At our company the slats/flaps are retracted leaving the runway. If they have similar SOPs this would explain the lack of slats deployed.

Monarch off the runway at BHX
 

Takes me back to the 90's when I booked to go to Orlando on Virgin and a Translift DC-8 trundled up to the gate. Fine machine nevertheless!

I'm not SLF no, operational.

I'm fully aware of what happens behind the scenes and from what I've seen at Aurela there's nothing that would worry me anymore than jumping on a LOCO or charter flight. Granted, their aircraft are getting on and tech a fair amount, but that's all part of the game.

redED

That is my point. One is used to the slats and flaps being retracted whilst taxiing- for the slats to be retracted when my daughter took her pic within 30 seconds of the aircraft coming to rest seems unusual. No speculation here, just facts.

When you say leave the runway... :E

Please define "taxiing"

I would take taxiing after landing to be either on the runway or en-route to the terminal. I understand what you are driving at but I repeat - is it normal for slats to be retracted less than 30 seconds after coming to a stop following an "incident"? Perhaps other professionals could voice an opinion.

Different airlines have different procedures with respect to when the after landing checks are commenced. It is quite feasible that, assuming the aircraft was going to clearly vacate at the far end of the runway, the aircraft would be down to taxi speed (circa 20kts) well before the end of the runway in which case the checks (which include retracting flaps) could be initiated then.

With other operators the procedure is not to initiate the after landing checks until the runway has been vacated. It obviously takes a little time for the flaps and slats to retract but I see nothing sinister in the fact that they are retracted - all normal operation.

If the landing had been performed with no slats (a possible failure but extremely unlikely as there is more than one way of deploying slats via standby hydraulics) this would be a "non normal" situation requiring running of the non normal checks etc together with most probably (once again depends on individual airline policy) an emergency declared.

Flaps are normally retracted when the captain stows the speedbrake after landing. This should be done as you turn off the runway, but sometimes this is done just as soon as you put power on to start taxiing, so maybe just a little earlier.
The after landing checks come later.
Mind you, if you skid off, or drive yourself off onto the grass, you'd not be thinking at that moment, oh let's retract the flaps would you? You'd be busy thinking "I may have just lost my job"!!!

@moist

Spot on:D

Not a pilot, sorry. But from what I can gather, this incident was caused by cost cutting. Nobody will know until the final report, but it seems obvious.

My industry suffers the same. It ought to be addressed.

To the Monarch pilot who posted earlier, saying it was 'not a Monarch pilot' on that flight, I would say that's not a good thing to state. Whatever company you fly for, then you should be ensuring the safety of whatever contractor they use. 'turning a blind eye' is not such an option in the job you do?

Sorry if my post is offensive to some, just my thoughts..

In principle there is nothing wrong with a company sub-chartering a flight to another operator but I see a difference where this is done from necessity when, for example, an aircraft goes unserviceable and it is the only sensible option to get passengers to their destination as compared to subbing a series of flights which clearly Monarch have done in this case.

The question I would like to ask is whether the passengers were informed about a different operator when booking their flights? If so, they have little to complain about. If not then that is a different matter.

From a customer care point of view I think it is a very short sighted tactic. If I book to fly with a particular carrier I expect to get their level of customer care and safety in every respect.

Love the posts that start, not a pilot!! Or I don't work in aviation but....

It's not cost cutting. Monarch have new aircraft on order, the chartered aircraft were just filling in until they arrive.
Monarch are a respected company for both their airline and engineering within the aviation industry. They would not risk any of this by using an unsafe airline.
Apart from which there is a European blacklist and any airline not reaching European safety standards is banned from operating from our airspace.

This was a minor incident, which has been blown out of all proportion by the media. There have been far worse incidents where safety or aircraft damage has been caused recently. All in Europe.
Suggest the wannabes do a little more research and approach the forum with a little more knowledge. Otherwise sit back, observe and learn!

Why exactly?

Food and drinks service on board will be the same as all other Monarch flights and they'll be a few Monarch cabin crew on board to ensure customer service levels are maintained. The only difference between flying on a Monarch aircraft and an Aurela one is the interior, which while it may be older, is probably just as comfortable.

Speke2me, this is not about cost cutting. All the UK charter airlines fleets are based on the winter programme which is obviously smaller than the summer programme. If the airline fleet was based on the summer programme you would have pilots and aircraft sitting around in winter burning up your profits and very rapidly go bust. Previously it was possible to use UK base airlines to pick up the extra flying lines for the summer, but in the past few years that spare capacity has gone away (XL, Astreus, Globespan etc) so you have to go to Europe. It's not ideal, but at the end of the day you have to use what's available. In this case it looks as though Monarch was using Aurela, who in fairness, up until now, seem to have a pretty good safety record.

Lets not make a drama out of a crisis, based on one incident.

Serenity, I agree with you completely!

However although this incident is relatively trivial the media coverage with passengers saying "It's the oldest aircraft I have ever travelled on" will not be good for Monarch's credibility.

It's one thing for an airline to meet the minimum regulatory requirements but another that they are who one would choose to travel with!

There are 2 chartered aircraft operating out of EMA on Monarch flights presently, one is a Air Italy B733 and a Small Planet B733. They also operated out of BHX. Its an unusual tactic these days, we're more familiar with Canadian aircraft coming to the UK for the Summer etc.
Why do Monarch do it, summer only contracts, make you're money then retreat for the winter.
At least these airlines comply with easa standards which should offer a crumb of comfort. If you've sub chartered the Omega B707's then you're game for a laugh...

750XL, call me illogical but there is, with respect, a difference.

When I buy a brand it speaks something to me about why they do what they do. Flying on a clapped out Lithuanian a/c, however safe etc, is just not the same as on a Monarch badged and operated machine. I understand the reasons for doing it but, in my opinion, it's a bad business move.

I repeat my earlier question - when passengers booked these flights were they aware that they would be flown by a Lithuanian airline?

I'd have done a backflip! I'd love to fly in a DC-8.

I pick and choose who I fly with...being very much in the know!
If I booked with an airline and was shifted onto a bag of :mad: of another carrier purely for profeteering.....I would never fly with them again!

There are many others that will be feeling the same about this one and it will cost Monarch largely in the pocket, even though it is a small incident.

It has brought the sub-leasing to the surface and not necessarily the intricate details of the 'derailment'.....not good!!