Advertisement


TUi Airlines UK

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #401
Sounds to me, TLY, like you need the red army ;):ROFLMAO:
That would be perfect. I really think the aforementioned airline with a red tail would be a perfect fit for brs
We'll have to tell that to the BRS management. They seem fixated on growing mainly though existing airline partners and have been saying so for a number of years.

Going back to the 787s, BRS is primarily a low-cost airline short-haul airport with little likelihood of any meaningful long-haul business other than charters, whereas BHX is geared up (its runway is nearly one thousand metres longer than BRS's for starters and the latter's management has ruled out any extension) and has realistic ambitions for turning itself into an intercontinental airport of some stature in the future.
 

Advertisement


Ray Finkle

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 22, 2012
11,110
9,282
265
Birmingham
Moderator #402
I think the difference is that BHX's 787s operate long haul flights every day during the summer so there may not be space to operate short haul routes for them.
There's no room in the BHX 787 schedule for anything else.

Many have hoped for another based 787 to expand the long haul offering possibly with a sprinkling of short haul in between but so far any new routes have simply come at the cost of another :(
 

JENNYJET

Premium Member Plus
Dec 15, 2015
460
328
163
59
ASTWOOD BANK, WORCESTERSHIRE.
From a legal perspective one enters into a contract when purchasing a ticket. That contract is for transportation to a destination even if the issuing airline cannot fly you there. Seating is an amenity provided by the carrier and with many, a chargeable one.

As these people are safely at home, I feel that by going to the Media they have damaged themselves and TUI since a fair and reasonable solution has been scuppered. I will not be watching this programme because any publicity has created imbalance and I know that a great number of lawyers will not touch this and those that do will be the usual suspects in the compensation arena!

I can expect some dissenting views but this my understanding.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #407
From a legal perspective one enters into a contract when purchasing a ticket. That contract is for transportation to a destination even if the issuing airline cannot fly you there. Seating is an amenity provided by the carrier and with many, a chargeable one.

As these people are safely at home, I feel that by going to the Media they have damaged themselves and TUI since a fair and reasonable solution has been scuppered. I will not be watching this programme because any publicity has created imbalance and I know that a great number of lawyers will not touch this and those that do will be the usual suspects in the compensation arena!

I can expect some dissenting views but this my understanding.
It will be interesting to see what comes of the CAA investigation. If the parents really were made to sit on the floor during the flight - they appear to have been given crew seats for the take-off but according to them these were not available during the flight - it's potentially serious because if the aircraft suddenly hit turbulence and the seat belt signs came on they would be trapped on the floor with, it seems, the crew seats being used for other purposes.

The Civil Aviation Authority says while passengers are allowed to sit in crew seats under certain conditions, they must not be left unseated during any stage of the flight.

By going to the media - not something I am usually enthusiastic about because the tv people's main aim is entertainment - the parents had their fares refunded by TUI after an original offer of £30. So in this case the involvement of the tv company does appear to have helped them. TUI also apologised for the way the situation was initially handled. It's not entirely clear as to whether they meant the actions of the aircraft crew on the day or the way the original complaint was dealt with by their administration. I presume the latter.
 

Matt995

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2015
313
649
103
Royal Leamington Spa
Apparently it was due to a last minute aircraft change - a 737 subbing for a 757?
No it was a 757, for some reason they must have taken the last row of 3 seats out of the plane, and then subbed it for another 757, no idea why an airline would take a row of seats out, and not check the expected passenger load for the flight!
 
Sep 29, 2016
981
1,101
123
24
Solihull
Whilst forcing passengers to sit on the floor during a flight is of course awful and unacceptable, I've not seen the point made that the airline did indeed still get them home.

I wonder if the family had been given the option of being rebooked on another flight or taking the one they had booked but they'd have to sit on the floor for all but take off and landing, which they would have chosen?

If I were the Captain, I wouldn't have been happy having passengers on board who didn't have somewhere secure to sit at ALL times. Whilst they were provided crew seats for take off & landing, sitting on the floor during the flight they wouldn't have been secure if the flight had encountered turbulence. Before even getting to the insurance/legal matters of a passenger getting injured, I wouldn't want to put a passenger in a situation where they may get injured.
 

Advertisement


Top Bottom