Ryanair hold Pax on aircraft

CaptainSkidmark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASDuLY3F4v0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DASDuLY3F4v0&app=desktop

Interesting video here, Personally i blame the airport staff for locking up and having not a care in the world about the passengers

View Profile

The Captain could have dealt with that situation a LOT better.

kona

Comical

Cessna_Pilot

Comical yes. But from the STN/MAG side. From what I can make of this, the airport, ground handling company allowed the pax onto the aircraft, then closed the airport.
The captain does say early on that he's been onto the ground ops people and once they arrive the pax are free to leave. Ground ops/airport personnel never appear. As much as people may like to believe, from the information in the public domain at this stage, the airline are not at fault here.

Maybe the captain should have called the cops himself!

kona

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

Comical yes. But from the STN/MAG side. From what I can make of this, the airport, ground handling company allowed the pax onto the aircraft, then closed the airport.
The captain does say early on that he's been onto the ground ops people and once they arrive the pax are free to leave. Ground ops/airport personnel never appear. As much as people may like to believe, from the information in the public domain at this stage, the airline are not at fault here.

Maybe the captain should have called the cops himself!

Is the captain not the person who is responsible? They are on the aircraft at this stage?

Cessna_Pilot

kona wrote: »

Is the captain not the person who is responsible? They are on the aircraft at this stage?

Once onboard his aircraft he is indeed. But with not many options to let the passengers disembark, which it seemed he desired to do as he knew the aircraft was going nowhere, but his efforts were hindered by external factors ie Airport/handling company.

Kavs8

Split responsibility on the ground, flight dispatcher 50%, captain 50%. Flight dispatcher was no where to be seen, and to be honest I fully agree with Cessna_Pilot - Swissport are an absolute joke for starters anyway. But as for the cabin crew member replying to a passenger who asked for food ''I'm not on duty'' what was he thinking? comical and stems from the management style at FR which will not be as easily eroded as MOL thinks.

In this case however - MAG and Swissport are fully at fault.

kona

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

Once onboard his aircraft he is indeed. But with not many options to let the passengers disembark, which it seemed he desired to do as he knew the aircraft was going nowhere, but his efforts were hindered by external factors ie Airport/handling company.

How would you even manage to get yourself in that position, surely somebody had to make the call that they were not getting out? And go to plan B and let the passengers know in the terminal? **** communication and even worse management.
The captain should have given out drinks and left the packs running to make it better. But other than that what can he do? Like would he have sat there all night if the police didnt come?

urajoke

I love the way people are automatically blaming the airline and the pilot.

It's a poor video deliberately edited to prove one sides point, that the airline are at fault.

The flight is delayed because of poor weather all day (tough but they weren't the only ones that day), she then says they are allowed board when the flight arrives. They are planning on fueling with the passengers onboard to save a few minutes. But for some reason (possibly edited out, note she also says WTF at the aircraft fueling AGAIN like it only needs fuel once a day) this doesn't happen. As Ryanair contracts out handling/fueling to 3rd parties it's out of their hands. Obviously when the passengers are boarded and the count is right the handler up sticks and sends everyone home.

At this point the pilots and CC are left dealing with the GH's/fueling mess.

Time goes by in these situations very fast, the passengers are onboard in the middle of the night mind for 3 hours, they can't just get off the plane and walk away. The GH has probably told the airport thee flight has left and they have let all the staff go home. You need security to make sure no one nicks anything or causes trouble and to watch the staff. You need baggage handlers to off load the bags and process them. Etc etc etc.

Yes it takes the calling of police to force the issue but the pilot was probably left sitting on his hands by the ops dep/airport/GH.

This has happened the world over. It's happened to Ryanair a fee times and to large mainline US airlines.

It's not pretty and I certainly hope it never happens to me.

Do I blame Ryanair, No I blame the ground handler 75% and Ryanair 25%.

ProfessorPlum

I don't understand how the flight can be dispatched if it's not been fueled. Where's the load sheet? And what's the trim going to be? I agree the ground handling is awful and clearly should not have closed the airport with the flight still on the ground, but also the captain should never have let them close the flight until he knew he was going to be able to dispatch.
A mighty fcuk up all round I think.

Kavs8

The flight was never released that's the point, the handling agent allowed the flight to be boarded and then f*cked off!

A Dub in Glasgo

I do hope they sack the handling agents responsible for that carry on

strettyend

urajoke wrote: »

I love the way people are automatically blaming the airline and the pilot.

It's a poor video deliberately edited to prove one sides point, that the airline are at fault.

The flight is delayed because of poor weather all day (tough but they weren't the only ones that day), she then says they are allowed board when the flight arrives. They are planning on fueling with the passengers onboard to save a few minutes. But for some reason (possibly edited out, note she also says WTF at the aircraft fueling AGAIN like it only needs fuel once a day) this doesn't happen. As Ryanair contracts out handling/fueling to 3rd parties it's out of their hands. Obviously when the passengers are boarded and the count is right the handler up sticks and sends everyone home.

At this point the pilots and CC are left dealing with the GH's/fueling mess.

Time goes by in these situations very fast, the passengers are onboard in the middle of the night mind for 3 hours, they can't just get off the plane and walk away. The GH has probably told the airport thee flight has left and they have let all the staff go home. You need security to make sure no one nicks anything or causes trouble and to watch the staff. You need baggage handlers to off load the bags and process them. Etc etc etc.

Yes it takes the calling of police to force the issue but the pilot was probably left sitting on his hands by the ops dep/airport/GH.

This has happened the world over. It's happened to Ryanair a fee times and to large mainline US airlines.

It's not pretty and I certainly hope it never happens to me.

Do I blame Ryanair, No I blame the ground handler 75% and Ryanair 25%.

regardless who is right or wrong in this case it cannot be denied that Ryanair have a very poor record when it comes to customer service and looking after people when they are stranded in one of their planes for hours on end. There has been numerous complaints from passengers who have found themselves in similiar situations and have complained of not getting anything to drink or eat for hours on end. I don't care how much you get the flight for everyone should be entitled to the basic right of food and water. sometimes the cheapest is not always the best. personally I prefer to go with a proper airline where you are treated like a human.

KnotABother

strettyend wrote: »

. personally I prefer to go with a proper airline where you are treated like a human.

I've flown as a passenger 8 times this year...4 with RYR and 4 with other carriers. RYR had me there on time or early for a fraction of the price however the other carriers had me there late and made a total hash of my onward travel plans. One so called "proper carrier" had us at the other end so late all the transport from the airport was finished for the night and a lot of us had to wait 4 hours for it to start again!

The woman filming here is a moron! When told she cannot film in the terminal she says "I don't care what they say" for someone banging on about her right she seems a little thin on the law! I also love the bright spark(see what I did there?) smoking on the apron....

Gary Brogan

If I'm a passenger in that situation I couldn't give less of a shít about MAG or Swissport.

The PAX paid Ryanair to take them from A to B, not Swissport or MAG (at least not directly). Ryanair sets the bar in terms of how the passengers should be handled, they in turn contract that out to their handling agent. So whether MAG or Swissport are to blame, Ryanair are answerable to their own passengers.

The soft and cuddly hasn't permeated every fibre yet :cool:

KnotABother

Gary Brogan wrote: »

If I'm a passenger in that situation I couldn't give less of a shít about MAG or Swissport.

The PAX paid Ryanair to take them from A to B, not Swissport or MAG (at least not directly). Ryanair sets the bar in terms of how the passengers should be handled, they in turn contract that out to their handling agent. So whether MAG or Swissport are to blame, Ryanair are answerable to their own passengers.

The soft and cuddly hasn't permeated every fibre yet :cool:

Ryanair pay Swissport to handle the ground issues which they mishandled in this case.

ProfessorPlum

KnotABother wrote: »

Ryanair pay Swissport to handle the ground issues which they mishandled in this case.

That's true, but the poster is right. Pax contract is with Ryanair, if Ryanair want to outsource or use other services, they are responsible for making sure they are adequate. The handling was appalling, Ryanair will have to take some responsibility for its agents.

urajoke

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

That's true, but the poster is right. Pax contract is with Ryanair, if Ryanair want to outsource or use other services, they are responsible for making sure they are adequate. The handling was appalling, Ryanair will have to take some responsibility for its agents.

They most likely will and then pass on the pain to the handling agent as usually happens.

urajoke

It's funny reading some of the responses here, it's still amazes me that passengers think when they pay a few euro for a flight that they will get five star service. If you pay for a two star hotel what do you expect, if you buy a tesco value meal do you expect Michelin star food,

I have often flown with another airline and got terrible service, thankfully the only time I have had a delay NOT through the flying harps fault I got very good customer service but their again I was polite to their rep and was looked after. Sometimes it how YOU approach these things.

Gary Brogan

urajoke wrote: »

It's funny reading some of the responses here, it's still amazes me that passengers think when they pay a few euro for a flight that they will get five star service. If you pay for a two star hotel what do you expect, if you buy a tesco value meal do you expect Michelin star food,

I have often flown with another airline and got terrible service, thankfully the only time I have had a delay NOT through the flying harps fault I got very good customer service but their again I was polite to their rep and was looked after. Sometimes it how YOU approach these things.

If I pay for a two star hotel I expect basic accommodation. Not to be detained in my room without drinking water or proper ventilation.

I think this particular issue goes beyond the usual "Ryanair are pigs and EI are lovely" debate.

Cookiemunster

Gary Brogan wrote: »

If I pay for a two star hotel I expect basic accommodation. Not to be detained in my room without drinking water or proper ventilation.

I think this particular issue goes beyond the usual "Ryanair are pigs and EI are lovely" debate.

But if the ulility companies go on strike and there's no water or electricity, is that the hotels fault?

Gary Brogan

Cookiemunster wrote: »

But if the ulility companies go on strike and there's no water or electricity, is that the hotels fault?

Of course not.

I'd be concerned if the hotel expected you to stay with them if you couldn't see or wash yourself though.

My point is that customers don't care about the back of house stuff, they want to get where they are going and their contract for that is with the airline. The airline has to manage their suppliers to achieve that.

rubberdiddies

Gary Brogan wrote: »

If I'm a passenger in that situation I couldn't give less of a shít about MAG or Swissport.

The PAX paid Ryanair to take them from A to B, not Swissport or MAG (at least not directly). Ryanair sets the bar in terms of how the passengers should be handled, they in turn contract that out to their handling agent. So whether MAG or Swissport are to blame, Ryanair are answerable to their own passengers.

The soft and cuddly hasn't permeated every fibre yet :cool:

i'm an advocate of Ryanair. I fly with them several times a year and have never had a problem.

However I agree with this poster. A passengers contract in this case was with Ryanair and not the ground handling agents or the airport authority etc.

Ryanair have been around long enough, and particularly at Stansted, to have procedures in place for this sort of thing. They should have out of hours contacts with the ground handling agents/airport etc. It seemed that if the passengers had not got the police involved, they would have been on the plane all night. That is not correct and surely there is a law against being held against your will, being denied food and bathroom facilities?

If the ground handlers are at fault here then Ryanair should punish them severely. Granted, not all publicity is bad publicity, but with Ryanair working on improving their image and customer service, this is a step back for them. They need to make a statement outlining what happened and what they have done about it to stop it happening again.

These incidents are few and far between, particularly when you consider they carry 85mil pax per year. but of course because it's Ryanair, it will get huge publicity.

However as a parent to young children who has taken late evening flights before, I would hate to think of them being stuck on a plane with no access to toilet facilities and no food or drink.

EDIT: actually, on that point, does anyone know what a passenger can and cannot do when being held on a plane but wanting to get off? If someone genuinely wants to get off the plane, do they have to be allowed? Is there a point at which they have to be allowed off?

EDIT AGAIN: as I was writing this, Ryanair released a statement which contained "Ryanair sincerely apologised to all passengers affected by these adverse weather delays, which were outside of our control. With this flight and every flight we always work hard to get our customers to their destination."

Now, the weather had nothing to do with the issue shown in the video. The weather affected the departure time of the flight, yes, but it had nothing to do with the PAX being stuck on the plane until 3.30am. Not sure why they are trying to spin this and not address the actual issue.

As a person who generally always writes positively about Ryanair, this issue, particularly the spin they have just released, is frustrating

Kavs8

Always makes me wonder why nobody stands up, opens an armed door and goes down the slide in these situations, don't think Ryanair would have much going for them if it ever saw an appearance in court!

Then again this youtube video could be seen as a commercial;

''Stansted to Stansted in less than 8 hours. For only 99 pounds. Ryanair. A service you will remember.''

ProfessorPlum

Kavs8 wrote: »

Always makes me wonder why nobody stands up and opens an armed door and goes down the slide in these situations, don't think Ryanair would have much going for them if it ever saw an appearance in court!

I think that would be a really bad idea. It's dangerous, and there would be a good case against whoever opened the door for endangering passengers. Ryanair could rightly go after them for costs related to maintanence, and of course refuse to carry the passenger in the future.

SpaceTime

From a passenger's point of view, it's irrelevant who is operating ground services (as has been pointed out.

Many, many companies have suppliers providing part of their service. It's completely irrelevant to the customers.

I mean, do customers know who provides the fibre service to their mobile phone operator or which company maintains their switching equipment for them? Or would they care fi the service went down or would they just blame the mobile operator?

Do you want to know who supplies your supermarket's refrigeration service or till system?

You pay a branded company for the service and how they provide that service or who is involved in building the product is pretty much entirely their problem. You have no relationship with their suppliers.

---

What I'm getting sick of though is 'security' being used as an excuse for treating people unbelievably badly.

Those passengers should have been disembarked into the terminal by the airport authority when it became clear they weren't moving anywhere.

There were people being told they couldn't leave the airport in that video too. Why? What did they do? It's highly unlikely anyone on that flight wouldn't have permission to enter the UK.

This is an intra-EU flight, there are no major issues with visas, passports or anything else.

Also every one of them has been security screened already, as have their bags. So, letting them back into the terminal and into the departures area is absolutely no risk whatsoever to anyone.

It's like passengers are now treated like as if they're being transported on Conair internal prisoner transfer flights or something and everyone's assumed to be a potential drug-sumuggling terrorist at all times.

Treating people like human beings and like paying customers shouldn't be something we have to ask for!

Honestly, how hard would it have been to off load the passengers and let them sit in the departures lounge or go grab a coffee, a bite to eat, go to the bathroom etc while this was sorted out.

I have no issue with security, but I have a major issue with it being used as an excuse for abysmal treatment of people for absolutely no logical reason other than that we've sleep walked into some kind of post 9/11 paranoia.

homerjay2005

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASDuLY3F4v0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DASDuLY3F4v0&app=desktop

Interesting video here, Personally i blame the airport staff for locking up and having not a care in the world about the passengers

if you blame the airport staff, then why the title blaming Ryanair????

anybody reading the thread, already has the wrong impression before they open it.

IngazZagni

If the airport is closed, what can they do? That's the responsibility of the airport and they didn't provide any services at that time of the morning. I would have thought an airport like Stansted would have a limited number of services 24/7. It seems like they didn't have any border patrol guys to allow them exit the airport? Very strange, a big mess indeed. However one thing you have to remember. The staff on board in no way want to be in that situation either and if they had the power to do things differently they would have but it seems like they were as helpless as the pax.

ProfessorPlum

IngazZagni wrote: »

If the airport is closed, what can they do? That's the responsibility of the airport and they didn't provide any services at that time of the morning. I would have thought an airport like Stansted would have a limited number of services 24/7. It seems like they didn't have any border patrol guys to allow them exit the airport? Very strange, a big mess indeed. However one thing you have to remember. The staff on board in no way want to be in that situation either and if they had the power to do things differently they would have but it seems like they were as helpless as the pax.

Agree with a lot of what you're saying. I suppose, if it had of been handled better earlier, and timely decisions made regarding weather there was a reasonable expectation of the flight actually departing, things might have worked out better. I imagine there must have been a lot of pressure on the crew from the company not to cancel the flight.

KnotABother

Surely the Captain does not have the authority to let them into the terminal(it would appear it was locked too). He has the authority to let them off his aircraft but then you have 100+ people wandering around an apron no doubt whinging about the cold and as happened here lighting up a few cigs or relieving themselves(there's always one) somewhere. Keeping them on the aircraft given there was nothing else that could be done with them was the safest and best course of action. It is clear from the video that there was a pretty well defined nest of arseholes on that plane who would complain and argue over the colour of ****. Some people fly with Ryanair to satisfy their need to complain and be unhappy it seems.

At the end of the day it has to be asked, what could Ryanair have done differently here?

rubberdiddies

KnotABother wrote: »

At the end of the day it has to be asked, what could Ryanair have done differently here?

they could and should (ass ALL airlines should) have a plan in place to deal with this type of circumstance. Surely if the airport is 'closed', there should be a procedure in place to reopen it.
eg:
step 1. Captain contacts airport/ground crew out of hours contact
step 2. Captain contacts Airline HQ
step 3. Airline HQ escalates higher up the chain, etc etc

This is how things work in my industry. If we have an outage, we call for support. if support don't respond, we have a procedure to escalate that goes right up to CEO level if required.

I'd be surprised if something like this wasn't in place for the airline industry, particularly with such a big airport. Maybe it is and hasn't been communicated well?

basill

Or maybe if the punter wants to fly for 99p then they need to understand that corners get cut somewhere in order to deliver them a cheap product. In this case it would appear its out of hours service.

rubberdiddies

basill wrote: »

Or maybe if the punter wants to fly for 99p then they need to understand that corners get cut somewhere in order to deliver them a cheap product. In this case it would appear its out of hours service.

in that case Ryanair should clarify whether or not a cost issue caused this problem.

i'd be very surprised as Ryanair must be the largest or second largest carrier at stansted and surely have some clout?
Also, this not only affected their passengers but their crew as well.

djmcr

KnotABother wrote: »

Surely the Captain does not have the authority to let them into the terminal(it would appear it was locked too). He has the authority to let them off his aircraft but then you have 100+ people wandering around an apron no doubt whinging about the cold and as happened here lighting up a few cigs or relieving themselves(there's always one) somewhere. Keeping them on the aircraft given there was nothing else that could be done with them was the safest and best course of action. It is clear from the video that there was a pretty well defined nest of arseholes on that plane who would complain and argue over the colour of ****. Some people fly with Ryanair to satisfy their need to complain and be unhappy it seems.

At the end of the day it has to be asked, what could Ryanair have done differently here?

well said Michael

notharrypotter

Can someone please post a link to the scheduled opening hours for the day concerned.

EI-DOR

Going by Stansted's Website:

Stansted Facts And Figures


Operating hours

• 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
• Night quota restrictions apply during period 23:30 - 06:00

KnotABother

rubberdiddies wrote: »

they could and should (ass ALL airlines should) have a plan in place to deal with this type of circumstance. Surely if the airport is 'closed', there should be a procedure in place to reopen it.
eg:
step 1. Captain contacts airport/ground crew out of hours contact
step 2. Captain contacts Airline HQ
step 3. Airline HQ escalates higher up the chain, etc etc

This is how things work in my industry. If we have an outage, we call for support. if support don't respond, we have a procedure to escalate that goes right up to CEO level if required.

I'd be surprised if something like this wasn't in place for the airline industry, particularly with such a big airport. Maybe it is and hasn't been communicated well?

I believe the captain states that he has contacted the handling agents and is waiting for them to come out. Even the police contacted the agents and to no avail. To me having the civil authorities show up and still be unable to actually get the passengers off and inside without having to resort breaking and entering is pretty high up the chain.

rubberdiddies

KnotABother wrote: »

I believe the captain states that he has contacted the handling agents and is waiting for them to come out. Even the police contacted the agents and to no avail. To me having the civil authorities show up and still be unable to actually get the passengers off and inside without having to resort breaking and entering is pretty high up the chain.

if that is what happened, and I have presumed that this was the case all along, then Ryanair should really hold them publicly accountable rather than take the blame themselves via trial by media.

didn't affect my perception of them anyways. i ended up booking another flight today!

EI-DOR

didn't affect my perception of them anyways. i ended up booking another flight today!

Likewise. Though booking a flight soon with them!

Tangey99

Let me start by saying I don't have much idea about who's responsibility starts and ends where.

However, if the pilot is talking to Airport ATC, and everyone knows that the plane is going nowhere, at some point does ATC (either acting on their own impetus, or being requested to do so by the captain) not contact airport admin authorities and explain that there are people stranded on a plane that has no earthly chance of taking off the rest of the night ?

In other words, regardless of any airline and handling agent issues, does the situation not come to the attention of whoever has ultimate control/responsibility of the airport ?

Kavs8

In short no, ATC in the UK would be NATS - They only contact really with them and the airport would be fire cover and airside ops ~ This was a handling issue nothing really to do with ATC. At more local airports for example Cork, of course ATC could contact a handler.

RYANAIR’S STATEMENT ON FR 8347 - 14TH FEBRUARY 2014

Due to strong winds across the South of England (14 Feb) over 20 airlines were forced to divert into Stansted from Heathrow and Gatwick airports which significantly disrupted handling and fuelling operations at Stansted. This Ryanair flight from London Stansted to Porto was delayed by the weather disruption and a subsequent fuelling delay at the airport.

After approximately two hours waiting for fuellers, the Captain requested the handling company (Swissport) to allow the passengers into the terminal which was locked. The Captain switched on the aircraft’s air conditioning while waiting for Swissport staff to arrive and the cabin crew provided water to passengers. When Swissport failed to arrive the Captain requested the police to let the passengers into the locked terminal. The police subsequently arrived and allowed the passengers into the terminal. Passengers were then provided with refreshment vouchers on Ryanair’s instructions.

The aircraft departed the following morning at 7.50am. Ryanair sincerely apologises to all passengers on this flight who were affected by this delay.

Ryanair wishes to correct several false claims in relation to this incident;

The claim that passengers had to call the police is untrue – the Captain called the police.
The claim that the air conditioning was not switched on is false – the Captain switched on the air conditioning.
The claim that passengers were held by Ryanair against their will is false – the Captain made every effort, first with the handling agent (Swissport) and then with the police, to arrange for passengers to be allowed into the terminal which was locked.
The claim that passengers were not provided with refreshment vouchers or water is untrue – Ryanair crew provided water to passengers on board and refreshment vouchers were issued to passengers following disembarkation.

---

SWISSPORT STATEMENT RE DELAY TO RYANAIR FLIGHT FR 8347 ON 14TH FEB 2014


The weather on Feb 14th has been recognized as one of the worst to hit the UK for decades with high winds causing travel chaos across the country.

Stansted Airport was one of the few airports around the country that was able to accept some diverted flights despite some reservations regarding the availability of turn-around facilities.

Due to extreme weather the inbound flight from Porto was initially diverted to East Midlands and arrived some 3 hours later at Stansted to collect the passengers for the flight to Porto.

Swissport and the airport were under considerable pressure with 30 additional diverted flights in addition to scheduled aircraft.

The flight was loaded, but fueling was not available. This caused the delay. Swissport staff were under extreme pressure dealing with an unprecedented level of flights and whilst we accept we should have unloaded the passengers sooner we simply had no one available to unload when contacted by the Captain.

Swissport regret any delay to passengers and to Ryanair. However, in extreme circumstances, our staff worked tirelessly to ensure that diverted flights were dealt with as soon as possible.

We are disappointed that even under these extreme conditions we fell short of our usual high standards.

~ENDS~

Some questions from the statement I believe Ryanair still need to address, whatever about food vouchers this was 3hrs after passengers had left the aircraft - they should have been given food onboard.

Growler!!!

Kavs8 wrote: »

Some questions from the statement I believe Ryanair still need to address, whatever about food vouchers this was 3hrs after passengers had left the aircraft - they should have been given food onboard.

In the airline I work for the ratio of sandwiches to pax is approx 1:9 after being catered. Even if at the beginning of 4 or 6 sectors there is not enough food onboard to feed all pax.

They waited 2 hours to fuel I hardly think they got catered also.

Tangey99

Kavs8 wrote: »

In short no, ATC in the UK would be NATS - They only contact really with them and the airport would be fire cover and airside ops ~ This was a handling issue nothing really to do with ATC. At more local airports for example Cork, of course ATC could contact a handler.

I'm talking about the ATC at standsted, the ones that give them authorisation to leave the stand,taxi, enter the runway takeoff etc, they know that they have a plane scheduled to depart surely.

Kavs8

Growler!!! wrote: »

In the airline I work for the ratio of sandwiches to pax is approx 1:9 after being catered. Even if at the beginning of 4 or 6 sectors there is not enough food onboard to feed all pax.

They waited 2 hours to fuel I hardly think they got catered also.

They never even got fuel after 4hrs (pax boarded after 3hrs) ~ Regardless, what would they done if there were diabetics onboard?? The crew were also ignoring passengers pressing the call buttons - which is worrying. Regardless if there's just four cc, the longer you don't tend to passengers the higher the workload.

It's a pity, because its a clear failure of guidelines that put the crew in the that position, or lack of should I say.

Tangey99 wrote: »

I'm talking about the ATC at standsted, the ones that give them authorisation to leave the stand,taxi, enter the runway takeoff etc, they know that they have a plane scheduled to depart surely.

Yep I know - ATC at Stansted is NATS - In Ireland it's IAA. And yes, the flight crew would request clearance then request clearance to push and start, request taxi, take-off clearance from them etc - But ATC at Stansted especially on that night, had a lot more concerns - especially as this was a handling issue and had really nothing to do with ATC.

Peregrine

Kavs8 wrote: »

whatever about food vouchers this was 3hrs after passengers had left the aircraft - they should have been given food onboard.

They would have needed Jesus Christ on board that flight to feed them all.

basill

Just because an airport is 24/7 it means jack all from a pax/customer point of service. For the pointy end it means invaluable things like fire cover, concrete to land on and ATC but to name a few.

Growler!!!

Kavs, you asked the question why they were not fed. I answered to say they would not have food for all pax. We can all play the "what if" game.

In regard to the cc not answering call bells - you cannot say they were not answered. What we see is edited snapshots filmed over a number of hours.

Growler!!!

basill wrote: »

Just because an airport is 24/7 it means jack all from a pax/customer point of service. For the pointy end it means invaluable things like fire cover, concrete to land on and ATC but to name a few.

True. Take MAN for example, it's 24hr ops but everything shuts down in T1 around 21.00.

Kavs8

Growler!!! wrote: »

Kavs, you asked the question why they were not fed. I answered to say they would not have food for all pax. We can all play the "what if" game.

In regard to the cc not answering call bells - you cannot say they were not answered. What we see is edited snapshots filmed over a number of hours.

I never asked why they weren't fed, I was referring to the usual flight service - I don't see why that can't be done on the ground - Obviously alcohol is prohibited on the ground that's why its secured in the galley. By the way is there a reason to be so snappy haha? I'm only going by what I saw in the video! The statements from Ryanair and Swissport correlate with it bar the part where the passenger asks why they needed to be refuelled again (inbound flight diverted to BHX due to WX not fuel requirements).

IngazZagni

Kavs8 wrote: »

I never asked why they weren't fed, I was referring to the usual flight service - I don't see why that can't be done on the ground - Obviously alcohol is prohibited on the ground that's why its secured in the galley. By the way is there a reason to be so snappy haha? I'm only going by what I saw in the video! The statements from Ryanair and Swissport correlate with it bar the part where the passenger asks why they needed to be refuelled again (inbound flight diverted to BHX due to WX not fuel requirements).

I'm not sure why exactly you can't do a service on the ground for delays. It is a rule though and strictly enforced.

As for the fuel, obviously if they had known there could be a delay in getting fuel they would have planned accordingly and tankered from East Mids. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Taking sector fuel would just be a standard thing to do especially when arriving at a large base.

KnotABother

IngazZagni wrote: »

I'm not sure why exactly you can't do a service on the ground for delays. It is a rule though and strictly enforced.

As far as I know it is to do with evacuation. You cannot get off the aircraft as well in the event of trouble with a pastry is your gob(or choking to death on a sandwich of the shock). Also the cabin crew are not at station as they should be with pax on board on stand if they are preparing and serving food.

Just a little side note on all this. Wouldn't you know it boys! It's made the front page of the Daily Mail!!:D

TERROR ON THE GROUND!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564683/Ryanair-passengers-Stansted-Airport-forced-call-police-refused-food-water-right-leave-aircraft-11-HOUR-delay.html