Big gamble asked of passengers on flight

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

PaulB

Legendary Member
Location
Colne
On Monday at 1am (same time as here) our Thomson flight was due to take off from Las Palmas in Gran Canaria. This was going to be bad enough as it was, getting us home at around 5.30am to Manchester. What happened next was absolutely awful.

We sat there, anxious to get away from a very quiet airport for almost an hour sat on the runway in an uncomfortably hot cylinder. Calculations of car-parking charges, awaiting taxis/friends/relatives/train times etc.. when the pilot at last came over and told us one escape chute, opertated by a door opening, didn't indicate it was on. It didn't indicate it was off either. He then told us that the only way the plane could take off in that condition was for 59 passengers to leave the plane! What would you have done?

They orgnaised the best alternative, which was to have the 59 'volunteers' to get off the plane and catch the adjacent plane headed for Bournemouth. This meant they would arrive in the UK but needed a coach back from there to Manchester. I can only empathise with those on the half-empty Bournemouth-bound plane unable to take off anywhere near their scheduled time until they had an extra 59 passengers board their flight.

Only a few souls volunteered and nowhere near 59. They then told us we had to get off the plane. What they did was frankly terrible. They didn't need to de-board us but assumed this would speed up the numbers. They also told us a complete lie. they put us up against the clock. They needed something like another 34 volunteers in the next 15 minutes or the Manchester plane would not be taking off and the rest of the passengers will be stuck here for at least 14 hours! Some had babies and small children with them, no milk or food and the shops had all closed. This pre-empted some to take the risk and head for the Bournemouth plane. Some passengers applauded these people, all of us now wanting more to volunteer if it didn't include us.

Eventually, 57 people had agreed to go through the awfulness of being flown 300 miles from their destination airport and luggage and the requirement of a coach back home. I suggested that now their were fewer passengers, fewer air-waitresses were needed so two of them should volunteer. But the vapid 'rules and regulations' mantra was thrown at us. How come they were regarded as sacrosanct and it was only a proportion of the plane passengers who had to make this sacrifice?

All in all, it was a terrible time, stuck in a closed airport, having to re-board a plane and sit in arbitrarily chosen places (allocated by the most stupid air-waitresses I've ever come across) as rows of seats nearest the malfunctioning (properly functioning?) door were taped off.

We eventually took off at 4.50 am on a scheduled 1.10 am flight.

It was delightful, as I'm sure you can all imagine.
 
Location
Edinburgh
Sorry mate, but it sounds like they tried to make the best of the situation. These regs are there for a purpose. I would have probably volunteered myself, especially if the onward transport was laid on if only to get away from people who think thier comfort if more important than passenger safety.
 
OP
OP
PaulB

PaulB

Legendary Member
Location
Colne
Sorry mate, but it sounds like they tried to make the best of the situation. These regs are there for a purpose. I would have probably volunteered myself, especially if the onward transport was laid on if only to get away from people who think thier comfort if more important than passenger safety.

What a load of compliant bollocks. No offence.
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
I make Touche right. I'm can't think of a better way of going about things - other than to swap planes and have the Bournemouth lot go on your plane and you go on the Bournemouth plane - but I presume that the luggage was loaded.
 
OP
OP
PaulB

PaulB

Legendary Member
Location
Colne
No offence taken, but I am getting fed up with people complaining over minor inconveniances like you have done. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture than you own selfish needs. No offence.

How self-righteous. You weren't there so didn't go through the massive inconvenience we had but the even worse inconvenience the passengers asked to travel instead to Bournemouth were 'invited' to go through. The duty airport manager told those of us more vociferous in our opinions that we were totally correct and that as the pilot hadn't had an indication that the chute was defective, only one that didn't indicate it was ok was fretting over the malfunction of a light bulb and should treat the situation accordingly. How many times, for instance, have you had to exit a plane down a chute? Additionally, those gullible enough to accept the appalling air-waitresses assurances that they would be bussed back to Manchester and their luggage from 300+ miles away were too glaikit to demand compensation. It's a truism of life that we get what we settle for, and so they did.
 

Davidc

Guru
Location
Somerset UK
Doesn't sound like a gamble or an awful situation at all, just following the rules that make being on an aeroplane the safest place on (or nearly on) the planet, and giving everyone the most sensible choices as options.
 
OP
OP
PaulB

PaulB

Legendary Member
Location
Colne
I make Touche right. I'm can't think of a better way of going about things - other than to swap planes and have the Bournemouth lot go on your plane and you go on the Bournemouth plane - but I presume that the luggage was loaded.

Luggage loaded? What do you mean? You don't presume they took their luggage off our plane (which they didn't travel on but their luggage, in fact, did) and put on theirs? You can forget the plane taking off for a couple of days, that being the case. I was once on a plane at Heathrow minus one passenger. We were delayed by almost two hours while his luggage was located and taken off. Can you imagine how long, at 1am in the morning and no incoming flights for five hours (so no luggage handlers) that would have taken? It was never, illegally AFIK not addressed. At all.
 
Location
Edinburgh
How self-righteous. You weren't there so didn't go through the massive inconvenience we had but the even worse inconvenience the passengers asked to travel instead to Bournemouth were 'invited' to go through. The duty airport manager told those of us more vociferous in our opinions that we were totally correct and that as the pilot hadn't had an indication that the chute was defective, only one that didn't indicate it was ok was fretting over the malfunction of a light bulb and should treat the situation accordingly. How many times, for instance, have you had to exit a plane down a chute? Additionally, those gullible enough to accept the appalling air-waitresses assurances that they would be bussed back to Manchester and their luggage from 300+ miles away were too glaikit to demand compensation. It's a truism of life that we get what we settle for, and so they did.


Get some perspective.

Massive inconveniance my arse! A bit of a flight delay and having to get off the plane and back on, but not to seats you were originally allocated. If more people had opted for the alternative, yiu would have been away sooner. Compare this to the massive inconveniance if the chute had been needed to get out quickly or as use as a raft. OK this wasn't needed, but had it been you would have either been fried or boiled. I have had to evacute on one. An engine caught fire prior to takeoff and we had to get out. I missed a meeting in London, but I made the one at home that night tucking my kids in bed.

Obvoiusly the airport duty manager was the expert in aircraft maintenence and flight risk assesment to be able to pass the opinion he did. That's why he manages an airport when it is not busy rather than flying a plane. I would rather take my risk assesment from someone who has his own life on the line and has a duty of care to his passengers.
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
Luggage loaded? What do you mean? You don't presume they took their luggage off our plane (which they didn't travel on but their luggage, in fact, did) and put on theirs? You can forget the plane taking off for a couple of days, that being the case. I was once on a plane at Heathrow minus one passenger. We were delayed by almost two hours while his luggage was located and taken off. Can you imagine how long, at 1am in the morning and no incoming flights for five hours (so no luggage handlers) that would have taken? It was never, illegally AFIK not addressed. At all.
What I meant was........it would have caused a considerable delay to all the passengers had the luggage been taken off both planes and been swapped over. That was all....
 

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
Massive gamble? not seeing it and I assume that part of the delays were due to the lack of volunteers and that you hadn't volunteered yourself?

Obviously you feel that this was all 'jobsworth' stuff and that any sensible person would have set the regulations aside and got you home as you expected, indeed were entitled to. But could you explain the upside for the pilot in this? were they trying to deliberately arrive later, or not at all, to avoid some personal difficulty? did they hold a personal grudge against one of the passengers?

Did you all sit there playing a weird game of chicken, silently bristling your right to remain on the original flight while transmitting your disgust at the amount of thiose, with less entitlement, that were refusing to volunteer? Or did you get vocal and blame everyone else while trumpeting loud and clear that a detour just wasn't possible for you?

Sorry I'm just not getting the big problem here
 
They orgnaised the best alternative, which was to have the 59 'volunteers' to get off the plane and catch the adjacent plane headed for Bournemouth. This meant they would arrive in the UK but needed a coach back from there to Manchester. I can only empathise with those on the half-empty Bournemouth-bound plane unable to take off anywhere near their scheduled time until they had an extra 59 passengers board their flight.

I suggested that now their were fewer passengers, fewer air-waitresses were needed so two of them should volunteer. But the vapid 'rules and regulations' mantra was thrown at us. How come they were regarded as sacrosanct and it was only a proportion of the plane passengers who had to make this sacrifice?

Sounds horrid but I'd have volunteered on the hope that a free flight would be thrown in. I know on overbooked flights if you are denied boarding you are normally given a free ticket to use as well as being booked on a following flight.

Not sure why a coach not a train, but that's just me.

Lastly I'm sure the air-waitresses have to be kept at a minimum level so that they can all do their parts of the safety procedure in case the plane falls out the sky - not just so you can all have your peanuts on time. So I think they were justified in that.
 

Paulus

Started young, and still going.
Location
Barnet,
No doubt the pilot would of been well within his rights to say that the plane would not be taking off at all, and you can all find another plane to go on. He was probably working on a set ruling that there was enough shutes for a set number of people. Just think of the ensuing court case where the airline company blames the pilot/ crew for any deaths/injuries because he/she did not follow the aviation rules.
 
Top Bottom