Family forced to sit on the floor on TUI

[Deleted member 29185]

As per the tread title, I came across this story, which surprised me a bit. I thought there were international aviation laws that prevented this. The family were eventually refunded the tix, but shouldn't this airline be criminally charged with negligence? Like I am assuming that we are advised to keep our seat belt fastened at all times for a reason?

 

[Quickstatus]

There was another occasion like this on another airline some years ago.

A passenger had to stand most of the flight because of adjacent morbidly obese passenger

But I vaguely remember another flight had more passengers than seats when it departed

 

[drron]

Back in the 70s we flew CX Y,,SIN-KUL-HKG.
We were in the second last row of Y.Behind the last row was a curtain drawn across the width of the plane.In KUL a lot of young men got on carrying a brown paper bag.They went behind the curtain.During the flight I got up and looked behind the curtain.They were all sitting on wooden benches it appeared without seat belts and all were eating things from their brown paper bag.Obviously Y-.

 

[Quickstatus]

On the overnight long haul flights some passengers prefer sitting on the floor

 

[Deleted member 29185]

On the overnight long haul flights some passengers prefer sitting on the floor

To which the crew turn a blind eye (although with sudden unexpected turbulence, it does beg the question about airline liability), but surely there is a monumental difference between pax choosing to sit on the floor and an airline failing to provide enough seats and forcing pax to sit on the floor?

 

[Quickstatus]

I agree - the flight should never have departed.

Presumably they had crew seats with seatbelts during seatbelt sign on periods of the flight so they were not in any more danger than another passenger. I understand they had to vacate those seats at service times. However flight should not have taken off.

We’re they actually forced to sit on the floor - as in a cabin crew directive?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

We’re they actually forced to sit on the floor - as in a cabin crew directive?

I have no idea, but it would seem likely they were directed by the crew to vacate the crew seats, so short of standing the whole way, I'd suggest the "no seat" problem was indeed at the direction of crew.

 

[Quickstatus]

They may have been given the option of another flight when it became apparent no seats were free, or the spare crew seats, but probably not the “fine print” that comes with those seats.
In some ways as safe as the cabin crew
As usual a bit more to the story methinks

 

[get me outta here]

Yurk , sitting on the floor. When people don’t have seat belts they become missiles and two heads hitting at speed is very bad.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

They may have been given the option of another flight when it became apparent no seats were free, or the spare crew seats, but probably not the “fine print” that comes with those seats.
In some ways as safe as the cabin crew
As usual a bit more to the story methinks

I wondered about that, but came to the conclusion that this is pretty straight up and down. If they were offered alternate travel, then the family should have been denied boarding (not to mention the family stated they knew nothing about it until they arrived at the row where their seats should have been, but weren't). When it's all said and done, the airline decides who can board the aircraft (along with other authorities). Also, if they were offered alternate travel, they wouldn't have refunded their tix, which the airline did in full (after intervention by a TV show). The crew seats are not pax seats and crew are fully trained to deal with "in air eventualities" whereas pax are not. They are instructed in what to do by the crew, including, on just about all the flights I take, to keep your seat belt fastened at all times that you are not moving about the cabin. Finally, I recall a proposal by one airline to introduce a "standing only" LCC model, and I seem to recall that the use of the seat belt and the effectiveness of the seat belt was one of the difficulties facing that proposal, but I'm unsure of the legalities (as I asked in the OP).

 

[Scott K]

I can't see how this airplane could be considered airworthy. I've often thought that Ryanair would love to just shove people on Ikea Gunde folding chairs if they could, but restrictions ensure they have to have safe seating that was capable of restraining the passenger in the case of an emergency landing or... something rarer like... turbulence.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The passengers were indeed seated in jump seats for take-off and landing, and would have had them available at any other time when the seat belt sign was on.

But they aren't the most comfotable things to sit on for long periods.

They got their fare refunded.

Perhaps not the most comfortable of journeys for the pax involved, but it's a relatively short flight and no real safety concerns here.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

would have had them available at any other time when the seat belt sign was on ... it's a relatively short flight and no real safety concerns here.

What about when the seatbelt sign was not on? Do airlines the world over instruct pax to keep the seat belt fastened at all times they are not moving about the cabin, for nothing? I'm not sure about you, but I have been on a number of flights that have hit unexpected turbulence causing a large bounce and unrestrained pax have been known to end up with their heads in the overhead lockers. I tend to believe that is a real safety concern.

The length of flight has nothing to do with it. I've been on a 1/2 flight and hit my head on the roof, with seat belt fastened. (admittedly a Twotter, but same dynamics none the less).

 

[leadman]

About 25 years ago in the early days of China starting to open up a colleague and I flew Wuhan Airlines in an old 737. Wuhan to i think Nanjing, but it was not a long flight. We were right down the back of the plane and as we made our way down you notice that the seats start to "concertina in" to a point there was absolutely no leg room in the last 4 or 5 rows. We had to straddle the seats and put our feet on the middle seat, displacing PAX who sat on the floor.

Effectively we had a rowing team sitting in the aisle and unfortunately it was before mobile phones so missed a great photo op. I was really tempted to join on takeoff, but the boss would not let me.

 

[drron]

You were lucky leadman.35 years ago on a CAAC flight from Beijing to Xian I only had half a sea belt.Not only that as soon as we started ascending my seat collapsed and I found myself in the lap of a Red Army officer with the most delightful garlic breath.I have recounted before that when I went trying to find an FA for the lunch service I found them all in the galley roasting chestnuts over an open fire.
TUI are rank amateurs.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What about when the seatbelt sign was not on? Do airlines the world over instruct pax to keep the seat belt fastened at all times they are not moving about the cabin, for nothing? I'm not sure about you, but I have been on a number of flights that have hit unexpected turbulence causing a large bounce and unrestrained pax have been known to end up with their heads in the overhead lockers. I tend to believe that is a real safety concern.

The length of flight has nothing to do with it. I've been on a 1/2 flight and hit my head on the roof, with seat belt fastened. (admittedly a Twotter, but same dynamics none the less).

Sure. Airlines advise pax to keep their seatbelt fastened. But with crew and other passengers walking aruond the aisle for service and/or to go to the WC, get items out of the overhead or whatever else, I think the risks need to be weighed up here.

It's likely the pilot would have been informed of passengers without seats and perhaps more cautious in listening to reports of any unexpected turbulence reported by other aircraft passing through the same airspace in the minutes before.

I can't speak for others but I'm taking a pragmatic view on this. And with that mindset I'm not viewing any overriding safety issue. (Yes, there could be an unforseen event that leads to a catastrophic outcome, but I would personally not hesitate to take the risk.)