Terrified passengers boycott Thomas Cook flight

I can understand why the passengers were nervous in this case. Most people who fly know nothing about aviation except that you are a long way up for a considerable amount of time. To be told in that context that more people have to sit at the back to balance a nose-heavy aircraft would frighten plenty, I’m sure.
Also, media sensationalism concerning all mishaps and accidents must play a part in a general erosion of trust between the public and professionals.

If not chavs, then idiots.

Andy

Or just the Hoi Polloi with fears and foibles like everybody else!!!

especially the one that says that “they are probably chavs”

If not chavs, then idiots. At any time during a flight, through a huge range of actions or inactions, a captain could cause the demise of an aeroplane the crew and all of the passengers on it. What possesses laymen passengers to think that they know better than a professional who has spent thousands of pounds and gone through many years of training to attain their position as captain of a public transport aircraft – and has at least as much interest in reaching the destination safely as ANY of the passengers – is quite beyond me.

Andy

Marxists and sociologists.

…and me! :dev2:

Proletariat Defn: The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor

The sort of people who, if we are honest about it, used to and probably still do go on charter flights. Actually I have nothing against “the propletariat” in general (either the term or those who are membere) – the definition puts me firmly in that category anyway – but I am still of the opinion that the generally uninformed [in this country] end up causing far too many problems for themselves and for others through their own ignorance, and this case is one of those. Trust in the professionals is absolutely necessary in this case – anything else ignorantly ignores the fact that the captain could arrange for the demise of the aeroplane and all of its passengers in any number of ways during a flight from Palma to the UK. And as I said before, I would be prepared to bet that the vast majority of those objecting passengers would, in their own jobs, tell anyone looking on and suggesting that they didn’t know what they were doing, to f-off.

Andy

Who in the world would think it is acceptible to call a section of society the proleteriat !

Marxists and sociologists.

Who in the world would think it is acceptible to call a section of society the proleteriat !

Quite surprised at some of the opinions expressed here…especially the one that says that “they are probably chavs” – incredibly narrow minded IMO.

Take my dad, for example. He is terrified of flying, but he still does it, after a few pints. He would have been in amongst the crowd that wouldn’t board, for sure. Is he then a chav? He’s been to Spain before…oh he must be a chav then :rolleyes:

There would have been plenty of nervous people, and once one starts ranting it puts ideas in everybody’s head. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole box…

It sounds like a poorly communicated situation but at the end of the day, passengers see it from the point ofview that there is a problem with the plane and don’t want to get on it. With the recent high profile air incidents, I am stunned to see why some of you find that so difficult to understand.

I would place myself as a more “savvy” passenger, since I take a casual interest in commercial aviation which stems from the fact I fly so much for work. So, i’m not an expert, I would have got on the flight, but I can fully understand why so many refused.

I had a vageuly similar incident on an NWA flight last year. We were fully boarded and ready to go, and then the captain came on and said that there was a problem with a panel on the rear cargo door, and it needed to be replaced. He then went on to explain that it was nothing to worry about, etc etc. No passengers ran away…it took about an hour to fix it.

agreed:)

🙂

Paul

agreed:)

nice:rolleyes:

Shall we stop this now before it gets beyond pathetic? 😉

Paul

Everyone on here knows 100% more than Joe Public when it comes to aeroplanes. Of course we know this practice is safe. Sheesh, even the CofG fuel mgt system shifts more weight around than a stack of talking baggage.
Now put yourself in the eyes of Mr Joe public. His wife and kids are about to get on an aeroplane. In his eyes, with aeroplanes, problems usually mean death. There’s no lay-by at 35k.
Nowthen, a locked luggage door. Means problems with luggage door. The Paris DC-10 had luggage door problems. Get the picture?

Can’t blame the passengers. Mis-communication on behalf of some tin-pot airline also doesn’t help.

Again, spot on

All I’ve tried to do on this thread is balance the view.

You are all knowledgable in either aviation or the airline industry, Joe Public is not.

What made 70 people so scared they wouldn’t get on that aeroplane.

What it boils down to is ignorance and fear, a powerful combination, although its possible the airline could have handled it better.

A quote from a passenger:

“The pilot came out to speak to us and told us it was perfectly safe.

“When someone asked if the hold door could open when we were in the air at 20,000ft, he couldn’t understand and walked away.”

Now, whilst this question may be a little ridiculous, the fear behind it is genuine, and the pilot should do his/her best to address it.

Two modern airliners have been lost in the last few days for reason/s unknown, how safe do they think flying is now??

Unless the Airlines sort out this side of customer care it will happen again.
The passenger only needs the perception of danger in his own mind to refuse to board.

Thankyou for that wonderful reply. Well done, you win a coconut.

nice:rolleyes:

cheers

Baz

Apart from pointing out my usual bad english, you haven’t really added anthing useful to this thread except to whinge (your words)

Thankyou for that wonderful reply. Well done, you win a coconut.

In his eyes, with aeroplanes, problems usually mean death.

I think that’s possibly a little dramatic, I’m not really convinced the majority of the public quite believe that. It makes perfect sense to me that if you don’t understand something, you listen to those who do. I still can’t quite grasp why anyone would point blank refuse to board the aircraft and I 100% agree with Skymonster’s views. That said, again, I wasn’t there so can’t comment on how the airline handled it and what exactly was said.

Paul

Everyone on here knows 100% more than Joe Public when it comes to aeroplanes. Of course we know this practice is safe. Sheesh, even the CofG fuel mgt system shifts more weight around than a stack of talking baggage.
Now put yourself in the eyes of Mr Joe public. His wife and kids are about to get on an aeroplane. In his eyes, with aeroplanes, problems usually mean death. There’s no lay-by at 35k.
Nowthen, a locked luggage door. Means problems with luggage door. The Paris DC-10 had luggage door problems. Get the picture?

Can’t blame the passengers. Mis-communication on behalf of some tin-pot airline also doesn’t help.

I agree 100%, which is why this sentence makes no sense whatsoever:

To do a risk assessment requires a knowledge of the actual risks involved, otherwise it’s based on pure ignorance and means nothing. The average passenger knows absolutely zilch about aircraft beyond they generally have 2, 3 or 4 engines and go through the air, so therefore what are they basing their decision that the aircraft is unsafe on? I have to agree with previous comments, they should have boarded the flight or made their own way home. I can’t say the airline could have handled it better because I wasn’t there, but going on what we’re told there was no good reason whatsoever for passengers to refuse to board.

Paul

P.S. Apologies for bumping this week old thread. I saw this in a paper last week and I had a whinge about it then so thought I’d do the same here!

It made sense after drinking Spitfire Beer lunch time.

Apart from pointing out my usual bad english, you haven’t really added anthing useful to this thread except to whinge (your words)

cheers

Baz

They are not to know how safe or not it is, why should they?

I agree 100%, which is why this sentence makes no sense whatsoever:

the passengers have done their own risk assessment and said no!

To do a risk assessment requires a knowledge of the actual risks involved, otherwise it’s based on pure ignorance and means nothing. The average passenger knows absolutely zilch about aircraft beyond they generally have 2, 3 or 4 engines and go through the air, so therefore what are they basing their decision that the aircraft is unsafe on? I have to agree with previous comments, they should have boarded the flight or made their own way home. I can’t say the airline could have handled it better because I wasn’t there, but going on what we’re told there was no good reason whatsoever for passengers to refuse to board.

Paul

P.S. Apologies for bumping this week old thread. I saw this in a paper last week and I had a whinge about it then so thought I’d do the same here!

A good range of views here. But at the end of the day did these passengers seriously think that the crew would voluntarily launch themselves skyward in an aircraft that THEY thought would be in the smallest way unsafe?? No, sorry but as I said earlier there seemed to be a lack of common sense on the part of the passengers here, possibly mass hysteria, who knows. In fact I could well imagine that the Captain may well have walked away out of sheer frustration and disbelief at the passengers attitude.

As usual the great British air passenger leaves brains and common sense in the car park.:rolleyes:

I’ve seen the parking in airport car parks, no commons sense there.:D

Idiot passengers…and bad marks to the airline for not handeling it better.
But having dealt with the public, I can’t say I’m surprised. Some may have been looking for an extra free day of vacation or some sort of payout by the airline.

It is not necessarily so. There could be several operational reasons why seats are blocked off. Balance restrictions being just one of them. They may be roped off for:

VIP use
Group bookings
The crew may want to use them
IFE systems not working in that section
Some sort of malfunction with the seats (Armrests/tables etc)
Soiled seats/carpets

The situation you describe does not apply to all ‘nearly full’ B737’s. If it is a weight and balance issue, the probable reason for blocking off forward seats is due to the load in the forward hold creating a nose heavy situation with the centre of gravity of the a/c being well forward.

Thanks for the reply.

I should have said that the seats normally are unoccupied throughout the flight so that would rule out VIP, crew or group use, also there is no IFE (unless you count the magazine) and it is unlikely that the same seats would always be damaged or soiled.

I’ve only noticed it on many Ryanair, Stanstead to Hungary, flights so that may influence the amount of baggage on board.

I’d always assumed it was something to do with weight distribution.

To be honest Skymonster I think not only are you not looking at this from the correct angle of someone who knows nothing and some of which maybe scared to fly even when things are perfect you are assuming a plane load of “chavs” as you put it.

To be honest I am not saying I would choose Majorca as a holiday destination but you have to remember the country is not in the best state as it is and money is a premium at the moment. We have to assume that there were a number great or small of people on this flight who weren’t “chavs”. Maybe familys with children taking a well deserved holiday in the sun maybe.

I am not sure where you would choose to holiday but if they choose Majorca then thats up to them doesnt mean they are chavs.

Anyway rant over back on topic!

They probably were chav. Actually I have no problem with Majorca – been there myself several times. It’s just that this sort of passenger stupidity never seems to affect “proper” airlines… It’s always the charter airlines full of ignorant ch… sorry, nice British holiday makers.

Andy

To be honest Skymonster I think not only are you not looking at this from the correct angle of someone who knows nothing and some of which maybe scared to fly even when things are perfect you are assuming a plane load of “chavs” as you put it.

To be honest I am not saying I would choose Majorca as a holiday destination but you have to remember the country is not in the best state as it is and money is a premium at the moment. We have to assume that there were a number great or small of people on this flight who weren’t “chavs”. Maybe familys with children taking a well deserved holiday in the sun maybe.

I am not sure where you would choose to holiday but if they choose Majorca then thats up to them doesnt mean they are chavs.

Anyway rant over back on topic!

Nah, Majorca is full of chavs…..ok GA, I know I know. I’m only kidding (sort of). Now, what did I do with my British Virgin Islands brochure…. :rolleyes: