Angry Jet4You passengers refuse to leave aircraft

[sean1982]

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1901/reisnieuw ... iers.dhtml


Probably also the crews fault??

[cathay belgium]

Again, France-Marrocco,

Is this a habit of those?
or are they just LCC-seat lovers ??

Better don't reply otherwise we're rascists again...
Do such accidents also happens on other routes BTW

CX-B

[sean1982]

I'm just wondering if the same conclusion will be drawn.
When it was a ryanair aircraft, it was poor communication skills from the crew, rudeness from the crew, irrisponible behaviour from the crew.

Now exact same situation, this was not even about diverting, just making a short stop in between AND announced before take off. Still the crew's fault??

[sn26567]

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1901/reisnieuw ... iers.dhtml

In short, passengers on a Jet4You flight from Toulouse to Casablanca were angry that the flight would make two intermediate stops to pick up stranded passengers of another Jet4You flight that went technical. They organised a mutiny, after which the captain refused to take off. Several hours later they finally boarded another flight without intermediate stops.

[regi]

I'm just wondering if the same conclusion will be drawn.
When it was a ryanair aircraft, it was poor communication skills from the crew, rudeness from the crew, irrisponible behaviour from the crew.

Now exact same situation, this was not even about diverting, just making a short stop in between AND announced before take off. Still the crew's fault??

Dear Sean,the article you refer to speaks about 2 stops. And it doesn't say "a short stop" The 2 stops would have added 4 hours on the < 2 hour flight.
Link to an English article with more details:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... twice.html
Despite the situation is a bit different, I would say that it is the airline's fault. The people + luggage were already on board when the anouncement was made.
Apparently the airline agrees with my point of view because they brought the passengers the next morning with a direct flight towards their destination. ( but no press release yet on their website )
I wonder if the Jet4You staff will also be very upset if the passengers have taken some chocolate bars

[sean1982]

and if they would have just got on the aircraft they would have been home ages before they got home now.
But off course this time it's not the crew's fault, after all, we are not talking about ryanair this time

also, could anybody explain why 2 short stops at 2 airports within 150 nm off each other adds 4 hours? Off course staying onboard untill next day doesn't add 4 hours. Not my kind of logic

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

Offcourse again the airlines fault

two intermediate stops to pick up stranded passengers of another Jet4You flight that went technical.

I say the pax were extremely arrogant,egoistic !
Maybe other people would accept this if they could imagine that they were waiting
in the other situation.
Sorry,these things could happen and in my eyes Jet4You isn't such an airline were I coudn't accept this,
it isn't LH-SN-.. so IMHO the pax must a get a serious penalty from court so these ridicolous actions
of stupid pax can belongs to history !

CX-B

[regi]

Why do you try for 3 times to provoke a reaction about Ryanair crew ?
It is a different case, a different airline, different background, different solution.
Similar is that it is a flight between France and Morroco, a LCC and a captain who leaves the aircraft behind.

[euroflyer]

I do not want to defend those pax and I do not agree with everything they or the ones at Liege in the FR plane have done. However, reading some posts here I just need to point out that 'those pax' are actually the CUSTOMERS of those airlines. They paid for a certain service which they now did not get. And it is fine to say doing two stops enroute, adding some 3 or 4 hours to the journey, is better than staying all night in protest. However, the original offer of the airline, accepted by the customers and PAID FOR by them was to bring them to their destination non-stop . One cannot expect customers will accept everything just because it is so nice and logical for the company

[regi]

some articles:
during the stand off: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/t ... 178664.php
after:
http://www.toulouse7.com/2010/12/06/rev ... um=twitter

So a bird strike blocked 1 Jet4You airplane that would do the stretch Bordeaux-Lyon-Cassablanca. The other airplane departing from Toulouse would pick up the passengers of the blocked airplane.

[regi]

also, could anybody explain why 2 short stops at 2 airports within 150 nm off each other adds 4 hours? Off course staying onboard untill next day doesn't add 4 hours. Not my kind of logic

Yes Sean, it does not sound logical untill you look at the details. The airplane would leave at 22h30 and be at its destination at midnight.
But because of the extra stops the arrival would have been between 5am and 6am at Casablanca.
Some passengers staid on board, some left.
I can imagine that for some people enough is enough. Legal or not. Logical or not.
Jet4you seems to have taken the right decision afterwards by flying them all with a direct flight the next day towards Casablanca. ( but I would not be surprised if this airplane first went to Bordeaux to pick up there the stranded passengers )

Time: yes, we know that the turn around time is much faster than 4 hours...in normal conditions. But in this situation it was different. 2 times extra boarding + luggage loading on an airplane which is already quite occupied.

[sn-remember]

Ok I didn't want to react on the Ryanair LGG incident .. for obvious reasons
Ok maybe not obvious to everybody .. in 2 words, I was not a witness of the incident and the reports of rudeness among the pax broadcasted by some luchtzakkers were sadly not supported by proof.
This is a risk of internet reporting ... not always evidence based .. and so discussuions can get sour
And we must beware of pointing fingers to specific people or community (the Maroccan allochtons in this case) when the accusation is not individually discriminated and based on established fact.(i am referring to pax allegedly spitting at and insulting the FAs). If those kind of behaviours were proven, of course the most severe actions shoud be taken against the illdoers. There was no investigation or lawsuit stating this, so let's leave it an "open" question.
Also the Ryanair bashing by some is simply not my cup of tea. Like millions of people I am all too happy they exist and perform so well. Hats off to the dedicated people who make Ryanair and the like a continued and outstanding success !

On this new and similar incident just a few thoughts :
1. insulting behaviours should always be punished
2. inside an a/c, the crew is the boss. You do what they say period. If you want to protest, do it once you arrived at your destination.
2. It is in my knowledge (or belief ?) that the contract between the operator and the client allows special freedom to the operator regarding
(a) the time of departure
(b) the aircraft operated
(c) the routing
(d) the stops en route.
Even the actual operator can change (inside an alliance for instance .. as far as I know)
You don't purchase a flight like you purchase a computer or a teddy bear... not obvious to everybody (I mean among the pax). I know some EU rules were promulgated in order to protect the pax and it's a good thing as long as some flexibilty is admitted.

It is my mentality once on a flight contract to trust the company and the crew to bring me (and my luggage) safely from point A to point B for a given price at a best case time. I never will pretend that the 4 items mentioned herabove are sealed by the contract.
This is the difference with the rebellious pax .. I really think that besides a contractual issue, it's mainly a mentality issue (the spoiled child mentality that sadly is more and more widespread among grownups)

Now concerning the crew attitude:
I think the captain should have called the police in to evacuate the rebellious lot.
In LGG as well as in TLS.
And proceed with the flight (in TLS) or boarding out (in LGG)

Just my opinion

[regi]

Do we have to believe that the airline had decided that the Toulouse flight should pick up passengers just after boarding?
I don't, they knew it beforehand.
In fact , I feel a bit sorry for the staff and the captain that they were involved in this situation by their managment. So yes Sean, I do have feelings for staff. And I can believe that the captain didn't like to make that anouncement.

[teddybAIR]

My 2 cents on the matter:

Let's start with the facts:
> First of all, Jet4You and the passengers have a binding contract to bring the passengers to their destination on a direct flight in return for certain fares that were paid by the passengers
> Jet4You unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the agreement
> The passengers disagreed and organised a mutiny, thereby forcing Jet4You to ground the aircraft for a prolonged time and flying in another aircraft

Now the peripherals:
> IMHO, Jet4You inflicted certain inconveniences to the passengers that were not part of the initial agreement. Should they have voiced their disagreement and undergone the changes, they would have been entitled to compensation for the inconvenience they suffered
> The passengers however chose to take matters in their own hands and to organise a mutiny as a retaliation
> Taking matters in own hands in not the way our society handles economic conflicts
> By organising the mutiny, the passengers in turn inflicted damage to Jet4You
> Moreover, they increased their own discomfort by forcing the captain to further delay the departure of the flight

My humble conclusion
> Should they have "undergone" the changes Jet4You forced upon them, they would have been entitled to a compensation, period
> Their action does not change their right for a compensation, however, it in turn gives Jet4You the right to reclaim the damage the passengers inflicted on them

My advice
> If i were one of the passengers, I would refrain from claiming any compensation and remain veryvery low profile to avoid Jet4You to start extensive legal procedures.

Feel free to disagree, but my humble opinion is that people in our society tend to take matters in their own hands without regard for the consequences of their acts. Jet4You should take responsibility for her acts, but that does not license the passengers to block a 70m$ plane...their counteraction is just a little out of proportion if you ask me, and couldn't be less constructive!

[sn-remember]

My 2 cents on the matter:

Let's start with the facts:
> First of all, Jet4You and the passengers have a binding contract to bring the passengers to their destination on a direct flight in return for certain fares that were paid by the passengers
> Jet4You unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the agreement
> The passengers disagreed and organised a mutiny, thereby forcing Jet4You to ground the aircraft for a prolonged time and flying in another aircraft

I beg to disagree !
I fail to see where Jet4You unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the agreement.
You are confusing "direct" and "non stop" (a common confusion)
Direct flight means same a/c whatever the nr of stops during flight.
So TLS-BOD-LYS-CMN definitely is a direct flight (not very efficient in terms of stops we agree)

You know it happens in the airline industry, it's not so uncommon that a non scheduled stop is performed.
Just remembering my Sabena days it happened to me twice from AFI (once for refueling in NCE and another time to disembark cargo in ROM, both unscheduled stops being annouced in the cabin just before takeoff)
It can happen for other reasons too like stranded pax uploading, or bringing in piece of replacement for stranded a/c etc ...
Indeed claiming for compensation on this ground would not be advisable ... IMHO

BTW

> The passengers organised a mutiny, thereby forcing Jet4You to ground the aircraft for a prolonged time

is called .... highjacking.

[Passenger]

I'm dissapointed to read how less respect some here have towards the paying passengers. The passengers have paid for a flight that would taken them from Toulouse to Casablanca in 90 minutes. That's on the schedule when people want to book and by paying for that flight, a contract has been established. The contract doesn't mention direct or non-stop: it simply says '90 minutes'. Jet4You has broken that contract. No problem with that: an airline is allowed to brake a contract, if they do it legally. And they have not. Knowing before boarding that the flight would reach its destination with 4,5 hours delay, Jet4You should have cancelled the flight and they should have paid the compensation that European aviation legislation stipulates. And once they've paid the passengers, Jet4You should have offered the pax the choice between another flight Toulouse-Casablanca somewhere on Monday or a flight Toulouse-Lyon-Bordeaux-Casablanca, leaving within half an hour. This is aviation legislation, and I'm sure all involved with Jet4You know this.

The mutiny of 85 of the 137 passengers is a result of an unlawful cancellation by an airline. So accusing passengers from unlawful behaviour after such cancellation is not fair. Is it really that difficult to accept?

Another possibility which would have been fair towards the passengers was that not the pilot onboard, but the office manager at Toulouse told the passengers what/why before boarding.

[teddybAIR]

The mutiny of 85 of the 137 passengers is a result of an unlawful cancellation by an airline. So accusing passengers from unlawful behaviour after such cancellation is not fair. Is it really that difficult to accept?

So you believe fighting crime with crime is just fine...hope we never have an argument then

[euroflyer]

Obviously both sides have made mistakes here.

Of course it is illegal to "highjack" the aircraft and for the pax to stop the airline and crew from doing their job. No discussion at all here and I agree this should not be the way to solve conflicts in our society. (Just by the way however, this same rule is true for airtraffic controllers and other small groups of airline industry staff who from time to time decide to go on (wild) strike for their own interests, taking the rest of the industry and the pax as hostages in the very, very same way ).

On the other hand, this cannot be an excuse for an airline to do what it wants. Just because it is cheaper and easier from an operational point of view to pick up stranded pax from another flight enroute by doing multiple stops on another flight, which is totally unrelated to the other flight(s), this does not mean it is ok to do it! Here, as a CUSTOMER of this airline, paying with my money for their service, the salary of its employees and the income of its shareholders, I would expect a better service. And I do not care if it is legal or not, this is not the case here, it is a question of attitude, of service mentality. I would have expected the airline to sent another, dedicated aircraft to pick up the stranded pax or to rebook them on flights of other airlines and not to reroute the other flight. Yes, of course this would have been more expensive, more work for the airline. But that is the way it is and it should be, if something unexpected happens in operations: not more inconvenience for pax, but more work for the airline ... But unfortunately you do not see this service attitude very often anymore nowadays.

[regi]

I have followed a bit the reactions which were mostly against the passengers.
Giving legal details, using official language. Most of these comments came from people who work for an airline. ( no reaction here by a passenger, but you find some in the French press )
The reaction by Passenger shows a different side. The consumer's side. And it is so strange that nobody seems to ask himself the question how it is possible that a big group of passengers reacts so strong against the treatment.
This lack of interest in the customer shows disrespect , arrogance of people at one side of the fence. Those people forget who pays their salary. Customer first - customer service - customer is king , never heard about that? Seems that a simple salesperson at Carrefour who wants to sell a dishwasher has received more customer service training than airline personnel. ( with respect to the low level employees, I should say "airline managers" )
Civil disobediance is the only thing that works ( sometimes) to overrule the power abusing.
"They've got the guns but we've got the number."
Most people seem to forget what pure democracy means: the people rule. ( deimos = people and kratein = to rule )
Not the law, not the small lines on a booking website .
And that is something that airline people have to accept now in the hard way. Jet4you has accepted it: they flew the passengers on a non-stop fligth to Cassablance.
Btw: still no statement on the website of Jet4you.

[regi]

My 2 cents on the matter:

BTW

> The passengers organised a mutiny, thereby forcing Jet4You to ground the aircraft for a prolonged time

is called .... highjacking.

Be careful with that vocabulary. I explained already that the moment the word " hijacking" falls, a procedure starts where you have no more control upon. Imagine that a passenger feels so threatened by the situation that he thinks that the airplane is hijacked, he is free to run for his life through the emergency exit and using the slide. . I wish the airline great succes at the court against such a passenger, left alone by the crew.
The aircraft was not grounded: it had not taken off yet.