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. |
Originally Posted by roundwego
(Post 10359878)
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. Meanwhile this sort of aggressive and yet ill-informed post is the sort that makes me wonder who the author works for so that I can avoid flying with them in future. |
Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.
This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media. Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:
Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers: CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen: CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen — pressurised aeroplanes (b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:
It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too! :ok: |
If TUI had handled the matter a little more graciously after the flight, then we may never have heard of this story in the press.
If the family were fairly and promptly compensated from the outset for the inconvenience caused, it is unlikely that they would have gone to the same lengths as they have done to gain media exposure. The spotlight should not be on the crew but rather those who were responsible for not providing the level of customer care that one would expect after the flight had taken place. |
Originally Posted by Old King Coal
(Post 10360199)
Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.
This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media. Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:
Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers: CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen: CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen — pressurised aeroplanes (b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:
It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too! :ok: |
Those rules, i.e. that I've listed above, are what's laid down by EASA.
Any European / EASA regulated airline's Ops Manual must - as a minimum - reference and / or state those same rules, and / or else list rules that are even more restrictive than the ones defined by EASA, and which the NAA (National Aviation Authority) which overseas the airline then approve (having first confirmed that what's within an amended Ops Manual still complies with the Regulations). In this instance the Regulations (at least those as defined by EASA) would seem to have been complied with. That said, without access to it, one can't of course comment on what might be written in a specific airlines (TUI's in this case) approved Ops Manual. |
If a triple was removed, then (probably) three pax LSJs were also removed. Is, (in the MEL),there not supposed to be one LSJ for each pax carried. No doubt someone will tell me I am not quite correct. As a matter of course, I always check under my seat to see if it there.
alt |
Originally Posted by aloominumtoob
(Post 10360259)
If a triple was removed, then (probably) three pax LSJs were also removed. Is, (in the MEL),there not supposed to be one LSJ for each pax carried. No doubt someone will tell me I am not quite correct. As a matter of course, I always check under my seat to see if it there.
alt |
In Germany paying pax are never placed on jump seats anymore for "insurance" reasons since quite some time.
|
This has nothing to do with a German airline. My UK OMA specifically allows the carriage of passengers on the jump seats at the commanders discretion. There are certain conditions which must be met regarding age and ABP. Neither the crew or the airline have done anything illegal. |
Originally Posted by Old King Coal
(Post 10360199)
Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.
This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media. Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:
Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers: CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen: CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen — pressurised aeroplanes (b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:
It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too! :ok: What we don't know is who directed them to sit down where they did. If it was the crew, then straight away, they have breached all the regs you've mentioned. This below is the interesting one in this case, as this was complied with right up to the moment that the crew asked them to move out of the galley. At that point, they were no longer in compliance. Could they have got back to their seats in the event of an emergency? Who knows. That depends on what the emergency is and what is going on. Which means that you really can't argue that this is being complied with any more. It was. Then through the actions of the crew, it wasn't. CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems
No matter what you might think of the situation, if the crew did not manage the situation at all times to ensure that the pax had assigned seats and the wherewithall to operate them, then they are in breach. If they did and the pax decided that the floor was more comfortable than the jumpseats (a very realistic proposition!) then, there is no story here and it's a whole load of guff about nothing, other than the fact that TUI have been a wee bit daft in PR terms... Unfortunately, if the CC have made this mistake, it'll be the commander who cops it. It always is. |
it'll be the commander who cops it. It always is. |
Originally Posted by old,not bold
(Post 10360421)
If no-one on the flight deck knew of the developing situation (unlikely, surely?)
"'The co-pilot came and sat with us on the floor and said he just wanted to thank us for our co-operation and understanding. He said that how calm we were and he was so grateful because he would have had to, he would have missed the time slot take off." |
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? |
I'll leave the debate about compliance with aviation law to the professionals, but would like to make a point about the commercial aspects.
Under the Consumer Rights Act, the consumers would be perfectly entitled to take action to gain redress for the way they were treated. Selling people regular seats and then putting them into jump seats (and moving them to run the service) is unlikely to go down well with a judge. So anyone criticising the consumers for seeking proper compensation is well off the reality. I don't blame them for taking pix for evidence, either, as the subsequent offer of £30 was derisory and sadly predictable - the airline industry does have a rep for behaving like cheapskates in this type of situation. To support this view from personal and recent experience, last year, my wife and I had booked premium economy seats on a TATL flight with a UK airline, who then cancelled the flight and then reinstated it with an all Y aircraft; amazingly, they didn't wish to accept a cancellation from us, despite this being an absolute right under EC261 and also falling foul of the CRA. Only when threatened with small claims action did they change their view. So my sympathy is with the pax here, they did not get what they paid for and they were right to go the press. |
Removed as per
|
use to be in this industry. Would not touch this situation with a 100 foot barge pool. I guess Cappy had the ability to foresee turb so pax could return to illegal fltatt. jump seats . NOT
This business has arrived at the bottom of the garbage pail. The people involved should hang their heads in same. 120 paxs req. 120 seats with seat belts and oxygen masks available. Fairly easy concept. |
Final 3 greens
About 5-7 years ago I made my first booking with a LoCo. Booking software insisted wife and myself could sit on same seat - couldn't change anything on-line. Contacted customer service, after the hour or more wait. Ask for refund, Told we have your money, f*** off (anticipating problems, I was recording the call). Had to issue a County Court summons, airline did not attend. Judgement in my favour. Airline didn't pay. Bailiffs instructed, who told me they would get payment. Seems its a regular occurrence, they turn up with bolt cutters for main gate early in the morning and a wheel clamp. They phone airline (they know the number as its regular), airline pay up. It worked for me, but I wonder how cost effective it really is, even if most people don't issue a summons. More concerning is in spring this year we need to fly same carrier as it is the only convenient carrier. Booked, no problem as far as I know, but entered my email address as a new user, it "welcomed me back" as a satisfied passenger. I will judge that after the flights! |
Originally Posted by old,not bold
(Post 10360421)
Yes, well, that's the meaning of "Responsible" that goes with the word you use, "Commander". If no-one on the flight deck knew of the developing situation (unlikely, surely?), it's because the CC did not feel they should tell them. Which raises all sorts of questions.
Not exactly good CRM and I suspect this incident will be making its way onto CRM syllabuses rather rapidly. |
Mrs Taylor added: 'The co-pilot came and sat with us on the floor and said he just wanted to thank us for our co-operation and understanding.''He said that how calm we were and he was so grateful because he would have had to, he would have missed the time slot take off.' 'We were once recruited and assessed for our judgement, these days we are recruited and assessed for our compliance' If the FO actually said that, it would appear that OTP is more prevalent in the crew's mind. Pilot in command means just that. It is why the law protects the Captain and indeed penalises him or her. The definition of strict liability ensures that pilots are required and held accountable to their actions. Whether or not this is illegal is best left to the regulator, the vexing element of this is that the flight crew were more concerned with slot maintenance and OTP which are rather lower down the hierarchy of concerns flight crew ought be focused on. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.