Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Unbelievable - family forced to sit in the aeroplane floor

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Unbelievable - family forced to sit in the aeroplane floor

Old 13th Jan 2019, 20:43
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north yorkshire
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
There's a difference between what passengers do of their own volition - and what an airline screw-up forces them to do.

TUI has already (now) offered a total refund on the entire round-trip flight - bare minimum IMHO. And my crystal ball tells me there is a meeting with the CAA (no tea and bikkies) in TUI's future. "How - exactly - can you not know how many seats are in your aircraft?!"
The bigger issue is that TUI only offered a refund when they knew the story was going to played out on the BBC, on Tuesday Evening:-
'After the family contacted Rip Off Britain, TUI refunded their fares'
Presumably until then they had made no such offer?
Given that TUI are cancelling flights for this Summer and moving people to other airports not the sort of publicity that you need.
flybar is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 20:55
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Other airlines have prohibited me from sitting on the floor for part of a flight, because I could not reach an oxygen mask from where I was sitting (I had a seat, but felt like sitting on the floor for some different rest).

Exact ops manual procedures may vary between airlines, but if "no ready access to an oxygen mask while seated" is the reason I couldn't sit on this other carrier, then TUI are probably in hot water with the CAA.

Yes, of course you're not near an oxygen mask when you're moving about the cabin to go to the lavatory or whatever, but you shouldn't be moving around for too long, and once up and moving you can keep moving towards a spare mask if there's a loss of pressurisation. The lav, of course, has masks.The issue at hand is the length of time you're exposed to the risk of being more than an arm's length from a mask.

Here's a link to a non-Daily-Mail source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46858249
nicolai is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 21:17
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by nicolai
Other airlines have prohibited me from sitting on the floor for part of a flight, because I could not reach an oxygen mask from where I was sitting (I had a seat, but felt like sitting on the floor for some different rest).

Exact ops manual procedures may vary between airlines, but if "no ready access to an oxygen mask while seated" is the reason I couldn't sit on this other carrier, then TUI are probably in hot water with the CAA.

Yes, of course you're not near an oxygen mask when you're moving about the cabin to go to the lavatory or whatever, but you shouldn't be moving around for too long, and once up and moving you can keep moving towards a spare mask if there's a loss of pressurisation. The lav, of course, has masks.The issue at hand is the length of time you're exposed to the risk of being more than an arm's length from a mask.

Here's a link to a non-Daily-Mail source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46858249
I am not familiar with this TUI 757 but looking at the space available (wonder what it the purpose? too much for dog cages) I would not be surprised if there are oxy mask available there. But anyway if not they were accommodated at CC seat which has oxy masks for max occupancy. If adults of this family would be our/other recognised airline employees (which is very broadly defined, no need for Medical Class X nor valid evac training on a type required) we would seat them on a jump seat no problem. But not a fare paying passenger.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 21:29
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The issue is that they did not have access to their assigned seats in the cruise. That is the no-no. Putting pax in jump seats is fine, but if they are in the way during service, then they should have been given other jump seats if possible.

This is black and white. Passengers must have a seat available to them. If they make the decision to move about the cabin and something happens, then that is one thing. If you do not allow pax access to their seats and then you get some CAT, then the liability is on you.

I suspect the crew will be getting a grilling over this. Whilst having the wrong LOPA on the DCS is a company issue, that is an issue and to be frowned upon, but the real naughty thing is denying passengers seats in flight and therefore access to the emergency equipment required, as well as potentially putting them at risk of injury.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:00
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mycenae
Posts: 506
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Being given a jumpseat as a staff passenger is a world of difference away from being given a fait accompli as a commercial passenger once on board the aircraft and I can’t believe anyone would draw a comparison. Additionally, as a veteran jumpseater, I have never been told to leave my jumpseat for longer than a minute or two while the crew accessed something and I have often been moved to another jumpseat where I wasn’t in the way (sometimes to the first class galley which always makes the flight pass more comfortably ). I feel sorry for the skipper, now this is public knowledge it’s going to be a “your hat, my office” chat.
StudentInDebt is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:08
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,806
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by 763 jock
There is nothing illegal about this when carrying either standby or full revenue passengers. Immoral maybe, but not illegal.
If you tell us what part of

The Civil Aviation Authority says while passengers are allowed to sit in crew seats under certain conditions, they must not be left unseated during any stage of the flight.
you're having trouble understanding, we'll try to help you out.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:22
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
Not as unlikely as it sounds. The article talks about a "last minute aircraft change".

The vanishing Row 41 sounds like a 757, and the photo looks like one. TUI have a dozen or so 757s which they inherited, variously, from Britannia, Air 2000, British Airways and LTU.

I'd be willing to bet that they aren't all in the same configuration.
All of TUI's 757's have 41A-F normally, so they were either removed due to them being broken or some other urgent reason. The only difference in layout between some of them are at the front of the aircraft - Some have row 1, some have 2 front toilets, some have bulkheads, some don't. Provided Ops notified the relevant airport about the seats being unserviceable then they should be blocked off in the check-in system by that Airport for each flight that aircraft is operating. Even if the aircraft was changed at the last minute, the message should've got through from LTN to the Airport check-in / boarding staff. This to me sounds like a communication breakdown somewhere, they got checked into the seats and made it onto the aircraft. Then someone has made the decision to allow them to sit in the jump seats. I know TUI crew are generally quite strict on allowing this to happen so possibly was the Captains decision.

Secondly if the passengers were on spare jump seats at the back of the aircraft, they could've been moved to Row 12 jump seats whilst the service was on and the crew weren't using them, then return to the back galley for landing.
caaardiff is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:24
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 66
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by TangoAlphad



The 10 year old was put in a seat and the parents given a rear jump seat. They would of been briefly removed to get the catering trollies out so it looks like they decided to sit on the floor during that time. Yes it isn't ideal but safe and they got to their destination? I'd take that over being bumped off.
They state and the airline does not refute they were required to sit on the floor for the cruise portion of the flight.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:54
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For F*cks sake all you PC objectors, get a life and grow some balls. The crew used their initiative and got the pax home safely and legally. The sad thing is that the SLF which in this case didn’t have the intelligence or intellect to appreciate the effort that was afforded to them to get them home then took advantage of the situation by going “public” to the media.

If I was TUI senior management I would be congratulating the crew, standing up to the media and, while accepting that the CAA might have to ask some questions, tell them to get back in their box in the politest of ways.
roundwego is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 23:09
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by roundwego
For F*cks sake all you PC objectors, get a life and grow some balls. The crew used their initiative and got the pax home safely and legally. The sad thing is that the SLF which in this case didn’t have the intelligence or intellect to appreciate the effort that was afforded to them to get them home then took advantage of the situation by going “public” to the media.

If I was TUI senior management I would be congratulating the crew, standing up to the media and, while accepting that the CAA might have to ask some questions, tell them to get back in their box in the politest of ways.
What do you mean "PC objectors"?

You mean people who actually understand that passengers MUST have a seat available to them at all times? You know, the very thing they didn't have here?

So other than being wrong about it being legal and completely misunderstanding the implications from a PR perspective as well, then, great post...
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 01:58
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,784
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
Roundwego

If management had offered appropriate compensation - which would have been most of the fare back, IMHO - then I suspect the SLF would have been content and nothing more would have been said. Trying to fob them off with a derisory sum was pretty naive on management’s part and is why we are hearing about it... not the crew’s fault at all.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 03:40
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 60
Posts: 911
Received 13 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
If management had offered appropriate compensation...
Absolutely, crew did the right thing solving the issue the best they could, while minimising the disruption. I'm sure had the seatbelt signs have gone on in cruise, said pax would have been ushered back to the J/S.

On the other hand, in a situation like this had I been in the responsible position (I was, many moons ago...) I would have made sure to have the most senior management person in range meet said passengers on arrival and immediately offer a profuse apology, together with a full refund and a free ticket for their next holiday.
andrasz is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 05:15
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,067
Received 66 Likes on 40 Posts
How could they take off with too many passengers? They should have disembarked them for flight safety reasons.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 06:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 841
Received 41 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Less Hair
How could they take off with too many passengers? They should have disembarked them for flight safety reasons.

Honestly what is the fuss here---if you have read the thread there was a 757 config disagreement and they were 3 seats short on final boarding - yes a balls up that should have been picked up sooner and pax greeted on arrival at BHX with a nice compo offer

in this case the skipper offered them 2 jump seats and a spare seat which the pax were OK to accept to get home PDQ

The skipper made the call (quite rightly so) to get the (revenue) pax home (they were not staff pax) by putting 2 of them on the spare rear jump seats - all perfectly fine if the CC and the pax were happy with that - I am sure as they wanted to go home PDQ and not to have to go to a hotel and wait for the next seats available -

Thomson should then have ensured that suitable compo was offered and made clear to the pax prior to disembarking and this Press debacle would not have occurred.

The CC during the meal service (I am sure any TOM CC would be well used to staff pax on jump seats) should not have made or allowed the pax sit on the floor but moved them to other jump seats forward or mid cabin (757 has plenty of jump seats) as to not interrupt the cabin service at the rear galley - all jump seats have belts and masks - pax safe and ok.

We often had an overbooking situation and put pax on the jump seats - either the spare ones in the cabin or the flight deck (you could back then) and offer suitable refund - many refused as they loved going on the flight deck - different times then

cannot understand the fuss made here at all - we take staff pax on jump seats everyday - OK so putting revenue pax on them is rare but in this case the skipper offered the pax the choice to get home or be stuck at wherever it was?
What should have been done is that a refund agreed ASAP for the pax so they were happy (in theory they could claim denied boarding equivalent and expenses for meals/hotac ) and the CC should not have surprisingly allowed them to sit on the floor! no need for that at all

Last edited by rog747; 14th Jan 2019 at 07:00.
rog747 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 06:34
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 841
Received 41 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by andrasz
Absolutely, crew did the right thing solving the issue the best they could, while minimising the disruption. I'm sure had the seatbelt signs have gone on in cruise, said pax would have been ushered back to the J/S.

On the other hand, in a situation like this had I been in the responsible position (I was, many moons ago...) I would have made sure to have the most senior management person in range meet said passengers on arrival and immediately offer a profuse apology, together with a full refund and a free ticket for their next holiday.
one of the few most sensible posts old chap along with 763jock
rog747 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 06:52
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 570
Received 69 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by roundwego
For F*cks sake .... The sad thing is that the SLF which in this case didn’t have the intelligence or intellect to appreciate the effort that was afforded to them to get them home then took advantage of the situation by going “public” to the media.

If I was TUI senior management I would be congratulating the crew, standing up to the media and, while accepting that the CAA might have to ask some questions, tell them to get back in their box in the politest of ways.
Roughly translated as:

The sad thing was when the passengers with presumed normal intelligence turned up to their BOOKED and PAID FOR seats, were checked in with CONFIRMED seats, only to find the seats didn't exist.

Why try to embellish your misunderstandings about what actually happened by libelling the subject passengers on a public forum with disgusting made up nonsense about their lack of intelligence AND intellect, just to support your badly formed and mistaken argument. Quite some assumption you're making there, and quite a bold allegation to make publicly.

Your comments say more about yourself than about the intelligence of the subject passengers, who simply, and very reasonably, expected to find they could sit on the seats that they had booked, paid for, and had confirmed by the airline.

As for
If I was TUI senior management I would be congratulating the crew
you're not TUI senior management. Spouting forth as you do, it is clear that you're most unlikely ever to be so.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 07:11
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cutting grass on more unpaid leave
Age: 44
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All the DM pictures show a child sat on the floor. I’m sorry but the child was given a pax seat but the parents put said child on floor in flight, presumably because they wanted to sit together, and for the picture opportunity.

They could have all have seats during the cruise. The parents could easily have sat at doors 3 jump seats during cruise and the service. I’m sure this would have been offered by crew, but the parents probably declined so they can all sit together on the floor.

The aircraft was certified to carry said number of passengers, whether in pax seat or jump seat. Nobody was without a seat opportunity at any time.

I doubt the crew forced the passengers to do anything. They would have been given all the options, including off load. No safety or security has been breached here. Compensation is a completely different matter. IMO of course.
Yorkshire_Pudding is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 07:46
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the crew directed the passengers to sit on the floor or did not give gem the opportunity to sit in other jump seats during the service period, then they have a problem.

Pax using jumpseats is fine, but they need to be shown to them and shown how to use them, not just have it assumed that they know where to go and what to do.

The key issue is who directed them to sit on the floor? If the pax were shown to jumpseats and chose to sit on the floor themselves, then there is no issue. However, If, as the article suggests the crew asked them to vacate their jumpseats in the galley and then did not direct them to jumpseats elsewhere, then that is where it all falls down.

No-one is going to gaol over this, but there should be some uncomfortable meetings and some updated procedures and courses.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 08:01
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 13 Posts
As YP says... The J/S pax have elected to pluck the 10 year old child from a perfectly good seat and place her on the floor. The CC would have been wise to stop this.

Also, a GH manager should have met them on arrival with arrangement for a refund. I'm sure they would have been happy with that, and the airline would have saved the massive denied boarding costs. Maybe the crew didn't organise that?

Either way - much safer (as a crew member) to simply deny boarding and let the airline pay. Doing a passenger a favour could cost you your job, even if what you did was legal and helpful.
HundredPercentPlease is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 08:04
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 841
Received 41 Likes on 21 Posts
Just looked at the pax's photos on the report -

Clearly shows that the whole row of seats 41DEF which the family had been allocated and checked in for has been removed and there is a big empty space!!

Assume that after take off the pax and it seems the CC crew thought it was all OK for them to sit all 3 together on the empty floor space where the seat once were - not a good move IMHO

Why this (the missing 3 seats) was not picked up by traffic/ops/load control/dispatch/CC/handling agents/ground rep etc etc before landing at MAH beggars belief when they knew they had a full load going home.
rog747 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.