Ryanair passengers held hostage

[Lysexpat]

I had an almost identical problem about 15 years ago.
A diversion, due to bad weather ended at 2 am on a very big airport. The passengers were 150 soccer supporters.
First ATC at the diversion airport didn't want to give us landing clearance because they didn"t want our passengers in the airport. When we explained we didn't have fuel to go anywhere else they accepted us.
Once on the ground it was made clear to us that the passengers had to wait three hours on board awaiting the coaches to bring them to their original destination.
We were unable to speak to someone with the authority to let the passengers in the terminal or any other waiting facility. It was made very clear to us that should we let one passenger on the tarmac we would be in deep trouble.
We ordered water which was promised several times but never arrived.
The police was standing next to our aircraft in case the situation would deteriorate.
The captain was in his cockpit for most of time on the phone, trying to find solutions.
...
The airport was in the heart of Europe, the aircraft had a big blue S on the tail and we were at our home base.
Shit does happen sometimes and it can happen at any airport with any airline. Being patient helps a lot.

[Pocahontas]

15 years ago...
I think the pax remained pretty calm here, this could have ended far worse.

[sean1982]

Last year
http://gawker.com/passengers-stuck-on-b ... -512565843

3 years ago
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/f ... htm?csp=34

3 months ago
http://travel.aol.co.uk/2013/12/12/brit ... diversion/

2 months ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... -1.2485732

2 years ago
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/31/trave ... ue-flight/

1 year ago
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06 ... hrough-it/


I can post another 200 links like this ...

[B.Inventive]

Hi Sean,

Just out of curiosity, doesn't ryanair have a dispatch centre (OCC) to help in these kind of 'out of pilots/cabin crew control' situations? They usually have a lot more resources to work with apart from a handling freq and a 'few' phone numbers...


I honestly believe the situation escalated a bit due to maybe a lack of 'speed' in deciding what to do next? Wouldn't blame the captain but certainly if he had expedited his decision making, something different could have been arranged, no?
It's unfortunate this happened, let's hope good lessons are learnt from it.

[sean1982]

Besides of "operations" at our bases (who in this case where not available) the crew is always able to contact OCC in DUB, but they were also not able to solve the situation in this case as they were unable to contact the airport duty manager (or he didn't want to take a decision).

Maybe the speed of the crew decision could have been faster, but they were lead to believe that they we're going to get a fuelling truck even past the normal curfew, which then eventually never arrived. I really feel sorry for the crew, because they are now getting a shitload on their head, when they were put into a situation they never desired in the first place. If the captain knew that the fuel truck wasn't going to show up, he would have never boarded the airplane so close to curfew, even if this meant that the crew would have to overnight as this was a crew based in OPO.

[Passenger]

Report on HLN.be (Het Laatste Nieuws):

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/959/Bizar/arti ... stel.dhtml

[sean1982]

unbiased as usual

[cnc]

unbiased as usual

well ignore it. HLN wants sensation whether the airline is ryanair, brussels airlines, emirates or who knows what.
FR is responsible since they are the airline in this case, doesn't mean anyone from FR is to blame but that is too much research for most journalists

[airazurxtror]

Ryanair told TheJournal.ie :

“This Ryanair flight from London Stansted to Porto was delayed by the weather disruption and a subsequent fuelling delay at the airport.
“After approximately two hours waiting for fuellers, the Captain requested the handling company (Swissport) to allow the passengers into the terminal which was locked.
“The Captain switched on the aircraft’s air conditioning while waiting for Swissport staff to arrive and the cabin crew provided water to passengers.
“When Swissport failed to arrive the Captain requested the police to let the passengers into the locked terminal. The police subsequently arrived and allowed the passengers into the terminal. Passengers were then provided with refreshment vouchers on Ryanair’s instructions.
“The aircraft departed the following morning at 7.50am.

“Ryanair wishes to correct several false claims in relation to this incident;
The claim that passengers had to call the police is untrue – the Captain called the police.
The claim that the air conditioning was not switched on is false – the Captain switched on the air conditioning.
The claim that passengers were held by Ryanair against their will is false – the Captain made every effort, first with the handling agent (Swissport) and then with the police, to arrange for passengers to be allowed into the terminal which was locked.
The claim that passengers were not provided with refreshment vouchers or water is untrue – Ryanair crew provided water to passengers on board and refreshment vouchers were issued to passengers following disembarkation.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/auto-draft-139 ... 3-Feb2014/

[Flanker2]

People here repeatedly say "why didn't they call OCC", " why didn't the captain do this or do that".

OCC is not some kind of magical center where they can teleport you some food, drinks and escorts in, send you 15 helicopters to pick up the passengers, and while they're at it, make fuel appear into the aircraft's tanks.
OCC can not send some criminals to steal a fuel truck and tank the FR aircraft, so they can take-off without authorisation from ATC, on an airport without any lighting switched on.
OCC can not open the doors to the terminal, nor can they direct their crew to force their way into the airside of a closed terminal, that constitutes a security breach.

OCC are usually the guys who will deliver you the bad news and remind you what you are not allowed to do...

Someone at STN will get fired over this, whether he did it on purpose or it was just bad organisation...

[Passenger]

If I look at the timeline, I have little doubt that the staff involved in this event acted to limit the financial damage for the airline, knowing that this would result in discomfort for the passengers. Example: the fuel story. First they announce that there’s a delay because the aircraft had to do refuelling at Birmingham, some time later they say that there’s a delay because the fuel supplier failed to show up.

The only real error they’ve made was that they all underestimated the passengers’ reaction AFTER the flight finally arrived in Porto. At Stansted, the passengers were kept hostage (copy/paste from all press titles), but once they were released in Porto, they took revenge. Check that Youtube: 500.000 views already. Look at the reactions on the next article in the Daily Mail: more then 750 reactions so far, all extremely negative:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... delay.html

By saving a few thousand Euro’s on hotel costs, drinks and meals, they’ve ruined the so called new style before it even started. To quote the Daily Mail: “Incident happened after loudmouth businessman Michael O'Leary pledged to clean up the airline's act and 'stop p****** people off unnecessarily' (end of quote D.M.)

[sean1982]

They didnt save anything as all passengers received meals, drinks and compensation. I seriously doubt that 1 incident in 1200 daily flights ruins the "new style". Im sure you wont stop hoping for that passenger.

If you would have read the article completely than you would have seen swissport takes full responsibility for the incident (with some lame excuses)

[fcw]

If I look at the timeline, I have little doubt that the staff involved in this event acted to limit the financial damage for the airline, knowing that this would result in discomfort for the passengers. Example: the fuel story. First they announce that there’s a delay because the aircraft had to do refuelling at Birmingham, some time later they say that there’s a delay because the fuel supplier failed to show up.

Bad example...
A B738 full of pax is unable to land in STN with enough fuel on board to operate STN-OPO!
What has been connunicated to the passengers is: "Inbound flight diverted to BHX, will refuel and come to STN this will cause a delay on the outbound flight."
Very easy to understand if you know just a couple of basic basic things about operating an airliner.

[Filip146200]

Hmm... I still don't get it all...

On the evening of the 14th Feb, the South UK airspace was a mess due to the storm. Al lot of ATC delays and strong (cross)winds at Gatwick and Heathrow causing planes to divert to other airports like Stansted. Those planes were able to land at Stansted, the inbound Ryanair flight diverted to Birmingham. Why? Not enough fuel to cope with the extra holdings at Stansted due to the extra diverting aircraft?

Ok. Stansted was congested with additional traffic not able to land at other South UK Airports. The handling agent was overwhelmed, had lack of staff. I can understand that under those circumstances these people do everything they can but there is going to be delays. Same is for refuelling, if additional aircarft need to be refuelled, and that is in strong winds, there is a waiting line. Was fuelling taking place at all during these strong winds? At what time was the aircraft refuelled in the end? At least not between 1215am and 345am, and probably even not at 6am...??? What did the fuelling company say to the crew about the refuelling delay?

It is very easy to blame the refuelling company ( he did not show up...) or the handling agent ( nobody available...)...
These poor passengers should not have been allowed to board the plane in the first place!! There was strong reason to believe that a long delay was going to happen. I feel sorry for the crew, who were probably forced by company procedures to let things happen the way it did.

[Flanker2]

These poor passengers should not have been allowed to board the plane in the first place!! There was strong reason to believe that a long delay was going to happen. I feel sorry for the crew, who were probably forced by company procedures to let things happen the way it did.

If you know that you're going to get the fuel needed and will be allowed to depart, you need to be ready with your aircraft fully boarded ready to depart as soon as possible, not only to minimise delays but in order to avoid cutting too much into the night curfew.

Ryanair was determined to get these pax out with the least delay possible but they were let down by their handlers... I don't see where the cost saving is there.

Those planes were able to land at Stansted, the inbound Ryanair flight diverted to Birmingham. Why? Not enough fuel to cope with the extra holdings at Stansted due to the extra diverting aircraft?

Diversions can take priority over other aircraft depending on fuel status, and the line builds when you have many aircraft coming in. The FR crew diverted to BHX and they probably had their reasosn for it, they won't do that to "save money".

Why they didn't fuel the aircraft to the limits in BHX, so they didn't need to refuel at STN?
Pilots don't have the load sheet readily available for their next flight, the dispatcher at STN has that.
If they fuel too much, they would have to leave pax in STN or hit the MLW at STN, if they fuel too little, they will need to get a refuelling anyway... and if it's for a little quantity the fuel truck might also be more reluctant to drive out and prioritise other aircraft, increasing the delay (which might be what happened).
As a pilot, you have no reason to believe that you would be the victim of a huge handling c*ck up a few hours later in STN, so decide to refuel just enough at BHX.



This thread and other threads/comments on the internet clearly show the huge disconnect between the pax and operational staff. Pax want to pay nothing for their flight and expect the red carpet treatment.

[Filip146200]

If you know that you're going to get the fuel needed and will be allowed to depart

No, you don't know if you are going to get the fuel in time on an evening like that. The crew must have realised that, but were ordered or followed company rules to have the pax board the plane, hoping the fuel truck would arrive soon... before the curfew if at all possible....

they were let down by their handlers

No they were not. The handlers were just unable to provide the service the would normally provide under normal circumstances. On such a chaotic night, you can expect that unfortunately and have to take this into account.

crew diverted to BHX and they probably had their reasosn for it

Yep, they probably burned the extra fuel the must have taken (taking the nasty weather into account) from the originating airport in the holding, did not have enough fuel to hold long enough and diverted. Good possibillity.

Pilots don't have the load sheet readily available for their next flight

Not the loadsheet, but they must have been able to get an estimated ZFW from the OCC or call the flight dispatcher to calculate what is the best thing to do. All the passengers were already checked in at STN, so the ZFW was known at that point and calculations could have been made. On the other hand, it may have not been possible to take already the fuel load for STN-OPO due to MLW restrictions.

As a pilot, you have no reason to believe that you would be the victim of a huge handling c*ck up a few hours later in STN, so decide to refuel just enough at BHX

They just had to divert from the destination airport due to a lot of diverting aircraft / weather conditions. In this case you can expect some handling delays. But the decision if fuel for the stretch STN-OPO is already tankered at BHX, is probably a decision by OCC, the crew decides only on extra fuel for weather etc.

Pax want to pay nothing for their flight and expect the red carpet treatment.

I don't believe these passengers want a red carpet treatment, but for sure not the treatment they got on this occasion.

This thread and other threads/comments on the internet clearly show the huge disconnect between the pax and operational staff

Indeed. Passengers don't know OM A & B's, procedures, restrictions... Operational staff have to deal with those, and explain it to the passengers, sometimes very difficult for a crew....

[sean1982]

they were let down by their handlers

No they were not

Yes, they were! Some delay you can and they would have expected. What you never expect is that they will allow you to board and tell you the fuel is on its way, then a few minutes after curfew stop communicating completely!

Great choice of thread title btw ... Totally allows for an unbiased conversation.

[cnc]

Great choice of thread title btw ... Totally allows for an unbiased conversation.

its the title in the media so don't blame the topic starter.
i don't understand why you keep acting like this... you will not convert people from hating to loving an airline and most people reading this forum have enough insight in operations to make up their own mind.
you have been making false claims about my employer at one time but it never occurred to me to jump on my horse like that

[sean1982]

And as we all know, the media is also unbiased I would expect an aviation forum to be a bit less sensational.
It has nothing to do with making people love anything or anyone, but to stay truthfull and factual. If I make "false claims" it is certainly not my intention and I always stand to be corrected ... so please tell me what I said wrong.

I do not feel that most people here have enough insight into operational matters and the typical passenger reactions in this thread prove this too. A lot of people seem to be under the impression the captain just has to growl once and the whole world will bow to his knees.

[cathay belgium]

So you say.. FR didn't act wrong, nothing and nobody to blame..
It is just bad luck for the pax and crew to be seated in a plane on the ground for 3,5 hours without water...
( a voucher for a terminal drink isn't a solution in the plane )
And that the police needed to come for free them...

Euh no ,for me ! As a pax indeed..

This shows clearly that the crew didn't have an solution, that there wasn't a backup plan, and the crew stood there with not one single solution !

In my eyes and as I visited Stansted regarly as a FR pax it looks to me that FR could have operated better and that at least some officer of the airport could have been contacted!
I don't think its reasonable that FR couldn't,.. They operate a whole single terminal for themselves and are one of the two main players at the airport!

Don't see this happen at BRU airport with Brussels Airlines,.. But maybe I'm wrong...

Don't think Ryanair hasn't the force at Stansted to get a few more benefits, as a main client of the airport guess Ryanair could charge Stansted for getting no help and all the bad publicity...

As MoL is so communicative and as FR was nothing to blame I would set te act of Stansted airport in a big! picture when something like this happened to my company in such a big airport...

This all just as a pax view, if crew or a managers view is other like mine... Guess there is something wrong with their attitude and rules... So say we all dixit battlestar galactica

CXB