Air Transat YOW

[complexintentions]

Hmmm...direct links to the inquiry webcasts...sure looks like you're trying to hide something, Gilles!

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Air Transat is accused of violating the passenger Tariff that stipulates that passengers must be deplaned if they are delayed more than 90 minutes.
20 aircraft diverted to YOW on July 31. None of the 20 deplaned. Only two out of 20 managed to turn around inside the 90 minute limit specified by the tafiff.
8 of the 20 were on the ground over 3 hours.

The fueler stated that he has no idea about the arrival times of the aircraft. He just fueled the aircraft in the order he received the fuel requests, and those only were sent to him when the aircraft had arrived in a parking position where the aircraft could be refueled. So the requests for the fuel for Air Transat were only received when they were parked at the de-icing bay, over two hours after they had arrived.

An Air Canada 777 was refueled on the taxiway, out of sequence, before the Air Transat flights, and after Air Transat was told their aircraft could not be refueled on the taxiway, and would have to wait until they arrived at the de-icing bay to be refuled. Air Canada claimed the crew was close to max duty time.

Later the YOW airport authority intervened on behalf of KLM (which arrived after the Transat flights) to the fueler, stating that KLM's crew was tight on duty time (how could they be tighter than Transat's Rome flight). KLM was hooked up within 15 minutes of parking.

[rookiepilot]

Air Transat is accused of violating the passenger Tariff that stipulates that passengers must be deplaned if they are delayed more than 90 minutes.
20 aircraft diverted to YOW on July 31. None of the 20 deplaned. Only two out of 20 managed to turn around inside the 90 minute limit specified by the tafiff.
8 of the 20 were on the ground over 3 hours.

The fueler stated that he has no idea about the arrival times of the aircraft. He just fueled the aircraft in the order he received the fuel requests, and those only were sent to him when the aircraft had arrived in a parking position where the aircraft could be refueled. So the requests for the fuel for Air Transat were only received when they were parked at the de-icing bay, over two hours after they had arrived.

An Air Canada 777 was refueled on the taxiway, out of sequence, before the Air Transat flights, and after Air Transat was told their aircraft could not be refueled on the taxiway, and would have to wait until they arrived at the de-icing bay to be refuled. They stated they were close to max duty time.

Later the YOW airport authority intervened on behalf of KLM (which arrived after the Transat flights) to the fueler, stating that KLM's crew was tight on duty time (how could they be tighter than Transat's Rome flight). KLM was hooked up within 15 minutes of parking.

Translation, Air Transat: Its unfair, I was first!!! Blame the media. This is a business. And it works like this, in business: Just do your job, without the drama.

Likely more to this story why AT didn't get refueled, than "KLM and AC cut in front of me".

MAYBE AT gets a hard time in the media, because they provide so much interesting material over the years. Then you tend NOT to get credibility anymore.

Its amusing, to be sure.

[confuzed]

Translation, Air Transat: Its unfair, I was first!!! Blame the media. This is a business. And it works like this, in business: Just do your job, without the drama.

Likely more to this story why AT didn't get refueled, than "KLM and AC cut in front of me".

MAYBE AT gets a hard time in the media, because they provide so much interesting material over the years. Then you tend NOT to get credibility anymore.

Its amusing, to be sure.

I have been following this thread since it started and have come to a conclusion. Man, are you ever a bitter dbag. Your toxicity is unbelievable, maybe you applied and got turned down by this airline at some point and you never healed from the hurt. Instead of constantly trying to slam your fellow airline crew, why not be a little bit more constructive and sympathetic. When Sunwing had people stuck on their airplanes for hours and hours at a time, where were you preaching to everyone and drivelling on about it?

I have no dog in this fight, but it sure gets tiresome reading your bitterness when others here are just trying to provide the events of what happened so everyone can get a clear story of what happened.

[complexintentions]

He is absolutely not airline crew. Kinda funny he's preaching about credibility.

He is just bitter. No one knows why.

It's actually a bit odd, the level of vitriol he's spewing that could as easily be directed in any number of directions. Except of course, that it serves no purpose but perpetuating the image you described quite succinctly, "toxic dbag" I believe, was the phrase? Methinks someone has a bit of an axe to grind.

Gilles offers a factual statement that clearly indicates that for reasons unknown Air Transat was denied fuel while others were given it. That fueling took place on a taxiway in contravention of what Air Transat was told was possible.

Why?

Perhaps rookiepilot should direct his "Just do your job, without the drama" ranting at the YOW airport? They certainly seem highly culpable in the whole situation.

I am sticking with my previous assertion, that there was some foot-dragging and preference given to airlines favoured by YOW. Either deliberately, or through incompetence - take your pick, but neither should be attached to AT.

Do you have a vested interest in YOW or something, rookiepilot? Maybe one of the rather top-heavy board of directors?

[Old fella]

He is absolutely not airline crew. Kinda funny he's preaching about credibility.

He is just bitter. No one knows why.

It's actually a bit odd, the level of vitriol he's spewing that could as easily be directed in any number of directions. Except of course, that it serves no purpose but perpetuating the image you described quite succinctly, "toxic dbag" I believe, was the phrase? Methinks someone has a bit of an axe to grind.

Gilles offers a factual statement that clearly indicates that for reasons unknown Air Transat was denied fuel while others were given it. That fueling took place on a taxiway in contravention of what Air Transat was told was possible.

Why?

Perhaps rookiepilot should direct his "Just do your job, without the drama" ranting at the YOW airport? They certainly seem highly culpable in the whole situation.

I am sticking with my previous assertion, that there was some foot-dragging and preference given to airlines favoured by YOW. Either deliberately, or through incompetence - take your pick, but neither should be attached to AT.

Do you have a vested interest in YOW or something, rookiepilot? Maybe one of the rather top-heavy board of directors?

From what I gather rookiepilot is exactly what he is, a businessman/ aircraft owner, CPL single engine with 1000hrs, IFR rated. Love him or hate him but I will give him his due in that he indicated several times he isn't a professional pilot doing this for a living. Just saying

[rookiepilot]

I have no interest in this other than as yet another example of a business making excuses and pointing the finger at others for inept conduct. I'm sick of hearing that. The CTA should absolutely hammer these guys, and won't, cause its Canada --

My beef is mainly with the CEO, afterwards. Crew? I wasn't there, don't know what they were told.

CEO, Should always stand up, in public, not via a spokesperson, and take full responsibility, whether it's AT, Bombardier, or United. Who knows? I'm sure their relationship with their fuelling company, as was posted earlier, had something to do with it. Trying to get off cheap. Why can't anyone man up, say "I'm 100% responsible, for whatever, and take the heat?

Spineless. I absolutely loath that.

I teach business principles occasionally as a hobby, and I teach that leadership in a business means being 100% accountable, whether the problem was all of your fault, or not. Much like being a pilot. Being in command, means you are always the one responsible.

Bombardier: one of the most incompetent companies I can think of, leadership gets (until protests anyway) massive pay packages, AND rewarded with government aid. Again. NavCan? Everyone complaining. Not a word from the CEO. "We are on it" "We care". 3 million a year. Who hires these losers?

Unaccountable boards. Old boys club.

I just don't get it.

Its interesting that certain airlines, and other businesses, are always in the news, while others never are, they quietly and effectively -- do their job.

Here's the Ottawa Airport Authority's statement on the incident: I have no problem believing this is 100% credible, and AT's excuses are 100%....excuses. YOW has a job. The rest is between AT and its fueling company.

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ot ... 96163.html

Whatever. Canada. No one is responsible for anything. I shouldn't care. But sad to see the state of our country.

Anyway confuzed you're correct. This rant isn't very good for me, so I'll end it, back to

[confuzed]

Complexintentions,

That is such a shame then that he is not crew and has no idea about the complexities of day to day operations.

You are right about Gilles, he always brings factual information to the table so that people can make their own judgements outside of what they see in the media circus. When it comes to aviation, I trust the media (and airport authorities for that matter) about as far as I could throw a galley cart.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as I am in full agreement with their decision making with the information they had at the time. As that one Captain of the airline mentioned, you just do not evacuate people onto a runway (active or not). That tends to mess up the rest of the inbound/outbounds for a wee bit. It sounds like this airline got the raw end of some deal and the media circus is having a field day with it. It really could have been anyone, WJ, AC, Sunwing, Turkish, etc.

[Braun]

Complexintentions,

That is such a shame then that he is not crew and has no idea about the complexities of day to day operations.

You are right about Gilles, he always brings factual information to the table so that people can make their own judgements outside of what they see in the media circus. When it comes to aviation, I trust the media (and airport authorities for that matter) about as far as I could throw a galley cart.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as I am in full agreement with their decision making with the information they had at the time. As that one Captain of the airline mentioned, you just do not evacuate people onto a runway (active or not). That tends to mess up the rest of the inbound/outbounds for a wee bit. It sounds like this airline got the raw end of some deal and the media circus is having a field day with it. It really could have been anyone, WJ, AC, Sunwing, Turkish, etc.

Airport authorities are usually the most poorly managed entities I have had to deal with. I also wouldn't trust them, especially with the facts coming from the crew.

[complexintentions]

rookiepilot,

Yes, you have made your opinion on business accountability well-known many times. And I actually share your view overall, that a CEO should be held accountable for their companys' actions. As well as the total breakdown of leadership in Canada generally.

Where you lose the plot is in your total inconsistency and lack of logic in applying your dogma. No business operates in a vacuum, surely you can understand that. From all the information now coming out it certainly sounds as if Air Transat was given false information with which to make their decisions. The accounts of certain passengers are being cast in a entirely new, very unflattering light. Yet long before the inquiry began you had already mounted your pulpit to deliver yet another sermon on the evils of unaccountable business leaders and have - and continue - to pronounce Air Transat as the ultimate villain in this unfortunate incident. Can you at least try and explain how apparently your lofty standards don't apply to the fueling company, the ground handling company, and most of all, the YOW airport authority? For some reason with their statement you have "no problem believing this is 100% credible". From what vast airline and airport operations experience do you base THAT on? YOW airport is run by the YOW airport authority, but they get a pass on what happens there? How bizarrely myopic and completely contradicting your stated ideals.

Unaccountable boards. Old boys club.

I cannot think of a phrase that more perfectly describes airport authorities in Canada. Cozy little fiefdoms. Good God, if you need a target for unaccountability there's the fattest one of them all. Although there is a lot of tough competition for title of "sleaziest quasi-monopoly" in Canada.

Since when are other airlines not in the news? What nonsense. You have allowed your views to be shaped by media that is hardly proportionate. Then you come to a forum where you can be exposed to views from people actually IN the industry - so you can dispute and disregard them. Ok then.

Your rantings are so full of holes you could fly a widebody through them.

Funny though, how the losers impugning the crew and the dickheads who'd casually blow slides have quieted right down since the inquiry started.

[photofly]

There's nothing casual about it, and I'm still here. My only comment arising from the report is that I'd have been damn sure to tell the cabin crew I wanted - I required - to get off, and I'd have done my best to make sure the aircraft commander knew that.

[rookiepilot]

This quote tells me all I need to know about those running the company, Complex. They really, truly, don't care about their customers. Yeah, that offends me. Same as United:

"The experience of the conditions on board the grounded flights, however, was a “matter of perception,” said Matthew Jackson, the director of flight safety for Air Transat, when asked whether the pilots were aware of how passengers were feeling.

“If I’m managing a delay and I’m talking to a passenger who’s a very nervous flyer, a 15-minute delay may be a terrible thing for that passenger,” Jackson told the hearing. “Their perception is different than the frequent flyer … who’s used to delays.”

The flight safety director further suggested the pilots might have even been hotter than some passengers on account of the polyester uniforms they wear. I’m not traveling in shorts and sandals and a T-shirt,” he said. “So I think I would probably feel the heat a little bit more than some travellers.”

Yeah. It's all about you.
No apology. No humility, from an exec at the company. . What a total loser.

YOW isn't responsibily for fuelling. They made a clear statement, so I'm unclear to me how they are culpable. If they are shown to be lying, I'll retract my comment. Fuelling company? AT chose them. Regardless on that, it's on AT.

And yeah, some airlines just aren't in the media nearly as much, at least that I notice. Think about it, and why.

This seems to me to be about saving money for the company, however possible. . I'd be hard pressed to be convinced otherwise.

Anyway can all agree to disagree, that is anyone's right.

[rookiepilot]

Bombardier leadership, (who have many, many defenders here for some bizzare reason).

Bombardier brutally screws up its contract with a key customer. Customer says, you don't get to bid on a future contract.

Bombardier SUES customer, saying "we have a right to bid". Bizzare.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transp ... again.html

Only in Canada.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

The YOW ramp, the Hangar 14 areas and de-icing bays in YOW are uncontrolled as far as Nav Canada is concerned and managed by the YOW airport which decides who parks where. Each time an airliner arrives, NavCanada contacts the YOW airport to ask where it should be parked.

After all gates and parking positions had been used, the controllers began parking aircraft on taxiway C and on runway 07/25. That included the Transat flights that were affected.

When the aircraft asked for fuel, they were told they would need to be moved to a gate or a ramp before they could be refueled or serviced. They were kept on the taxiway from 1 to 2 hours. No deplaning, Air stairs or service was possible at that time they were told.

But then the Air Canada 777 that arrived after the Transat flights was refueled on Taxiway C with an YOW airport authority escort and a waiver from them after the YOW airport authority claims that the 777 crew stated they were tight on duty.

The fueler stated that when the aircraft were subsequently moved from the runways and taxiways to the ramp areas to be serviced, the YOW airport, which was managing which aircraft was parked where, parked several aircraft in a manner where their wings and refuelling panels and connectors were over the grass, where the refuelling trucks are not allowed to go. Several aircraft had to be moved a second time before refuelling could occur. This is one of the reasons several aircraft were refueled out of sequence.

Another reason some aircraft were refueled out of sequence is because when they were moved, they were parked by the YOW airport in such a manner that one was blocking the other, so it made sense to refuel the one which was blocking first, since the one behind it could no possibly leave until the one in front had refueled and left.

The way the YOW airport authority repositioned the aircraft on the ramps and parked them without taking account of when they had landed and how long they had been waiting for fuel caused further delay for several.

If one listens to Live ATC for YOW on July 31, which I have downloaded and listened to, one can clearly hear the YOW airport duty manager on the ground frequency, directing from a radio equipped follow-me car, the ground controllers where and how he wants the aircraft parked.

Finally, the YOW airport made a second direct intervention to the fueler, on behalf of KLM this time, to give it priority fueling when it's pilots claimed they were tight on duty. It so happens that unlike the Transat flights, the KLM was immediately parked by the YOW airport authority to a position where it could be fueled immediately.

The Air Transat flights which landed between 1700 and 1730 local were not relocated to the ramp before 1915 and then again some were parked there in a way that they could not be refueled or where they were blocked from exit by other aircraft which had to be refueled first.

The fueler was just rolling with the punches, and was receiving calls every few seconds and was doing what they could with their two drivers.

They said that refueling Air Canada on the taxiway with the escort etc monopolized one on the two drivers and his truck for so long that they stated to the YOW airport they would no longer accept to do others in that way.

All this is on tape.......

[digits_]

That might all be true, and might maybe all be out of Air Transat's control, the fact is they still kept the pax on board for 5-6 hours.

Which brings me back to an old question: how long before this becomes an emergency? How long were they going to wait without fuel, without apu? 7 hours? 8? 12? 24? 48?

[Ypilot]

That might all be true, and might maybe all be out of Air Transat's control, the fact is they still kept the pax on board for 5-6 hours.

Which brings me back to an old question: how long before this becomes an emergency? How long were they going to wait without fuel, without apu? 7 hours? 8? 12? 24? 48?

The other day I was in that dash-8. No apu... bouhouuu, it was hot, omg red alert in yyz. I should have called 911.

[digits_]

That might all be true, and might maybe all be out of Air Transat's control, the fact is they still kept the pax on board for 5-6 hours.

Which brings me back to an old question: how long before this becomes an emergency? How long were they going to wait without fuel, without apu? 7 hours? 8? 12? 24? 48?

The other day I was in that dash-8. No apu... bouhouuu, it was hot, omg red alert in yyz. I should have called 911.

So give me a number, how long?

[complexintentions]

That might all be true, and might maybe all be out of Air Transat's control, the fact is they still kept the pax on board for 5-6 hours.

Which brings me back to an old question: how long before this becomes an emergency? How long were they going to wait without fuel, without apu? 7 hours? 8? 12? 24? 48?

Even when presented with recorded evidence that what Gilles says IS true, not "might be", you still try and cast doubt. Amazing what cannot be seen when one willfully chooses not to see it.

Why don't you just give the number you'd like, seeing as you obviously have no real interest in anyone else's answers anyway?

An airborne aircraft that runs out of fuel is an emergency. Hopefully you can grasp that one on the ground isn't quite the same.

If one listens to Live ATC for YOW on July 31, which I have downloaded and listened to, one can clearly hear the YOW airport duty manager on the ground frequency, directing from a radio equipped follow-me car, the ground controllers where and how he wants the aircraft parked.

I can personally attest to how long it takes to refuel a B777. And from trucks as opposed to hydrants it can take a long, long time. Putting AC and others at the head of the queue - and unequivocally, rookiepilot, this was at the direction of YOW - was a major, major f$ckup.

As I said - culpable. And as someone who worked as a fueller in an earlier life, I can also attest that the priority of fuelling is not dictated by the folks manning the trucks, either.

The flight safety director further suggested the pilots might have even been hotter than some passengers on account of the polyester uniforms they wear. I’m not traveling in shorts and sandals and a T-shirt,” he said. “So I think I would probably feel the heat a little bit more than some travellers.”

Yeah. It's all about you.
No apology. No humility, from an exec at the company. . What a total loser.

YOW isn't responsibily for fuelling. They made a clear statement, so I'm unclear to me how they are culpable. If they are shown to be lying, I'll retract my comment. Fuelling company? AT chose them. Regardless on that, it's on AT.

And yeah, some airlines just aren't in the media nearly as much, at least that I notice. Think about it, and why.

This seems to me to be about saving money for the company, however possible. . I'd be hard pressed to be convinced otherwise.

Anyway can all agree to disagree, that is anyone's right.

Again, it's so weird how you choose to totally dismiss one company's statement while blindly swallowing YOW's ass-covering statement whole. You're so hell-bent on seeing what you perceive as trying to avoid responsibility that you choose to filter all comments through that incredibly biased view. As you say, your hobby is teaching this, so I guess it figures. When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail. I see the remark about the crew being just as, or more uncomfortable, as the pax as simply pointing out that the crew was certainly not lounging about sipping cool drinks while the pax suffered. On the contrary you can be certain they were doing EVERYTHING possible to expedite the situation. I'm not quite sure what you expected, for the flight safety director to come on tv and fall on a sword?

Tell me exactly how money would be saved by deliberately not fueling an aircraft and furthering a diversionary delay?

Seriously I do wonder a little bit about the lack of logic sometimes.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

20 aircraft diverted to YOW that day including many wide bodies and a 380. Several thousand passengers. The 4 AT flights alone had over 1000 passengers.
OUT of the 20, not one deplaned.
Out of the 20, 8 were on the ground over 3 hours.
The longest was the AT whose APU ran out of fuel, not when it frst landed sometime after 1700, but about 4 hours later.
The second longest was an Air Canada flight which was over 5 hours in YOW.
The fueler arrived to the AT flight minutes after the APU shut down, as well as air stairs and à GPU.
The aircraft had been on battery power and without a APU for less than a couple minutes when a passenger panicked and called 911
Power and ventilation was restored within 5 minutes.

The emergency crews arrived at the same time as the fueler within minutes of the APU failure.
Even then, no one, including the caller, expressed a desire to disembark. And none did, even after they were offered to do so. The caller first said he called 911 because he felt faint when the APU failed and the aircraft went on emergency power. A real hero. And famous too.
Good thing that other slide pulling hero was not on board as well.

The captain had issues to deal with with regards to refuelling without power, was unable to restart the APU for a vapor lock had been created in the fuel line which required bleeding. He now needed an Air Cart to get the engines going. He had to leave all that to respond to the inqireries of the first responders and learn the nature of the emergency on his aircraft.

The 8 doors were opened for ventilation which obligated the 8 flight attendents to remain at their doors. That is the only reason the first responders distributed water to the passengers. not because the aircraft had no water but the crew were stuck at their doors, the FO was required by regulations to stay in the Flight Deck for refueling was in progress with passengers on board and the captain was taking care of refueling downstairs. The Flight Director was attending the faint hero with the responders.

The aircraft was refueled, the emergency vehicles were asked to move, the air start was connected, the doors were closed, and one engine was started manually on the third attempt after two failed automatic attempts, for the First Air air start unit could not provide any more than 15 PSI of air.

Once the engines were started, Air conditioning was restored, and the aircraft was able to finally make it to YUL, with all passengers on board, including the hero and family, but only after the captain had MELed his now U/S APU and obtained a release number from dispatch.

He did a fantastic job.

[Old fella]

Hmmm....... plenty of "he said, she said" here. Fine and fair enough but the CTA hearing will be an interesting read upon release. I believe the CTA wouldn't be conducting a hearing if it felt it wasn't a serious incident. Shall see!