Aer Lingus EI 778 24.09.2014

M three

Was on this flight Lanzarote to Dublin which was due to depart at 19.50 and arrive Dublin at 11.55.
When everyone was boarded the captain made an announcement that due to strong winds and a hill to climb over at the end of the runway that he'd have to stop en route in faro and take on more fuel. This meant a delay into Dublin of about 40 mins.
Thing is it was an airbus A320 which has a minimum fuel range of 5700km when it's fully loaded (some of the A320's have a range up to 12000km when fully loaded).
Flight distance between Lanzarote and Dublin is only 2780km.
Anyone any idea why the pilot didn't take on enough fuel in Lanzarote to allow him make the journey without the inconvenience of a stop in faro?
Surely he would have known about the headwind when he arrived in ACE and the hill at the end of the runway has been there for a while too?

No Username Yet

The extra fuel would have made the headwind more difficult to fight in essence wasting fuel only to carry it, if the head wind was directly at the airport would have made takeoff difficult added some danger of not getting enough takeoff speed due to extra weight or even staling, and indeed more waste of fuel to accomplish take off

scudzilla

Sounds remarkably similar to this EI flight from last week

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057295062

M three

How come a fully loaded Ryanair flight fr 7125 was able to take off around the same time and didn't have to stop to take on fuel?

Also if the Aer Lingus A320 can take on enough fuel to fly 5700km why does it have such difficulty getting into the air for a journey half that length ie. half the fuel load?

No Username Yet

M three wrote: »

How come a fully loaded Ryanair flight fr 7125 was able to take off around the same time and didn't have to stop to take on fuel?

Also if the Aer Lingus A320 can take on enough fuel to fly 5700km why does it have such difficulty getting into the air for a journey half that length ie. half the fuel load?

Read the link above, explains the differences in the aircraft, their loading and possible freight use with Aer Lingus

M three

Read it, basically says the AI flight must be carrying more passengers with more luggage. Which is presumptuous. And that the Ryanair plane is a better spec. Is it newer?
The AI flight I was on wasnt full either.
If a hill or mountain at the end of a runway may cause an issue for a particular type of plane is there not the option to start take off at the other end of the runway?

No Username Yet

M three wrote: »

Read it, basically says the AI flight must be carrying more passengers with more luggage. Which is presumptuous. And that the Ryanair plane is a better spec. Is it newer?
The AI flight I was on wasnt full either.
If a hill or mountain at the end of a runway may cause an issue for a particular type of plane is there not the option to start take off at the other end of the runway?

Aircraft must always take off into wind, they tend not to like being out of wind at all, you read it fully? the runway is short too
I have 15 years aviation experiance and personal preference would be Boeing from a plane porn point of view, just wondering how you deduce the boing to be better spec? Aircraft are not like comparing a golf to a focus of similar spec's age.

L1011

Where are you getting those range figures from? They're not real world at all

basill

The AI flight I was on wasnt full either.

How do you know? What's underneath you? What's in the wings.

And that the Ryanair plane is a better spec. Is it newer?

What does the age of an commercial jet aircraft have on its performance? If you want to slog it out between FR and AL then you need to go away and find out what the rtow is for a 738 versus an a320 (assuming that's what you were on with AL) for both runways in ACE given the environmental conditions at the time in question.

If a hill or mountain at the end of a runway may cause an issue for a particular type of plane is there not the option to start take off at the other end of the runway?

There can be, sometimes. Google tailwind limits. What was the wind doing over the period that the aircraft was on the ground (crew deciding on fuel), whilst getting ready for departure and as they taxi and take off. Mother nature unfortunately doesn't play ball and keep the wind and temperature consistently unfortunately. Somewhere along the line we have to make decisions based on the information available.

Another crew might have decided to leave 50 passengers behind (as an example) to ensure that the "numbers" would always be on their side. Would you have been happy to be in the 50 or would you have preferred to be delayed but get home? What so you think the airline would want its crews to do? Leave pax behind and accommodate them until they could be rebooked at a later date...me thinks not.

IngazZagni

It's not about not having enough fuel to make it once in the air, it's about the take off. Lanzarote has a very performance limited runway due to a hill to one end. So if there is a strong wind from a certain direction it can severely limit how heavy your aircraft can be for take off. The pilots would have calculated this using special calculation charts taking into account all the ambient conditions at that time and come up with a max take off weight for that runway. As such they will in many cases have to limit the amount of either pax or fuel they take. I think we can agree that while a stop en route is not ideal, it's better than the option of leaving a few passengers behind.

Personally having flown here a handful of times, it's the only airport where on a couple of occasions I've had to use a special procedure where basically we redirect air from the engines used for air conditioning to get that little extra bit of thrust from the engines in order for us to clear the hill with a sufficient safety margin. At the end of the day, safety is what it's all about.

PukkaStukka

OP, in the thread referred to above, I encountered similar to you where two apparently identical and similarly laden aircraft heading from Lanzarote to Dublin a few minutes apart had disparities in their ranges, ultimately requiring one to refuel enroute whilst the other continued non stop. There are so many variables at play here that can affect things and when it was all properly explained, it made perfect sense. Read that particular thread again and in full - it's all in there!

Tenger

Am thinking we should probably merge with this thread. While they are different dates it is a similar situation

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057295062

This is a recurring issue with ACE. It happens due to aircraft performance limits, weather at ACE, runway at ACE, pax/baggage load and flight planning safety limits. This does not get explained in detail to pax onbaord as they tune out after "welcome onboard....."

M three

MYOB wrote: »

Where are you getting those range figures from? They're not real world at all

Here;
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family

Look under specifications, in the table under A320-200 you have;

3,100 nmi (5,700 km; 3,600 mi),
3,300 nmi (6,100 km; 3,800 mi) with sharklets

Google flight distance between ace and Dublin and you get 2780 km.

M three

I appreciate the replies to my original post but to be honest I'm surprised by some of them.
At the end of the day I'm a customer, and no one has really explained why an aer lingus A320 takes off but has to take on more fuel in faro therefore adding almost an hour to everyones journey, yet, a ryanair flight could take off at the same time, but fly direct.

Some of the excuses are;
Aer Lingus carries freight
The AI flight had more passengers
The AI flight had more luggage

All the above may not actually be the the case at all.
Some of the stuff is pretty condescending IMO, eg. Did I want the plane to take off and hit he mountain? Or would I rather more fuel was taken on to complete the journey but 50 passengers were left behind.

Of course not, Aer Lingus is supposed to be a reliable airline.

As a customer to me it seems simply that he Ryanair plane on that route is a more capable beast.

If this is a regular occurrence for Aer Lingus on that route surely that should be made known to he customer while they are booking.

M three

Just another thing that to me, an Aer Lingus customer, doesn't add up - the ryanair plane has a max take off weight of 145,500 lb, the Aer Lingus A320 actually has a higher take off weight of 150,000 lb.

To me that means that means that the Aer Lingus plane should have been able to take off with more, not less fuel than the ryanair plane on the same route.

Growler!!!

Have you perhaps thought of contacting Aer Lingus directly about your concerns?

ProfessorPlum

M three wrote: »

Just another thing that to me, an Aer Lingus customer, doesn't add up - the ryanair plane has a max take off weight of 145,500 lb, the Aer Lingus A320 actually has a higher take off weight of 150,000 lb.

To me that means that means that the Aer Lingus plane should have been able to take off with more, not less fuel than the ryanair plane on the same route.

Ok, I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to go into it, but the range of the plane, or the max take off weight has exactly nothing to do with it. It's about the climb that the aircraft can achieve on take off, in the event of an engine failure, and is dependant on the weight of the airplane and the environmental conditions at the time. There are a myriad of reasons why one plane can and another (or even the same plane at a different moment) can't. It is a regular issue for operators into ACE. To be able to explain exactly why the situation arose for you, you'd have to know the the full load and balance details for both aircraft, their specific performance capabilities and the atmospheric conditions at the time. Suffice to say, in order to comply with the safety requirement to clear the terrain, your aircraft was unable to carry both the payload and the fuel required to get home. Therefore something had to be left behind. It was decided to leave fuel instead of passengers / bags. (I'm pretty sure there would be no cargo on that flight and if there was it would be first up to be off loaded) I hope that helps.

M three

Growler!!! wrote: »

Have you perhaps thought of contacting Aer Lingus directly about your concerns?

Myself and a few others did query the cabin crew as to what was going on but the replies were ridiculous, one was "would you rather we crashed?"!!

Which was a bloody stupid thing to say to a customer. If a passenger on board made any kind of statement like that id reckon the cops would be looking into it.

So it didn't fill me with great hope about how any concerns would be handled tbh.

PukkaStukka

Growler!!! wrote: »

Have you perhaps thought of contacting Aer Lingus directly about your concerns?

IMO this is a valid suggestion OP - write to them. I'm sure Aer Lingus have nothing to hide and will gladly explain why it was that the stopover was required. When you think of it, there would be nothing in it either for EI to have to refuel. It costs them, they save nothing.

Comhrá

This from the aforementioned thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057295062


seems to me to be a clear, concise explanation of why the EI A320 might have had to refuel in Faro en route DUB. M three, I'm not sure why you seem unhappy with the excellent explanations provided by folks in the know.

There are a variety of possibilities with this.

Temperature, passenger and cargo load, fuel price etc.

The temperature can effect take-off distance, as can the weight of the aircraft. Aer Lingus operate Airbus A320/A321 aircraft whilst Ryanair operate Boeing 737-800. Depending on the engine variant used, the thrust can be much higher allowing a shorter take-off distance.

Ryanair like to operate with as little cargo (luggage) as possible so the payload would be lower, Aer Lingus operate as a full scheduled airline and will take opportunity to carry any cargo for extra cash, even if this could mean an en-route stopover. The extra fee's for the cargo would override the cost of the landing in Faro.

The Airbus has the shortest take-off length at 2,560m, Boeing 737-800 at 2,652m.

Arrecife airport is 2400m in length, so both are weight restricted. Bearing in mind the full take-off length is also restricted due to the need to factor in stopping before the end of the runway in the event (very rare) of an incident.

The airbus also carries more passengers than the Boeing so, less passengers, less luggage allows more fuel and hence the Boeing can (normally) make it direct.

woodzie

I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this. The pilots obviously did it for a reason, the most likely reason being adding extra fuel would of potentially been unsafe due to the conditions that existed at the time. In my opinion the crew did exactly what they were supposed to do, they got you to Dublin safely albeit with an hour of a delay.

Tenger

M three wrote: »

I appreciate the replies to my original post but to be honest I'm surprised by some of them........

As a customer to me it seems simply that he Ryanair plane on that route is a more capable beast.
If this is a regular occurrence for Aer Lingus on that route surely that should be made known to he customer while they are booking.

Its not regular, its down to weather impact on the operation on the day.

The B737 and A320 are both excellent machines, they do however have different operating limits in various scenarios. If one was 'better' then all the airlines would buy it over the other.

M three wrote: »

Just another thing that to me, an Aer Lingus customer, doesn't add up - the ryanair plane has a max take off weight of 145,500 lb, the Aer Lingus A320 actually has a higher take off weight of 150,000 lb.

I appreciate that you are making the effort to look up the stats. However the problem with wiki is that those are the published Airbus stats and may reflect 'ideal' conditions. Actual real world conditions vary. EG. max range is usually one way, with no load and no headwind.

Now the possible reasons for the diversion have been explained to you in this thread. No-one can give you the exact reason as no-one here knows the exact figures from the flight (pax load, flight path, planned trip fuel, actual temp., wind direction and/or speed, conditions in DUB which may have required extra holding fuel, winds forecast enroute etc)

EG, perhaps the flight plan called for Glasgow or Manchester as the primary diversion airfield, the good weather at home may have meant fog was forecast for all Irish airfields. This would have meant more diversion fuel was needed,thus more weight. The Aer Lingus SOP's may mean they always take 10-15 minutes holding fuel while Ryanair take less...thus the Ryanair aircraft would be able to make it home direct.

And as impossible as it may seem to you, the difference in pax numbers of 3-6 could actually make the difference. Flights plans take into account weights as 'small' as 20-50 kg. Number of checked in bags can make a difference.

As for the cabin crew response, sounds like the reason was being able to climb up over the high ground at the end of the runway. And tbh I have had to explain similar problems in the past to pax, a regular response would be along the lines of "sure why don't they just welly it?" or "I can't believe we can't take off with enough fuel" Some pax actually do need to be shocked into compliance. I have had a pax complain about a 2 hour delay on the ground because we needed an engine problem examined, he genuinely thought we should just ignore the indication.

PukkaStukka wrote: »

.......write to them. I'm sure Aer Lingus have nothing to hide and will gladly explain why it was that the stopover was required. When you think of it, there would be nothing in it either for EI to have to refuel. It costs them, they save nothing.

woodzie wrote: »

I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this. The pilots obviously did it for a reason, the most likely reason being adding extra fuel would of potentially been unsafe due to the conditions that existed at the time. In my opinion the crew did exactly what they were supposed to do, they got you to Dublin safely albeit with an hour of a delay.

As above, the highly experienced EI Captain made the decision based on the factors on the day. (factors that have been explained by me and others in this thread) It is of no benefit to an airline to stop for fuel. It costs time and money and as can be seen here, aggravates the customer.
The captain and crew don't want to be late home either (plus the extra work involved with effectively 2 flights to get home rather than one direct flight)

donkey balls

EI normally use the A321 for the EI 778 flight the bus takes 7 ULD(Baggage/cargo containers) so you already have extra weight with the ULD,FR use the B738 were the baggage is hand balled/loose loaded in the holds (Mainly the FWD hold) very seldom the AFT hold due to their baggage charges/restrictions.

M three

tippman1 wrote: »

This from the aforementioned thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057295062


seems to me to be a clear, concise explanation of why the EI A320 might have had to refuel in Faro en route DUB. M three, I'm not sure why you seem unhappy with the excellent explanations provided by folks in the know.

Excellent explanations? Not in my opinion. Maybe some of the people posting these "excellent explanations" have a connection with Aer Lingus, and see any complaint as a nuisance, not the opinion of a customer, and a regular flyer.

woodzie wrote: »

I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this. The pilots obviously did it for a reason, the most likely reason being adding extra fuel would of potentially been unsafe due to the conditions that existed at the time. In my opinion the crew did exactly what they were supposed to do, they got you to Dublin safely albeit with an hour of a delay.

You might think that's ok, and maybe that's acceptable to you. Maybe as a paying customer I expect more from an airline than you.

Comhrá

Excellent explanations? Not in my opinion. Maybe some of the people posting these "excellent explanations" have a connection with Aer Lingus, and see any complaint as a nuisance, not the opinion of a customer, and a regular flyer.

Well, I have no connection whatever with Aer Lingus, and even though well qualified people have given you detailed, clear explanations in a very patient, polite manner, you still refuse to accept their reasoning. No-one called you a nuisance. Now show a little gratitude to the people here who are trying to help you with your query

You might think that's ok, and maybe that's acceptable to you. Maybe as a paying customer I expect more from an airline than you.

I have often been a paying customer with Aer Lingus and the explanations given to your question have been thorough and clear to me anyway (and I'm not involved in the aviation business at all.) It seems that you just want to moan and groan - no matter how much anyone tries to help you with your query.

Peregrine

So, what's your question here that hasn't already been answered?

highlydebased

Between the various bits and pieces of info posted about this I'm not sure what else you could want to know. Only Aer Lingus can tell you the exact circumstances about the flight you were on. This is not an Aer Lingus customer service platform so you'll have to contact them directly to find out

woodzie

M three wrote: »

Excellent explanations? Not in my opinion. Maybe some of the people posting these "excellent explanations" have a connection with Aer Lingus, and see any complaint as a nuisance, not the opinion of a customer, and a regular flyer.



You might think that's ok, and maybe that's acceptable to you. Maybe as a paying customer I expect more from an airline than you.

So would you of preferred that the crew loaded the plane full of fuel and took an unacceptable risk that put the lives of everyone on board the plane at risk?? As I said earlier it was most likely for safety reasons and the crew did exactly what they are paid to do. Get you to your destination safely!

There is no pleasing some people!

The_Wanderer

I give up!

Posters on here have explained the probable reasons for the delay and diversion to Faro. If I was the customer, of course I would be annoyed but the aim of the game is to get there safely.

Some people are never happy, what ever valid reason you give them.

The Wanderer.

ProfessorPlum

OP having spent some time explaining the situation at Lanzarote to you,at I suggest you choose Teneriffe for your next holiday. GCTS has 3200m of runway with no appreciable obstacles in the climbout.

Tenger

Nimr wrote: »

So, what's your question here that hasn't already been answered?

At this point OP your original question has been answered to the best of the ability of posters here. You have been given wide ranging explanations and scenarios. At the end of the day the only person who can give you the exact reasons will be the flight crew on the day (night)

At this point the thread looks to be a candidate for getting locked as its going nowhere

Comhrá

... edited.

ProfessorPlum

Ah now, show a bit of restraint!

M three

Ya know I'm almost wondering why I bothered. But then again, maybe someone somewhere in Aer Lingus actually copped on to what happened last night, and as someone else posted before, last week.

Perhaps they'll put a plane on the route that can take on enough fuel to fly direct, and get off the runway and over the hill with said extra fuel.

Funny how Ryanair manage it.

Tenger

Now you're just airline bashing as well as ignoring mod advice above.

You have blatantly ignored all the facts given to you by other posters

OP issued a warning

M three wrote: »

......Perhaps they'll put a plane on the route that can take on enough fuel to fly direct, and get off the runway and over the hill with said extra fuel.

Funny how Ryanair manage it.

This is airline bashing, inferring that one airline is somehow inferior in operation to another. Your opinion is based on your experience, not fact.

M three

Hang on, it's a statement of fact, and wasnt meant to offend anybody.

Strumms

M three wrote: »

Hang on, it's a statement of fact, and wasnt meant to offend anybody.

People have been very kind to explain to you why what happened to you happened. You seem dismissive of these opinions, these opinions are of people who work in the industry and as I can gather don't have at least all anyway a connection to EI. I also work in the business , not for EI however I back what you are being told as fact.

You can go on from your uneducated high horse with quoted states from wiki about MTOW etc.. And by the way the same aircraft types have different MTOWs btw but unless you are trained, certified and have a background as a pilot, flight dispatcher or similar you don't have a bulls notion as to the variables that caused your fuel divert. It was done clearly with safety and legal
compliance in mind. The divert itself would have cost EI a lot more money.. Think thousands in extra landing fees, handling fees and also a fuel uplift.

It was done out of necessity not negligence which would be your only just gripe but you don't have one. Yes it was a ball ache and I wouldn't have wanted to be on the flight.. Mark it up under **** happens and if necessary next time to on a cruise.

M three

Strumms wrote: »

People have been very kind to explain to you why what happened to you happened. You seem dismissive of these opinions, these opinions are of people who work in the industry and as I can gather don't have at least all anyway a connection to EI. I also work in the business , not for EI however I back what you are being told as fact.

You can go on from your uneducated high horse with quoted states from wiki about MTOW etc.. And by the way the same aircraft types have different MTOWs btw but unless you are trained, certified and have a background as a pilot, flight dispatcher or similar you don't have a bulls notion as to the variables that caused your fuel divert. It was done clearly with safety and legal
compliance in mind. The divert itself would have cost EI a lot more money.. Think thousands in extra landing fees, handling fees and also a fuel uplift.

It was done out of necessity not negligence which would be your only just gripe but you don't have one. Yes it was a ball ache and I wouldn't have wanted to be on the flight.. Mark it up under **** happens and if necessary next time to on a cruise.

Calm down.
Uneducated? I never claimed to be an airline expert. That's why I pay someone to do the job efficiently. And as a paying customer it makes no sense to me why Aer Lingus use a plane on that route that to me isn't up to the job.

As for your point about it costing Aer Lingus money, this is something they will pass on to me and other customers at some point. So again, customers lose out.

And as for go on a cruise, I won't even response to that useless suggestion.

Its really quite simple and I can't understand why it's so difficult for so many to grasp, if the bloody plane has an issue with that route, then use one that doesn't have an issue!!

Strumms

M three wrote: »

Calm down.
Uneducated? I never claimed to be an airline expert. That's why I pay someone to do the job efficiently. And as a paying customer it makes no sense to me why Aer Lingus use a plane on that route that to me isn't up to the job.

As for your point about it costing Aer Lingus money, this is something they will pass on to me and other customers at some point. So again, customers lose out.

And as for go on a cruise, I won't even response to that useless suggestion.

Its really quite simple and I can't understand why it's so difficult for so many to grasp, if the bloody plane has an issue with that route, then use one that doesn't have an issue!!

Perfectly calm doll face. it seems you are the only one in the thread with your panties in a bunch.

The aircraft is suitable for the route. It was multiple conditions which presented themselves that been outlined already to you that made the numbers out of limits. As can happen to any aircraft in a particular situation, any aircraft type, any airline etc. 737, 747, ATR you name it.

Other aircraft types that evening while being as suitable as the A320 may have has less passengers, less bags, more favourable weather only moments before and MEL considerations also being a factor which may have made their departure safe and legal. 20 minutes earlier your aircraft would have been good to go but weather conditions change and **** happens.

Go on a cruise they are great fun.. Honest !

Irish Steve

M three wrote: »

Hang on, it's a statement of fact, and wasnt meant to offend anybody.

No, its a statement of your opinion, NOT based on fact, or on the myriad of rules, regulations, and other factors that determine how a specific flight, on a specific airframe, at a specific time, and in specific weather and a unique route will be operated.

The ONLY reason that airlines divert for fuel en route, or offload passengers, is because they are obliged to do so by the rules, laws and legislation that applies on the day and at the time that they are making the decision, and believe me, it is a minefield.

When you've spent probably €80,000 getting the appropriate airline pilot's licence, and then got a job flying with a specific airline, you will be in a position to state facts, until then, it's only poorly informed opinion, and not based on reliable or accurate information, even with the extra information that's been provided in this thread.

In that vein, you can have 2 externally and internally identical 737's, the only difference being the power that the engine is rated to produce. That difference only becomes significant when the performance required to leave a specific airport requires a specific power level, and depending on the operator, and the routes the aircraft is operating on, one company may choose a different power option to another.

The result of that is 2 seemingly identical aircraft may not be able to operate in the same way at the same time on the same day at the same airport, but neither aircraft is inferior, or faulty, or less capable than the other, it is simply that the operator has made a specific configuration choice based on their evaluation of the most economic operating scenario for that aircraft, over the life of that aircraft, and the specific places that it is going to operate in to. The same situation applies to Airbus,

A couple of days ago, I was reading a thread on a different forum, where the relative performance of different models of bus in the Bus Eireann fleet were being discussed, and there was an equally heated discussion there over the relative capabilities of different models when faced with a specific hill in Cork, and with different loads, and the implication of the discussion there was that certain models of bus in Cork cannot be used on one specific route because they do not have the performance to get up this specific hill when fully loaded.

The same is true of aircraft. If you are flying longer distances most of the time, you don't need engines that allow the aircraft to climb like a homesick angel on take off, the trade off between a slower climb and a lower fuel burn and lower maintenance cost are significant, but completely different for long haul than for short haul. In the same way, if 99% of the runways that are used are long, and not performance limited, there's no point spending significant extra money on having performance capabilities that are not needed for the aircraft to operate reliably and safely.

The ONLY people that MAY be prepared to give you a specific answer to the question you have raised will be the flight operations department of Aer Lingus, and they may be reluctant to give specific information to someone that does not work for the company.

Many people have attempted to answer the question you have raised, but you seem reluctant to accept that there are places and times when it is not possible to fly direct from point A to point B. and the difference between "go" and "no go" may be as little as 10 degrees swing in the wind direction, or 5 Kts change in the wind speed.

It could even be that in the scenario you've described, Ryanair was allocated a flight level by ATC that had different head winds to the level allocated to Aer Lingus, and that could be the deciding factor in who goes non stop, and who has to land somewhere for fuel on the way. That's nothing to do with the aircraft, or the airline, or the crew, it's just the luck of the draw on the day and at the time when the system was working out how to get everyone through a particular piece of congested airspace.

Please, for everyone's sake, move on, and if you're really so bothered about having to do something slightly different from what you thought you were going to do, contact Aer Lingus, and see if they will explain it, but don't be surprised if they decline to do so.

And before you ask, I don't work for Aer Lingus, or Ryanair, so I don't have an axe to grind in relation to either organisation,

M three

Mother of god!

There I was thinking that this being the aviation and aircraft forum that highlighting something that happened an aer lingus flight would lead to a grown up discussion about how Aer Lingus could avoid a repeat.

Instead by me actually giving as much detailed info as possible and saying it was an AI flight I've been accused of airline bashing!

And other so called "helpful" and "kind" suggestions have included;
-go to Tenerife instead
-go on a cruise instead
-contact Aer Lingus (although I'm being told on the above post that they may not bother to respond)
-accept it as "sh*t happens"

Not one of these so called kind responses have included what to me as a paying customer seem the most obvious - for Aer Lingus to put a bloody plane on the route that can do the job!

Strumms

M three wrote: »

Mother of god!

There I was thinking that this being the aviation and aircraft forum that highlighting something that happened an aer lingus flight would lead to a grown up discussion about how Aer Lingus could avoid a repeat.

Instead by me actually giving as much detailed info as possible and saying it was an AI flight I've been accused of airline bashing!

And other so called "helpful" and "kind" suggestions have included;
-go to Tenerife instead
-go on a cruise instead
-contact Aer Lingus (although I'm being told on the above post that they may not bother to respond)
-accept it as "sh*t happens"

Not one of these so called kind responses have included what to me as a paying customer seem the most obvious - for Aer Lingus to put a bloody plane on the route that can do the job!

That is very selective and ignoring some very good detailed advise as to what happened, why it did, why it can happen to any airline, any aircraft type, at some time, at the wrong airport, in the wrong conditions which can change like the flick of a switch. The aircraft is suitable for the route. It was the prevailing conditions at that time that were not.

Borderline trolling it must be said at this point.... Be as well to lock it as suggested previously there is no benefit to you ignoring experience. and facts over your own self of disgruntlement... Sorry but it has to be said.

sullivlo

M three wrote: »

Mother of god!

There I was thinking that this being the aviation and aircraft forum that highlighting something that happened an aer lingus flight would lead to a grown up discussion about how Aer Lingus could avoid a repeat.

Instead by me actually giving as much detailed info as possible and saying it was an AI flight I've been accused of airline bashing!

And other so called "helpful" and "kind" suggestions have included;
-go to Tenerife instead
-go on a cruise instead
-contact Aer Lingus (although I'm being told on the above post that they may not bother to respond)
-accept it as "sh*t happens"

Not one of these so called kind responses have included what to me as a paying customer seem the most obvious - for Aer Lingus to put a bloody plane on the route that can do the job!

The plane could do the job. Just not under the conditions you were flying in - temperature, weight etc.

Aer lingus cannot be held responsible for sending the "wrong" plane to Lanzarote. For a start, things change weather wise unexpectedly.

Do aer Lingus even have any Boeing in their fleets? Should they purchase a specific plane just so you don't have the inconvenience?

I think tbh you are making a bigger deal of this than it needs to be.

lord lucan

OP has had his question answered multiple times,if you still have issues then contact EI or maybe ring Joe Duffy.

Thread closed.