Scared PAX force Air Berlin to replace aircraft

[txl]

Wild weekend for Germany's second largest carrier Air Berlin: Rebellious passengers forced the airline to fly in a replacement aircraft on Sunday after a Boeing 737-800 scheduled to leave for Faro failed to take off from Nuremberg airport twice, German news agencies report. According to reports, the aircraft had to abort after pilots detected a failure with flap control instruments while taxiing out.

After returning to the gate, where passengers left aircraft while maintenance work was done, 170 of 172 pax re-boarded, with two scared passengers opting out. Second attempt at take-off an hour later was aborted after control lights failed again, most reports say. A differing AFP report states that second abort was due to a cabin crew member fainting.

After two aborted take-offs and evacuations, remaining passengers refused to board the plane again and demanded the aircraft be replaced. Passengers were accomodated at a local hotel while replacement was flown in from Antalya. Flight finally commenced 15 hours after scheduled time.

An airline spokeswoman stressed that there was no technical issue with the plane and referred to the crew's handling of the control light malfunction as "routine". The aircraft was new, the airline said, faulty control instruments were not an un-common issue with today's technologically advanced planes. "Passengers were very concerned and reacted in panic", the spokeswoman was quoted. There had been "a psychological element" after the Spanair accident at Madrid, she reportedly said.

Also on Sunday, an Air Berlin flight from Malaga to Nuremberg had to return to Malaga after an issue with a fuel filter occured 30 minutes into the flight. Again, some passengers refused to board the aircraft again, news agencies report. On Saturday, an aircraft bound to Faro from Hamburg had to divert to Dusseldorf after a birdstrike damaged engine and fuselage, the spokeswoman said. Passengers continued travel on a replacement aircraft.

[LH2]

Funnily enough, I had the same issue on a Spanair flight last week. They bused the pax to the plane before it was ready for boarding--the pax then saw one of the engineers (whom they decided was the "captain") having a look at the nose gear bay and refused to board.

It took only a couple scaremongering idiots to delay the flight for over four hours as the company finally decided to get in a replacement aircraft (and crew). Although I thought it a bit over the top at the time, top marks to the gate agent who decided he wouldn't take any shouting at his face and called in the Guardia Civil pronto--it certainly had a soothing effect on the punters

[CityofFlight]

I have a feeling this could be a sign of the times then. With my experiences of late crew and combined MX delays and if more PAX get wind of others' mutiny tactics, this could force the hand of carriers to shelve some of their cost cutting methods.

In the end, it's the PAX that create the paycheck...and apparently it's the PAX that can refuse the aircraft now. Very interesting.

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hi,

Wonder in how much time airlines will have to cope with wilde pax strikes?

Cheers.

[nick2007]

but do you blame them? if someone feels they are about to die a fiery death, how would you expect them to react? they're only human... there is very much a "them and us" mentality, especially with security procedures these days now that the pax rarely ever see their flight crew. this mentality is exacerbated by the reports of cabin crew refusing to let pax alight prior to the spanair incident. the pax feel trapped!

it's the responsibility of the airline to inform/instruct/reassure the pax, and if the airline fails to reassure, i'd say the pax have a right to protest.

[rubik101]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

[Minimbah]

Silly Passengers

Rubik 101 said “Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled. See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide. I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.”

Well then, there’s a simple answer – just don’t bother with us silly passengers, just fly your nice shiny aircraft all over the place empty. I’m sure the company will still pay your wages – NOT.

Seriously, given the number of aircraft that are making holes in ground at present and the financial state of the airline industry, can you blame passengers for being a bit concerned.

Yes, I know, statistically it’s more dangerous to drive my car than fly, but statistics mean bugger all to someone who knows nothing about aircraft and suspects, rightly or wrongly, that something is wrong with HIS/HER aircraft. They do seem to forget that the crew would also like to arrive at their destination in one piece.

I must agree with nick2007 when he said “it's the responsibility of the airline to inform/instruct/reassure the pax, and if the airline fails to reassure, i'd say the pax have a right to protest.”

Rant off. Minimbah

[baftabill]

Passengers may be silly but if you were on the Spanair flight from Madrid less than a month ago and had refused to fly you would now be alive.

When it comes to the possibility of dying human beings will sometimes decide to not take a risk.

[ara01jbb]

Reminds me of something that happened a few years ago with a Bulgarian charter heading out to Varna or Bourgas from BFS. Doors didn't even close, it was just a stampede back to the gate when the passenegrs settled into the interior of a particularly tired Tu-154

[gbour]

while the original 737...

...was simply switched to another flight where it carried 130 unsuspecting passengers happily to their destination.
(Or so I guess)

[Skipness One Echo]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

When your customers are concerned and that's the only answer you have, you deserve to go bust, simple as.

[Wirelock]

well for the passengers of the air berlin flight i can understand their concerns and in the circumstances they did the right thing by switching the a/c. also this gave mx the time to properly trouble shoot and repair the defect.

as for the spanair pax that refused to board, i'm sorry but i have no sympathy for them. if people dont want to fly spanair then they have the right to book another airline but obvious overreaction really helps nobody and proves only the ignorance of the pax that refused to get on the aircraft over something trivial

[Nightstop]

The majority of pax are scared of flying, even (especially) those who sit reading their books/newspapers during the safety demonstration. These people tend to act irrationally when faced with something they don't understand, that's why we as professionals need to reassure them whenever they perceive something to be not quite right. For example, we recently had a centre cabin emergency exit row passenger open the overwing exit deploying the escape slide (on ground) because he/she thought the aircraft was on fire....mist from the overhead louvres was entering the cabin due to high humidity, a perfectly normal phenomena but one which this savvy traveller had never seen before. This, and other situations such as an engineer topping up the engine oil with cowlings open while the pax are boarding, all deserve an explanation to the pax. Otherwise anarchy can take over and the pax become the Regulators such as in this case

[condorbaaz]

There are two things which are out of ones control..

1. Where and how one will be born,

and

2. Where and how one will die.

maybe one walks away from an aircraft to be knocked down by a truck...


Live Life...

[FrequentSLF]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

Did ever pass to your mind that those silly passenger might have more qualification that you have? Might be there doctors, scientist, CEOs and just because they are not sitting in the front of the aircraft you call them silly?
That's one the reasons why they refuse to fly. Your attitude that their just another piece of freight is not helping their confidence on you and your airline being capable to do guarantee their safety.
As a frequent flier (more than 150 flights per year) the safety record of an airline is the predominant factor in defining my flight schedule.

[david1300]

txl, that's a harsh call isn't it: "Wild weekend for Germany's second largest carrier Air Berlin: Revolting passengers forced the ....."

I mean, the passengers may have been mildy unpleasant, maybe even unwashed, possibly ...? But revolting? Definition of revolting: Causing abhorrence or disgust.

OK - I know it wasn't your word, and it does have another meaning, but being a long-time Wizard of Id fan (the peasants are revolting) I couldn't resist.

[SNS3Guppy]

Did ever pass to your mind that those silly passenger might have more qualification that you have? Might be there doctors, scientist, CEOs and just because they are not sitting in the front of the aircraft you call them silly?

I don't think anyone questions the intelligence of the passengers. Each person entering into the flight has a personal stake in the successful conclusion of the flight. After all, each person has a right to live and be safe. If the passenger feels uncomfortable or sees reason to fear for the safety of the flight, I would hope that the passenger is willing to pass this information along. I know that if I were a passenger and concerned about the safety of flight, I wouldn't take the flight...every bit as much as when acting as a pilot I won't fly if I have a concern about the safety of flight. That's reasonable.

What's not reasonable is the concept that because one is a doctor, scientist, CEO, or other representative of a particular professional vocation, one has any expertise whatsoever with respect to aviation.

[Merlyn]

They may be doctors, scientists, CEOs, whatever but they don't have more qualifications than I do in the only subject that matters - determining if the aircraft is safe to fly. I do. And yes, sometimes they are silly, sometimes nice.

I usually make the point that I have no particular reason to get to their destination and am under no pressure to do so. (Not exactly true but close enough), So I'm only going to go if it is safe to do so. I do tell them that I've been at it for 30 years, and that if I feel comfortable taking the aircraft, they can feel comfortable also.

Seems to work so far.

[sussex2]

Calling pax 'silly' and SLF does not help the matter one little bit..
What would you do in the case of a knowledgable pax informing you (via the cabin) crew that the slats/flaps were not deployed for take off - call him silly and ignore it?
The derogatory term SLF does not take into account that some of the pax could be 1/. Staff, with at least your knowledge 2/. Frequent travellers who may themselves be private pilots, or, any other combination.
You can go back to the Trident disaster at Staines to find that the slats/flaps (slats or droops in that case) and their deployment or not have caused many deaths(LH 747 at Nairobi?) - and yet it is still happening.
Complacent attitudes do not help the matter.

[TiiberiusKirk]

Simply tell them that if one gets off, you're all off and the flights cancelled.
See how peer pressure works amongst the SLF and leave them to decide.
I don't have the time to be held to ransom by silly passengers.

But that's your job isn't it, to fly passengers from a to b?.
They're not hitch-hikers, they pay your salery. No passengers = No Flight = No Job. Perhaps you should go fly freight only.