Air Transat YOW

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Here we go again

Post by mbav8r »

Old fella wrote:Ok.... I suppose would it be fair to ask why the AT Aircraft who were on the ground before others got delayed in getting their fuel supply.
Merely speculation but I imagine their biggest customers would get service first, however if in fact the stairs were available once the situation in the cabin got the point of no air, disembarking and going to plan B is the only reasonable option.
I'm sure the crew didn't expect the wait for fuel to take as long as it did and they considered that disembarking would likely result in a further delay and huge issues, Captains authority in this situation should override corporate issues, my humble opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Here we go again

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

fish4life wrote:Does AT fly out of YOW? Would they have a contract with the fuel handlers etc?
We have scheduled flights out of YOW.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jim la Jungle
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:11 pm

Re: Here we go again

Post by Jim la Jungle »

The airlines usually don't own the stairs. The ground handlers company do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Trapped in time, surrounded by evil, low on gas.
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4157
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Here we go again

Post by altiplano »

Some carriers will have prebooked fuel deliveries to support their scheduled operations.

I doubt it's always 1st come, 1st served just because some diverted aircraft show up... that said, the wait seems excessive...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Here we go again

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

Deleted
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Captain S itmagnet
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:53 am

Re: Here we go again

Post by Captain S itmagnet »

mbav8r wrote:
Old fella wrote: Captains authority in this situation should override corporate issues, my humble opinion.
Disclaimer: this is written from the comfort of my kitchen table with a coffee in hand and central air conditioning operable.

My gut feeling is the employer said "no" due to dollars and cents. Easy for that manager to make that decision when contacted while at the pub or the golf course for example, or in his air conditioned office.

So at which point does the crew say " this is ***ked. We have an unsafe work environment, we have passengers getting sick, we have passengers getting agitated, etc".
Worst ever I had to face was a two hour red alert at YYZ a mere 200 feet short of my inbound gate and three weeks vacation starting 201 feet later. And in hindsight that was too long, even though engines stayed running and cabin environment was tolerable.

Was the cabin crew having any success telling the left seater the seriousness of the situation? Was the left seater being told by Operations to keep everyone aboard no matter what? Don't know much about AT corporate culture but there should NEVER be any repercussions for making a decision as crew in the interest of passenger and crew health and safety. Even if you remove passengers from this equation, you have your own crew to take care of. How fit for further duty would YOU be ?
Was this crew made up of limp noodles worried about disobeying Operation's instructions?
Call me up on the carpet afterwards but you will regret it. But I know my employer and union would support my decision so I needn't worry about that.
CSM
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Old fella
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Here we go again

Post by Old fella »

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
mbav8r wrote:
Old fella wrote:Ok.... I suppose would it be fair to ask why the AT Aircraft who were on the ground before others got delayed in getting their fuel supply.
Merely speculation but I imagine their biggest customers would get service first, however if in fact the stairs were available once the situation in the cabin got the point of no air, disembarking and going to plan B is the only reasonable option.
I'm sure the crew didn't expect the wait for fuel to take as long as it did and they considered that disembarking would likely result in a further delay and huge issues, Captains authority in this situation should override corporate issues, my humble opinion.
Stairs had nothing to o with it. They needed fuel.

The flight from BRU obviously landed with minimal fuel, after perhaps holding YUL and diverting to YOW.
Then instead of being parked, they were moved around from point to point with engines running in order to clear the way for other departing and arriving aircraft. YOW ramps are uncontrolled, so these were not ATC requests. Rumor has it they shut down engines several times and had to crank em back up, because local authorities asked them repeatedly to move to accommodate other aircraft.

That whole time they were requesting and not obtaining fuel. They advised YOW several times that they were running out of fuel. That didn't help. They didn't want customs, or a gate, or water, or stairs, or mechanical help. They wanted fuel, fuel that was being provided to others but not to them.

Several aircraft that landed after them were refueled before them and left, while they were still unsuccessfully clamoring for fuel.

The APU eventually shut down due to fuel exhaustion.......

And Air Transat makes headlines.........
Guess the question should be ask why didn't AT get their fuel supply when other airlines who landed after them had no such difficulties. AT isn't a small startup with minimal airplanes, it is a big operation with widebody aircraft and supporting infrastructure including fuel contracts I would assume.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Old fella
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: EasyJet passenger takes it on the chin (literally) for 11hr delay

Post by Old fella »

No doubt a PR nightmare for Air Transat regardless of the he said... she said scenario between airline and airport authority. Keeping passengers on a parked aircraft after a long flight is dangerous to health/safety. Had there been a fatality for whatever reason, the lawyers would line up and it would be an interesting payout. Perhaps thats what needs to happen.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Here we go again

Post by Fanblade »

You can't fuel an aircraft with people on board and the doors closed. You need either a gate or air stairs if off gate. If you are forced to keep moving on a crowded ramp you will never get fuelled.

Sounds like a mess. As someone above pointed out the apron in YOW is uncontrolled. More than a few times in YOW I have had the sense ground would love to see issues like this happen. Issues that could have been solved with their supervision. I almost came nose to nose with another aircraft on the ramp in YOW during construction a couple of years ago.

My understanding is that it is a pissing match between the airport authorities and NAV Canada. Some airports don't want to pay. So NAV Canada isn't providing the service.

YYZ apron for example is run by the airport authority not NAV Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Here we go again

Post by rudder »

The easiest way to solve your problem is to become the biggest problem. The flight should have refused the instruction to taxi under power (due to lack of fuel) and requested a tow. That may have moved them up the fuelling priority list.

I have been in a very similar situation and know how it feels. In hindsight, you consider that you might have made different choices although everything that you did at the time was well intended.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Here we go again

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

Deleted
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Here we go again

Post by mbav8r »

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
mbav8r wrote:
Old fella wrote:Ok.... I suppose would it be fair to ask why the AT Aircraft who were on the ground before others got delayed in getting their fuel supply.
Merely speculation but I imagine their biggest customers would get service first, however if in fact the stairs were available once the situation in the cabin got the point of no air, disembarking and going to plan B is the only reasonable option.
I'm sure the crew didn't expect the wait for fuel to take as long as it did and they considered that disembarking would likely result in a further delay and huge issues, Captains authority in this situation should override corporate issues, my humble opinion.
Stairs had nothing to o with it. They needed fuel.

The flight from BRU obviously landed with minimal fuel, after perhaps holding YUL and diverting to YOW.
Then instead of being parked, they were moved around from point to point with engines running in order to clear the way for other departing and arriving aircraft. YOW ramps are uncontrolled, so these were not ATC requests. Rumor has it they shut down engines several times and had to crank em back up, because local authorities asked them repeatedly to move to accommodate other aircraft.

That whole time they were requesting and not obtaining fuel. They advised YOW several times that they were running out of fuel. That didn't help. They didn't want customs, or a gate, or water, or stairs, or mechanical help. They wanted fuel, fuel that was being provided to others but not to them.

Several aircraft that landed after them were refueled before them and left, while they were still unsuccessfully clamoring for fuel.

The APU eventually shut down due to fuel exhaustion.......

And Air Transat makes headlines.........
Gilles, in my post I mentioned fuel and to me, I understand the logic, while waiting for fuel and you're thinking it should arrive any minute, deplaning will cause a further delay so it is best to keep passengers on board for a quick get away.
This is my point, at some point you have to cut your losses and move onto plan B, plan B being deplaning into a controlled environment and regrouping. They ran out of fuel and who cares who's fault it was, they knew they were going to and should've enacted plan B as soon as that was apparent, maybe even at some point before that, this is where the blame is placed at the feet of the crew.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CCnCoke
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: noneYURbizness

Re: Air Transat YOW

Post by CCnCoke »

If someone HAD opened the door and deployed the slide, I'm curious what would the consequences of that have been (besides a round of applause from the rest of the pax)? Arrest with charges dropped? Black flag on your name with CBSA?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2203
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Transat YOW

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

Deleted
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
brooks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:33 pm

Re: Here we go again

Post by brooks »

Fanblade wrote:You can't fuel an aircraft with people on board and the doors closed. You need either a gate or air stairs if off gate. If you are forced to keep moving on a crowded ramp you will never get fuelled.

Sounds like a mess. As someone above pointed out the apron in YOW is uncontrolled. More than a few times in YOW I have had the sense ground would love to see issues like this happen. Issues that could have been solved with their supervision. I almost came nose to nose with another aircraft on the ramp in YOW during construction a couple of years ago.

My understanding is that it is a pissing match between the airport authorities and NAV Canada. Some airports don't want to pay. So NAV Canada isn't providing the service.

YYZ apron for example is run by the airport authority not NAV Canada.
Good point. At most airlines there is relief in the COM that allows the aircraft to be fuelled in unique circumstances with pax onboard as long as the doors are armed and FA's are ready for an evacuation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

PAX stuck on ground for 6 hours, AT flight

Post by rookiepilot »

Deleted, redundant post with thread restored.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Spaceshuttle
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Air Transat YOW

Post by Spaceshuttle »

16 hour duty day?...when in the 6 hours did it become unforeseen? Interesting interpretation of that rule...
---------- ADS -----------
 
plhought
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Calgary

Re: Air Transat YOW

Post by plhought »

This is one of those situations where a decent real base manager earns their wages. In this day of contracting things out to the lowest possible bidder, the customer (airline) loses control.

A motivated local employee would have cajouled, ran around, bumped heads, use local favours and gotten them on their way. At the very least would have been able to talk to customs/yow and maybe have made that determination to unload the passengers if they knew things weren't looking bright for fuel.

I have no sympathy for the "Oh woe! We landed first but made the sacrifice to allows others to fuel! Woe is us we had to move so others could live!" - excuse. Any decent ops personnel would never had let that happen.

We can't keep dumping more and more things on the pilots - especially in areas where they'd be of little use anyways. Get some decent people on the ground and stop hiring mouth-breathing neckbeards for local staff.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Air Transat YOW

Post by digits_ »

Gilles Hudicourt wrote: How would pulling a slide improve the situation ?
I'm not certain anyone would have applauded the person causing all 350 to sleep over in yow

That is one sick mind you have there
I'd rather be in a hotel than in a hot box for 6 hours.
I would have applauded as well.

Probably wouldn't have pulled it myself, but would definitely support whoever would do it. You can't keep people locked up for 6 hours without an explanation and enough food/drink or a tolerable temperature.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Jet Jockey
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: PAX stuck on ground for 6 hours, AT flight

Post by Jet Jockey »

rookiepilot wrote:https://www.google.be/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4230048

Let's try this again. Ottawa airport disputes Air Transats account. Interesting as every other diverted plane quickly serviced and departed. No AC either sounds pleasant.
Yes it will be interesting to see what really happened when all the facts are in.

I can't believe the captain of that flight allowed the fuel remaining onboard the aircraft upon arrival to be completely exhausted by the APU at which point all power on the aircraft went out. Passengers called 911 with their cell phones to get help.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”