BA8754 Madrid > London City diverted to Stansted last night for 'commercial reasons'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA8754 Madrid > London City diverted to Stansted last night for 'commercial reasons'.
Hi there. Yesterday I was on this flight which seemed to confuse most of the passengers and both the cabin crew by being diverted to Stansted for 'commercial reasons'. The cabin crew were incredibly helpful on the very limited information that they had about it all as they were only told about it 10 minutes before us passengers were due to board and really couldn't give any more details. It seems that the pilots were also a bit flustered by it all because they did not make any announcements at all until we were in the air and then it was only a small apology for the change of airport followed by the weather conditions. Does anyone know why this would have happened? How can there be a commercially viable reason for diverting from a scheduled airport to one that doesn't even serve you? As far as I know flights were still landing at City airport as far as I know. Needless to say when we got to Stansted we had to wait a while for the steps to get off and then no one knew just how they'd take us all back to City airport. Poor show BA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd have thought so wouldn't you? Even with more than 2 hours notice that still wasn't decided when we had landed. Firstly we were told to listen for announcements in the airport and then to go to the Aviance (?) desk for more details. I suppose they didn't know how many of the 35 passengers would want to take a bus all the way to City airport through rush hour.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davey4444
Poor show BA.
Paxing All Over The World
Rusland 17
What, exactly, would you expect BA to do?
- Tell me why we were diverting before we took off.
- Update me during the flight if the problem at destination had not been fixed.
- Have a coach ready and waiting on nearest possible (land side) bus stand, with ground staff displaying information and directions. This to be announced to pax before disembarkation.
- Update the electronic signs at LCY/STN/the web site for all meeters and greeters.
- Trigger standard e-mails to all listed on pax profile, as some might be families or work colleagues and they might get the message whilst flight in progress.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: where ever i wake up!!!!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paxboy all those things beyond the scope of BAcityflyer, you are confusing them with BA! Its okay saying get coaches straight away but sometimes thats just not possible in the timeframe available, the flying time from MAD would be in the region of 2 hours 20 mins, and yes Cityflyer would have coach firms they could call upon but the coach firm would need time to react as well and get coaches to STN, and all this would be taking place during rush hour so the 2 hours 20 mins flying time could be quicker than you could get coach transport in situ.
Last edited by marlowe; 19th Nov 2009 at 08:52.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EDI
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy
With City Airport closed for an undetermined period there is more than one flight to deal with, as you know BA Cityflyers entire operation goes through LCY.
Yes sometimes things could be handled better for single flight delays etc. But in this example that might not have been possible.
With City Airport closed for an undetermined period there is more than one flight to deal with, as you know BA Cityflyers entire operation goes through LCY.
Yes sometimes things could be handled better for single flight delays etc. But in this example that might not have been possible.
Last edited by RJ100; 19th Nov 2009 at 09:45.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: where ever i wake up!!!!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ100 thats my point paxboy seems to think that a well oiled machine is able to click into place straight away to ensure minimum disruption, but in the real world its really an Austin Allegro with numerous previous owners !!! the reality of a divert means that there is very little time to get assets in place to minimise delay, and to get up to date and correct information to the passenger . Paxboy it seems, thinks that the answer will appear on his electronic god in seconds when in reality we all know that aint gonna happen.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy
You just are not going to get coaches instantly available even if the vehicles are free finding the drivers takes time (& persuasion) - they are not just sitting around waiting for the call.
Perhaps you should call your wife/girl friend and suggest she comes to instant readiness to collect you, I'd be interested to hear the reply.
You just are not going to get coaches instantly available even if the vehicles are free finding the drivers takes time (& persuasion) - they are not just sitting around waiting for the call.
Perhaps you should call your wife/girl friend and suggest she comes to instant readiness to collect you, I'd be interested to hear the reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
but in the real world its really an Austin Allegro with numerous previous owners !!! the reality of a divert means that there is very little time to get assets in place to minimise delay, and to get up to date and correct information to the passenger . Paxboy it seems, thinks that the answer will appear on his electronic god in seconds when in reality we all know that aint gonna happen.
Paxing All Over The World
Yes, I know that I'm not going to get a Rolls-Royce service ... if I pay for a LoCo.
Yes, I realise that the whole of their service was disrupted by the closure of their main base.
So - they could still have kept the pax informed as to WHY and what they were trying to do. They could have had ground staff at STN - given that was the likely diversion point for most of the LCY flights.
One of the most frequently said things here is KEEP US INFORMED. If you tell the Pax - honestly what the problem is, then we can help. We know from helpful posts in here by flight and cabin crew that you do not always know the reasons for the delay and so on but, the destination closed due to fire alarm? Should not be difficult to learn that and pass it on to the customer.
Yes, I realise that the whole of their service was disrupted by the closure of their main base.
So - they could still have kept the pax informed as to WHY and what they were trying to do. They could have had ground staff at STN - given that was the likely diversion point for most of the LCY flights.
One of the most frequently said things here is KEEP US INFORMED. If you tell the Pax - honestly what the problem is, then we can help. We know from helpful posts in here by flight and cabin crew that you do not always know the reasons for the delay and so on but, the destination closed due to fire alarm? Should not be difficult to learn that and pass it on to the customer.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They could have had ground staff at STN
In fairness sounds like flight deck were a bit busy but that's no excuse for one of the two picking up the phone and giving an apologetic tannoy. It can make ALL the difference between feeling inconvenienced but in the know and hacked off, baffled and angry. It's not rocket science, and whereas I can understand that the handling agents being paid piss poor rates have almost no leeway for diversions to be handled well, especially from non based airlines, paying someone loads of money to go from A to B and being dumped at C with no real explanations ( operational reasons is not a intelligent reason..... ) is the quickest way to lose your customers to the opposition!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
So - they could still have kept the pax informed as to WHY and what they were trying to do. They could have had ground staff at STN - given that was the likely diversion point for most of the LCY flights.
It would be most informative if davey4444 were to return to this thread and complete his story - how BA dealt with the situation and how they transported the passengers back to LCY. His original post is little more than a moan about the inconvenience of being diverted, and neither of the two specific criticisms he makes in that post - the length of time it took to get the stairs to the plane and the lack of information from the Aviance ground staff - can be attributed to BA.
Neverthess, it hasn't stopped the usual BA-haters from jumping on the bandwagon.
If an airline chooses to use a subcontractor, then they are responsible for the performance of the subcontractor. You're paying BA for the flight, not Aviance, hence BA are 100% responsible.
It amazes me that people who probably consider themselves intelligent do not understand this.
It amazes me that people who probably consider themselves intelligent do not understand this.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: where ever i wake up!!!!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Katmarino the staff at STN would be nothing to do with BA, a flight diverting into STN would be an inconveniance to the groundstaff as it would not be part of there sheduled arrivals plan so you cannot expect them to be fully up to speed on what is happening . A fire alarm at LCY, because of its size is always going to cause problems. The assembly point for pax already airside, is out on the ramp area so thats automatically going to stop aircraft movements! Final 3 greens my reference to an Austin Allegro was not a slur on Cityflyer just mearly a light hearted reference to the fact that pax always think that there is an oiled plan ( paxboy refered to it as SOPs) that can swing into place the minute an aircraft diverts, when in reality in can take a fair amount of time to get assets into place and deal with the situation . I am sure that the handling agents at STN did what they could, as quickly as they could, but in reality that diverted aircraft is going to have low priority against the scheduled traffic that they would be expecting to deal with .
Last edited by marlowe; 19th Nov 2009 at 19:48.
Paxing All Over The World
Rusland 17
No, of course not. I am suggesting that they implement the contracts for short notice diversion cover that they undoubtedly have in place.
If it takes more than the sector time to get the transport and staff in place TELL THE PAX. "Ladies and gentlemen, I am told that the extra staff will be on hand to assist you. As I mentioned earlier, a number of flights from London City have been diverted here and so things are rather overloaded and it might take a bit of time. I know how frustrating it is - because myself and the crew are also not where we expected to be! [Note: say that in a light hearted tone] If you do have difficulty, here is the number of BA Citiflyer Customer Services 0800 nnn nnnn. Sorry about all this and I hope you get to your intended destination as soon as possible."
Rusland 17
Are you including me in that? For the record, I LOVE flying with BA. The only reason that they are not my first choice in long haul is beacuse of the Dirty Tricks episode when their mgmt first proved (publicly) that they did not understand the new world. Although VS is my first choice of long haul, I would (and have) criticised them in this forum and will do so again if they slip from the heights to which they climbed.
This summer, I went to Italy and Spain (x2) and would have greatly preferred to travel BA but, money considerations meant otherwise. When I went to South Africa, I took them willingly and had a great journey in WT+. On the JNB/CPT/JNB I used their franchisee Comair and had two very good flights. One with the best short haul food I've had in YEARS.I maintain a BA Miles account and continue to actively save for more trips.
Is that a big enough 'BA-hater' for you?
Are you really suggesting that BA should maintain ground staff at STN just in case they have to divert LCY-bound flights there?
If it takes more than the sector time to get the transport and staff in place TELL THE PAX. "Ladies and gentlemen, I am told that the extra staff will be on hand to assist you. As I mentioned earlier, a number of flights from London City have been diverted here and so things are rather overloaded and it might take a bit of time. I know how frustrating it is - because myself and the crew are also not where we expected to be! [Note: say that in a light hearted tone] If you do have difficulty, here is the number of BA Citiflyer Customer Services 0800 nnn nnnn. Sorry about all this and I hope you get to your intended destination as soon as possible."
Rusland 17
Neverthess, it hasn't stopped the usual BA-haters from jumping on the bandwagon.
This summer, I went to Italy and Spain (x2) and would have greatly preferred to travel BA but, money considerations meant otherwise. When I went to South Africa, I took them willingly and had a great journey in WT+. On the JNB/CPT/JNB I used their franchisee Comair and had two very good flights. One with the best short haul food I've had in YEARS.I maintain a BA Miles account and continue to actively save for more trips.
Is that a big enough 'BA-hater' for you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Neverthess, it hasn't stopped the usual BA-haters from jumping on the bandwagon
What is unreasonable about holding that view?
However Rusland, I am still awating your response to my request for a reference to support your assertion that it is illegal to take a blade on an aircraft.
Methinks your credibility is not really high enough to take a sideswipe at others.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Final 3 greens my reference to an Austin Allegro was not a slur on Cityflyer
Regardless of the availability of coaches and other resources, the general lack of communications is appalling from business that experience disruption regularly, yet do not seem to know how to handle their customers.
Paxboy has shown that this is not rocket science.
