grounded27 It is quite possible that, had such fines been instigated here - that they would have put such provisions in place. We know that it works because of the changes introduced by carriers to the UK, after fines were brought in for bringing in pax that did not have the correct paperwork.

However, this country still lives with the legacy of 'light touch regulation' instigated by La Thatcher. Unfortunately, as the world becomes more complex, you need ever tighter regulation. The present govt would say, 'If AI treat their customers badly (and save money in the process) then their customers will no longer use them and they will suffer.' If only it worked that way! :hmm:

In this country (as in all others) nothing changes until either (i) Lots of money has been lost or (ii) People have died. Since neither of these happened - nothing will happen. This time.

I wonder whether the same scenario would have occurred if this plane had ended up in Charles de Gaulle rather than Gatwick (it probably would). Is part of the issue here that Gatwick and Heathrow serve the same city and are in the same country? What should AI have done if the plane had been in CDG? Put everyone on Eurostar?

Air India looking for the cheapest option, as they always do, and sod the customers.

This is a company ethos and always has been.

The passengers should sue the crap out of them.

If they were to de-board all the passengers into the terminal then all passengers would require re-screening at security to comply with DfT regulations, which leads straight back to the shortage of staff argument... No spare bodies to escort pax to transit screening area and into departures.

750XL has come up with lots of "reasoned" explanations in defence of the airline, the airport etc., but at no time has he/she come up with any solutions. My reasoning is that an airport of LGW's size should NOT be understaffed and SHOULD be able to handle diversions effectively. An airline of Air India's stature SHOULD have contigency plans in place for such diversions and the staff to handle it. As a passenger if I was held on an aircraft on the ground for 9 hours (at my destination city) I would be seriously miffed and I would not be dissuaded by a salvo of excuses.

Hotel TangoThey are a commercial company - who will pay for that? If they over staff 365 days for the occasional divert, that cost will be spread across ALL their customers. If the divert happens and all goes smoothly - the pax will think the carrier did it all, not the airport. The pax are NOT going to think, "Oh those lovely people at LGW, I'm going to use them again."

Quite possibly, and put up all the fares to cover the cost at all their regular alternates. I have never travelled AI but this thread tells me that I might want to avoid them. That's the commercial reality.

Sure, you would be free to sue them and never use them again and go onto public forums to denounce them.

Irrespective of standard operating procedures for the ground crew of all carriers - in a recession that is the worst since the Depression - and you have the shareholders breathing down your neck- watchya goin' ta do?

A friend of mine works at a private hospital where they are almost constantly under staffed - just to save money. The hospital trumpets how much they care for their patients. Same story, different place.

PAXboy, I'm sorry if I sound naive to you. I fully appreciate and am aware of what you're saying. But again, these are only excuses. What I'm saying is should we the public accept this sort of "service" as the norm? If it was Ryanair at some distant little airport I'd say yes. However, with a major carrier at a major airport for me it's a resounding "no". Perhaps all those protesters against the greed of capitalism are right after all. Nevertheless, having flown AI in the past and found them to be OK, I will now most certainly have to reconsider using them in the future.

Sure Hotel Tango, sorry of I sounded too sharp.
Correct!!

But, in the last ten years (at least) pax around the world have clearly shown that they want everything - and want to pay less for it than the last time. Accordingly, every legacy carrier has the same problem. There are countless threads in PPRuNe as to how BA is handling this problem (being a UK based forum) but EVERY carrier has the problem. I dare say that in India, there are many threads about AI and detailing similar problems.

If they get enough high profile 'stick' from one area, then they will probably address it and take teh money from somewhere else. The squeeze between expectation (based on the last 50 years) and what companies are willing/able to deliver for the price - are going to continue to be at variance.

If they had to reimburse passengers at some reasonable level such as £200 per hour and NOT allowed to either charge it against tax or increase fares above the RPI to destinations in the EU for 5 years - or not be allowed to fly to the EU - there would be a very different attitude.

But it won't happen.

Contingency and India - mutually exclusive!

radeng,

It is a great idea but how do you enforce it? They will show an increase in cost in another area and here is a rise in fares!

It would be a great ideas in other industries too.


Rwy in Sight