Different Minima With/Without PAX?

[BALIX]

Last January I was booked on and EZY flight from GLA to LTN. It was a ****ty morning in Luton but we were boarded more or less on time and left sitting on the tarmac awaiting an improvement in the Luton vis. The captain kept us informed over the PA on what was happening but, two hours later, told us that as improvement was unlikely, the flight was cancelled.

Off we all got and had to queue up at the serviceair ticket desk to be either re-booked the following day or get a refund. With only one member of staff on, those at the back of the queue (ie, me) had to wait about an hour. All this was a pain but I was happy to put it down to the 'no frills experience'.

However, when I got home I had a look on the teletext at Luton arrivals. Somewhat to my surprise, there was the flight number that I had supposed to have been on with a 'P' suffix on the end having landed just a couple of hours after we'd been kicked off the aircraft.

To me, it seemed as though they had thrown the PAX off the flight and postioned back to Luton empty more or less straight away. Is it possible that the minima for a commercial flight (ie with PAX) is greater than that of a non-commercial flight (ie positioning)? Or was it more likely that the vis had lifted the second we had all been deplaned?

[rupetime]

I cant see the cancellation of a flight, offering a transfer or refund,
can really be put down to the 'no frills experience' as much
as Stelios may like control i dont think the weather comes under his remit !!

The answer to your question as far as im aware is no there is
no difference in limitations if the aircraft has passengers or not
getting a low visibility approach wrong with an audiance is no
different than without....its still going to make a mess.

rt

[Young Paul]

Company minima and state minima for approaches make no reference to the number of passengers. The only difference that pax make is that there is a landing weight limit which - to cover the case of a lost engine in the go-around on a lo-vis approach - is lower than normal. However, this is unlikely to have been a significant factor - it would mean that a full flight could not be operated on a B737-300 (700's are less restricted) but it wouldn't exclude a half-full flight.

PS this is not to be considered authoritative; it's an educated guess.

[BALIX]

Thanks chaps, I guess I was just unlucky. As for the no-frills experience, I wasn't blaming the weather on that! I was just making the point that Easyjet are not under the same compulsion to get you there than, say, BA but as the ticket was cheap it is the chance you take.

As for the bit about weight limits, it might have been a factor as the flight was packed to capacity.

[Silvertop]

Balix,
I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, at the end of the day eastJet are a public transport airline whose crews operate to their approved minima just like any other public transport company. The only "no frills" element exists in the cabin service that you are provided with. Why would you assume that a company's commitment to its passengers varies with the ammount of money you pay for your ticket. I can assure you that there is no two tier standard of operation between Lo cost carriers and the majors