LOT Takes Up Pax Collection to Pay for Repair in PEK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
LOT Takes Up Pax Collection to Pay for Repair in PEK
Sounds like an airline joke but supposedly actually happened the other day.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.ch...e-can-take-off
Link to the Newsweek article in Polish:
https://www.newsweek.pl/swiat/spolec...-fakty/82kddsy
Civil Aviation
Passengers asked to pay for repair so LOT plane can take off
After a Boeing 787 Dreamliner hydraulic pump broke down, 249 passengers on board LOT Polish Airlines flight LO92 were asked to foot the bill for repairs so they could take off.
LOT Polish Airlines flight LO92 was supposed to take off from Beijing Capital International Airport (PEK) to Warsaw Chopin Airport (WAW) on November 12, 2018. Passengers were asked to pay for the replacement of the hydraulic pump that broke down on the aircraft they were to board - a Boeing 787 Dreamliner (registered as SP-LRH).
The flight crew noticed the problem upon arriving in Beijing during the after-flight checkup. However, according to LOT Polish Airlines, a Boeing employee asked for a payment in cash to carry out the repair, as reported by Polish media Newsweek. “He had no right to do it, because our settlements are cashless,” said LOT spokesman Adrian Kubicki.
The plane had already been grounded for ten hours in Beijing when an unusual “fundraiser” was organized by a LOT employee that wanted to accelerate the departure. “Some passengers were solicited by a representative of the LOT,” said a passenger to Polish TVN24 channel. “It was finally possible to collect the necessary amount. It was refunded to the four passenger lenders upon arrival in Warsaw, still on the plane.”
The sum collected from passengers amounted to 2,500 Chinese yuan (approximately $360). The plane was eventually repaired, took off and landed in Warsaw with a delay of 9 hours. Additionally to the refund, the four generous donors were given free tickets.
According to LOT, the fault is on their representative. “The representative of LOT should have both cash and credit card with him,” said Kubicki. “The company provides them with funds to solve similar situations. There are no circumstances that justify asking money from passengers.” The airline states that the representative did not consult with anyone before taking the decision.
This mishap is surprisingly not the first one in the world of aviation. On August 15, 2012, an Air France flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG), France, to Beirut–Rafic Hariri International Airport (BEY), Lebanon, diverted to Cyprus, following a violent protest that erupted at Beirut airport. However, to refuel, the plane had to land in Damas, Syria, which was at war at the time. As transaction by credit card was not guaranteed due to international sanctions, the flight crew asked passengers for cash to pay for the fuel. While unusual, the practice is legal according to international laws.
LOT Polish Airlines flight LO92 was supposed to take off from Beijing Capital International Airport (PEK) to Warsaw Chopin Airport (WAW) on November 12, 2018. Passengers were asked to pay for the replacement of the hydraulic pump that broke down on the aircraft they were to board - a Boeing 787 Dreamliner (registered as SP-LRH).
The flight crew noticed the problem upon arriving in Beijing during the after-flight checkup. However, according to LOT Polish Airlines, a Boeing employee asked for a payment in cash to carry out the repair, as reported by Polish media Newsweek. “He had no right to do it, because our settlements are cashless,” said LOT spokesman Adrian Kubicki.
The plane had already been grounded for ten hours in Beijing when an unusual “fundraiser” was organized by a LOT employee that wanted to accelerate the departure. “Some passengers were solicited by a representative of the LOT,” said a passenger to Polish TVN24 channel. “It was finally possible to collect the necessary amount. It was refunded to the four passenger lenders upon arrival in Warsaw, still on the plane.”
The sum collected from passengers amounted to 2,500 Chinese yuan (approximately $360). The plane was eventually repaired, took off and landed in Warsaw with a delay of 9 hours. Additionally to the refund, the four generous donors were given free tickets.
According to LOT, the fault is on their representative. “The representative of LOT should have both cash and credit card with him,” said Kubicki. “The company provides them with funds to solve similar situations. There are no circumstances that justify asking money from passengers.” The airline states that the representative did not consult with anyone before taking the decision.
This mishap is surprisingly not the first one in the world of aviation. On August 15, 2012, an Air France flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG), France, to Beirut–Rafic Hariri International Airport (BEY), Lebanon, diverted to Cyprus, following a violent protest that erupted at Beirut airport. However, to refuel, the plane had to land in Damas, Syria, which was at war at the time. As transaction by credit card was not guaranteed due to international sanctions, the flight crew asked passengers for cash to pay for the fuel. While unusual, the practice is legal according to international laws.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.ch...e-can-take-off
Link to the Newsweek article in Polish:
https://www.newsweek.pl/swiat/spolec...-fakty/82kddsy
Can happen if you divert into a third world country with no local handling agent on a second tier airline. Landing fees and possibly fuel paid for in cash please before you go. Major airline promise to pay might be accepted but anything below that needs folding green US$.
Note that the report says LOT gave refunds, and free tickets
Only half a speed-brake
I agree that it doesn't make much sense. I'd wager that there is not a single 787 MEL equipement that would cost $360 to replace (I guess that included work too).
Though, like some other posters, I suspect it went on grease.
Psychophysiological entity
Cost? I recall (to be) Sir Freddy losing a battle with McDonald over the cost of replacing hydraulic pumps on brand new aircraft. $78,000 comes to mind, in 1971 They argued the crew's operation of the pumps was incorrect.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is written in the Polish article that there was a hydraulic fluid leakage on one engine. The money was intended for payment for new hydraulic pump in Boeing warehouse. It is not clear, whether they have only that 360USD from pax or another money from crew or representative too :-).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe $360 is the price of a single o-ring...
Beech
It is written in the Polish article that there was a hydraulic fluid leakage on one engine. The money was intended for payment for new hydraulic pump in Boeing warehouse. It is not clear, whether they have only that 360USD from pax or another money from crew or representative too :-).
It says in the (English) piece quoted by the OP that the $360 was demanded by the Boeing employee to carry out the work, so not the cost of the pump itself?
I don’t carry $360 in my wallet, (I wish !), and most cabin crew I have worked with don’t seem to carry much cash at all, so am not sure why the crew would be considered any more able to pay than the passengers?
In my last airline, a crew made an unscheduled diversion for a medical emergency, and were required to pay cash for the fuel at a Middle Eastern airport that we had no arrangements with. That was a lot more than $360 !!
I don’t carry $360 in my wallet, (I wish !), and most cabin crew I have worked with don’t seem to carry much cash at all, so am not sure why the crew would be considered any more able to pay than the passengers?
In my last airline, a crew made an unscheduled diversion for a medical emergency, and were required to pay cash for the fuel at a Middle Eastern airport that we had no arrangements with. That was a lot more than $360 !!
That makes perfec sense. Hard to see what else it could be other than the labour cost (if we discount the suggestion that it was a back-hander).
Moderator
Back in the day, I was the flight scheduler for a small Canadian charter airline, operating four DC-8-63's and a 707. One of our aircraft was chartered to a destination uncommon for us. I suppose the arrangements we thought were in place, some how were misunderstood. With all the pax aboard, the fueling fellow boarded, and went to the cockpit. With fuel ticket in hand, he asked the flight crew how they would like to pay for the fuel. Well the flight crew were under the belief that the fuel payment had already been arranged - apparently not! The plane was blocked, and not moving until payment was made. So the crew asked the pax to collectively make the payment, which was accomplished.
Of course, all was documented, and each pax repaid with compensation. The following week, every Captain was issued an Amex card, with a huge limit, just in case....
Of course, all was documented, and each pax repaid with compensation. The following week, every Captain was issued an Amex card, with a huge limit, just in case....
