A family's KLM passenger offload experience
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the crux of the matter
OK, I now know far more about MORs than I will ever need to!
But away from the hypothetical and back to the practical matter in hand; any more suggestions for how to get the answers I need?
I'm not interested in money, just in getting some factual answers.
I've done one more thing - I found out that it is SAS Ground Services who handle KLM at ABZ, and their managing director has a contact email, so I've emailed him to say I've got nothing sensible out of KLM six weeks down the line and so can SGS explain.
Then I guess my only other routes are the ATUC bit of the CAA and/or the Dutch CAA (which has a handy downloadable complaints form on its website).
I've also discovered (via the very useful saynoto0870 website) some telephone numbers for KLM customer services but it doesn't sound as if I'll get any easy answers by speaking direct to Customer Care - could use it to keep on at them though.
I think that's about all I can do.
Thanks for all the interest.
OK, I now know far more about MORs than I will ever need to!
But away from the hypothetical and back to the practical matter in hand; any more suggestions for how to get the answers I need?
I'm not interested in money, just in getting some factual answers.
I've done one more thing - I found out that it is SAS Ground Services who handle KLM at ABZ, and their managing director has a contact email, so I've emailed him to say I've got nothing sensible out of KLM six weeks down the line and so can SGS explain.
Then I guess my only other routes are the ATUC bit of the CAA and/or the Dutch CAA (which has a handy downloadable complaints form on its website).
I've also discovered (via the very useful saynoto0870 website) some telephone numbers for KLM customer services but it doesn't sound as if I'll get any easy answers by speaking direct to Customer Care - could use it to keep on at them though.
I think that's about all I can do.
Thanks for all the interest.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Bus429, I take it that if you leave the gate in, let's say your nice A320, and then get a call from ATC to say that the fuel company has just realised that they loaded AVGAS, you would not raise an MOR on the grounds that the error was captured before it killed you, and therefore didn't matter.
In other words you seem to follow a policy that you only raise an MOR after the accident, and if there's no accident because an error was picked up in time there's no need for an MOR.
Hmmm...........
To me, all the boxes for submitting an MOR were ticked. The facts are very simple; after an aircraft had completed boarding, someone twigged that it was 1.5 Tonnes or so overweight. The error must have been made earlier in the process. It's the fact that an error was made (or are you disputing that there was an error?) with a potentially serious adverse effect on the airworthiness of the aircraft, if undiscovered, that would have made me raise an MOR.
Luckily the holes in the cheese did not line up on that occasion, and that was the first hole of several. But the MOR exists to remove the holes.
Edit: Yes I know, some say it's it's possible that a jet would run on AVGAS, for a while at least; it's just an illustration, OK? I couldn't think of another example to use!
In other words you seem to follow a policy that you only raise an MOR after the accident, and if there's no accident because an error was picked up in time there's no need for an MOR.
Hmmm...........
To me, all the boxes for submitting an MOR were ticked. The facts are very simple; after an aircraft had completed boarding, someone twigged that it was 1.5 Tonnes or so overweight. The error must have been made earlier in the process. It's the fact that an error was made (or are you disputing that there was an error?) with a potentially serious adverse effect on the airworthiness of the aircraft, if undiscovered, that would have made me raise an MOR.
Luckily the holes in the cheese did not line up on that occasion, and that was the first hole of several. But the MOR exists to remove the holes.
Edit: Yes I know, some say it's it's possible that a jet would run on AVGAS, for a while at least; it's just an illustration, OK? I couldn't think of another example to use!
Last edited by Capot; 2nd Jun 2008 at 16:00. Reason: Pre-empt the pedants
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have nothing to do with KLM or SAS handling.
ABZ on the fixed wing runway has one end which has problems with high ground which limits the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW). If ATC switches the end in use and you have already loaded fuel it totally cocks up your cunning plan. Depending on the wind strength you can ask for the other end for departure but due to inbound traffic you might have to wait 1.5 hours to allow this.
I wouldn't say it's outside the bounds of possibility for there to be a 1.5 ton difference between the 2 ends. Operationally they couldn't wait for the other end because instead of pissing off 15 pax they would delay the rest of the days pax.
Now the despatcher on the ground who was the bringer of ill will.
Unfortunatly ABZ handling (not just SAS) has some talent limited individuals who by hook, crook and TUPE nobody seems to be able to get rid of. You think you have escaped them and next week they turn up with a new uniform. There is some pretty good ones don't get me wrong. But there are 2-3 twisted witches who know the system inside out who have a serious problem with not only pax but also flight deck crew as well. And god help you if you have a female Captain or FO onboard the claws are out.
I suspect a combination of runway change and one of the witches caused the problem. KLM customer complaints proberly don't have a clue what really went on. I have read a complaint that one of these witches submitted against a Captain who I sitting next to through the discussion. The only thing that was factually correct was the flight number.
And it wouldn't be reason to raise a MOR because the plane was never dispatched outside limits. If the Captain had already signed the approved loadsheet it may then well be a case to MOR it. But if either the crew or the load controller spotted the mistake the system has been proved to be functioning correctly.
ABZ on the fixed wing runway has one end which has problems with high ground which limits the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW). If ATC switches the end in use and you have already loaded fuel it totally cocks up your cunning plan. Depending on the wind strength you can ask for the other end for departure but due to inbound traffic you might have to wait 1.5 hours to allow this.
I wouldn't say it's outside the bounds of possibility for there to be a 1.5 ton difference between the 2 ends. Operationally they couldn't wait for the other end because instead of pissing off 15 pax they would delay the rest of the days pax.
Now the despatcher on the ground who was the bringer of ill will.
Unfortunatly ABZ handling (not just SAS) has some talent limited individuals who by hook, crook and TUPE nobody seems to be able to get rid of. You think you have escaped them and next week they turn up with a new uniform. There is some pretty good ones don't get me wrong. But there are 2-3 twisted witches who know the system inside out who have a serious problem with not only pax but also flight deck crew as well. And god help you if you have a female Captain or FO onboard the claws are out.
I suspect a combination of runway change and one of the witches caused the problem. KLM customer complaints proberly don't have a clue what really went on. I have read a complaint that one of these witches submitted against a Captain who I sitting next to through the discussion. The only thing that was factually correct was the flight number.
And it wouldn't be reason to raise a MOR because the plane was never dispatched outside limits. If the Captain had already signed the approved loadsheet it may then well be a case to MOR it. But if either the crew or the load controller spotted the mistake the system has been proved to be functioning correctly.
Last edited by mad_jock; 2nd Jun 2008 at 16:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad_jock - thanks v. much for the local info.
Ironically - we left at least an hour late anyway by the time the offloading and associated paperwork had been sorted out. Later in the flight they reeled off umpteen announcements for passengers going to all sorts of ultimate destinations who weren't going to make their connections. So there was a knock-on effect for far more than the unlucky first 15 (who, I think, were all only going to AMS - perhaps another reason for their selection?).
It was a youngish lad who came on with the list - seemed like the sort who wouldn't be in a position to show much initiative. He had a policeman at the top of the steps to back him up against the vociferous Dutch frequent flyers on the offload list who were very pissed off up front even before I had made my way up there to raise my concern.
instead of pissing off 15 pax they would delay the rest of the days pax
It was a youngish lad who came on with the list - seemed like the sort who wouldn't be in a position to show much initiative. He had a policeman at the top of the steps to back him up against the vociferous Dutch frequent flyers on the offload list who were very pissed off up front even before I had made my way up there to raise my concern.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats typical to be honest. Send the poor young loon to sort the problem out which he proberly had nothing to do with it to start with.
You can be assured that the crew wouldn't have been happy either and will have moaned big style when they got home.
But what I have posted is purely speculation. There are a few other possible reasons but to start mentioning them starts pointing the finger at various parties and doesn't really help the discussion about your lack of responce to your complaint.
I don't think you will ever get a satisfactory explanation about what the cockup was. To be honest I would be suprised if the crew knows the full story.
You can be assured that the crew wouldn't have been happy either and will have moaned big style when they got home.
But what I have posted is purely speculation. There are a few other possible reasons but to start mentioning them starts pointing the finger at various parties and doesn't really help the discussion about your lack of responce to your complaint.
I don't think you will ever get a satisfactory explanation about what the cockup was. To be honest I would be suprised if the crew knows the full story.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPOT et al - I give up! Have you read CAP 382 and its allusions to UK CAA AOCs? Have you read Part M Subpart B or AMC 20-8?
Why do some ppruners always assume that they are the only people on the planet who can read and understand?
Incidentally, to my mind it's very arguable that CAP 382 supports the contention that this incident could/should have been MOR'ed IF it was a case of gross error. The CAA then decide whether to follow up. Part M Subpart B has the broad framework within which CAP 382 operates. Perhaps AMC 20-8 contradicts CAP 382 and no doubt Bus 429, who knows it so well will provide chapter and verse if it does.
With respect to Mad_jock; dispatch within or outside company limits (for a delay report?) has nothing to do with whether or not an MOR is needed.
It would be merely repetitious to repeat that capturing an error may save lives but does not mean that the error need not be investigated or even MOR'ed.
I'll buy the last-minute runway-end change as a possible cause, if someone confirms that this makes a 1.5 Tonne difference. Could a wind change be that unexpected and that dramatic? Perhaps, in ABZ; I don't know.
But it's no excuse for how it was handled.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot
http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/...2003_12_RM.pdf
No need to be nasty, by the way. I merely think some may have misconstrued CAP 382, its applicability and whether this customer complaint has been blown out of all proportion by a few making outrageous speculation.
http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/...2003_12_RM.pdf
No need to be nasty, by the way. I merely think some may have misconstrued CAP 382, its applicability and whether this customer complaint has been blown out of all proportion by a few making outrageous speculation.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to Mad_jock; dispatch within or outside company limits (for a delay report?) has nothing to do with whether or not an MOR is needed.
But to be honest the technical ins and outs of when to submit a MOR is a wee bit outside the scope of Alex looking for a reason for getting thier weekend mucked about.
Edited to add they can sometimes update the TAF as many times as the METAR in ABZ. ABZ and INV must hold the world record for number of Mayday's worked in one day when the Haar rolls in unforcast and drops the RVR down to <300m and all the heli's have to divert.
Last edited by mad_jock; 2nd Jun 2008 at 21:18.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: All around the World
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ AlexW1, hello, I am a pilot from KLM, and I fly on the Europe Fleet, so I am familiar with Aberdeen and SAS Ground services there.
I am sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience.
Was your flight on a Boeing 737 or a Fokker 100? Or alternatively, do you have the date and flight number to PM to me and I will find out the aircraft type.
The reason I need to know this, is so I can contact the relevant fleet operations office to find out any more background info on the incident.
I will leave the discussion on MOR, CAP, EASA etc to the experts
, but if you only have time to read 2 posts, I suggest you only concentrate on the 2 by mad_jock. He recognises the operational factors that we often encounter at ABZ.
Only those directly involved know the reason for the potential overweight situation, but it could be anything from technical reasons such as runway change, aircraft deficiency, excess fuel uplift, etc, or simple human error such as a breakdown in communication between the SAS operations office and their check in staff, or a mis-reading of the so called Regulated Take Off Weight that the crew would have calculated. The potential reasons are numerous, but the end result is the same....the aircraft weight needs to be reduced to within whatever the pre-defined limits were, and that is what affected you.
It is company procedure in KLM, to file a "Trip Report", with an allocated delay code, back in Amsterdam, to report occurences such as this. As crew, we report unusual occurences that cause us to deviate from schedule (particularly as there were transiting pax with missed connections on board. The crew would not have been at all happy with the situation, and would have generated a trip report in order to force an investigation of why the situation arose in the first place. (Every single trip report is investigated, and a personal reply sent to the Captain and Crew). From the aircraft type and flight number that you send me, I will be able to pass on your complaint to the office that would have received and investigated the trip report.
The reason for you not having received a speedy reply is that the investigation is very often bogged down in bureaucracy, red tape and liaison with other departments and third parties. I have personally had experience of up to 3 months waiting for a reply to a trip report, but the Company is making a concerted effort to speed things up. As an example, in your case, the customer service dept would need to contact about 3 or 4 other internal depts within KLM to get to the ABZ handling agents who would ultimately have to provide the explanation. The written explanation from SAS would then pass back up the chain before you would get an official response from KLM. Concurrently with all this, the fleet flight operations dept would be carrying out their own 'trip report' based investigation.
There is a very clear and defined split between crew responsibilities and ground handling reponsibilities at KLM. All passenger handling matters are the direct responsibility of the ground handling agent until the aircraft doors are closed. So whatever the reason for needing to offload 15 pax, the crew would have no say in who was to be offloaded. The handling agent offloads the required number of pax in accordance with a priority that has been previously specified by KLM. The use of discretion is not forbidden, and arguably, could have been applied in your case.
My own personal suggestion to you, is that you may receive a quicker response by contacting SAS Ground Handling directly in writting, and copying the letter to KLM (Once you give me the flight details I will email you a contact name and address to send the letter to). I will also try and find out the factual reason for the situation occuring in the first place and let you know.
I am sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience.
Was your flight on a Boeing 737 or a Fokker 100? Or alternatively, do you have the date and flight number to PM to me and I will find out the aircraft type.
The reason I need to know this, is so I can contact the relevant fleet operations office to find out any more background info on the incident.
I will leave the discussion on MOR, CAP, EASA etc to the experts
, but if you only have time to read 2 posts, I suggest you only concentrate on the 2 by mad_jock. He recognises the operational factors that we often encounter at ABZ.Only those directly involved know the reason for the potential overweight situation, but it could be anything from technical reasons such as runway change, aircraft deficiency, excess fuel uplift, etc, or simple human error such as a breakdown in communication between the SAS operations office and their check in staff, or a mis-reading of the so called Regulated Take Off Weight that the crew would have calculated. The potential reasons are numerous, but the end result is the same....the aircraft weight needs to be reduced to within whatever the pre-defined limits were, and that is what affected you.
It is company procedure in KLM, to file a "Trip Report", with an allocated delay code, back in Amsterdam, to report occurences such as this. As crew, we report unusual occurences that cause us to deviate from schedule (particularly as there were transiting pax with missed connections on board. The crew would not have been at all happy with the situation, and would have generated a trip report in order to force an investigation of why the situation arose in the first place. (Every single trip report is investigated, and a personal reply sent to the Captain and Crew). From the aircraft type and flight number that you send me, I will be able to pass on your complaint to the office that would have received and investigated the trip report.
The reason for you not having received a speedy reply is that the investigation is very often bogged down in bureaucracy, red tape and liaison with other departments and third parties. I have personally had experience of up to 3 months waiting for a reply to a trip report, but the Company is making a concerted effort to speed things up. As an example, in your case, the customer service dept would need to contact about 3 or 4 other internal depts within KLM to get to the ABZ handling agents who would ultimately have to provide the explanation. The written explanation from SAS would then pass back up the chain before you would get an official response from KLM. Concurrently with all this, the fleet flight operations dept would be carrying out their own 'trip report' based investigation.
There is a very clear and defined split between crew responsibilities and ground handling reponsibilities at KLM. All passenger handling matters are the direct responsibility of the ground handling agent until the aircraft doors are closed. So whatever the reason for needing to offload 15 pax, the crew would have no say in who was to be offloaded. The handling agent offloads the required number of pax in accordance with a priority that has been previously specified by KLM. The use of discretion is not forbidden, and arguably, could have been applied in your case.
My own personal suggestion to you, is that you may receive a quicker response by contacting SAS Ground Handling directly in writting, and copying the letter to KLM (Once you give me the flight details I will email you a contact name and address to send the letter to). I will also try and find out the factual reason for the situation occuring in the first place and let you know.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray
Thank you very much for your kind offer of assistance. Much appreciated. I will PM you the flight details.
I understand that the answers are likely to come from the ground agents but obviously I had to direct the initial complaint to KLM. However, as I posted earlier, I have now contacted the ground agents direct so will wait and see whether anything comes of that.
Thank you very much for your kind offer of assistance. Much appreciated. I will PM you the flight details.
I understand that the answers are likely to come from the ground agents but obviously I had to direct the initial complaint to KLM. However, as I posted earlier, I have now contacted the ground agents direct so will wait and see whether anything comes of that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a final (I assume) update
I originally posted here in frustration because KLM had taken weeks to respond to my initial complaint. Although they’d offered the statutory compensation and expenses they had just sent a cut-and-paste email more appropriate to a standard overbooking situation (it even included the line: “In very infrequent situations when there are not enough volunteers, we will determine as carefully as is possible who will retain their seats” which was a bit rich in the circumstances and which, needless to say, was useful to quote back at them!) and did not acknowledge any of my questions or imply that any useful action would be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future.
I had also attempted to contact SGS but had never had a reply.
I continued to politely but firmly press KLM and SGS. KLM Customer Care then sent a much more conciliatory reply, offering to pay a token ex gratia sum (an original request of mine on top of the statutory compensation but which had previously been ignored). Tone very apologetic but still inconclusive re explanation, and although I was not after further financial recompense I wanted them to acknowledge that they had actually addressed the problems so that procedures could be tightened.
So last week I ventured further with a multi-pronged approach, emailing some senior KLM staff direct and copying SGS. I also wrote to the airport manager at ABZ asking for assistance in directing my questions to the ground staff. Although I haven’t received replies from any of those individuals, this week, whether coincidentally or not, I received a much more detailed reply from KLM Customer Care. They have admitted that this was a truly unacceptable situation, apologized profusely, confirmed that my points have been taken up with the ground staff concerned, and in conclusion state that “lessons have been learned and the situation that your family found themselves in has been investigated at a very high level within KLM Ground Services, Flight Deck Services and SGS and immediate corrective action has taken place.” They have also, unprompted, offered a substantial sum in travel vouchers.
Now, I don’t have full and final answers to every question, which would have been a useful bonus, but I believe that because I persistently repeated my questions over the last three months Customer Care did eventually delve further than they might have and that the outcome indicates that KLM realise that they were very much in the wrong and have taken some action. Maybe enough to prevent a future occurrence, maybe not, who knows, but I can’t reasonably expect more from Customer Care so unless SGS suddenly deign to contact me with full details after all, I guess this complaint has run its course.
Thank you for your interest and support, particularly Ray D’Avecta.
I had also attempted to contact SGS but had never had a reply.
I continued to politely but firmly press KLM and SGS. KLM Customer Care then sent a much more conciliatory reply, offering to pay a token ex gratia sum (an original request of mine on top of the statutory compensation but which had previously been ignored). Tone very apologetic but still inconclusive re explanation, and although I was not after further financial recompense I wanted them to acknowledge that they had actually addressed the problems so that procedures could be tightened.
So last week I ventured further with a multi-pronged approach, emailing some senior KLM staff direct and copying SGS. I also wrote to the airport manager at ABZ asking for assistance in directing my questions to the ground staff. Although I haven’t received replies from any of those individuals, this week, whether coincidentally or not, I received a much more detailed reply from KLM Customer Care. They have admitted that this was a truly unacceptable situation, apologized profusely, confirmed that my points have been taken up with the ground staff concerned, and in conclusion state that “lessons have been learned and the situation that your family found themselves in has been investigated at a very high level within KLM Ground Services, Flight Deck Services and SGS and immediate corrective action has taken place.” They have also, unprompted, offered a substantial sum in travel vouchers.
Now, I don’t have full and final answers to every question, which would have been a useful bonus, but I believe that because I persistently repeated my questions over the last three months Customer Care did eventually delve further than they might have and that the outcome indicates that KLM realise that they were very much in the wrong and have taken some action. Maybe enough to prevent a future occurrence, maybe not, who knows, but I can’t reasonably expect more from Customer Care so unless SGS suddenly deign to contact me with full details after all, I guess this complaint has run its course.
Thank you for your interest and support, particularly Ray D’Avecta.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not to be a rain cloud
I wouldn't want to be a rain cloud, but since I do customer service all day long running a B&B, really I don't see any further progress than that somebody in KLM has written a proper letter at long last rather than cut/paste.
I could guess that somebody has taken 12 minutes rather than 3 minutes to write a letter to you, and put in the phrases that are obviously going to close the case rather than send it round the cycle again. The people working these letters probably have a target of 50/day or somesuch. I woulnd't be at all surprised that the letter writer hasn't done any of the stuff mentioned in the letter.
I can sense your frustration though, because if this happened in the company you work for, then you would drive through all the systemic learning exercises and make sure the lessons are truly learnt and adopted as SOP for the next 50,000 passengers. But faced with a wall of outsourced little bits, none of whom bother to pay attention, what can you do?
A key skill in the 21st century is to learn to get over these things quickly. For an example try calling your bank or phone company, and see how much courteous personalised attention you're going to get! None! if you want TLC go see your local greengrocer or video shop. Anything else, it ain't going to happen. A sad reflection of our times.
In fact this is why I like going to Africa or Israel for my holidays as sunny places seem to be populated by real people that care and can hold a conversation and laugh!
G
I could guess that somebody has taken 12 minutes rather than 3 minutes to write a letter to you, and put in the phrases that are obviously going to close the case rather than send it round the cycle again. The people working these letters probably have a target of 50/day or somesuch. I woulnd't be at all surprised that the letter writer hasn't done any of the stuff mentioned in the letter.
I can sense your frustration though, because if this happened in the company you work for, then you would drive through all the systemic learning exercises and make sure the lessons are truly learnt and adopted as SOP for the next 50,000 passengers. But faced with a wall of outsourced little bits, none of whom bother to pay attention, what can you do?
A key skill in the 21st century is to learn to get over these things quickly. For an example try calling your bank or phone company, and see how much courteous personalised attention you're going to get! None! if you want TLC go see your local greengrocer or video shop. Anything else, it ain't going to happen. A sad reflection of our times.
In fact this is why I like going to Africa or Israel for my holidays as sunny places seem to be populated by real people that care and can hold a conversation and laugh!
G
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex - well done on your persistence. A most fascinating thread!
Its still a shame though that you haven't got to the bottom of why you were offloaded. Perhaps the very helpful Ray can come up with an answer to that one.
Keep us posted!
Its still a shame though that you haven't got to the bottom of why you were offloaded. Perhaps the very helpful Ray can come up with an answer to that one.
Keep us posted!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Case not closed yet after all...
Having chosen to give KLM the benefit of the doubt (although, groundbum, as my brother was once national customer services manager for a travel company I do have an inkling of how the other side works so I understand your thinking - but to be fair, further detail in the letter implied that they have done more than just rephrase some standard response) and decided that that was that, I was amazed and rather chuffed last night to receive a personal phone call at home from ABZ airport management to tell me they'd passed my questions to SGS as requested, followed by an email from SGS at ABZ, assuring me that they will get back to me and answer my queries in full. They apologised for the unacceptable delay - it turns out the guy listed as the SGS UK manager on their website has retired which is apparently why my emails had gone unanswered.
So my direct letter to airport management at ABZ asking them to pass the questions straight to SGS locally appears to have hit the spot. It will be interesting to see what they have to say for themselves rather than have it filtered through multiple layers of bureaucracy back to KLM.
So my direct letter to airport management at ABZ asking them to pass the questions straight to SGS locally appears to have hit the spot. It will be interesting to see what they have to say for themselves rather than have it filtered through multiple layers of bureaucracy back to KLM.
Last edited by AlexW1; 21st Jun 2008 at 17:39. Reason: typo!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: All around the World
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ angels,
very easy answer to that one, angels....the aircraft was overweight! 
"Why was it overweight?"......dont know, but I dont see that it matters at all in relation to the subsequent events that Alex was complaining about.
Its still a shame though that you haven't got to the bottom of why you were offloaded. Perhaps the very helpful Ray can come up with an answer to that one
"Why was it overweight?"......dont know, but I dont see that it matters at all in relation to the subsequent events that Alex was complaining about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to SGS for comprehensive reply – I can now draw a line beneath this episode
I have just received a very apologetic and comprehensive email from SGS at ABZ (who had been unaware that I had approached SGS UK direct until they were alerted last week) which covers all my questions in detail. I very much appreciated this.
The salient points are in the following extract from the email:
"Please find below the story of events which emphasises where mistakes were made:
My only comment on this is that, as we had checked in on-line and bypassed check-in, we were never aware that there had been any request for volunteers at an earlier stage (albeit at that point they were planning for a normal overbooking scenario).
And finally, although this trip didn’t work out well, reading the detail gave me some insight into the detailed behind-the-scenes operations that are normally transparent to me as a passenger and which I take for granted unless something goes wrong.
I am now happy to draw a line under the whole episode.
The salient points are in the following extract from the email:
"Please find below the story of events which emphasises where mistakes were made:
- As per statistical passenger reservation procedure, KL1446 18 April 2008 was overbooked
- To avoid any involuntary denied boarding situation, SGS staff, at check-in, ascertained if any passengers would volunteer to be re-routed.
- Also at check-in, a notice was displayed asking if any passenger would volunteer to be re-routed.
- There were no volunteers.
- As it was, the reservation statistics were correct and some passengers failed to appear for KL1446 therefore we did not have a 'denied boarding' issue at this stage
- There is a crew change over for the KL1445/6 and on the 18 April 2008, the cockpit crew arrived at the international gate approximately one hour prior to departure. This is normal procedure.
- When the crew arrive, SGS staff provide the crew with their flight plan, current weather conditions, weather charts and any notifications for the Captain. This was duly done.
- From these figures, the Captain then advises SGS staff of all fuel figures, the estimated maximum weight of the aircraft with all load on board (minus the take off fuel figure) and the maximum permitted weight of the aircraft at brake release for take-off (this is known as the MTOW maximum take-off weight' ) At times, this take off weight needs to be adjusted depending on certain conditions, e.g. weather conditions, runway length, etc. The take-off weight advised by the Captain was 56860kgs.
- At 1555 hours, the Captain then notified SGS staff that he was having to reduce the take-off weight down to 54400 kgs some 2460 kgs less. The reason for this was, on the initial flight plan, the wind speed was nil at zero knots however the weather conditions had changed to a tail wind of 5 knots.
- The Captain and his Central Load Control department then decide what load has to come off. The cargo was immediately identified as an offload. SGS staff were then told fifteen passengers would also have to come off (an estimate weight for each passenger is 83 kgs).
- At this point, all the passengers were in the International Walkway waiting to board KL1446 and wrongly, we proceeded to embark the passengers, which only escalated the problem further down the line to on board the aircraft.
- SGS staff should have followed KLM procedure for offloading passengers. Passengers should be offloaded in the following order: First, ascertain if there are any volunteers to come off the flight, if not, passengers travelling direct to the destination (and in this case, Amsterdam) should be offloaded. Given that we had no volunteers identified at the check-in, it was wrongly assumed there would be no volunteers willing to come off the aircraft and we therefore failed to make this announcement on board the aircraft.
- The next step was to identify passengers travelling direct to AMS only and that is what we did, however, on recognising two of the passengers were part of a family of four travelling ( and two children were within that group of four ) we should have allowed your family to stay together and asked for others to come off instead.
- Fifteen passengers were offloaded. SAS Ground Services ticket desk staff then searched the reservation system for alternative flights. Unless the passengers travelled on the Air France flight to Paris (which was currently boarding) and then onwards to Amsterdam, there was no other flights which would get them to Amsterdam not only that evening, but on the following day also. At the time of searching for alternative flights, the Paris-Amsterdam flight was showing the availability as 'wide open'.
- All passengers who were offloaded were then advised the Paris flight was their only option however there was no time to issue onward travel documentation (i.e. ticket re-issue) and no time to issue any denied boarding compensation. This would have to be done retrospectively.
- All passengers agreed. The captain of the Air France flight agreed to delay his departure until all the rerouted passengers were onboard.
- SAS Ground Services ticket office staff were then notified of all the rerouted passengers names and staff were asked to make the necessary onward bookings from Paris - Amsterdam. Reservation bookings were updated and telexes were also sent to various departments in Air France and KLM at Paris and Amsterdam advising them of the situation.
- It then came to light, after the event, that not all passengers had been rebooked from Paris to Amsterdam (only 8 passengers had successfully been rebooked) as the availability had then become limited (reservations also being made by others), however on the day and at the time of the incident, this had been highlighted to staff in Paris by SGS ticket desk staff and staff there should have been fully aware of the situation. I can only assume they were not in receipt of our telexes. In future, an acknowledgement will be requested by SGS staff.
My only comment on this is that, as we had checked in on-line and bypassed check-in, we were never aware that there had been any request for volunteers at an earlier stage (albeit at that point they were planning for a normal overbooking scenario).
And finally, although this trip didn’t work out well, reading the detail gave me some insight into the detailed behind-the-scenes operations that are normally transparent to me as a passenger and which I take for granted unless something goes wrong.
I am now happy to draw a line under the whole episode.