Ryanair pax refuse to leave a/c ( Merged)
Psychophysiological entity
d105 says:
And if this was the case, my guess is that the passengers were not told ahead of time.
hey were probably informed way ahead in time by Dublin operations they were going to Liege.
And if this was the case, my guess is that the passengers were not told ahead of time.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: who cares?
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, it's all quite brilliant. When the passengers call RYR to voice a complaint they will be charged 1.99 euros per minute. (1.99 euros x 130 pax = extra revenue). I'm sure this a new revenue generating scheme.
Shouldn't the airplane return to its intended destination for next day's rotation?
I understand it could be done with crew only - as non schedule flt but I a curious why it did not happened. Also why the crew left the plane?
Rwy in Sight
I understand it could be done with crew only - as non schedule flt but I a curious why it did not happened. Also why the crew left the plane?
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Malta
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sit-in strike by pax of diverted ryanair flight
A Ryanair crew used some harsh tactics to put down a passenger mutiny last night. When passengers refused to leave their plane—which had landed in the wrong country—they say the crew locked the bathrooms, turned out the lights, and left them sitting on the tarmac for four hours without food or water, the Daily Mail reports. “They just walked off and left us there,” says one passenger.
The flight was originally headed to Beauvais, France, but fog delayed it for so long that the Beauvais airport closed. The plane instead landed 200 miles away in Belgium, and passengers were so furious that they refused to disembark. "We said they could sit in comfort in a transit lounge," says one airport official, "but it was a difficult negotiation and they refused to budge." Finally, at 3:30am, airport police came and demanded the passengers disembark and take complimentary buses to Beauvais.
The flight was originally headed to Beauvais, France, but fog delayed it for so long that the Beauvais airport closed. The plane instead landed 200 miles away in Belgium, and passengers were so furious that they refused to disembark. "We said they could sit in comfort in a transit lounge," says one airport official, "but it was a difficult negotiation and they refused to budge." Finally, at 3:30am, airport police came and demanded the passengers disembark and take complimentary buses to Beauvais.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Scotland
Age: 60
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA Button you are on the button, complete tosh,,,, the full story will unfold in the next few days. I already know it.
The Ryanair bashing at every turn surprises me no end, they are aircrew same as most on here but still every report is a mountain/molehill event. Are the posters here really so stupid to believe the MOL hating press??
The Ryanair bashing at every turn surprises me no end, they are aircrew same as most on here but still every report is a mountain/molehill event. Are the posters here really so stupid to believe the MOL hating press??
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew should be criminally charged for this. Hopefully someone will name and shame them and they will never get jobs anywhere else, hopefully banned from flying altogether. The pax should have torn the plane to shreds.
Tal66
The crew should be criminally charged for this. Hopefully someone will name and shame them and they will never get jobs anywhere else, hopefully banned from flying altogether. The pax should have torn the plane to shreds.
Surely you jest?
You must know more about this than is being reported.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No jest, accept the last part about pax messing with the plane, which was mostly my point.
The crew were the first to leave the aircraft, leaving 200 pax on a what, 80 million dollar aircraft? They left the cockpit unlocked, yet the toilets locked, with everyone unsupervised. I see that as encouraging trouble makers to go at it. How would you have felt if your family was on the flight the next day and some of the not-so-upstanding, unsupervised, tired, angry passangers went to town on some of the aircraft equipment without the next crew realising? Also, the poor treatment of the airlines customers (locking of the toilets, no food, no water) and making an assumption here, the way the crew went about it in the first place to anger 200 people, the lack of respect ryanair always has for the generally poorer people it serves, I think there is definetly wrong doing here. So yes, I am serious.
The crew were the first to leave the aircraft, leaving 200 pax on a what, 80 million dollar aircraft? They left the cockpit unlocked, yet the toilets locked, with everyone unsupervised. I see that as encouraging trouble makers to go at it. How would you have felt if your family was on the flight the next day and some of the not-so-upstanding, unsupervised, tired, angry passangers went to town on some of the aircraft equipment without the next crew realising? Also, the poor treatment of the airlines customers (locking of the toilets, no food, no water) and making an assumption here, the way the crew went about it in the first place to anger 200 people, the lack of respect ryanair always has for the generally poorer people it serves, I think there is definetly wrong doing here. So yes, I am serious.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly - Don't get paranoid! I've flown a few times with Ryanair and have never had a problem, but lets face it when you have a boss like MoL you are going to cop some flak from time to time.
Ryanair's PR (sic) is cretinous and you don't help that image.
Well whooppee doo! You know what happened. Well tell the story for crying out loud!!! If you don't the press will speculate.
Can I precis the facts? What we do (apparently) know is that four flights were diverted -- probably because of low viz -- to an airport a long way (225 miles?) from their destination. On one flight from Morocco, an undetermined number of pax refused to disembark.
Why the big secrecy about the rest?
Finally, akrapovic has a point about CDG. Why not go there? Money?
I await your considered reply.
Cheers.
Ryanair's PR (sic) is cretinous and you don't help that image.
the full story will unfold in the next few days. I already know it.
Can I precis the facts? What we do (apparently) know is that four flights were diverted -- probably because of low viz -- to an airport a long way (225 miles?) from their destination. On one flight from Morocco, an undetermined number of pax refused to disembark.
Why the big secrecy about the rest?
Finally, akrapovic has a point about CDG. Why not go there? Money?
I await your considered reply.
Cheers.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by angels
Finally, akrapovic has a point about CDG. Why not go there? Money?
Originally Posted by Honestly
the full story will unfold in the next few days. I already know it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brussels
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The spokesman of Liège Airport, Christian Delcourt, in the Belgian newspaper "Le Soir", today, page 10 (my translation from French) :
The passengers were already very excited after the delay when leaving Marocco; they became mad with rage when they were told that, because of fog at Beauvais, their plane would land at Liège.
Still in flight, the captain called the airport to ask for police assistance at landing.
After landing, only a few passengers disembarked; the others were very agressive towards the crew and the airport personnel : insults, spittles, emptying cans of drinks on the seats, breaking open the food containers.
The diversion was made for security reasons, we don't understand their reaction. Busses were ready (to bring them to Beauvais).
A complaint might be lodged against them.
The passengers were already very excited after the delay when leaving Marocco; they became mad with rage when they were told that, because of fog at Beauvais, their plane would land at Liège.
Still in flight, the captain called the airport to ask for police assistance at landing.
After landing, only a few passengers disembarked; the others were very agressive towards the crew and the airport personnel : insults, spittles, emptying cans of drinks on the seats, breaking open the food containers.
The diversion was made for security reasons, we don't understand their reaction. Busses were ready (to bring them to Beauvais).
A complaint might be lodged against them.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beauvais Airport's own website says it is closed to the public fom 2330 to 0600, so this may or may not have been due to bad vis.
Whatever the pax thought they were up to is beyond me, they must have been a bolshie lot to start with, but a sit-in situation like that is hardly credible without shockingly bad communications to the pax.
It would be instructive to learn what they had gone through during their delay in Morocco.
The in-flight disruption is an interesting event, perhaps they were told of a diversion due to fog when they could see it was a clear night, or even see Beauvais - but again this is surely down to communications?
Maybe Bulgarian pilots without any French?
Whatever the pax thought they were up to is beyond me, they must have been a bolshie lot to start with, but a sit-in situation like that is hardly credible without shockingly bad communications to the pax.
It would be instructive to learn what they had gone through during their delay in Morocco.
The in-flight disruption is an interesting event, perhaps they were told of a diversion due to fog when they could see it was a clear night, or even see Beauvais - but again this is surely down to communications?
Maybe Bulgarian pilots without any French?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: FarFarAway
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew should be criminally charged for this. Hopefully someone will name and shame them and they will never get jobs anywhere else, hopefully banned from flying altogether. The pax should have torn the plane to shreds.
Do you know the actual facts behind this story to make comments like that? I don't, i'm just waiting to hear the other side of the story.
Your ignorance, however, is appalling. Would you have made the same comments if the story was about, i don't know, BA, VS, easyJet and so on?
Do you even know what you're talking about? Prey tell, what on earth do you mean by "criminally charged", "name and shamed", "not getting a job anywhere else"? . Whatever happened that night, i'm sure the crew followed the company's procedures; and before you open your precious mouth again, i know what i'm talking about. I used to work for FR for many years as CC.
And then you bang on about the pax should have torn the plane to shreds; they could have done that i suppose, but that, my dear braincell challenged friend, is against the law. In fact, it's an Air Navigation Order. So, would that have happened, the company would have taken them all to court to recover the costs of defacing and damaging the a/c.
As for your next little "gem":
The crew were the first to leave the aircraft, leaving 200 pax on a what, 80 million dollar aircraft? They left the cockpit unlocked, yet the toilets locked, with everyone unsupervised. I see that as encouraging trouble makers to go at it. How would you have felt if your family was on the flight the next day and some of the not-so-upstanding, unsupervised, tired, angry passangers went to town on some of the aircraft equipment without the next crew realising? Also, the poor treatment of the airlines customers (locking of the toilets, no food, no water) and making an assumption here, the way the crew went about it in the first place to anger 200 people, the lack of respect ryanair always has for the generally poorer people it serves, I think there is definetly wrong doing here. So yes, I am serious.
Should a pax have tried to fiddle with anything in the aircraft or flight deck, believe you me, both pilots and CC would have noticed; that's why there are security checks in place that are carried out before and after each flight and on turnarounds; not to mention the engineers maintenance checks.
So basically, your comments are utter rubbish and for whatever reason, spiteful.
And to make it clear to you: for any airline, safety is number 1 priority. Without safety, there is no airline thus no business.
Please, for everyone's sake, refrain from commenting on something you have no clue about. Hear the facts first (all of them, on both sides), and then form and voice your opinion.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.3 DIVERSIONS
If, for reasons outside our control, we are unable to land at the airfield at your destination and are diverted so as to land at another airfield then the carriage by air shall, unless the aircraft continues to the original destination, be deemed to be completed when the aircraft arrives at that other airfield. We shall, however, arrange or designate alternative transportation, whether by our own services or by other means of transportation specified by us to carry you to the original destination as set out in your Ticket without additional cost.
If, for reasons outside our control, we are unable to land at the airfield at your destination and are diverted so as to land at another airfield then the carriage by air shall, unless the aircraft continues to the original destination, be deemed to be completed when the aircraft arrives at that other airfield. We shall, however, arrange or designate alternative transportation, whether by our own services or by other means of transportation specified by us to carry you to the original destination as set out in your Ticket without additional cost.
It would be interesting to see the outcome of a small claims case, on the basis that it was unreasonable to land 225 miles away from destination, when other, closer, options were allegedly available.
In my (limited) experience, judges are pretty hard on what they perceive was unfair tactics by business against consumers.
A friend of mine stayed in a ski chalet that was advertised as '150 m from the village centre', which was true in terms of line of sight. But to walk was 600m and very tough for a family with young children.
The judgment was made for the full cost of the holiday, plus a further amout for loss of enjoyment.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere on a dodgy name badge
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other, closer options, for any airline may not be suitable on the basis of handling.
The best alternate for BVA is CRL as it is a Ryanair base with handling, engineering and crew availabilty. LLQ is a good choice but doesn't have engineering and crew: all depends on weather, approach available ( Cat1 or 2 or 3 - and maybe if BVA was Cat 3 the crew needed an alternate wth non precision or Cat 1 minima) and commercial considerations. Next is NRN or EIH.
Too many variables for any uninformed speculation: I have, in the past, used my departure airfield as my alternate as the weather everywhere else was below minimums!
The best alternate for BVA is CRL as it is a Ryanair base with handling, engineering and crew availabilty. LLQ is a good choice but doesn't have engineering and crew: all depends on weather, approach available ( Cat1 or 2 or 3 - and maybe if BVA was Cat 3 the crew needed an alternate wth non precision or Cat 1 minima) and commercial considerations. Next is NRN or EIH.
Too many variables for any uninformed speculation: I have, in the past, used my departure airfield as my alternate as the weather everywhere else was below minimums!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other, closer options, for any airline may not be suitable on the basis of handling.
It would be interesting to see the outcome of such a case.
A lower court in Germany found against Lufthansa and ruled that they should not have cancelled a ticket when the customer did not use use all the flights, on the basis that a restaurant would not force someone to eat all the courses on a special price menu!
So who knows?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If carriage on a previous leg of the journey is not used or not used in the sequence anticipated on the ticket, the fare charged for that flight will be the fare that would have applied to your differing but actual route at the point of booking. If this fare is higher than the fare for the route indicated on your ticket, we can make further carriage conditional on you subsequently paying the additional charge which has accrued
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joan,
No I didn't miss your point, but your comment on what a German court did needed clarification. That ruling is no longer part of German jurisprudence and I wanted to ensure that Ppruners had all of the facts.
No I didn't miss your point, but your comment on what a German court did needed clarification. That ruling is no longer part of German jurisprudence and I wanted to ensure that Ppruners had all of the facts.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just confirm that you missed the point.
The point was that lower courts do crazy things. I never stated that this ruling still stood and believe that I perfectly wrote in the past tense.
Of course higher courts restore sanity.
why don't you go back to you cuckoo clock collection? Such comfort in certainty
The point was that lower courts do crazy things. I never stated that this ruling still stood and believe that I perfectly wrote in the past tense.
Of course higher courts restore sanity.
why don't you go back to you cuckoo clock collection? Such comfort in certainty
Last edited by Joao da Silva; 18th Nov 2010 at 20:16.