Aviation Appreciation Station

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Would they have to dump fuel due to an unreliable airspeed indicator? I understand it's likely a procedural requirement but isn't that usually for when there is a concern about landing? I guess a bad airspeed would fit that bill the more I think about it ....

The amount of fuel onboard may exceed maximum landing weight to prevent an overweight landing

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Would they have to dump fuel due to an unreliable airspeed indicator? I understand it's likely a procedural requirement but isn't that usually for when there is a concern about landing? I guess a bad airspeed would fit that bill the more I think about it ....

The dumping fuel is because the aircraft was over it's max landing weight. Dumping fuel dumps weight, allowing the pilots to land the aircraft.

[Amethyst]

If the plane making a stop ruins your wedding, I would be concerned about the idea of getting married in the first place.

[Ryan Coke]

The reason to dump fuel is to get the plane below its max landing weight. Larger planes have a higher max takeoff weight than the max landing weight. So if the flight has to return shortly after takeoff they have not yet burned enough fuel to get below the landing weight, so if the aircraft has the ability to dump fuel they will prior to landing.

The 737 doesn't have fuel dump capability, we determine how urgently the aircraft needs to land. If we can burn fuel to get below landing weight, great, if we need to land urgently then we just land heavy and have maintenance inspect the airplane.

Same on the 767 which does have fuel dump ability. They will dump to get below landing weight if able, but if they need to land urgently then they will land heavy if required, depending on the nature of the problem.

I hope that makes sense.

[Ryan Coke]

Oops! Missed the last page with all the responses already.

Ah well, I used more words

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

If the plane making a stop ruins your wedding, I would be concerned about the idea of getting married in the first place.

I am trying to understand the relevance of the discrepancy between non-stop and direct for her claim. Unless they told them a different arrival time at the destination, what would be the problem?

Personally, I don't get why people get so flustered. It will add a bit of colour to an otherwise boring wedding story.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'd be curious to read that statement of claim.

How did landing at another airport without the need for you to get off or change planes ruin your wedding?

As Wormius said, if they arrive on (or about) time then I don't see the issue. I haven't booked a direct flight in a dog's age, but isn't that disclosed on the itinerary?

I seem to recall flying YQM-YYC in 2004 knowing full well that the flight was making a stop at YHM on the way. But then again, I'm a plane nerd so I'd look into that so maybe not? Although I do find it bizarre she didn't know.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I am trying to understand the relevance of the discrepancy between non-stop and direct for her claim. Unless they told them a different arrival time at the destination, what would be the problem?

Personally, I don't get why people get so flustered. It will add a bit of colour to an otherwise boring wedding story.

I agree. I think the complaint is legitimate and is a scam by airlines.

But to say it ruined your wedding is a massive stretch.

[speede5]

The airline was intentionally selling non-stop direct flights (which most people will pay a bit extra for) and then making fuel stops on the way. The pilots were told to file direct and then refile after take off. They weren't just deceiving customers but authorities as well.

Adding fuel stops enroute changes arrival times, so the customer is not getting what they paid for. I don't know how it ruined the wedding, might be a stretch, but the airline needs to be held accountable and the more people who file the more chance there is it gets rectified.

[speede5]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-...avel-1.4143047

Looks like it was quite a traumatic experience, they should make out like bandits.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by speede5

Adding fuel stops enroute changes arrival times, so the customer is not getting what they paid for. I don't know how it ruined the wedding, might be a stretch, but the airline needs to be held accountable and the more people who file the more chance there is it gets rectified.

That's not how it works, else people would be lining up to sue every carrier when their flight is late. When you buy a ticket it is for travel from point A to point B and no guarantees about times are made.

Just because I have it handy, United's fine print says:

Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on tickets, [etc.] are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time.

Elsewhere in United's contract of carriage it talks about compensation and what not when delays are particularly untimely, but the key point is obviously that every airline has provisions for fuel stops in their contracts of carriage. I don't suspect anybody in this matter has actually read Transat's contract of carriage, else they'd be phrasing their arguments differently. I dunno, facts tend to not matter in airline-related articles.

I'd like to think that the only angle against the airline would be for some aviation expert to present evidence that they were sufficiently aware of both the capabilities of the aircraft and the historical weather trends along the route to the extent that it was unethical to advertise as nonstop. I believe Transat is claiming they did not advertise it as nonstop, and I don't care enough to figure out if they did or not.

Originally Posted by speede5

The pilots were told to file direct and then refile after take off. They weren't just deceiving customers but authorities as well.

If by authorities you mean ATC, they were not deceived and I can pretty much guarantee they don't care. It would make no difference to a high level Mexican controller if you're going to MSY or YEG. I don't see why Houston Center wouldn't care either, unless they had flow control into MSY or some other extenuating circumstance.

Maybe part of the problem is that the first article says:

There are no penalties for filing flight plans an airline has no intention of following, he said.

Subject to interpretation, I guess... but that almost makes it sound like Transat (or anybody) can just file a flight plan and then doing whatever they want, which is obviously not the case. They absolutely followed their flight plan, till they refiled and then followed a new flight plan after receiving clearance. At no point were they not following their flight plan... hence no deception.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by speede5

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-...avel-1.4143047

Looks like it was quite a traumatic experience, they should make out like bandits.

Maybe I need to read it. I stopped reading at the point where the complaint was not being offered a vegan menu

[Acey]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Maybe I need to read it. I stopped reading at the point where the complaint was not being offered a vegan menu

On Air Transat. A vegan menu. Are you kidding me right now

[Amethyst]

So it looks like their plane was perhaps 3 hours late, there was no entertainment, and no vegan menu. If this is all it takes to ruin your wedding, cancel the wedding until you get some perspective about life.

I'm no fan of the airlines, but those are all common occurrences and with a little consideration can be avoided.

As for the people who were delayed overnight in Regina, again these things happen and it's a smaller airport, so fewer services. I would be upset if the plane was a mess when I returned the following morning and probably would make the choice not to fly on that airline again, but if that is the worst experience of your life, you have had a very easy life!

[I-Hate-Hulse]

The Vimy biplanes did a fly by of the zoo and downtown today at about 11:45. Very cool to hear and see them.



http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...for-rare-visit

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Acey

That's not how it works......

Yes you are correct in your post, and I understand you can refile airborne etc.

From what I have seen regarding this issue though, they had been selling these routes as nonstop with absolutely no intention of flying them that way.

There are internal emails telling pilots to file then divert enroute. It was basically an established practice.

I think most people can understand when plans change for reasons beyond control but outright lying isn't cool in a customer relationship.

[Acey]

I wouldn't say there where was no intention, as several legs managed to make it nonstop when winds were favourable. The fact that some were able to make it could prove intent that they fully intended to fly nonstop if able then stop if necessary. What's bad news for Transat is that the given range by Boeing, which is already inflated and not representative of real world conditions, is less than YEG-CUN. For newer models Boeing has since revised down the advertised range to make it more realistic and representative of how airlines are configuring aircraft these days.

Just playing devil's advocate, I have no idea how this class action (or whatever it is) will play out. Even if Transat can prove they didn't advertise it as nonstop, is it unethical to pray for a miracle in the jetstream? What percentage of flights have to tech stop before it's unethical? There's no real precedent for this, so God knows what would come of it.

[speede5]

Trust is essential in aviation. If an airline is willing to deceive its clients in one area, what are their ethics like in others? ie: maintenance. Right, legal, ethical, or whatever, if you don't have that trust you've lost.

[rd_aaron]

Something kinda similar happened to us last year. We booked with Sunwing to Puerto Vallarta direct (i.e. the flights at the time of booking were Calgary - Puerto Vallarta). About a month after booking, I got an email with an itinerary change which included a stop over in Vancouver both ways.

I phoned in as I was a bit ticked off but they explained that I agreed to possible changes in the Terms & Conditions (which was true, but not something I had read). Kinda sucked as we got to PV later, and got back to Calgary at like midnight instead of 8PM. However, as there was only 9 people on the flight from Calgary to Vancouver, I could understand why they have that clause in the T&C.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by speede5

Trust is essential in aviation. If an airline is willing to deceive its clients in one area, what are their ethics like in others? ie: maintenance. Right, legal, ethical, or whatever, if you don't have that trust you've lost.

Your argument remains based on the notion that the flights were specifically marketed as non-stop and not subject to change, which I have seen no evidence of.

Luckily for Transat the morals of nonstop vs direct are in fact meaningless to most people and under no circumstance have they "lost" given that the most important thing is cheap fares; people will continue to book Transat regardless of this incident.

You have stretched a tech stop to possible corners being cut in aircraft maintenance. Nowhere near enough people are going to do that for it to matter.