Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2015

[EBAW_flyer]

I've done both. VOR 07L is allowed daytime only. After dark if runway 01 is not available, they use 07R.

[sergioboeing]

JAF 701 took off yesterday (3/5/2015) with +/- 6 hours delay . Any idea why?

[sn26567]

JAF 701 took off yesterday (3/5/2015) with +/- 6 hours delay . Any idea why?

I have no answer to your question (OO-JDL is just back from maintenance, thus a delay is most surprising), but this means that the delay will extend over a few days. Today's JAF103 to VRA and CUN is already delayed from 10:50 to 15:00, which means that the flight back home of the 60 FGTB vacationers in Cuba will also be delayed

[sergioboeing]

JAF 701 took off yesterday (3/5/2015) with +/- 6 hours delay . Any idea why?

I have no answer to your question (OO-JDL is just back from maintenance, thus a delay is most surprising), but this means that the delay will extend over a few days. Today's JAF103 to VRA and CUN is already delayed from 10:50 to 15:00, which means that the flight back home of the 60 FGTB vacationers in Cuba will also be delayed

Yes, it's strange because he was on-time, he did the push back and started the taxi when he came back to the gate (I saw that on FR24). Anyway, thanks André for the reply.

[sn26567]

I'm afraid Jetairfly will again have to pay heavy penalties to the delayed passengers (if they care to file a complaint).

[Passenger]

I'm afraid Jetairfly will again have to pay heavy penalties to the delayed passengers (if they care to file a complaint).

Actually, it seems that the problem was discovered after pushback and just before take off. If so, and if it was a technical issue, the EU National Enforcement Bodies for EU-Rule 261/2004 will most probably regard the cause as an extraordinary circumstance, thus waiving the indemnity (in this case 600 Euro p/p).

In their "Draft list of extraordinary circumstances", 12th april 2013, the NEB's specify technical issues:

Accepted as extr. cc: "...Failure of necessary or required aircraft systems (for example the cooling system, avionics system, flight control system, flaps, slats, rudders, thrust reverser, landing gear) either immediately prior to departure or in-flight (where those systems had been maintained in accordance with the required maintenance programme)..."

Not accepted as extr. cc.: "...Technical issues which arise as a result of the air carrier’s failure to maintain its aircraft in accordance with the required maintenance programme..."

Not accepted as extr. cc.: "Technical issues which were found during maintenance where the part or system in question was scheduled to be checked. Over-running maintenance can be a reflection of poor maintenance planning..."

Full list: see
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/pa ... s-list.pdf

[sean1982]

allright, so if a carrier has a problem with an aircraft, just board the passengers, push back for 2 min, back into stand and cleared of all indemnity .. that's a quick fix. These "rules" are severly broken

[airazurxtror]

You have to be very smart and steadfast indeed to get an indemnity from Jetairfly !
On the other hand, one can understand Jetairfly refusing to pay : they have so many delays, they would soon go broke ...

[Passenger]

You have to be very smart and steadfast indeed to get an indemnity from Jetairfly !
On the other hand, one can understand Jetairfly refusing to pay : they have so many delays, they would soon go broke ...

When it comes to EU-rule 261/2004, consumer protection and customer service, I don’t think that your favourite airline needs to teach Jetairfly a lesson.

allright, so if a carrier has a problem with an aircraft, just board the passengers, push back for 2 min, back into stand and cleared of all indemnity .. that's a quick fix. These "rules" are severly broken

Fact is that the 2013 draft list from the National Enforcement Bodies ends the discussion about "extraordinary circumstances" in the initial text of 2004 in favour of bona fide airlines. Contrary to the above pushback suggestion, any technical issue will be seen as an extraordinary circumstance, on condition that the aircraft was maintained according to the manual and that the technical issue did not arised during a planned maintenance. The draft text is clear about this, and a bona fide airline doesn't need to arrange a false pushback.

Regarding technical issues, the draft list states just two issues as circumstances which are NOT extraordinary:

Technical issues which arise as a result of the air carrier’s failure to maintain its aircraft in accordance with the required maintenance programme.

Technical issues which were found during maintenance where the part or system in question was scheduled to be checked. Over-running maintenance can be a reflection of poor maintenance planning.

[airazurxtror]

Anyway, those who still venture on Jetairfly amply deserve whatever may happen to them...

[Stij]

Anyway, those who still venture on Jetairfly amply deserve whatever may happen to them...

Well, some people like me are happy to fly them, like me.

For the record, I like flying FR as well, but prefer Jetairfly.

And now back on topic!

Cheers,

Stij

[Inquirer]

Ryanair released its March customer service statistics as follows:
92% of over 39,000 flights arrived on-time

I could be wrong but I always thought an airline's punctuality is measured in reference to the scheduled departure, not the scheduled arrival time like is advertised here, because the first one reflects the operational efficiency of the airline itself (which is what you'd want), whereas the second one depends also on external factors (which you don't want to have included).

On top of that -think about it for a minute- by using scheduled arrival times as benchmark, you can effectively set the result at any value you'd want by simply adjusting the flight time!?
Indeed: artificially advertising flights to be longer than they are on average, means the punctuality will increase, regardles your operational efficiency; especially for an airline which has no connecting business, no commercial problem is to be expected from using this tweaking technique.
Theoretically, one could turn it into the absurd even and publish overlapping schedules, with the result being a 99,9% arrival punctuality probably.
Just saying you have lies, damned lies and then you have statistics.

[airazurxtror]

For me, the most important thing is the hour of arrival.
I don't care for the departure hour, as long as I arrive on time, in order to catch the bus or the train or another flight as intended - or be back with my family as forecast.

Indeed: artificially advertising flights to be longer than they are on average, means the punctuality will increase, regardles your operational efficiency; especially for an airline which has no connecting business, no commercial problem is to be expected from using this tweaking technique.

Ryanair has perhaps used that technique in the past, but no more, it seems. I have observed lately that many of my flights start and end about just on time.

[convair]

Yes and no, Inquirer. It depends what kind of pax you are. When you're on a business trip, the important thing is the time you arrive at destination and it is what you check when you book your flight (at least I do). For leisure trips, you are (and I think you should feel) on vacation as soon as you leave home but you don't want to wait for hours before your plane departs.
Just the way I see it anyway.

[Passenger]

Estonian Air OV-178 (ERJ-170) from from Brussels (dep 03th May) to Tallinn (Estonia) aborted the approach reporting problems with the flaps and requesting emergency services on standby.

Source - more info:
http://avherald.com/h?article=485b9d86&opt=0

[Homo Aeroportus]

...
Indeed: artificially advertising flights to be longer than they are on average, means the punctuality will increase, regardles your operational efficiency; especially for an airline which has no connecting business, no commercial problem is to be expected from using this tweaking technique.

Ryanair has perhaps used that technique in the past, but no more, it seems....

You gave me the impression to know better about Ryanair.
Here is for your info.

Flight times as announced (STA-STD).

BRU-DUB :
EI : 01:35
FR : 01:50, 15 minutes more.

BRU – FCO :
VY / AZ / SN : 02:05
FR : 02:15 , 10 minutes more.

BCN – BRU :
SN : 02:00
FR : 02:15, 15 minutes more.

As Convair said, the important is to arrive on time, i.e. not later than published.
So telling your customers : “Yes we do add some buffer in our timetables in order not to disappoint our customers by arriving late”, this is perfectly acceptable to me. Remember basics : Don’t promise if you can’t deliver.

But claiming to be so good on arriving on-time by playing this trick, this is … cheap.

H.A.

[sean1982]

...
Indeed: artificially advertising flights to be longer than they are on average, means the punctuality will increase, regardles your operational efficiency; especially for an airline which has no connecting business, no commercial problem is to be expected from using this tweaking technique.

Ryanair has perhaps used that technique in the past, but no more, it seems....

You gave me the impression to know better about Ryanair.
Here is for your info.

Flight times as announced (STA-STD).

BRU-DUB :
EI : 01:35
FR : 01:50, 15 minutes more.

BRU – FCO :
VY / AZ / SN : 02:05
FR : 02:15 , 10 minutes more.

BCN – BRU :
SN : 02:00
FR : 02:15, 15 minutes more.

As Convair said, the important is to arrive on time, i.e. not later than published.
So telling your customers : “Yes we do add some buffer in our timetables in order not to disappoint our customers by arriving late”, this is perfectly acceptable to me. Remember basics : Don’t promise if you can’t deliver.

But claiming to be so good on arriving on-time by playing this trick, this is … cheap.

H.A.

It's not a trick, we use a lower cost index than legacy carriers.

Making the flight time longer artificially would greatly increase the operational cost as the crew for example is paid by the hour, and that's exactly what FR wants to avoid
On top of that, who decides how long a flight officially is anyway? What's best? Say that your flight is 2hrs and always arrive early/on time? Or claim your flight is 1hr45 and land late 4 times out of 5

[Inquirer]

Yes and no, Inquirer. It depends what kind of pax you are. When you're on a business trip, the important thing is the time you arrive at destination and it is what you check when you book your flight (at least I do). For leisure trips, you are (and I think you should feel) on vacation as soon as you leave home but you don't want to wait for hours before your plane departs.
Just the way I see it anyway.

I agree, but mind you: that's not the point I was trying to make, convair.

The point is not that for an individual person, it is indeed far more important to arrive on time than to depart on time, it is that: if you use punctuality as measure for your operational efficiency, you'd want to have it stripped off as many external effects as possible in order to reflect as much as possible just your own efficiency, rather than include also that of the air traffic control, the favourable winds, etc.
With this in mind, the statistical benchmark is to be set on the departure time, not the arrival time, something I thought was widely understood in the industry as that's how you see them do it.
The fact ryanair seems to do it differently -as so often- is no coincidence for sure and can only be explained by the fact it is an advantageous way to include all favourable external factors into the end result, more so even as it allows them to build in extra operational margin at no cost (margin on the ground costs them money; margin in the air, doesn't cost them anything).

[sean1982]

Read my post again and see why it does cost them in the air. Probably more than on the ground. On top of that, even the european commission counts ARRIVAL time as a factor for compensation on delayed flights. But im sure you know better

[Inquirer]

sean,
If you think labour costs are outweighing all the other non-fuel related operating cost of an airline, I advise you to read more annual financial reports. It's cheapest to build in some margin in the air (and pay the crew a bit more than needed), then on the ground (and pay for extra parking of an unused plane); problem is: you can only do so when you don't offer connections, which is why this method is only used by that kind of airlines, or alternatively said: why low cost airlines generally don't offer connections.

I really wonder why you constantly want to redo the matrix picted by me on every topic touching finances and accounting? It should be obvious you are not exactly a financial wiz kid are you, and there's nothing wrong with that even, but for some odd reason which I still need to understand, you just hate it when somebody else shows elements of the matrix which makes up the business plan of Ryanair.

But fine- go ahead if you want to believe Ryanair deliberately uses arrival times to measure its punctuality, even though it's departure punctuality may be even higher, it also includes external factors over which it has no control and it costs them more than doing like the rest does.
Just wondering: does it sound very much Ryanair-like to you?
I'd start wondering if they'd not do it for better reasons than yours, like for instance mine, but of course for some very odd reason one may never point out how money is made by a low cost.