Air Transat YOW

[rookiepilot]

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.

[photofly]

Shitty outcome ?

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

[AuxBatOn]

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....

[rookiepilot]

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.

[photofly]

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

lol

[Gilles Hudicourt]

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.

[rookiepilot]

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.

[rookiepilot]

. .
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.

.

[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?

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?

[rookiepilot]

.
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.

[digits_]

.
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?

[photofly]

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!"

[complexintentions]

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?

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.

[photofly]

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.

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?

[Old fella]

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.

[confuzed]

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.

Call the airport authority on duty manager and ask WTF is wrong with you? Are you THAT incompetent that you can not handle a simple diversion of multiple aircraft? Wait, from what I am seeing and reading from all of the information available it seems the answer is no.

[Braun]

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.

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?

Politics quite obviously.

[complexintentions]

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.

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?

Yes, it is easy to take shots from the sidelines. A bit cowardly and pathetic, but hey it's a free internet so whatevs. Unfortunately, with no practical experience at this level of the industry you're just displaying the same thing over and over again: that you've never been given the responsibility of managing a situation like this. Sorry if that offends, but I don't even have to ask what it is you do for a living to know this is the case.

The sad part is you don't even appear to realize how badly you embarrass yourself with statements like "sitting-on-their-asses". If there is one thing the inquiry will discover happened, it isn't that. No one has suggested that the incident not be examined. But as one who most certainly can relate to what that captain had to deal with, I'd sure as hell fly with him any day over some amateur cheap-shot artist.

And since you seem to feel quite strongly, I'm sure it could be arranged for you to get the chance to repeat some of your comments to his/her face, except that I doubt you would have the balls.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

20 aircraft diverted to YOW because of weather.

They all needed one thing: refuel and continue.
Looking at the arrival and departure times of the 20 aircraft, one sees that the aircraft were not refueled sequentially in the order that they had arrived.

Here are some of the arrival and departure times and Time on ground
Aircraft ARR DEP TOG
RO1963 1658 1745 0047
TS0711 1703 2140 0437
TS0157 1708 2259 0551
AC0318 1715 2221 0506
KLM671 1712 2058 0346
TS0445 1717 2157 0440
AC0865 1730 2002 0232
TS0507 1754 2207 0413

The 6 six that were parked on Taxiway C all had to wait to be moved to a ramp before they could refueled, except Air Canada 865, a B777 which was given refueling priority by the YOW airport authority after they were told its crew was tight on duty. It had been in the air 7 hours and 28 minutes.
The TS711 had been in the air 7 hours and 39 minutes, the TS157 had been in the air 8 hours and 10 minutes and the TS445 had been in the air 8 hours and 45 minutes.

The YOW airport didn't question why a London Montreal flight would be tighter on duty than the three Transat flights that had arrived from Brussels, Marseille and Rome, all of which had longer flight times than the AC flight.

Granted, most gates at YOW are not suitable for wide body aircraft. So it's possible that some narrow bodied aircraft that would have landed after the wide bodied Transat flights could have been given gates quickly, allowing them to be refueled first. This would include AC318, ROU1651 etc.

But when the wide bodied aircraft were moved from the taxiways to the ramps, the order of arrival was not taken into account by the YOW airport when their parking positions were assigned, and some aircraft that arrived later were parked in such a manner that allowed them to be refueled and depart before aircraft that had arrived earlier. Some were parked with their refueling ports over the grass, where the fuel trucks were not allowed to park.

Then the YOW airport authority directly intervened a second time, to have the KLM flight be refueled out of sequence because once again, the crew claimed to be short on duty. There again, how can a flight from Amsterdam be tighter on duty than a Brussels, Marseille or Rome flight ? The KLM flight time was in the air 7 hours and 39 minutes. The same time as one of the TS flights it was allowed to jump in front of, and less than the other one which had flown 8 hours and 10 minutes before landing in YOW.

TSC157 had declared a fuel emergency after holding at both YUL and YOW. It had already burned all its contigency and alternate fuel and landed with just the 30 minutes fuel reserve. It had been met my YOW emergency crews on landing. Yet it was parked on a taxiway for two hours, with no ground service such as GPU or ground Air Conditioning allowed, and then required by the YOW airport to move under its own power to the ramp, after lengthy delays, with engines on.

Both Air Canada 865 and KLM 671 jumped the queue ahead of it after direct YOW airport authority intervention. The fueler stated that there were only two drivers available and the AC 777 refueling on the taxiway, with the required escort etc, monopolized one of the drivers for 45 minutes.

Everyone testified that the fueler would keep stating that they would get to the Transat flights in 30 minutes, or 45 minutes, and this was repeated over and over over the course of 4 hours.

The YOW airport authority lawyer asked Air Transat why they didn't just refuel at one of the two FBO'S in YOW when it became evident that fuel would not come quickly from the contracted refueller. I won't even comment on that suggestion......

Some other issues that were brought up by witnesses:

The First Air representative stated that it's employees had to constantly run back and forth between the First Air hangar, and the de-icing bay where the 4 Air Transat flights were eventually parked by the YOW airport authority and that those two locations are on opposite ends of the airport.
Everytime something had to be fetched by a First Air ground agent, be it a flight plan, a GPU, an Air Start Unit, an Air Stair, the YOW airport procedures required that these be taken through the non secure area and be brought up to the de-icing ramp after going through an airport security checkpoint where they subjected to a search. Ten, Twenty times....

This is ridiculous, for when a First Air aircraft is parked at the non secure First Air ramp, and needs to be towed to the gate, it does not have to go through airport security. But if the GPU that same aircraft is connected to at the First Air ramp, needs to be moved to be re-connected to the same aircraft at the YOW ramp or at a gate, the GPU must be driven through security.

A whole aircraft need not be searched, but the GPU must......

(Note that for the aircraft, the security check is allowed by the airline's flight attendants after the aircraft is parked and before boarding begins)

The fueler also testified that at most airports in Canada (he said even Iqaluit) have in-ramp fuel pits that are directly connected to the main airport fuel tanks. YOW does not. When the trucks are empty, they must be driven over to the tanks to be refueled. That had to be done multiple times that day creating more delays. There were two drivers operating 7 trucks....
(For those who are not aware, refueling a wide body aircraft leaving on a long range flight requires more fuel than an 18 wheeler tanker truck can contain)

The YOW airport authority manages the gates and the parking spots which they assign. Yet they admitted in their testimony that they had received no prior notice of the arrival of several of the 20 aircraft that diverted to YOW airport that day, and only learned about them when they were seen on the taxiway on a video screen after landing. That was the case of an Air France 777 among others.
That's how much they were planning the parking positions.....

But let's all agree that Air Transat deserves to be punished.

[photofly]

<angry stuff>

I wouldn't comment on the flight crew's actions, except for Giles' panegyric opened them up for it. This incident doesn't seem to be "about" the flight crew, as much as airline pilots like to think everything is about them.

One thing we can all agree on though is that whatever they were doing for five hours behind that locked door (testing their airline's new and more relaxed attitude towards porn in the cockpit?) wasn't very effective.

Have you ever considered that it just might not be a coincidence that the fueller turned up immediately after the emergency services? Maybe the sight of rescue vehicles attending an aircraft spurred someone into action.

let's all agree that Air Transat deserves to be punished

Let's agree that AT owning the problems caused to AT customers instead of pointing the finger everywhere else, would be a preferred response.