• Air Transat YOW

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:28 am**

photofly wrote:You can respond any way you like, or not at all. I'm easy.

Oh you're one of THOSE types of people....nevermind, why bother engaging with one of your types.

Gilles, thank you for bringing great information to this thread. It is greatly appreciated and refreshing to get some facts that have not been skewed by the media.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:05 am**

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:11 am**

Would it really be so hard to say "We let our customers down, we're sorry, we'll try to learn what we can from this so it doesn't happen again, and if it does we'll man up to that too, and here's some compensation - more than we're obliged to pay, because we love our customers and we want them to be happy"?

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:20 am**

photofly wrote:Would it really be so hard to say "We let our customers down, we're sorry, we'll try to learn what we can from this so it doesn't happen again, and if it does we'll man up to that too, and here's some compensation - more than we're obliged to pay, because we love our customers and we want them to be happy"?

Yeah it's too hard, because that requires displaying a little humility. And humanity.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:52 pm**

photofly wrote:Giles' post is a classic case of "the operation was a compete success and the surgeon was a hero" while the bigger picture here is that the patient died. Let's give everyone a payrise for a job well done, and move on. Clearly he feels there's nothing to learn here.

His entire post is a fascinating insight into the mindset of a pilot - focused on following procedure, analyzing only whether procedure was followed, and looking for every external excuse for why procedure resulted in a shitty outcome.

Passengers buy an airline ticket to get them from point A to point B. All passengers arrived at B safely and the same day, after a weather diversion to Ottawa.

Shitty outcome ?

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:05 pm**

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:

Passengers buy an airline ticket to get them from point A to point B. All passengers arrived at B safely and the same day, after a weather diversion to Ottawa.

Shitty outcome ?

And that's all there is to it, Gilles? The end and be all of running a successful business? AT should be praised for excellence in the result?

LOL!

Don't ever try running a business, that's my advice.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:07 pm**

Gilles Hudicourt wrote: Shitty outcome ?

OMG! Please - stick to flying planes -preferably cargo ones. Don't ever have ANYTHING to do with customer service!

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:25 pm**

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
photofly wrote:Giles' post is a classic case of "the operation was a compete success and the surgeon was a hero" while the bigger picture here is that the patient died. Let's give everyone a payrise for a job well done, and move on. Clearly he feels there's nothing to learn here.

His entire post is a fascinating insight into the mindset of a pilot - focused on following procedure, analyzing only whether procedure was followed, and looking for every external excuse for why procedure resulted in a shitty outcome.
Passengers buy an airline ticket to get them from point A to point B. All passengers arrived at B safely and the same day, after a weather diversion to Ottawa.

Shitty outcome ?

The result is merely part of the journey. Customer service goes beyond getting people from A to B. There are some expectations on how people should be treated while getting from A to B....

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:53 pm**

Air Transat 70th of 100 airlines.

AC rouge 99th.

Celebrate medocrity.

http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Award ... ating.html

Note who's at the top.

Now must say I flew AC rouge once this year, to get a nonstop leg. FA's were much more friendly, better service than many mainline flights I've had. . Flight was fine, older aircraft of course.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:57 pm**

Only six places higher than "pay to use the toilet" Ryan Air...

lol

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:20 pm**

Let me repeat for the logic challenged:

After the APU quit and emergency services came to the aircraft, no one asked to get off. Not even the one who dialed 911.

That is how bad the situation was.

I rest my case.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:27 pm**

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:Let me repeat for the logic challenged:

After the APU quit and emergency services came to the aircraft, no one asked to get off. Not even the one who dialed 911.

That is how bad the situation was.

I rest my case.

Please. Try not to selectively disclose information.

Key word here is "after emergency services AND THE FUELER showed up to refuel" (they showed up together per your own words) -- , at which point undoubtedly the crew said we will now be off to YUL momentarily.

Of course no one would then want off by that point. Makes no sense. Leaving in 5.

They wanted off much earlier, when there was no resolution in site. They all simply wanted to get home.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:31 pm**

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:. .
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.

.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:45 pm**

complexintentions wrote:
digits_ wrote: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.

I think calling for help after 6 hours locked up in a plane is warranted. The passengers had no idea when they were going to be allowed off, that is psychologically a big difference: I'll lock you up in a hot car but you can leave any time (like the pilots) vs I'll lock you up in a hot car and you don't know when I'll let you out (the pax). The second group will be stressed way sooner than the first group.

Again, all what Gilles said can be true 100%, the fact remains that people were on board for 6 hours. The only difference could be in a court room to decide who has to pay out potential lawsuits.

After 6 hours in a plane you claim that calling 911 is ridiculous. So my question is, once more: at what point is calling 911 warranted? At what point should the captain deplane the passengers? What if the fueller didn't show?

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:57 pm**

digits_ wrote:.
After 6 hours in a plane you claim that calling 911 is ridiculous. So my question is, once more: at what point is calling 911 warranted? At what point should the captain deplane the passengers? What if the fueller didn't show?

The answer of course, for those who complain:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VrDWY6C1178

Maybe not.

Posted: **Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:07 pm**

rookiepilot wrote:
digits_ wrote:.
After 6 hours in a plane you claim that calling 911 is ridiculous. So my question is, once more: at what point is calling 911 warranted? At what point should the captain deplane the passengers? What if the fueller didn't show?
The answer of course, is never. And for those who complain, there is always this:

Not sure if you are serious or not.

You'd stay in an airplane without airflow in the sun, waiting for a fueller that may never come indefinitely? Good thing the fuel trucks didn't break down, or that the airport didn't run out of fuel. Would have been a looooong stay. Eventually it would get dark. No APU, and the emergency ligthing doesn't last forever. Granted, it would help with the temperature issue, but leaving pax in a dark airplane wouldn't be advisable either I would say. Probably illegal as well.

So once again, at what point should the captain decide that enough is enough? Never?

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:07 am**

I wonder why this conversation didn't happen:

Captain: "You know, there's a code of conduct that says we deplane after ninety minutes..."

First Officer: "You're right!"

Captain: "And it's coming up to two hours now, no resolution in sight... so that's what we're going to do... follow the code of conduct."

First Officer: "You mean..."

Captain: "Yes! It's a code, for how our conduct should go! Let's stop worrying about fuel, which isn't coming, and follow the code!"

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:52 am**

From Gilles' account, the captain did an amazing job. It's unfortunate that a few want to continue embarrassing themselves with their total lack of understanding of the situation. It's to the point now where they've been so throughly discredited they're reduced to hypotheticals ("But what if the fuel truck had broken down"? "But what if the fueller didn't show up?" "What if eventually it was night time? etc).

FFS. Seriously. Is this really how hysterically needy some are to assign blame?

rookiepilot wrote:
Key word here is "after emergency services AND THE FUELER showed up to refuel" (they showed up together per your own words) -- , at which point undoubtedly the crew said we will now be off to YUL momentarily.

Of course no one would then want off by that point. Makes no sense. Leaving in 5.

They wanted off much earlier, when there was no resolution in site. They all simply wanted to get home.

Nope, you don't get to play it both ways. First it's apparently so dire a situation that tying up emergency services (and in the process, further diverting flightcrew resources still trying to get you to your destination - great work, Ace!) is completely justifiable to the me me me crowd. But then when pressed as to why no one got off when it was actually offered, well, hey, they all "simply wanted to get home".

What a load of hypocritical horseshit. Weaker than weak. Like children who's bluff was called and then try and run away. And incidentally, do you think the crew and the airline didn't want to "get home"? Logic fail.

Ah yes, the "World's Top 100 Airlines". Just like "One of Canada's Top 50 Best-Managed Companies", another designation you can have for making a financial contribution. Very credible. LOL

Again, reduced now to trying to discredit in any way possible instead of actually recognizing that what happened may not fit their narrow views of what they're "entitled" to. It's always a shame when a discussion thread disintegrates to the point where the professional complainers have taken over. That's the problem with taking positions you can no longer defend with logic.

One is of course, free to make their travel plans on the basis of a polling company. Except that of course, the vast majority of the travelling public will keep making it based on ticket price alone. Keep throwing feces, maybe some will eventually stick.

And I do note, that YOW is still being allowed to skate around their total mismanagement of the airport resources that led to the entire debacle.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:17 am**

further diverting flightcrew resources still trying to get you to your destination - great work, Ace

You know, if five hours of otherwise undiverted sitting-on-their-asses - er, sorry, "flight crew resources" - won't do it, maybe a bit of diversion might help. God knows, nothing else was working.

complexintentions wrote:From Gilles' account, the captain did an amazing job.

From Gilles' paean, sure: it's medals all round then home for tea. Nothing to see here, move along quietly.

Do you think there's any purpose to an enquiry? Is there anything at all to learn here?

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:13 am**

I wondered what I would do if I was personally on that aircraft as a passenger and was still employed at Transport Canada Civil Aviation with my "Delegation of Authority " credentials to step in if I did determine an unsafe condition to any passengers while on the ground. It would be an interesting situation for sure.

Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW

Re: Air Transat YOW