Aurela (Operating for Monarch) off the runway at BHX
It is nothing new. Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s I caught the Dan Air shuttle from Manchester to Gatwick, plane said Dan Air on the outside but the signs in the cabin and the booklets etc in the seat back where in no language I could recognise.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tartin, so TFS major tech delay, followed by the Air Explore skipper giving his Mayday over the PA to the pax, now this. What a great business decision. Why not use Titan in the first place? You know the reason, so do I. If MON have any pax left on these routes after 12 weeks it'll be a miracle.
Last edited by renort; 21st Sep 2012 at 21:25.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cape Town / UK / Europe
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used this service about 3 weeks ago. Early in the morning I saw that the outbound had not left BHX, in fact it left 3 hours late. The check staff at NCE were either misinformed or suffering from terminal stupidity as they stated that the flight would operate on time - a little difficult when it was still on the ground 2 hours flying time away.
In the end it was operated by a Titan Airways 757, (although the boarding pass said 'Aegean Airways') clean, comfortable, and with an outstanding crew of native English speakers, who made it enjoyable despite the 3 hour delay. Ironically the BMI Baby service took off 10 minutes ahead of the ZB. I'd booked the ZB even though it was more expensive and I would have preferred WW, as the timing, if kept, would have allowed me to make better use of my day
I know a couple of people who've used the service and, less fortunately, ended up on Aurela and both stated that it was 'an experience best forgotten'. A pity as Monarch were a good airline but seem to have taken on more than they can handle and in order to attempt to rectify this they've scraped the bottom of the barrel.
In the end it was operated by a Titan Airways 757, (although the boarding pass said 'Aegean Airways') clean, comfortable, and with an outstanding crew of native English speakers, who made it enjoyable despite the 3 hour delay. Ironically the BMI Baby service took off 10 minutes ahead of the ZB. I'd booked the ZB even though it was more expensive and I would have preferred WW, as the timing, if kept, would have allowed me to make better use of my day
I know a couple of people who've used the service and, less fortunately, ended up on Aurela and both stated that it was 'an experience best forgotten'. A pity as Monarch were a good airline but seem to have taken on more than they can handle and in order to attempt to rectify this they've scraped the bottom of the barrel.
Last edited by Tableview; 21st Sep 2012 at 21:26.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: South East
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundbased: I wasn't refering to your particular case, but to the general frenzy amongst the travelling public to get the cheapest flight/holiday possible and then to complain when it doesn't provide five star service. Besides, if it was originally planned to use a Monarch aircraft on the service but it went tech, would you have refused to get on the sub-charter just because it wasn't a Monarch aircraft?
The charter world is a high-cost, low margin world. For evey £100 the companies get in, they're lucky if they make £5 profit. They buy in third party operators to cover the work that makes no sense to cover with a hull of their own. And are we really so sure this crew was in error, just hours after the event? 'Slats were in...landed fast...down to cost cutting...' All of us, BA, Virgin, Tompson, Monarch, TCX, Easy... have had incidents that don't look so comforting in the cold light of day. If I could have my time again, I'd come back as director general of the hindsight department.
The charter world is a high-cost, low margin world. For evey £100 the companies get in, they're lucky if they make £5 profit. They buy in third party operators to cover the work that makes no sense to cover with a hull of their own. And are we really so sure this crew was in error, just hours after the event? 'Slats were in...landed fast...down to cost cutting...' All of us, BA, Virgin, Tompson, Monarch, TCX, Easy... have had incidents that don't look so comforting in the cold light of day. If I could have my time again, I'd come back as director general of the hindsight department.
Besides, if it was originally planned to use a Monarch aircraft on the service but it went tech, would you have refused to get on the sub-charter just because it wasn't a Monarch aircraft?
But this is a series of planned sub charters. From the information on this thread there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the passengers were informed at the time of booking.
I hear everything you say about tight margins in the charter industry but, as a customer, am not too interested. If I book to fly on XXX airline then that is the airline I expect to fly on unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stupidity of the press on this one is outstanding! As are most of the comments on here!
I bet this is not quoted in any press article!!
Stop and think! It can't be that dangerous if it's survived 24 years of intensive commercial operations!! I think a bulk of baby's fleet was older, but that's ok british
I would sure as hell prefer to be on a well maintained 24 year plus airframe with a well trained crew! Than on a brand new jet operated by a loco with a pay to fly crew, operating on a flag of convenience!
Now which English speaking county do the aformentioned use along with most of the worlds large leasing companies??
I bet this is not quoted in any press article!!
Stop and think! It can't be that dangerous if it's survived 24 years of intensive commercial operations!! I think a bulk of baby's fleet was older, but that's ok british
I would sure as hell prefer to be on a well maintained 24 year plus airframe with a well trained crew! Than on a brand new jet operated by a loco with a pay to fly crew, operating on a flag of convenience!
Now which English speaking county do the aformentioned use along with most of the worlds large leasing companies??
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rugby
Age: 33
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that keep badgering on about how they expect this, that and the other from Monarch, all it makes me think is... Stuck-up snob!
If the airlines didn't hire in these extra aircraft, they could potentially lose business by not being able to provide enough flights, ticket prices may be higher if they had to by aircraft rather than leasing (Defeating the point of low cost airline) and ultimately, if the airline is not making a profit, then it'll go bust, so it'd be game over anyway!!
The level of service is the same and the end result is the same - you get to your destination. The only thing that is different is the fact you are on a 737 instead of an A320.
If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.
If the airlines didn't hire in these extra aircraft, they could potentially lose business by not being able to provide enough flights, ticket prices may be higher if they had to by aircraft rather than leasing (Defeating the point of low cost airline) and ultimately, if the airline is not making a profit, then it'll go bust, so it'd be game over anyway!!
The level of service is the same and the end result is the same - you get to your destination. The only thing that is different is the fact you are on a 737 instead of an A320.
If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.
If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the clue is in the term "wet leased" there may not have been any Monarch staff on the aircraft at all. Monarch have been wet leasing aircraft for years. Some time ago, we were booked on a Monarch flight to Faro. Instead of the Airbus, we were shepherded on to a an ancient (even then) Tri-Star. The Icelandic crew were fine but the the aircraft was knackered. We arrived on time, which is more than could be said about the return flight. They kept us waiting twelve hours as they used "our" designated aircraft to replace one that had gone tech at Malaga which should have flown to Goa.
The relevance of the aircraft ownership at Birmingham does not carry too much weight. Someone cocked up and in the fullness of time we shall find out who that was. This particular aircraft has had a chequered life since it has been working for Monarch, but hey! It could have been Algerian!
The relevance of the aircraft ownership at Birmingham does not carry too much weight. Someone cocked up and in the fullness of time we shall find out who that was. This particular aircraft has had a chequered life since it has been working for Monarch, but hey! It could have been Algerian!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deepknight buddy, if I saw a Lithuanian registration on what I thought was a Monarch flight I would most certainly not get on it. I've worked for cowboy outfits and know how well they cover up their atrocities and how little even our own much vaunted CAA will do even in the face of certain information over a period of years. EASA approval shmoozle. It a bureaucratic rubber stamp and means very little in practice. The Cork crash operator was one such, wasn't it?
There's no way I'd choose to fly an airline like Aurela. I might have to if I was flying within E Europe but not anywhere there was a choice.
Companies have an amazing way of retaining their character over decades and this was an old Soviet operator. Think Polish governmental flight. That's enough for me. I'd rather walk.
Scott C, if you really think someone is a stuck up snob because he objects to getting a Trabant when he paid for a Vauxhall then I begin to see what the C stands for. Jeez! Your understanding of aviation is clearly minimal - if even that - if all you think that matters of an airline is getting there on time and the service. There's a wee bit more to the of running an airline than that you may be surprised to learn.
Don't give up your day job!
Thankfully you can't do too much damage as a DJ after all.It's not much like flying in that respect.
There's no way I'd choose to fly an airline like Aurela. I might have to if I was flying within E Europe but not anywhere there was a choice.
Companies have an amazing way of retaining their character over decades and this was an old Soviet operator. Think Polish governmental flight. That's enough for me. I'd rather walk.
Scott C, if you really think someone is a stuck up snob because he objects to getting a Trabant when he paid for a Vauxhall then I begin to see what the C stands for. Jeez! Your understanding of aviation is clearly minimal - if even that - if all you think that matters of an airline is getting there on time and the service. There's a wee bit more to the of running an airline than that you may be surprised to learn.
Don't give up your day job!
Thankfully you can't do too much damage as a DJ after all.It's not much like flying in that respect.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 21st Sep 2012 at 22:03.
I booked and was due to travel to Holguin on the Cubana Illuyshin II-96 a while back, but due to their machine being out of service for a while actually travelled on a Euro Atlantic Airways 767 (?).
Not sure if I won or lost there. :-)
Not sure if I won or lost there. :-)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An expert at 21
Scott C (aged 21) Quote:-
"The level of service is the same and the end result is the same - you get to your destination. The only thing that is different is the fact you are on a 737 instead of an A320."
Ahhh, so young, such a lot to learn.
"you get to your destination" - even if it does mean a bit of 4x4 off road travel.
The level of service is not the priority.
"The level of service is the same and the end result is the same - you get to your destination. The only thing that is different is the fact you are on a 737 instead of an A320."
Ahhh, so young, such a lot to learn.
"you get to your destination" - even if it does mean a bit of 4x4 off road travel.
The level of service is not the priority.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question, in all the photos it shows that the slats & flaps were retracted to a clean wing!
Is it possible this was done as part of the shut down procedure after entering the grass?
Seems to me that any discussion about slats is a red herring
Is it possible this was done as part of the shut down procedure after entering the grass?
Seems to me that any discussion about slats is a red herring
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so sure. If I'd just departed the hard stuff i'm not sure if bringing the flaps up would be the first thing I thought of in the first 30 seconds
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bradford
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems I AM qualified to comment... (SLF)
Not a pilot but...
I am a marketing and branding professional.
A "Brand" is put simply "a promise". In this instance the brand is Monarch and the promise on their website is: "Customer care and service lie at the heart of the Group’s business approach". Nowhere does it say "fancy new aircraft guaranteed". If you put monarch into Google, the first 2 words the company are paying for after their name are "cheap flights". So unless you are a little hard of thinking, you can work out it's going to be a budget flight with trimmings. I cannot see how the customers got anything but the brand promise right up until the plane went "Rallying" (sic). Sure it's a PR own goal to use older planes when the "general public" are used to new and cheap elsewhere - but that is their business decision and they will have to live with the PR consequences. It is however, just PR. It has nothing to do with operations as long as they are using subbies working within current EU legislation.
Ironically if you want fancy new aircraft you should have gone down the road to Luton and gone low cost Easyjet. However,I seem to remember this can happen to the Pikeys brand new planes too?
While this is all fascinating stuff I fail to see how it relevant to the thread unless there is some far deeper issue such as flying an aircraft with tech issues that should have kept it on the ground.
As usual - it's a few months early to publish the report but all very good fun (since everyone walked away, which I believe is still a good landing...)
I am a marketing and branding professional.
A "Brand" is put simply "a promise". In this instance the brand is Monarch and the promise on their website is: "Customer care and service lie at the heart of the Group’s business approach". Nowhere does it say "fancy new aircraft guaranteed". If you put monarch into Google, the first 2 words the company are paying for after their name are "cheap flights". So unless you are a little hard of thinking, you can work out it's going to be a budget flight with trimmings. I cannot see how the customers got anything but the brand promise right up until the plane went "Rallying" (sic). Sure it's a PR own goal to use older planes when the "general public" are used to new and cheap elsewhere - but that is their business decision and they will have to live with the PR consequences. It is however, just PR. It has nothing to do with operations as long as they are using subbies working within current EU legislation.
Ironically if you want fancy new aircraft you should have gone down the road to Luton and gone low cost Easyjet. However,I seem to remember this can happen to the Pikeys brand new planes too?
While this is all fascinating stuff I fail to see how it relevant to the thread unless there is some far deeper issue such as flying an aircraft with tech issues that should have kept it on the ground.
As usual - it's a few months early to publish the report but all very good fun (since everyone walked away, which I believe is still a good landing...)
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Can't remember
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_030178.pdf
Happened at the other end of the runway but might have similarity as the Southern end was a concrete surface at the time just like the Northern end still is now, IIRC there was a NOTAM out for a while afterwards warning of slippery when wet.
Happened at the other end of the runway but might have similarity as the Southern end was a concrete surface at the time just like the Northern end still is now, IIRC there was a NOTAM out for a while afterwards warning of slippery when wet.
Every airline sub charters flights out to other companies. Whether due to technical or scheduling problems, everyone does it. Even BA and Easyjet sub flights out!!
There are just not many UK companies who have spare aircraft available for a couple months at a time!
Could easily have happened to a company working for BA, Easy or Jet2.
There are just not many UK companies who have spare aircraft available for a couple months at a time!
Could easily have happened to a company working for BA, Easy or Jet2.
