Britannia crew stranded in Mexico!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Gatwick, United Kingdom
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dogs_ears_up
So come on...why don't you explain to us why the company you are working for sent a plane full of passenger, it's crew and a valuable aircraft into a location which the whole world (exept maybe your employers) knew that in a few days was going to be hit by a forecasted force 5 hurricane?.....explain the logic behind that one.
It's definitely not to evacuate passengers because if it was the aircraft outbound would have been empty of passengers and I'm thinkin that it would have been done after the danger passed instead of putting fresh crew in the path of a force 5 hurricane!
It's not an accusation because I know for a fact that your employer has crew stuck out in Mexico which they placed there along with passengers in the full knowledge that Wilma was going to pay them a visit!
I mentioned your employer because in this case it's them who have been reckless with their crew and passengers lives not to mention with their valuable aircraft.
Maybe you should serve Pizzas instead!
flapsforty
I apologise for calling him a monkey...I actually ment to call him a donk.....oh never mind!
So come on...why don't you explain to us why the company you are working for sent a plane full of passenger, it's crew and a valuable aircraft into a location which the whole world (exept maybe your employers) knew that in a few days was going to be hit by a forecasted force 5 hurricane?.....explain the logic behind that one.
It's definitely not to evacuate passengers because if it was the aircraft outbound would have been empty of passengers and I'm thinkin that it would have been done after the danger passed instead of putting fresh crew in the path of a force 5 hurricane!
It's not an accusation because I know for a fact that your employer has crew stuck out in Mexico which they placed there along with passengers in the full knowledge that Wilma was going to pay them a visit!
I mentioned your employer because in this case it's them who have been reckless with their crew and passengers lives not to mention with their valuable aircraft.
Maybe you should serve Pizzas instead!
flapsforty
I apologise for calling him a monkey...I actually ment to call him a donk.....oh never mind!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you want an explanation as to why BA have two crews stuck out in Miami due to the hurricane? I bet Virgin have a crew there too. The world goes on despite you being scared of the weather. People want to travel and they've paid for their tickets so we take them. None of the BA flights went out empty, there was no shortage of people wanting to go to MIA.
BTW the way I very much doubt that the aircraft has been sitting on the ground in CUN for the duration of Wilma, it would have been in and out again in just a few hours, so you're suggestion that BY have been reckless with an aircraft is utterly without foundation.
BTW the way I very much doubt that the aircraft has been sitting on the ground in CUN for the duration of Wilma, it would have been in and out again in just a few hours, so you're suggestion that BY have been reckless with an aircraft is utterly without foundation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Gatwick, United Kingdom
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo
So if the aircraft has been in and out as you claim for it to have been...then why leave the cabin crew there to face wilma? Is it a case of Brittania thinking that the aircraft is more valuable then the well being of their crew & passengers?
PS any other airline which knowingly sent crew, passenger & aircraft into a forecasted danger zone is just as reckless!!!
So if the aircraft has been in and out as you claim for it to have been...then why leave the cabin crew there to face wilma? Is it a case of Brittania thinking that the aircraft is more valuable then the well being of their crew & passengers?
PS any other airline which knowingly sent crew, passenger & aircraft into a forecasted danger zone is just as reckless!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you considered that by positioning the cabin crew home on the aircraft they arrived on cause a 2 day delay in reinstating services back to the UK when Wilma clears, delaying another 600 odd passengers who want to get home further? I doubt it.
Either that or the other airlines and crews used their many years of experience of flying into areas of bad weather, political and social unrest to judge what was acceptable and what wasn't and made their call based on the best real time and forecast weather information available to them. Of course if you think you know better than all of them I'd love to hear what your qualifications are.
PS any other airline which knowingly sent crew, passenger & aircraft into a forecasted danger zone is just as reckless
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: here
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I now see why you have got on your high horse about this, all because Kelas mentioned the airline you work for.. But how has he/she made serious accusations against them in a public forum?? Do you know what Pprune is for?? Maybe you should take it up with someone that all airline/company names are removed...
frankly I think it is very interesting that we can have here someone like Dogs_ears_up , with insider's knowledge. How useful is to make allegations we cannot substantiate on a public forum? It appears they are not the only airline with crew stranded in Mexico. In my career (not in that airline) it has happened to me to be stranded somewhere 2 times because of a hurricane. Anyboby who has stuck around airline biz enough will know.
My opinion is that it would be more constructive to ask "why" it may happen that a crew is stranded because of a hurricane. We might be lucky and have someone from an OPS department with some firsthand knowledge to reply
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet Virgin have a crew there too.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was probably cancelled as a result of the huge winds going through MIA at its scheduled arrival time. At a guess I'd say that if Mondays flight didn't operate then Sundays crew are still there!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha yeah Hands_Solo funny that! 
You should know not to speak logic to a very jetlagged flight attendant though (ie me)
My point was that some airlines are cancelling flights into the affected area, but I did not want to speculate as to whether or not that was hurricane-related
You should know not to speak logic to a very jetlagged flight attendant though (ie me)My point was that some airlines are cancelling flights into the affected area, but I did not want to speculate as to whether or not that was hurricane-related
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Crufts
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well folks.. we tried. I don't think continuing this argument will achieve anything, and it is apparent that nothing that I say here can make Kelas & Miss World look quite as silly as they do themselves every time they post further.
That's it from me on this thread.
That's it from me on this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelas
You started this thread with a question as to why Brits hadn't made adequate safety provisions (in your view) for their crew. You state that you have factual evidence based on information from an actual crewmember who also happens to be a friend. Aided & abetted by Miss World (who seems to think that Messrs Hilton, Marriott et al have constructed their luxury hotels to be nothing more than local tropical storm shelters) to accuse the airline of RECKLESSNESS ; i.e. that the either knowingly, or through wilful neglect, put an aircraft of theirs & its occupants into a known area of danger that threatened their very survival.
Like all the other carriers faced with problems with Wilma, Britannia will have gone through a strategy, based on as much of the best information as they can muster and come up with a plan.
Are they perfect? No.
Do they always get it right? I doubt it.
Could they have been wrong here? Quite possibly.
But, was their decision as a result of reckless behaviour? Well, they haven't been around for the last 40 plus years by being reckless.
(BTW, like another poster I also heard that they sent an empty aircraft out last week. But I also heard that, due to changing circumstances, it only got as far as POP.)
If you do have evidence - by that I mean hard, factual, proof-positive evidence & not hearsay tittle tattle from a so-called friend - then, let's have it. I'm sure the class action lawyers would be delighted to use anything you have in any forthcoming litigation.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can all make 'wise arse' comments about what should have been done & although I have no knowledge as to actually how wise your own arse is, I reckon it has more wisdom in it than that dormant organ otherwise know as your brain.
You started this thread with a question as to why Brits hadn't made adequate safety provisions (in your view) for their crew. You state that you have factual evidence based on information from an actual crewmember who also happens to be a friend. Aided & abetted by Miss World (who seems to think that Messrs Hilton, Marriott et al have constructed their luxury hotels to be nothing more than local tropical storm shelters) to accuse the airline of RECKLESSNESS ; i.e. that the either knowingly, or through wilful neglect, put an aircraft of theirs & its occupants into a known area of danger that threatened their very survival.
Like all the other carriers faced with problems with Wilma, Britannia will have gone through a strategy, based on as much of the best information as they can muster and come up with a plan.
Are they perfect? No.
Do they always get it right? I doubt it.
Could they have been wrong here? Quite possibly.
But, was their decision as a result of reckless behaviour? Well, they haven't been around for the last 40 plus years by being reckless.
(BTW, like another poster I also heard that they sent an empty aircraft out last week. But I also heard that, due to changing circumstances, it only got as far as POP.)
If you do have evidence - by that I mean hard, factual, proof-positive evidence & not hearsay tittle tattle from a so-called friend - then, let's have it. I'm sure the class action lawyers would be delighted to use anything you have in any forthcoming litigation.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can all make 'wise arse' comments about what should have been done & although I have no knowledge as to actually how wise your own arse is, I reckon it has more wisdom in it than that dormant organ otherwise know as your brain.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Gatwick, United Kingdom
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dogs_ears_up
Seeing as you are so well informed in the aviation industry no doubt you will have heard the rumour of some of your employers cabin crew kicking up a stink in the domican republic and the involvement of unions in regards the recklessness of being put in the path of danger!....it's amazing what I learn serving pizzas!!!
Miss World
Seeing as you are so well informed in the aviation industry no doubt you will have heard the rumour of some of your employers cabin crew kicking up a stink in the domican republic and the involvement of unions in regards the recklessness of being put in the path of danger!....it's amazing what I learn serving pizzas!!!
Miss World
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People seem to be harping on about how dare airlines send people to a place of danger.......excuse me.....but aren't the passengers the ones who decide if they want to go or not. The airline does not hold a gun to their head forcing them to board the plane.
I have been operating crew to Bali days after the bombing. Sure I didn't want to be there and would have rather been elsewhere, but you know what people were still going over to enjoy family holidays with young kids......now the airline is not to blame for that. They are just providing the service.
So whose the idoit? The airline or the pax?
However I do understand the concern of sending crew to a place that is not desirable. Though I'm sure most airlines that everyone works for has ways of dealing with that if you feel your life could be at risk, simply speak to someone about it.
RaverFlaver
I have been operating crew to Bali days after the bombing. Sure I didn't want to be there and would have rather been elsewhere, but you know what people were still going over to enjoy family holidays with young kids......now the airline is not to blame for that. They are just providing the service.
So whose the idoit? The airline or the pax?
However I do understand the concern of sending crew to a place that is not desirable. Though I'm sure most airlines that everyone works for has ways of dealing with that if you feel your life could be at risk, simply speak to someone about it.
RaverFlaver
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK / UAE
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RaverFlaver,
Thank you for your post. Kinda stole my thunder a little though as, to my knowledge, no passenger has ever been forced to go anywhere they dont want to, and I'm sure that a majority are well aware of potential situations, be they weather or any other hazard, that they will be flying towards.
I'll leave myself totally and utterly exposed to the barrage of abuse I'll no doubt receive here, but I am one of those humble Ops boys who is very much involved in deciding what/who goes where and when.
First of all, believe it or not, of paramount importance to us is the safety of crews, aircraft and passengers. Those on here who are being paranoid, stop it now as I find your whinging a touch annoying and certainly not called for. If any Captain, First Officer or Cabin crew has a concern, no matter how small, we will endeavour to address, reassure and assist them in any way possible. They, after all and just as importantly, will be required to do the same for our passengers. Do you think flight deck will just launch merrily on our say so, completely unaware of what they are flying towards? Of course not.
Second of all, weather systems are only predictable to a degree, in terms of strength and direction and we are occasionally required to make decisions on predictions only, not guarantees and, again, in conjunction with the crew. This system was always going to cause a certain degree of disruption, and, believe it or not, to instigate a series of mass cancellations in order to protect our aircraft and crews was not the way to go in this instance.
Thirdly, all Ops and Commercial departments have refined the ways in which they react to these scenarios over many, many times. Like it or not, they are not just thrown together with scant regard for our staff and equipment. If Thompson saw fit to do what they did, then the decision would not have been taken lightly. Dont be so flippant as to say otherwise.
Sometimes Ops make the wrong call, primarily because we dont have the luxury of time and work to tight schedules, as do crews. Sadly it's all to easy to sit back and complain about situations and environments that we know nothing about.
My rant is now over. Thank you.
Thank you for your post. Kinda stole my thunder a little though as, to my knowledge, no passenger has ever been forced to go anywhere they dont want to, and I'm sure that a majority are well aware of potential situations, be they weather or any other hazard, that they will be flying towards.
I'll leave myself totally and utterly exposed to the barrage of abuse I'll no doubt receive here, but I am one of those humble Ops boys who is very much involved in deciding what/who goes where and when.
First of all, believe it or not, of paramount importance to us is the safety of crews, aircraft and passengers. Those on here who are being paranoid, stop it now as I find your whinging a touch annoying and certainly not called for. If any Captain, First Officer or Cabin crew has a concern, no matter how small, we will endeavour to address, reassure and assist them in any way possible. They, after all and just as importantly, will be required to do the same for our passengers. Do you think flight deck will just launch merrily on our say so, completely unaware of what they are flying towards? Of course not.
Second of all, weather systems are only predictable to a degree, in terms of strength and direction and we are occasionally required to make decisions on predictions only, not guarantees and, again, in conjunction with the crew. This system was always going to cause a certain degree of disruption, and, believe it or not, to instigate a series of mass cancellations in order to protect our aircraft and crews was not the way to go in this instance.
Thirdly, all Ops and Commercial departments have refined the ways in which they react to these scenarios over many, many times. Like it or not, they are not just thrown together with scant regard for our staff and equipment. If Thompson saw fit to do what they did, then the decision would not have been taken lightly. Dont be so flippant as to say otherwise.
Sometimes Ops make the wrong call, primarily because we dont have the luxury of time and work to tight schedules, as do crews. Sadly it's all to easy to sit back and complain about situations and environments that we know nothing about.
My rant is now over. Thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Stirling, i have to say as cabin crew i am with you on this one. Our weather is becoming more unpredictable therefore making it impossible to always make the right judjement. The real person to blame here is mother nature and i dont think anyone has her email address to forward our complaints to.
I have read this post with interest but am also getting increasingly annoyed at the nastiness that gos on between users in this forum, and not just on this post. Its not neccassary for all these insults flying around, we all have different opinions and should be able to vent them without all the abuse. I dont understand why the mods let it go on. This is the most unfreindly discussion forum i have visited.
I have read this post with interest but am also getting increasingly annoyed at the nastiness that gos on between users in this forum, and not just on this post. Its not neccassary for all these insults flying around, we all have different opinions and should be able to vent them without all the abuse. I dont understand why the mods let it go on. This is the most unfreindly discussion forum i have visited.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: gatwick
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While i agree to an extent what has been said by stirlling, I can say for fact that a close friend of mine who rasieed an entirely valid (and union backed, might I add) was totally ignored and ridiculed by the commander (excusable as he is an individual) and then, worst of all, by senior management in the company.
In the short, she and several others refused to operate the flight as they felt their concerns were not being addressed and that their lives were being placed under considerable risk - it may sound melodramatic, but I can assure you the situation deemed it (detials of the situation may implicate the company and persons involved).
Said person was then brought in for an investigation and issued a verbal warning which is currently being fought. Additionally, several reccomendations were made to the company to avoid a repeat of the situation, none of which have been looked at or implimented.
For those who say that there are VAA and BA crews stranded in Miami, Florida has much higher building codes, is an English speaking country (i.e. english-speaking crews will find thing easier), is not on a spit of land three feet wide. Mexico is still classed by the UN as a developing nation, and as such does not have the immediate evacuation and SaR facilities available to the USA.
In the short, she and several others refused to operate the flight as they felt their concerns were not being addressed and that their lives were being placed under considerable risk - it may sound melodramatic, but I can assure you the situation deemed it (detials of the situation may implicate the company and persons involved).
Said person was then brought in for an investigation and issued a verbal warning which is currently being fought. Additionally, several reccomendations were made to the company to avoid a repeat of the situation, none of which have been looked at or implimented.
For those who say that there are VAA and BA crews stranded in Miami, Florida has much higher building codes, is an English speaking country (i.e. english-speaking crews will find thing easier), is not on a spit of land three feet wide. Mexico is still classed by the UN as a developing nation, and as such does not have the immediate evacuation and SaR facilities available to the USA.
