Aurela (Operating for Monarch) off the runway at BHX
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Track:
These airlines are paranoid about SAFA inspections, however the SAFA only scratches the surface and will not find the operational shortcomings.
These airlines are paranoid about SAFA inspections, however the SAFA only scratches the surface and will not find the operational shortcomings.
That's true. SAFA only care that the paperwork is correct. If the paperwork is all in order, you can crash as much as you like.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cape Town / UK / Europe
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds very much like ISO 9000. They award you for adhering stringently to a set of procedures. The fact that the procedures may be deeply flawed or inappropriate does not seem to matter.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 777-200 East of the sun, west of the moon
Age: 40
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's true. SAFA only care that the paperwork is correct. If the paperwork is all in order, you can crash as much as you like.
Not truee Safa inspect not only documents, but dealing with all the fuselage structure mostly as well as missing parts!
And this type of aircraft like it would be an old 737cl operated by Aurela it shows clearly, as told from internal friends, missing bolds and screw and fuselage bent due the pressurisatio life cycles!
Last edited by JQKA; 22nd Sep 2012 at 20:33.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lichfield UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more pics at;
bhxflightguide (sorry the link wont copy)
From photo 4/4 the suggestion that someone made a few posts back, of a burst tyre, does not seem to follow.
The photos do not show the tracks made by the a/c's excursion...or the orphanage that the captain narrowly avoided as he bravely fought to regain control.
bhxflightguide (sorry the link wont copy)
From photo 4/4 the suggestion that someone made a few posts back, of a burst tyre, does not seem to follow.
The photos do not show the tracks made by the a/c's excursion...or the orphanage that the captain narrowly avoided as he bravely fought to regain control.
Last edited by RealFish; 22nd Sep 2012 at 21:54.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to Grenville Fortescue,
Wouldn't wet lease imply that Monarch have sub'd Aurela for this route/flight, as such are they under any obligation to do in situ line checks?
Cabin service maybe, but querying maintenance and crew professionalism might raise hackles, how would you feel as an Air Croatia pilot if United or Air Canada raised questions about your professionalism? (Star Alliance)
Wouldn't wet lease imply that Monarch have sub'd Aurela for this route/flight, as such are they under any obligation to do in situ line checks?
Cabin service maybe, but querying maintenance and crew professionalism might raise hackles, how would you feel as an Air Croatia pilot if United or Air Canada raised questions about your professionalism? (Star Alliance)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who cares if you "raise a few heckles" - it says Monarch on the ticket, MON on the departure screens and despite what some have said, some pax on here have confirmed they were unaware they were being farmed out to a subchartered unit, as such, if these airlines want to take a contract, they must accept the scrutiny of the lessee, but seems some were too focused on the commercial "opportunity" to worry about any potential downsides.
Interestingly if this had been a genuine MON aircraft that went farming off the end, this thread would have probably been 3/4 pages max, with a few 'grace of god' 'could happen to anyone' comments and it would have died a death at the first 'let's wait for the report'. As it is this has raised some far reaching questions which will affect this type of operation in future.
Interestingly if this had been a genuine MON aircraft that went farming off the end, this thread would have probably been 3/4 pages max, with a few 'grace of god' 'could happen to anyone' comments and it would have died a death at the first 'let's wait for the report'. As it is this has raised some far reaching questions which will affect this type of operation in future.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. how would you feel as an Air Croatia pilot if United or Air Canada raised questions about your professionalism? (Star Alliance)
One of course would not feel overly enamoured as part of an alliance if 'colleague' airlines were looking over one's shoulder as it were but .. I am wondering (even under a wet lease or ACMI arrangement) whether there would be any mileage in periodic 'line' assessments of the actual service being provided - maintenance, flight deck and cabin.
Worst case scenario is that a particular company meets all the requirements on paper but in practice operates with a number of glaring anomalies which possess the potential to endanger passengers.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whether there would be any mileage in periodic 'line' assessments of the actual service being provided - maintenance, flight deck and cabin
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Renort,
It's hackles, heckles has another meaning entirely - please pay attention.
To rephrase the facts: some pax have advised that they weren't aware that the flight
was being subbed, this doesn't make it fact - it just means that they were unaware.
Until it's proven, it's not 'confirmed'.
Whether it's Monarch or Aurela or even BA, it's a taxiway excursion on a known problem area. There might be a lot more cause for concern if there were injuries or damage but it appears that it'll buff out fine.
The whole thing is being blown out of proportion by folk with their own personal axe to grind.
It's hackles, heckles has another meaning entirely - please pay attention.
To rephrase the facts: some pax have advised that they weren't aware that the flight
was being subbed, this doesn't make it fact - it just means that they were unaware.
Until it's proven, it's not 'confirmed'.
Whether it's Monarch or Aurela or even BA, it's a taxiway excursion on a known problem area. There might be a lot more cause for concern if there were injuries or damage but it appears that it'll buff out fine.
The whole thing is being blown out of proportion by folk with their own personal axe to grind.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 777-200 East of the sun, west of the moon
Age: 40
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it is not just the policy that take many airlines
but this is the reality, many ,if not 85% of companies, do not warn the passengers that the flight is operated by another company.
but this is the reality, many ,if not 85% of companies, do not warn the passengers that the flight is operated by another company.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 777-200 East of the sun, west of the moon
Age: 40
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course none leave the operation to another Company before is made one, if not more than one, flight audit and then sign a wet lease contract between them.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to DR,
Sorry, this doesn't make what fact ?
It was implied that Monarch not advising pax that the flight would be subbed was fact, some pax have advised that they weren't aware - This doesn not prove that Monarch didn't advise them, unless anyone knows otherwise?
Sorry, this doesn't make what fact ?
It was implied that Monarch not advising pax that the flight would be subbed was fact, some pax have advised that they weren't aware - This doesn not prove that Monarch didn't advise them, unless anyone knows otherwise?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch sent an email to ALL pax to advise them. Whether they opened it is another matter, as they may have deleted it thinking it was the weekly offers email.
As with all 4 wet leases, Aurela's Maintenance facility, records, operations manuals and cabin operations were fully audited, prior to confirmation of the wet lease contracts. Though the aircraft actually being leased wasn't available (flying) during the audit period. They were found to be fully compliant with EASA/EU OPS and audit flights were conducted, again prior to confirmation of the wet lease.
FACT!
As with all 4 wet leases, Aurela's Maintenance facility, records, operations manuals and cabin operations were fully audited, prior to confirmation of the wet lease contracts. Though the aircraft actually being leased wasn't available (flying) during the audit period. They were found to be fully compliant with EASA/EU OPS and audit flights were conducted, again prior to confirmation of the wet lease.
FACT!
Last edited by Whiskey Zulu; 23rd Sep 2012 at 18:24.
Monarch sent an email to ALL pax to advise them. Whether they opened it is another matter, as they may have deleted it thinking it was the weekly offers email.
Question I would like to ask is when were they sent the email? Had the decision to sub charter been made by the time of booking and if so were the passengers made aware then?
If I have booked a flight and then get an email a couple of days before the flight and I am not happy with the new travel arrangements it may be difficult to arrange travel with another company. Also if a passenger elects not to travel for this reason, will they get a full refund of the fare including taxes and charges etc?
Last edited by fireflybob; 23rd Sep 2012 at 18:36.
some pax have advised that they weren't aware - This does not prove that Monarch didn't advise them
It sounded like you were saying that all passengers must have been aware of the arrangement, but I see that's not what you meant.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heckles, Hackles, whatever.
I can imagine the UK airline that this summer refused to use Aurela, are feeling rather vindicated in that decision, even if it does mean paying a bit more to use another option.
I can imagine the UK airline that this summer refused to use Aurela, are feeling rather vindicated in that decision, even if it does mean paying a bit more to use another option.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet 2, Thomas Cook and FlyBe have all used Aurela B733s over the last few years.
The incident sounds pretty similar to what Britannia/Thomson did with one of their B763s at LGW a few years ago (exiting 26L in the rain).
The incident sounds pretty similar to what Britannia/Thomson did with one of their B763s at LGW a few years ago (exiting 26L in the rain).
Last edited by Turnberry; 23rd Sep 2012 at 22:02.