7 hour ground delay - Police board to calm pax?

[Bazz]

Here is a thumbnail of todays front cover of the ES. As you can see they have given the story the full tabloid treatment [n]

i would be wanting to kick the door open if i was kept on an aircraft when its tech and not moving for that long especially when your on a long haul flight with the long flight also ahead of you. You would have thought vs would have atleast off loaded the PAX. wouldnt the crew have to change aswell due to working leagal within their hours

Chris

Originally posted by virgin is the best
I do not believe all of the story. I know for a fact that the customers will have been given some type of food maybe not hot food but they will have been given something cold by law we have to also we will have given out water more than twice too again by law we have to. I would not believe the full story you know what the media us like.Remember the screaming crew memeber that the papers were saying she was shouting were going to die. That was also untrue. VS did not recieve any compliants about that from anyone. The onlything they recieved were letters saying what the papers had said was untrue. I know we dont handlw delayes very well sometimes but we do have a duty of care and we have guidlines we have to stick to. As for the customers being stuck onthe A/C if the crew and ground crew kept being told by the engineers that it was going to be fixed they why let people off to just spend another few hours boarding again.

Yup, it's silly season and not all of the reporting is likely to be 100% factual - however what no one seems to argue about is that some pax were on the plane for 7 1/2 hours, which is a lot. I think there should be a rule that says any delay of more than ??? 3 hours should be automatically offboarded until the plane can be returned to a fit state, that's a duty of care and would force operations to improve their performance and communication to save on delays. After all, stuck on the tarmac, in econ, with no IFE and no movement is awfully hellish.

Originally posted by FamilyMan
BBC News website has now picked this up here.

Isn't it about time there are some policies about when pax are out of hours. How long is it acceptable to sit on a plane on the tarmac. I appreciate that they were waiting for a part that could have arrived at any moment but at some point someone needs to see the PR issue looming and return the pax to the terminal.

Phil FM

Absolutely. I feel desperately sorry for the people who were caught in this situation. There should definitely be a time limit set - why were these people kept on the aircraft for? Common sense should have prevailed.

I would also be asking to leave the aircraft, the problem is at the moment walking off isn't possible for 'security' reasons. I realise that then involves offloading bags etc, but I can't think of many other areas where you're seemingly legally made to be a prisoner for 7 hours. But it should have been possible to offload pax back to the gate and have them there rather than sitting on the aircraft for so long, and if they pass through boarding controls again then there's no problem security wise surely?

This was very poorly handled, regardless. The publicity and brand detriment caused ( How many people on the aircraft said to themselves "We're not flying Virgin again!" ) are not good.

David.

ISTR there was a recent incident on a BA flight in Germany during a lengthy ground delay, where the plane had eventually returned to the stand and the door was open, the crew refused to let a businessman off the flight (he had missed his meeting, and there was no point continuing the trip).

As the crew had allowed mobile phone use - as the door was open - this person phoned the Police and said he was being detained against his will by BA.

The Police attended and ordered BA to let the businessman, and others who wished not to travel anymore, to disembark.

I guess the difference here is that Cuba is a B&S route, and people were going for a week or two.

If I was travelling just for a weekend in BOS or NY, and experienced such a lengthy delay, I would expect to be given the option to offload myself once the delay has gone into the "statutory refund" area (5 hours under the EU directive, I think).

Cheers,
Mike

Originally posted by mike-smashing
ISTR there was a recent incident on a BA flight in Germany during a lengthy ground delay, where the plane had eventually returned to the stand and the door was open, the crew refused to let a businessman off the flight (he had missed his meeting, and there was no point continuing the trip).

As the crew had allowed mobile phone use - as the door was open - this person phoned the Police and said he was being detained against his will by BA.

The Police attended and ordered BA to let the businessman, and others who wished not to travel anymore, to disembark.

I guess the difference here is that Cuba is a B&S route, and people were going for a week or two.

If I was travelling just for a weekend in BOS or NY, and experienced such a lengthy delay, I would expect to be given the option to offload myself once the delay has gone into the "statutory refund" area (5 hours under the EU directive, I think).

Cheers,
Mike

Slight off the original topic (and whatever the treatment whilst on board re: food and drink they were losing holiday time and I guess the IFE wasn't on - though ISTBC - so there'd be a good few bored people on that flight) having people decide they want to get off is a major headache. I've been on a flight where that happened and it meant:

- off load of hold baggage
- arrival of security staff and armed police
- every item on the aeroplane having to be associated with a passenger

and in the end we were all inconvenienced as the crew would have been over their time sometime in the flight so we ALL had to disembark and wait for another crew.

Paul

What an utter disaster for the V-S passengers and a total B***s up for V-S. I think a short sharp lesson should be learned from this. If the report is firstly correct is saying an engineer was still working on an engine when people originally boarded then this is the critical point of the fiasco. It should in my eyes be law that no pax are allowed on an aircraft know to have tech problems until its fixed. After all we donÕt sit in our cars at the garage when they go to be fixed do we? Secondly I agree about with others who have replied to this topic in saying water should be more frequently available than the MINIMUM that the law states that has to be given. And I also agree with Slinky09 in saying after three hours enough should have been enough and pax should be offloaded.

To give a bit perspective (on general delay handling... not this one incident).

If passengers are left on the plane its because the engineers think the plane can be fixed and deboarding would lead to further significant delays.

Same with food... if the crew are told the delay will be long enough for them to serve food they often will.

Rolling delays (where the delay starts at X minutes but keeps crawling back) are very difficult to handle.

If you pull the pax off and then suddenly the aircraft is serviceable you then risk loosing a possible slot. Same with serving food.

Some people have suggested that after a certain time scale it should be compulsary to let the passengers off... but again thats at least an extra hour of delay (minimum)... its everyones desire to see the aircraft leave as soon as possible. Particularly as you're coming towards the crews maximum hours, you need everything ready to go.

Its really easy with hindsight to say, 'yeah we could have got everyone off'.

Originally posted by V-Ben
To give a bit perspective (on general delay handling... not this one incident).

If passengers are left on the plane its because the engineers think the plane can be fixed and deboarding would lead to further significant delays.

My point Ben is not to put the passengers on in the first place if the aircraft is known to have a technical fault. Its says in the press and on this forum that when the aircraft was being boarded by the passengers an engineer was still working in one engine.

If the pax were not loaded in the first place then they would not have had to suffer.

{Edited by Bazz to close quotes}

My point Ben is not to put the passengers on in the first place if the aircraft is known to have a technical fault. Its says in the press and on this forum that when the aircraft was being boarded by the passengers an engineer was still working in one engine.

If the pax were not loaded in the first place then they would not have had to suffer.

Ahh, but thats only with hindsight.... you could also say, if they hadn't loaded the passengers, and the engineers fixed the problem quickly, they then get a slot but no one is on board... they miss this slot and then get a longer delay.

If at the time of boarding engineering advise that although they have something to replace it will only take a short time, ground crew have to board the aircraft so that as soon as its fixed they can get a slot and go.

From the article it appears the first problem was fixed and they then taxied for take off... so all good... only then to get another problem.

There are many many flights which board with engineers still doing something... afterall thats why the pilot walks around to check everything and may ask for something to be tweeked.

not a good day for VS to say the least. It is also interesting to see a number of VS staffers coming to their company's defence which at least shows good staff loyalty. However, it appears poorly handled if the pax were left on the plane for 7 hours. I just hope VS will use hindsight and properly look at the way it was handled, what went wrong and how they could do better.

My worry is this is symptomatic of a decline in VS standards. At one time VS would have put its hands up, said they got it wrong and compensate the pax properly without debate.

Now, they just look like any third rate charter operator who has very little regard for their passengers. I wonder if the same decisions would have been made if this was VS3 to New York full of UC pax?

Why on earth do you say that this is not a good day for virgin? This sort of thing happens every day at every airport in the world. If the captain says the aircraft should not go, i'm with him.
I'd rather praise VS and their engineering team for trying to get the aircraft airborne within the crews hours.
Its not a coach or a bus and the aircraft can't stay on stand and pay a parking fine. It has to leave its stand with or without passengers. and it may not get a stand when its ready.
Fair play to virgin and lets hope the passengers who threatened crew with violence are dealt with accordingly. Scumbags.

wonder if the press would have preferred to report an airline disaster due to an over inflated tyre exploding on touchdown, off course the headlines would be something like,

disater could have been averted if pilot had heeded warning from the tower not to take off.

Originally posted by dom
Why on earth do you say that this is not a good day for virgin? This sort of thing happens every day at every airport in the world. If the captain says the aircraft should not go, i'm with him.
I'd rather praise VS and their engineering team for trying to get the aircraft airborne within the crews hours.
Its not a coach or a bus and the aircraft can't stay on stand and pay a parking fine. It has to leave its stand with or without passengers. and it may not get a stand when its ready.
Fair play to virgin and lets hope the passengers who threatened crew with violence are dealt with accordingly. Scumbags.

We due respect, this sort of thing does not happen every day at every airport in the world - it is fortunately a rare occurrence. I am happy to say that in over 30 years of air travel I have never been stuck on an aircraft for 7 hours because of a technical fault.

It is a bad day for Virgin, because whatever the actual truth, it is not good PR for an airline to make headline news for the wrong reasons and to have around 300 upset passengers.

Also, there is no evidence that any crew was threatened with violence - it again is the media spin on their version of events.

I also think the use of the word S*****gs in your post is entirely unnecessary

V-Ben hit the nail on the head, it's always a difficult call when dealing with tech issues. It's easier to offload pax, than to delay boarding if you in the middle of trouble shooting a defect that would appear to have a quick fix. The is exagerated by the current security state. As an engineer ALL fingers point to you for delaying the boarding of pax on a flight, if you get a fix & the aircraft loses it's slot it's a delay & the pax complain. If you board the pax & they sit on board whilst you fix the defect & they get a delay the pax complain. You can't win.

I think a seven hour delay is a little OTT and the crew should have said "hey this is taking too long let's get the pax off"

Plus this is a relatively new route and I read the Mirror and the Evening Standard and it doesn't do good PR with just a comment from VS saying it was 'exceptional circumstances' Given the competition on the route then I would hope the do something special for the delayed pax.

Why, when the crew did their external "walk around" was the misshappen tyre not noticed?[:0][?]

Must agree that the press were OTT in thier reporting, there were never any serious problems just a few passengers at the rear of the cabin being vocal.

I must agree why disembark passengers when it takes such a time to reboard and you may loose a take off slot and be delayed further?! We had a minor problem with BA last October it took about 40 minutes to sort and then we were off. But had we been taken off no doubt this would of turned into a 2+ hour additional delay as we were at a remote stand for the plane to be fixed.

Claire

What about the crew, I'm sure they could have found much more pleasant ways of spending 7 hours?;)

VS.

I have been stuck on VS7 for over 7 hours in January 2003 because BAA didn't have enough de-icers. Appalling; we were offered drinks and sandwiches and watched scooby doo. Passengers were offered hotels ect but then so were thousands of other people trapped at heathrow. I simply went back home and the flight was rescheduled for 10 am the following day.

Vs gave us all 10% off a next flight.

Originally posted by Denzil
V-Ben hit the nail on the head, it's always a difficult call when dealing with tech issues. It's easier to offload pax, than to delay boarding if you in the middle of trouble shooting a defect that would appear to have a quick fix. The is exagerated by the current security state. As an engineer ALL fingers point to you for delaying the boarding of pax on a flight, if you get a fix & the aircraft loses it's slot it's a delay & the pax complain. If you board the pax & they sit on board whilst you fix the defect & they get a delay the pax complain. You can't win.

Sorry I donÕt agree that itÕs easier to offload than it is to delay boarding. Anyway if it were easier to offload how come it took 7 hours? The current security state would have little impact on the situation as all pax, luggage, crew and content on aircraft had already been security checked and passed and the terminal departures should be a secure environment for disembarked pax to stay whilst waiting for a tech fix.

I just can't wait to see what the actual passengers have to say when they get back. I am sure they would not be grateful for being kept on an aircraft for 7 hours whilst multiple tech problems are fixed.

As has been pointed out, this is a rare occurence (thankfully).

The night before we left for LAX we were talking to some BA Pax who were 4 hours into a flight to the Caribbean when the captain turned the plane round and flew back to LHR because of a fault with the windscreen.

Reason the plane returned was that although they could have got a part to the destination, the had no maintenance facilities there who could fix it at short notice.

These Pax therefore had to put up with an 8 hour flight, landing back where they started off. A night in a heathrow hotel and then a 7 hour flight the next day. For the most part the ones we chatted to were in remarkably good spirits.

Be interesting to see what the VS PAX are offered.

Jon B

I'm sympathetic to the whole rolling delay thing - because in my day job I can be in a position where I'm managing rolling system outages that might sometimes seem to drag on and on.

One thing we've done to better manage this sort of thing - especially from a communications viewpoint - is to try and avoid the rolling outage in the first place.

When some bad thing happens, the first thing we try and do is an immediate (<5 minute) assessment of the problem/situation, estimate an impact, and set a "review time" within the next 30 minutes, and communicate the above to the impacted customers.

If the immediate attempts at fixing don't work, or we hit the 30 minute mark, we have to review where we are, and make a conservative rather than optimistic estimate of time to repair.

This may be as far as two or three hours into the future - even if might be able to do it sooner, if everything goes to plan and we're lucky.

What we found was that if engineers weren't made to do this, they often gave optimistic estimates, failed to meet them, and then got into what I call the "I can fix this soon, I'm sure", rat-hole.

So, applying this to the tech fault on a plane, for example, if engineering say, "Okay, it's going to take about 3 hours at most", given the information they have, then you've got a known target to work toward. Flight ops go looking for a slot 3 hours away, and can arrange extra crew if necessary. If the pax are already boarded, the crew can serve food and refreshments, and make arrangements to have the plane re-catered, and if they aren't, they get to stay in the airport a bit longer, or in the Clubhouse if they are really lucky!

If the problem is fixed sooner, then great, but the flight still goes at or around the revised departure time.

Having been through two 5 hour rolling delays like this, it's not especially great, the "We're going soon, it will be okay, just be patient" bit. Though on one of those, I spent at least half the delay in the Clubhouse (because it went 1hr late, then 3hrs, then 5hrs), and on the other one, we were fed and watered.

Cheers,
Mike

jerseyboy, i guess it would be a good idea for you to spend the day as an aircraft engineer, then you might understand. Modern aircraft are very reliable, but can still have faults. The airlines are all run by accountants who hate spending $XXX on a spare part that just sits on a rack at Heathrow, hence parts are shipped from station to station or taken "on loan" from other airlines.

As for offloading the pax, if this takes place the aircraft has to have a security check & there is not always anywhere for them to go to.

Bottom line is that it's better to fly 7 hours late in a serviceable aircraft, that will not be tech at outstation than on time with a serious defect.

[preiffer]

Originally posted by Denzil
Bottom line is that it's better to fly 7 hours late in a serviceable aircraft, that will not be tech at outstation than on time with a serious defect.

Denzil, NOBODY is disputing that. I fear you may have misread people's concerns.

This is NOTHING to do with people wanting to fly with a defect - this is about people being trapped on board for 7 hours, before even leaving the airport.

Engineering & safety are not the main issues in this thread - customer service and passenger comfort are.