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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Deleted

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.

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?

Deleted

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.

Deleted, redundant post with thread restored.

16 hour duty day?...when in the 6 hours did it become unforeseen? Interesting interpretation of that rule...

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.

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.

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.

Spaceshuttle wrote:16 hour duty day?...when in the 6 hours did it become unforeseen? Interesting interpretation of that rule...

They didn't foresee breaking their 14 hour duty day when they took off 15.5 hours into their duty day.

digits_ wrote:

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.

Agreed. This is dangerous confinement of people which could result in dire consequences for anybody let alone somebody who may have a slight medical condition and as well elderly, toddlers and so on.

Airlines/Regulator/Border Services/Airport Authorities have to coordinate efforts before some unfortunate vacationers loose their lives. I am surprised this hasn't happened.

A couple of hours of drywall mudding in the rec room has gone by...
So, how hard did the crew advocate for having the passengers put in a more comfortable setting?
"You're next for fuelling, really, we promise" rings pretty thin after a certain number of minutes, not hours, under these conditions.
It keeps coming back to me, was this crew adequately hydrated, fed, unstressed, and fit to continue their duty into potentially greater than 16 hours and in the middle of the night body clock time after an Atlantic crossing and diversion ? No amount of swagger or bravado can convince me the the answer was yes, whether I was there or not. And it bears repeating, was this crew coerced into this situation by those more concerned with the bottom line?

Flame away folks.

Someone in the food chain wanted that plane full of passengers to get back to YUL at minimum cost, before the crew timed out on the unforeseen 17 hour thing.

Why they could not get their fuel, very bizarre. Suspect other players who are not mentioned in the media to be accessories to this major screw up.

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

If I'm on board with my kid, no food, no air, some other kid is getting sick, lavs are probably running over, body odors taking over the cabin, etc, etc, for 6 hours, I know my nerves would be fried. I was asking about the legal ramifications of someone taking some action.

I think the real 'sick mind' here is whoever decided these people weren't getting off that aircraft.

Jimmy2 wrote:

Spaceshuttle wrote:16 hour duty day?...when in the 6 hours did it become unforeseen? Interesting interpretation of that rule...

They didn't foresee breaking their 14 hour duty day when they took off 15.5 hours into their duty day.

Exactly. But it's all good and safe because it was irops though.

I think we need new flight and duty time rules ASAP!

If the crew had run out of duty time, I bet they would have de-planned all the passengers. That said, the flight crew can also refuse the duty time extension

We have duty regulation already. If they didn't change crew they most likely broke them.

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 definitely merits calling 911 and having paramedics attend. Please refer to my avatar. Perhaps they should ask Air Transat to provide grief counsellors and post-traumatic treatment?

I hate being delayed as much as the next person and I've had some absolutely crazy ones, both as pax and PIC. But quotes like this:

"I'm super pissed," Mah said. "I'm just really hot, I'm sweating, and I haven't eaten. … I'm hungry and they only rationed the food to give little snacks to kids, which is good. Luckily, they started bringing in bottles of water from the outside, like 45 minutes ago, but no food. I'm starving."

make me think some people need to spend a little more time outside their First World comfort zone to appreciate what true suffering is. I don't deny this was an unpleasant situation. I am highly confident the most vulnerable (elderly, children) were prioritized. But It was certainly not a crisis. Except, of course, everything is a crisis now to the person anything remotely unpleasant is happening to. Funny though, in spite of their "starvation" they always seem to dig deep and find the energy to video and live-tweet and bitch like hell. Ah, such courage.

Flame to your little fingertips content, I don't care. If being able to survive for six hours without water and a/c is the current threshold for the species to continue, I am praying fervently it goes extinct.

Incidentally, the duty rules for "unforeseen" are based on the original departure. The comments about it being an "interesting interpretation" of the rule have an obvious lack of understanding. The diversion WAS the "unforeseen operational circumstance". Duh.

Oh, and blow a slide without authorization on my plane simply because you're miffed and hangry and I'll do everything in my power to make make sure you not only never fly on the airline, but get charged with criminal misconduct. The potential for injury on any slide evac is high, it's not a freakin' bouncy castle intended for people to get off the plane because they're hot and bored. If someone thinks it's worth breaking some little old lady's ankle because they're frustrated I will make sure they answer for it.

You back up my statement with your own interpretation, classic... and thanks!