminal. "We are really sorry but your aircraft has two unserviceable seats. WE can cancel the flight (and subsequent ones) rebooking you days later, or we can operate the flight, as long as you promise not to take photos of friends etc appearing to be sitting in the seat."

What would your vote be? I would have offloaded anyone stupid enough to even sit down on seat with a sign saying DO NOT USE!
I presume she would have used a lav locked/labelled 'inop' as well?

[Lord Farringdon]

So... P.A. to pax in terminal. "We are really sorry but your aircraft has two unserviceable seats. WE can cancel the flight (and subsequent ones) rebooking you days later, or we can operate the flight, as long as you promise not to take photos of friends etc appearing to be sitting in the seat."

What would your vote be? I would have offloaded anyone stupid enough to even sit down on seat with a sign saying DO NOT USE!
I presume she would have used a lav locked/labelled 'inop' as well?


Go easy, Go Easy. The image of the woman appears to have been taken four days after the image of the seats with 'dont sit here' signs and it seems those scrappy signs may have come off after four days of turnarounds. Even if the signs were still there, I would expect that she had been directed by the cabin crew to rest there, out of the way of boarding passengers, until they could identify a seat for her. So not stupid, but probably very confused, maybe even a little embarrassed and just following the directions of her crew.
Anyway, it's not about her. Its about Easyjet and their culture that allows this type of operation to be normal.

[Uplinker]

I don’t work for easyJet, but if it had been my decision, I would have had the engineers remove that row of seats completely. It would take, what, 5 mins during turnaround? And then, apart from the obvious gap, the cabin would have looked normal and presentable, and more importantly; safe.

I suspect what happened is that someone in easyJet Ops were told over the phone that two seats were unserviceable, so they decreed that the aircraft stayed in the schedule and kept flying with minus two seats, BUT without realising how unserviceable the seats actually were and how awful they looked and what that would do to passenger confidence and the company image.

Then as each subsequent Dispatcher and Cabin crew and Captain saw the seats, they might have queried it but Ops said yes, we know: leave them and keep flying. So shaking their heads, the crew carried on.

I would like to think that if everyone in the chain of command had actually seen how bad the seats were, i.e. not simply soiled or broken, as sometimes happens, then proper action would have been taken in the first place.

[misd-agin]

"If it had been my decision..." Actually the MEL would dictate the actions taken. Several groups, maintenance, FAA, flight department, get together and put the MEL together. If they thought removing the seats was necessary the MEL would state that. If they followed their MEL the proper actions were taken.

[fred81]

"If it had been my decision..." Actually the MEL would dictate the actions taken. Several groups, maintenance, FAA, flight department, get together and put the MEL together. If they thought removing the seats was necessary the MEL would state that. If they followed their MEL the proper actions were taken.

From the MMEL, passenger seat section:

May be inoperative provided: a) Seat does not block an Emergency Exit, b) Seat does not restrict any passenger from access to the main aircraft aisle, and c) Affected seat(s) are blocked and placarded “DO NOT OCCUPY."

Guess for this flight at least part C was not complied with.

[hoss183]

I don' get it? What caused all these seats to fail this way. Was it because the original passengers tried to recline into the knees of those behind?
I don't see much clearance in the photo
1. Standard EJ (almost zero) clearance
2. There is no recline on any EJ planes

It looks like that's an emergency exit row; would that impact the availability of spare seating?
I've no idea if the non-reclining seats there differ from the normal seats, or if it's just a case of blocking off the recline mechanism.
There is no recline on any EJ planes

[fergusd]

Apart from the social media hysteria and the hysteria on here . . . is there not an actual safety issue - if the unthinkable happens and you (sitting in the row behind) end up in a brace position with that seat pitch, your head is very likely to be 'damaged' by the protruding armrests and protruding fixtures on the armrests in the case of an impact, all clearly visible in the pictures. Is the brace position safety case valid in that case ?

Personally, I would not sit in the row behind, I'd get off and screw the consequences to EJ, my flight will have cost pennies anyway and my safety is worth more than that.

Surely the aviation industry has _some_ safety standards towards the paying public rather than just 'screw em and make some money' ?

Fd

[jugofpropwash]

Personally, I would not sit in the row behind, I'd get off and screw the consequences to EJ, my flight will have cost pennies anyway and my safety is worth more than that.



Fd

There's two ways of looking at that. As SLF, I would have been delighted to have been in the row behind or the adjoining seat. As I see it, the odds of crashing are probably one in a million, whereas the odds of having extra space are 100%.

[fergusd]

There's two ways of looking at that. As SLF, I would have been delighted to have been in the row behind or the adjoining seat. As I see it, the odds of crashing are probably one in a million, whereas the odds of having extra space are 100%.

A well, that makes it ok then . . . FFS . . .

Fd

[hans brinker]

A well, that makes it ok then . . . FFS . . .

Fd

As an industry we have to make sure we're safe to the Nth degree. As a passenger your individual change of crashing is therefore incredible low, so might as well have the legroom.....

[fergusd]

As an industry we have to make sure we're safe to the Nth degree. As a passenger your individual change of crashing is therefore incredible low, so might as well have the legroom.....

So, screw the pax safety is an acceptable money making policy ?

I'd get off . . . and no amount of harassment from the flight crew would stop me.

When it comes to screw you from the airline . . . screw you is an appropriate response . . .

Safety last eh ? . . .

Same observation on drunk pilots, and . . . and . . . and . . .

[Uplinker]

"If it had been my decision..." Actually the MEL would dictate the actions taken. Several groups, maintenance, FAA, flight department, get together and put the MEL together. If they thought removing the seats was necessary the MEL would state that. If they followed their MEL the proper actions were taken.

I wasn’t being arrogant. By saying “if it was my decision”, I meant if I was the CEO or Operations director or similar, I would have a policy of not letting such a badly broken seat row fly again until it was replaced - for aesthetic reasons and the impression it would otherwise give to passengers.

But this raises an interesting question: Is it actually forbidden to remove a seat row for operational reasons without specific permission from the aircraft manufacturer?

[VH DSJ]

There's two ways of looking at that. As SLF, I would have been delighted to have been in the row behind or the adjoining seat. As I see it, the odds of crashing are probably one in a million, whereas the odds of having extra space are 100%.

They'll probably find a way to charge you more for the extra space.

[giggitygiggity]

I would like to think that if everyone in the chain of command had actually seen how bad the seats were, i.e. not simply soiled or broken, as sometimes happens, then proper action would have been taken in the first place.

The MEL defines what is acceptable or not, seems perfectly reasonable to continue in accordance with that. The captain made the decision that it was acceptable and that's that. Nothing to do with the company 'chain of command'.

[left]But this raises an interesting question: Is it actually forbidden to remove a seat row for operational reasons without specific permission from the aircraft manufacturer?

Of course they allow it... From the A320 MEL briefly quoted above.
25-20-02C Affected seats considered inoperative

One or more may be inoperative provided that:

The backrest of the associated seat does not block a cabin door or a cabin overwing exit, and

The seat with the inoperative backrest is considered inoperative

Refer to Item 25-20-01 Passenger Seat, and

The seats with restricted access to the main aisle are considered inoperative.
Refer to Item 25-20-01 Passenger Seat:

(o)

One or more may be inoperative provided the inoperative seat:

Does not block an emergency exit, and

Does not restrict any passenger from access to the main airplane aisle, and

Is blocked and placarded “DO NOT OCCUPY”.



The MEL was carried out (although the blocked part, not so sure) though the seat had a placard on it. If you look REALLY closely, you can see it underneath the woman in the photo), I also saw a photo of the seat without her on showing the placard explaining she'd need to wait till the flight was boarded etc...

[FrequentSLF]

Is the fact worth a thread on this forums?
2 broken seats, not used by pax, period. Bad image foe the airline, period.
Do SLF need to open a thread in this forums everytime a seat fails? Brace position? Trains do not have such... buses too...
once i got a flight delayed 3 hours because of a broken lavatory...a 1 hour flight! We finally took off with instructions on how to wash with bottled water.
this thread does not make a favor to this forums

[jugofpropwash]

A well, that makes it ok then . . . FFS . . .

Fd

I didn't say it was ok. Regardless of the safety implications, it looks stupid. That said, I'd still be thrilled at the extra room. :)

[Uplinker]

@ giggity, No, I meant is it allowed to physically remove an entire seat row from the aircraft without specific permission, (not just render it inop with placards, but leave in place, as the MEL states)?

@ FrequentSLF, No one is forcing you to read this thread. This case is unusual in that two seat backs are completely absent rather than being present but inop. Trains and buses do not have such highly enforced passenger safety procedures as aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

No, I meant is it allowed to physically remove an entire seat row from the aircraft without specific permission, (not just render it inop with placards, but leave in place, as the MEL states)?

I can't see any airworthiness-related reason why the row could not be removed. The effect on W&B would be negligble, particularly as it's over the wing and, as discussed above, leaving it in situ with bits sticking up could be deemed a potential hazard.

A cynic might suggest that EZY left the row in place so they could continue to sell the window seat (not placarded in the photo) ...

[pattern_is_full]

I guess I find the "It's OK according to the MEL" argument a red herring. The question of airworthiness is only one part of the problem.

When you show up to do your job as a professional pilot (like it says on the site header) - are you wearing a T-shirt, cutoff shorts, and flipflops?

If not, why not?

The aircraft should look as professional and competent as the pilots do.

[FlightDetent]

The aircraft should look as professional and competent as the pilots do. Would you expect a pilot with the shirt stained by coffee to cancel a (return) flight, because the looks do not conform to the professional standard the passengers assume to have paid for?

In a very similar fashion, there is logistics and resources allocation involved. I strongly oppose the idea EZY just want it that way. Per EU 261 those two denied boarding places cost to the tune of 3500 GBP a day, plus you need to get the passengers where they booked to anyway.

At the absolute peak of the summer season, what if the A/C failed to meet its new seats somewhere mid-week due to being sent to recover some other AOG'd?

[hans brinker]

So, screw the pax safety is an acceptable money making policy ?

I'd get off . . . and no amount of harassment from the flight crew would stop me.

When it comes to screw you from the airline . . . screw you is an appropriate response . . .

Safety last eh ? . . .

Same observation on drunk pilots, and . . . and . . . and . . .
Let's start with reading comprehension. Your response was to a passenger who said nothing about airline safety, just that he would like the legroom. You went of on a rant, so I tried to explain (unsuccessfully apparently) his post had nothing to do with airline safety. What followed was another rant about airline safety, now including drunk pilots....
Maybe you need a nap or something....

[cappt]

I've seen many seats with broken backrest recline mechanisms. The MEL clearly states how to take the seat out of service, if the broken seat effects the one behind it then that seat/row must also be taken out of service and "Do not occupy" placards attached.
In twenty one years I've never seen seats with the entire back removed and operation of the aircraft with PAX allowed. Can anyone point that out in the MEL?

[Lord Farringdon]

I've seen many seats with broken backrest recline mechanisms. The MEL clearly states how to take the seat out of service, if the broken seat effects the one behind it then that seat/row must also be taken out of service and "Do not occupy" placards attached.
In twenty one years I've never seen seats with the entire back removed and operation of the aircraft with PAX allowed. Can anyone point that out in the MEL?


That would be my question too. While everything seems to be in accordance with the MEL, there is something still not right about this whole thing and i think it is the difference between the seat equipment being inoperative and placarded as such vs it being dismantled and therefore in a state of repair. Not just inop.