flyglobespan -Abandonment@jfk New York
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear you had a rough time of it, Bear'. I'll try to clarify some of the muddiness in the waters:
If the Captain deemed it neccessary to return to SFB then you have to respect that this decision was only taken in the interest of safety & only a fool would continue with a flight if they were setting off across the Atlantic in a twin' on a dark winters night, after an engine surge.
Once you had returned to SFB, GSM appointed agents (in this instance Swissport) are contracted to look after the passengers, Swissport then invoice GSM for any neccessary hotel accommodation, transportation costs and beverages. Swissport would be responsible for checking the validity of any vouchers they issue.
The flight crew usually leave the scene once a decision has been made that a replacement will be utilised so that they themselves can begin their mandatory rest between duty periods.
If you were upset by the way you were treated by a member of the Swissport team then take their name and include it in your general complaint to GSM but DON'T blame GSM for acting in the interest of safety then treating you shabilly when it was a differant company contracted in to look after your welfare. I operate into SFB frequently and I believe the only passenger handling company there is Swissport.
Finally, when you were originally scheduled to depart for GLA, then the flight may well have been able to make it direct & non-stop, I have done so on numerous occassions, this depends upon the ammount of passengers on board (hence weight), the required ammount of fuel for the trip plus any mandatory extra for anticipated holding, re-routing & diversion plus crucially, the wind component for that particular track of the flight, if my memory serves me correctly, if you have more than a 30kt tailwind component for the entire trip and your aircraft's Zero-Fuel Weight is sufficiently low, you can usually make it without tech.stopping.
To say "...this changed so it was obviously a lie..." is factually inaccurate at best, or at worse libellous.
Any more queries, please PM me.
If the Captain deemed it neccessary to return to SFB then you have to respect that this decision was only taken in the interest of safety & only a fool would continue with a flight if they were setting off across the Atlantic in a twin' on a dark winters night, after an engine surge.
Once you had returned to SFB, GSM appointed agents (in this instance Swissport) are contracted to look after the passengers, Swissport then invoice GSM for any neccessary hotel accommodation, transportation costs and beverages. Swissport would be responsible for checking the validity of any vouchers they issue.
The flight crew usually leave the scene once a decision has been made that a replacement will be utilised so that they themselves can begin their mandatory rest between duty periods.
If you were upset by the way you were treated by a member of the Swissport team then take their name and include it in your general complaint to GSM but DON'T blame GSM for acting in the interest of safety then treating you shabilly when it was a differant company contracted in to look after your welfare. I operate into SFB frequently and I believe the only passenger handling company there is Swissport.
Finally, when you were originally scheduled to depart for GLA, then the flight may well have been able to make it direct & non-stop, I have done so on numerous occassions, this depends upon the ammount of passengers on board (hence weight), the required ammount of fuel for the trip plus any mandatory extra for anticipated holding, re-routing & diversion plus crucially, the wind component for that particular track of the flight, if my memory serves me correctly, if you have more than a 30kt tailwind component for the entire trip and your aircraft's Zero-Fuel Weight is sufficiently low, you can usually make it without tech.stopping.
To say "...this changed so it was obviously a lie..." is factually inaccurate at best, or at worse libellous.
Any more queries, please PM me.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 40
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i said it was expected that he turned back after the fuel was burnt off but the denial of any resposibillity on the ground was appaling. Swissport ignored us completely or treated us like an unwanted inturuption and all information given regarding atms etc was missleading or contradictory. No contact information for globespan was given and no consideration was given by gsm or swissport to those stayng with reletives that had to be woken to collect us.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Bear', YOU CHOSE to stay with relatives. YOU COULD have stayed with the rest of the pax. in a GSM provided hotel (as is the norm') but as you stated , YOU CHOSE to stay with the relatives YOU woke up- YOU cannot blame GSM or Swissport for that! Try taking some responsibility for your own unneccessary actions.
No contact for GSM would be given because Swissport co-ordinate everything including pax accommodation and transportation right up to the moment of re-scheduled departure so any pax trying to contact GSM and subsequently acting on any differing GSM provided information could lead to confusion and a pax being left behind, as has happened before.
As for the ATM's, I've never had a problem with the ones on offer in the International departure lounge.
Was there anything else?
No contact for GSM would be given because Swissport co-ordinate everything including pax accommodation and transportation right up to the moment of re-scheduled departure so any pax trying to contact GSM and subsequently acting on any differing GSM provided information could lead to confusion and a pax being left behind, as has happened before.
As for the ATM's, I've never had a problem with the ones on offer in the International departure lounge.
Was there anything else?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Granada (GRX)
Age: 70
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear13583. FlyGlobespan are definitely a company to avoid.
Just a glance through the comments about them on this site
http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/flygspan.htm
Will give you an insight into their "customer service" especially on Long Haul.
Just a glance through the comments about them on this site
http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/flygspan.htm
Will give you an insight into their "customer service" especially on Long Haul.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 40
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah pontius, were you the officious cow? First off the guy dealing with the contact inforation was explaining something but the bossy old tart told us to stop bothering him and go away. Also are you honestly saying that you would rather stay in a hotel than go back and stay with family? Wierd but what ever floats your boat I guess.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to reiterate what pontious has written.
Flyglobespan use Swissport for the ground resources at Sanford.
It is their responsibility to ensure that passengers are cared for as per the company's instructions.
If you have any problems with what they have done, then the facts need to be forwarded on.
If any ground personnel treated you in any way inappropriately, details, and names need to be provided. Only with accurate information can these things be addressed.
Quite often, I have seen comments regarding customer service, which actually relate to our contractors, and not to flyglobespan.
I am saddened that instead of addressing the problems with the agent directly, it is written here instead.
Flyglobespan use Swissport for the ground resources at Sanford.
It is their responsibility to ensure that passengers are cared for as per the company's instructions.
If you have any problems with what they have done, then the facts need to be forwarded on.
If any ground personnel treated you in any way inappropriately, details, and names need to be provided. Only with accurate information can these things be addressed.
Quite often, I have seen comments regarding customer service, which actually relate to our contractors, and not to flyglobespan.
I am saddened that instead of addressing the problems with the agent directly, it is written here instead.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...pontius, were you the officious cow? First off the guy dealing with the contact inforation was explaining something but the bossy old tart told us...
Chill...
If the company employ agents, surely they take FULL responsibility for the agents performance? (or lack thereof)
So if the agents screw up, the company should recompense the PAX and claim from the non-performing agents
So if the agents screw up, the company should recompense the PAX and claim from the non-performing agents
Much depends I should imagine on the Terms and Conditions of Contract between the airline operator and the handling agents. Contracts and the price paid between various agents and operators will vary throughout the industry similar to many other businesses that have "contracts".
Swissport may have more liability for example with any other operator than what they have with FlyGlobespan. It depends on what has been negotiated and indeed could even possibly vary between airports served by the same airline with the same handling agent. Its all in the beauty of negotiation, value for money, risk assessment and liability.
Nivsy
Swissport may have more liability for example with any other operator than what they have with FlyGlobespan. It depends on what has been negotiated and indeed could even possibly vary between airports served by the same airline with the same handling agent. Its all in the beauty of negotiation, value for money, risk assessment and liability.
Nivsy
I'm sorry but as pax the agent = the airline. I don't care if the airline has outsourced their ground operations to someone else; if that company isn't performing then it is the airline that is at fault as that is who I have contracted with.
I am not going to put in a complaint against a ground handling company as I have no contract with them; I'll complain to / claim against the airline about their service and the airline can then pass that on to the ground handler.
I am not going to put in a complaint against a ground handling company as I have no contract with them; I'll complain to / claim against the airline about their service and the airline can then pass that on to the ground handler.
Judging by the newspapers (Daily Record) own forum pages which has a number of comments from pax actually on the flight wishing to put things in context now - including praise for Flyglobespans handling of the situation - at least in the air. Think this is the end of this particular incident debate??
Nivsy
http://forums.dailyrecord.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=919
Nivsy
http://forums.dailyrecord.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=919
