Passengers off loaded

[mviy]

I think the point is telling who to get off (whilst letting others stay onboard) rather than getting volunteers is poor form. Yes it's easiest for the airlines to just tell people to get off but it hardly provides a good customer experience. Whereas with volunteers you end up with a situation where both parties benefit.

The airline's not going to know who shifting is going to cause the least inconvenience. Sure they're unlikely to shift someone who uses a wheelchair but what about someone who struggles to walk long distances but tries to keep that quiet and doesn't use a wheelchair? For what might be a smaller level of inconvenience for someone like me (if the next flight isn't far away), could be a major inconvenience for another passenger.

I think everyone understands that mechanical problems happen and everyone could have to be offloaded to another plane or other flights. However, forcibly offloading just some passengers from the customer experience perspective is pretty much the same as being forcibly offloaded due to overbooking. The passengers that remain onboard have been given preferential treatment and you've had no say in the matter.

 

[juddles]

So how would you solve it?

 

[RichardMEL]

The airline's not going to know who shifting is going to cause the least inconvenience. Sure they're unlikely to shift someone who uses a wheelchair but what about someone who struggles to walk long distances but tries to keep that quiet and doesn't use a wheelchair? For what might be a smaller level of inconvenience for someone like me (if the next flight isn't far away), could be a major inconvenience for another passenger.

Nice thought but I don't think this is really an issue. Remember they have to take multiple people's bags off the plane also. it's not like "You have 5 minutes to get off and go to gate 24..."

And obviously QF would not move people with connections (which they DO know about, assuming same booking) and those with status and higher fares paid.

 

[mannej]

I think the point is telling who to get off (whilst letting others stay onboard) rather than getting volunteers is poor form. Yes it's easiest for the airlines to just tell people to get off but it hardly provides a good customer experience. Whereas with volunteers you end up with a situation where both parties benefit.

The airline's not going to know who shifting is going to cause the least inconvenience. Sure they're unlikely to shift someone who uses a wheelchair but what about someone who struggles to walk long distances but tries to keep that quiet and doesn't use a wheelchair? For what might be a smaller level of inconvenience for someone like me (if the next flight isn't far away), could be a major inconvenience for another passenger.

I think everyone understands that mechanical problems happen and everyone could have to be offloaded to another plane or other flights. However, forcibly offloading just some passengers from the customer experience perspective is pretty much the same as being forcibly offloaded due to overbooking. The passengers that remain onboard have been given preferential treatment and you've had no say in the matter.

In this situation, we don't know exactly what was said to those pax affected.

If they decided to ask for volunteers, is there any guarantee they'd be able to get onto the 571 with a similar arrival time? At that time of the evening it is cutting fine with the number of options left.

Perhaps it may be worth for perspectives sake checking some of the comments from those affected, who from what I have read seemed relatively satisfied with how it was handled.

Like I said if the situation was different in terms of the time of next available flight, the actions may not have been appropriate, but in this situation I feel that many who weren't there are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I think the point is telling who to get off (whilst letting others stay onboard) rather than getting volunteers is poor form. Yes it's easiest for the airlines to just tell people to get off but it hardly provides a good customer experience. Whereas with volunteers you end up with a situation where both parties benefit.

The airline's not going to know who shifting is going to cause the least inconvenience. Sure they're unlikely to shift someone who uses a wheelchair but what about someone who struggles to walk long distances but tries to keep that quiet and doesn't use a wheelchair? For what might be a smaller level of inconvenience for someone like me (if the next flight isn't far away), could be a major inconvenience for another passenger.

I think everyone understands that mechanical problems happen and everyone could have to be offloaded to another plane or other flights. However, forcibly offloading just some passengers from the customer experience perspective is pretty much the same as being forcibly offloaded due to overbooking. The passengers that remain onboard have been given preferential treatment and you've had no say in the matter.

Tell you what, you ask for 40 volunteers on a flight and see how long it takes.

Then you've got the bags. Personally if I was doing it (assuming it was all loaded and locked up) - rank by status. Anyone with nothing, no SSRs and no bags is first off. Go from there.

Only way to do it is to point and say get off (in a nice manner). Anything else and frankly you are just wasting good time and putting everyone back instead of a handful of people.

 

[jb747]

A fuel pump issue? What does that mean?

Means a fuel pump doesn't work?

 

[theweaselsteve]

Means a fuel pump doesn't work?

This made me chuckle.

 

[dk4]

Airlines are a business and make commercial decisions about their capital investments which effect passenger outcomes...so I vote with those who would hold an airline responsible for delays. (Although in this case, it looks like most people arrived pretty much on time via an alternative flight, so the issue is mute.)

However, I want to point out that -
An airline that outsources all maintenance, will recover differently to one which has its own maintenance staff easily available 24-7.
An airline that carries an extensive spare part inventory at all stations across their network, will recover differently to one which relies on at-failure supplier provisioning.
An airline which has longer turn-arounds on the ground, will recover differently than one with shorter turn-arounds.
An airline which has spare fleet capacity, will recover faster than one which has 100% 24-7 fleet utlilisation.
At airline which flies 100% full will recover differently than one flying at 70%...

All these management decisions effect an airlines' ability to recover in situations of mechanical or weather related events and therefore are within some management control (even if the weather or mechanical event isn't). Of course it's a question of costs versus risks, but that is - in and of itself a management decision.

I also agree with those saying that asking for volunteers to disembark first is always a more suitable scenario, before unilaterally deciding to offload passengers. (Some people will be flying on time critical agendas, and some won't - independent of their status, fare price paid or "balance-based" location of their seating.)

Although, again, I think this incident seems to be a none-event in terms of poor passenger recovery.

 

[oz_mark]

Completely agree. I have never understood how you can sell something you don't have eg more seats than available.

Hotels sell more rooms than they have available
ISPs sell more bandwidth than they have available
Telephone networks can't handle everyone calling at the same time
Web hosts oversell hosting capacity

It's hardly restricted to airlines!

 

[jb747]

Ladies and gentlemen. This aircraft has a technical problem that is currently stopping it from being able to fly to Perth. We have an A330, which will be going in 30 minutes, which has no issues. We only have space for the first 40 people who'd like to transfer....

 

[moa999]

All about the spin

 

[clazman]

One news service said 40 people kicked off the flight ..talk about news beat up

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't like overbookings but I understand it is a necessary part of airlines survival in an ultra-competitive environment. But as for mechanical and weather issues - it is, IMHO , ridiculous that in these types of event the airline should have to do an auction (effectively be held to ransom) to the pax to solve the problem - that is unfair on the airline.

Weather I agree. But mechanical? I don't buy the argument there. It is the airline's responsibility to have a maintained plane capable of flying the advertised service. Or have a back-up. EU261 specifically covers all but extraordinary mechanical events (things like defects going back to manufacture). EU261 provides for hefty compensation. It's a commercial decision for the airline... provide timely alternatives (which might include a spare aircraft at hubs), or pay compensation. An auction may be another method to provide that compensation.

Although in this particular case with such a short delay I don't believe there is any compensation due - provided the flight was catered for meals etc. Moving from one plane to the next may be inconvenient, but these things happen.

 

[serfty]

... but the end result was not really that different to what they'd booked.

It would be annoying and i would cope but I would not indicate "no ... different".

I work hard on seat selection, especially for such a long domestic flight and would not be pleased if relegated to a middle seat for 4 [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]2[/sub] hours because of such.

 

[oz_mark]

It would be annoying and i would cope but I would not indicate "no ... different".

I work hard on seat selection, especially for such a long domestic flight and would not be pleased if relegated to a middle seat for 4 [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] hours because of such.

Has anyone heard of any of the actual affected passangers compiaining? I imagine that some of them may have been on staff travel, and then there would be a bunch that just take it in their stride....

I got "reaccomadated" (in the Qantas sense, not the United sense) from a 737 to a 747 once - I think I ended up in a better place

 

[docjames]

I'm interested that they would take an aircraft ex-SYD to PER with an ongoing problem requiring 40 less pax, if it is "easy" to fix at an "outpost" why not fix it in SYD prior to departure (unless the aircraft had significant ground time in PER), and/or you're stuck with the same issue ex-PER.

I'm a little confused how a "fuel pump" issue restricts payload (rather than be a go/no-go item) - unless it becomes a "max flow rate" of fuel into the engine hence "max thrust" is reduced (and therefore offset by a lower ToW)?

 

[cambriamarsh]

I understood it was a ground fuel pump issue from the news story but maybe it wasn't, can anyone clarify?

I'm interested that they would take an aircraft ex-SYD to PER with an ongoing problem requiring 40 less pax, if it is "easy" to fix at an "outpost" why not fix it in SYD prior to departure (unless the aircraft had significant ground time in PER), and/or you're stuck with the same issue ex-PER.

I'm a little confused how a "fuel pump" issue restricts payload (rather than be a go/no-go item) - unless it becomes a "max flow rate" of fuel into the engine hence "max thrust" is reduced (and therefore offset by a lower ToW)?

 

[oz_mark]

Weather I agree. But mechanical? I don't buy the argument there. It is the airline's responsibility to have a maintained plane capable of flying the advertised service. Or have a back-up. EU261 specifically covers all but extraordinary mechanical events (things like defects going back to manufacture). EU261 provides for hefty compensation. It's a commercial decision for the airline... provide timely alternatives (which might include a spare aircraft at hubs), or pay compensation. An auction may be another method to provide that compensation.

Although in this particular case with such a short delay I don't believe there is any compensation due - provided the flight was catered for meals etc. Moving from one plane to the next may be inconvenient, but these things happen.

The later flight they were put on actually left before the original flight they were booked on.

 

[Jack_OC]

Weather I agree. But mechanical? I don't buy the argument there. It is the airline's responsibility to have a maintained plane capable of flying the advertised service. Or have a back-up. EU261 specifically covers all but extraordinary mechanical events (things like defects going back to manufacture). EU261 provides for hefty compensation. It's a commercial decision for the airline... provide timely alternatives (which might include a spare aircraft at hubs), or pay compensation. An auction may be another method to provide that compensation.

Although in this particular case with such a short delay I don't believe there is any compensation due - provided the flight was catered for meals etc. Moving from one plane to the next may be inconvenient, but these things happen.

EU261 is certainly nice for pax affected by delays/cancellations - I say that as someone who was reimbursed several thousand bucks after getting stuck in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010. However, despite being a beneficiary of the EU rules, I don't think they are reasonable. What objective reason was there to force an airline to pay for accommodation and meals for myself and my family for a week in that situation? It was completely outside the airline's control. Nonetheless, I had to pursue the airline, as travel insurance would not pay up, on the grounds that the airline was liable. The other strange thing is that the compensation is not in any way linked to the fare you pay. For example, you could have paid EUR20 return for a short flight with Ryanair, but then get cash compensation of EUR250 plus accommodation and meals if there is a delay/cancellation.

The fact is, the EU rules impose an additional cost of doing business on airlines, which ultimately all passengers pay for. In some cases, this is explicitly clear - e.g. Ryanair imposes a surcharge of EUR2.50 per flight to cover these payouts. Full service airlines (to my knowledge) have not done this, but obviously those airlines are either paying extra for insurance and/or paying out their own cash to provide compensation, and that extra money has to come from somewhere.

I know affected pax feel a bit better as a result of the compensation, and I guess most other people probably don't realise they are subsidising the compensation payouts for others, so maybe this works reasonably well overall. I'm still not convinced the EU rules are particularly fair or reasonable though.

 

[serfty]

... I'm still not convinced the EU rules are particularly fair or reasonable though.

I read somewhere the compensation levels were intended to be punitive but can't find a reference.

Different sections have different results; it certainly stopped Ryanair's habitual merging of flights.

i.e. They would frequently, for example, at short notice cancel a lightly booked morning flight and moving its PAX onto a flight on the same route in the afternoon. Now those PAX affected are each entitled to at least €250 compensation.