Re: Air Transat YOW
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:46 pm
Why would I want to stop when there are fun people like you to talk to?confuzed wrote:Dude, do you EVER stop?
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/
Why would I want to stop when there are fun people like you to talk to?confuzed wrote:Dude, do you EVER stop?
.photofly wrote:Why would I want to stop when there are fun people like you to talk to?confuzed wrote:Dude, do you EVER stop?
Here is the normal way to get fuel :BE20 Driver wrote:I'll accept Gilles account of what happened. I'll accept that the fueler was just running flat out and fueling planes in the order he received them in.
What I don't understand is why Air Canada managed to successfully intervene, KLM managed to successfully intervene. They found a reason and for them it was a duty day issue that was accommodated. I was not there and I can only speculate what happened or what I would have done differently. The first thing that comes to mind is being more adamant that we will soon be out of fuel and need to get some ASAP to keep the APU and lights on. Nearly running out of fuel is a big reason to cut in line if you ask me. Again, I wasn't there privy to the flight deck conversation or the ACARS messages.
Let's also remind everyone that the plane landed with a low fuel condition to which the emergency services were on standby for, the airport authority was well aware of the low fuel condition of this aircraft.Gilles Hudicourt wrote:Here is the normal way to get fuel :BE20 Driver wrote:I'll accept Gilles account of what happened. I'll accept that the fueler was just running flat out and fueling planes in the order he received them in.
What I don't understand is why Air Canada managed to successfully intervene, KLM managed to successfully intervene. They found a reason and for them it was a duty day issue that was accommodated. I was not there and I can only speculate what happened or what I would have done differently. The first thing that comes to mind is being more adamant that we will soon be out of fuel and need to get some ASAP to keep the APU and lights on. Nearly running out of fuel is a big reason to cut in line if you ask me. Again, I wasn't there privy to the flight deck conversation or the ACARS messages.
Dispatch prepares the flight plan, which contains the fuel load and forwards this to the Operations office of the airport of departure.
Operations office prints the flight plan which is brought to the crew, and call in the fueler with the fuel load.
The airport authority plays no role in this.
When our four aircraft landed in YOW that day, our dispatch in YUL prepared flight plans for the 4 aircraft and sent them to the OPS office in YOW which in this case, was First Air Ops, which is contracted by Air Transat for this service. First Air Ops called the fueler with the fuel loads for the 4 aircraft.
What the YOW airport authority is concerned with, is assigning gates and parking positions to the incoming aircraft. So First Air Ops was also the one responsible for calling the YOW airport authority to obtain parking positions for the aircraft.
If the aircraft that was low on fuel had ever been told that he would have to wait 4 hours for fuel, he would have stated that he had insufficient fuel to do so. But as has been stated a million times before, he was always told that he was going to be refueled "in 30 minutes", and then was told the same thing again when the 30 minutes expired.
When he ran out of fuel, the fuel truck had arrived was in the process of being connected. The tank feeding the APU still indicated 60 to 70 Kg of fuel. He had never run a main tank dry before....
Meh. Like I said, no matter what, people like you would just complain. It's the default setting for losers. Whine and pout first, ask questions later. Or not. I mean why ask why, the world is out to get you, you're a victim. And then on to the next crisis. After awhile it's just white noise, really. At least you can know you're part of a popular and ever-growing club.photofly wrote:If the only people who flew were those happy to sit on the tarmac for six hours without raising an eyebrow, their market for air travel would be very small.
The very existence of the 90 minute limit in law suggests that *everyone* gets mad at that, except, apparently, airline management.
As much as it might pain you to listen to what's being said, the fact that the crew were doing their best with the information that they were given isn't in dispute.complexintentions wrote:As much as it may pain you to attempt to change your mind, you might actually consider that the crew were doing the best they could with the information they were given and not just trying to make like miserable for their passengers.
Amazing, this is simply amazing, what a load of c**p. Soon, pilots will have to ask permission to enter the cockpit.The agency found that pilots had too much power over how the situation was handled and it resulted in the violation of the airline's tariff, or agreement with passenge
What people are forgetting is that you can't refuel with pax on board unless there is a usable exit to deplane the pax if needed in the event of a fuel spill. Therefore, before Transat could get fuel they needed to be either bridged or have portable stairs brought to the plane.confusedalot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:03 pm There is something horribly wrong with this entire picture......
As I recall, the Transat flight was passed over numerous times for refueling while other airlines got their fuel and left?
You quote a 90 minute tariff for the reason for the violation - but off gate it's listed as 4 hours in AT's published Tariff... maybe I'm misunderstanding it though.Gilles Hudicourt wrote: Ten were able to turn around between 1:51 and 2:47.
Thus all violated the Tariff as well.
Eight were on the ground over 3 hours:
AFR356 03:13
ROU1651 03:35
KLM671 03:46
TSC711 04:47
TSC445 04:40
TSC507 04:47
ACA318 05:06
TSC157 05:51
https://www.airtransat.com/en-CA/Legal- ... nd-tariffs... If the delay exceeds 90 minutes while at the gate, or 4 hours in the event of a Tarmac delay, the Carrier must allow the passengers to deplane...
altiplano wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:02 pmYou quote a 90 minute tariff for the reason for the violation - but off gate it's listed as 4 hours in AT's published Tariff... maybe I'm misunderstanding it though.Gilles Hudicourt wrote: Ten were able to turn around between 1:51 and 2:47.
Thus all violated the Tariff as well.
Eight were on the ground over 3 hours:
AFR356 03:13
ROU1651 03:35
KLM671 03:46
TSC711 04:47
TSC445 04:40
TSC507 04:47
ACA318 05:06
TSC157 05:51
https://www.airtransat.com/en-CA/Legal- ... nd-tariffs... If the delay exceeds 90 minutes while at the gate, or 4 hours in the event of a Tarmac delay, the Carrier must allow the passengers to deplane...
AC's Tariff is similar but not exact... there is no "90 minute rule"... There is a "4 hour rule".
5 were on the ground over 4 hours.
4 TS
1 AC
It looks like AC318 was the only one apart from Transat over 4 hours and you seem somewhat unsure on it. It was a domestic flight, maybe the did deplane...