QF9 turnback 8/9/18

[Mark213]

As for "compo", I know the pax all suffered. But so did the airline! A particular pax turned out to be a nutter. Hardly the fault of QF. On the contrary, I find great comfort that QF makes decisions such as this (even though it costs them a lot) that are sheerly in the interests of the safety of the plane, crew, and passengers.

Im not critiquing at all what they did. I agree given the circumstances its was the only option. What I am not impressed about is the flow on effect that has happened and how this has been considered as an acceptable tolerance to have in their risk planning. What were the other alternatives that they assessed prior to entering the service for such events?

What they did (cut 787 MEL-LHR flight at PER, replace domestic leg with 737/A330) is the contingency plan. That allows them to recover about 10 hours of delays.
That would be enough to recover both MEL-US and AU-LHR flights with minimal delays. However, they were still recovering from the technical delay from a couple of days prior, as well as having to deal with crew hour limits and curfew/noise limits at LHR.

Australia just doesn't have the market to maintain a network that can easily absorb disruption. MEL-xPER-LHR (1 flight/day) and MEL-LAX (2-3 flights/day) isn't like TYO-LAX with 7 daily flights or LHR-NYC with flights nearly every hour.

And is that contingency plan reasonable each time that this could happen and have this repeated on the next occurrence given such a low level of disruption management? The service has only been flying 6 months - so twice a year this could happen?
No issue with what they have done this time. They have made the best of a bad situation. I am thinking of the repeat (which will happen) - and what they can/could/should/ do instead. Dont look at just absorbing the disruption. What ways are there to prevent/eliminate it? #1 on the management hierarchy of controls of risk.

As an option, outside the box of just accepting the above, surely with these sorts of very long range flights, a reasonable alternative could be to fly an air marshal on the service to deal with trouble makers. The cost of such could outweigh the total impacts we have seen for both the airline and and passengers, and be in the end be more cost effective?

 

[mannej]

Don't they use Air marshals on flights within the US? Has that prevented behaviour related diversions over there?

 

[Saab34]

Not sure if an Air Marshal would solve the complete problem, if the Captain wants him offloaded then they are offloaded. The rolling delays still happen. Sure said Marshal can assist in the air, but sometimes you need to offload them regardless. Not only that they are expensive, times a lot of flights vs the cost of incidents?

Virgin runs its 777 fleet as tight as QF runs it’s 787 network. These couple of year events obviously still outweigh extra costs of idle aircraft.

 

[juddles]

....As an option, outside the box of just accepting the above, surely with these sorts of very long range flights, a reasonable alternative could be to fly an air marshal on the service to deal with trouble makers. The cost of such could outweigh the total impacts we have seen for both the airline and and passengers, and be in the end be more cost effective?

Forgive me, but I disagree entirely with this angle. What exactly do you expect an "air marshall" to do with a difficult pax? Such a pax may be simply drunk and abnoxious, mentally ill, drugged up, or a combo of these factors. It is very unlikely the said air marshall can make a call on these exact attributes on-the-spot. Do you want the air marshall to simply pull a gun and shoot anyone who disobeys an air hostess? Or do you expect them to to be able to do movie stuff - like amazingly subdue them without harm to the baddie, the air marshal, or crew?

I give this opinion as an (ex) police officer. I am not a small guy. But I have seen what crazed people can be like. It once took seven of us (hospital security and police staff) just to hold one skinny 60kg drugged-up teenager on a bed so the medical staff could sew back on the fingers he lost in a knife fight. Air marshalls (the concept) was a feel-good thing. The reality is that they can just kill someone. They were never intended (nor are equipped) to deal with deranged or drunk people. That is Hollywood stuff.

 

[Mark213]

What exactly do you expect an "air marshall" to do with a difficult pax? Such a pax may be simply drunk and abnoxious, mentally ill, drugged up, or a combo of these factors. It is very unlikely the said air marshall can make a call on these exact attributes on-the-spot. Do you want the air marshall to simply pull a gun and shoot anyone who disobeys an air hostess? Or do you expect them to to be able to do movie stuff - like amazingly subdue them without harm to the baddie, the air marshal, or crew?.

I would hope the multiple levels of security screening would stop most of the ones who are that way inclined from getting on board. Hard drugs should not be on the plane in the first place. So what left is alcohol, mental illness and other possible overdoes. A fully trained air marshal would be able to do more than an cabin attendant given their overall skill set. Hence the risk is lowered (by not expecting untrained crew to perform such tasks) and the plane can continue. Possible even a sedative could be administered.

A restrain and monitor is the best situation (which is what they had to do for 2 hours anyway when returning the plane to PER). 10-15 hours of restrain will their toll and they possible calm down and the disruption is minimized. If it gets worse, land in middle east, offload, and continue.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think we might expand the definition of an 'Air Martial' to 'Security officer', without the obligation to shoot anyone . That is, a specialist. Maybe a dual trained FA?

Now I don't think it would ever be warranted under the present situations, but depending on how things go ( will we get an increase in drug usage in the air for instance?) it may be necessary to increase security in the air, just as it has on the ground.

Also re EU261, in another thread it was stated that this only applies to flights ex Europe, for non European Airlines, so wouldn't apply here. Is this true?

 

[Himeno]

I give this opinion as an (ex) police officer. I am not a small guy. But I have seen what crazed people can be like. It once took seven of us (hospital security and police staff) just to hold one skinny 60kg drugged-up teenager on a bed so the medical staff could sew back on the fingers he lost in a knife fight. Air marshalls (the concept) was a feel-good thing. The reality is that they can just kill someone. They were never intended (nor are equipped) to deal with deranged or drunk people. That is Hollywood stuff.

Not to mention that an air marshal was recently arrested in the US for disrupting a flight (Republic Airways operating for United) and caused an emergency landing.

 

[juddles]

..... Possible even a sedative could be administered.....

What? Use force to restrain and drug a person, with no knowledge of their medical history, recent drug use, anything. And then lock them away for another 15 hours in an airplane? Would you take on that job and responsibility? Knowing no matter what the outcome is, any aggreived side will be suing you??

 

[GoldCanyon340]

Dont look at just absorbing the disruption. What ways are there to prevent/eliminate it? #1 on the management hierarchy of controls of risk.

As an option, outside the box of just accepting the above, surely with these sorts of very long range flights, a reasonable alternative could be to fly an air marshal on the service to deal with trouble makers.

You cannot have an effective mitigation for every scenario in an industry as complex as aviation. And even if you could the implementation costs would be prohibitive. Events like this are going to occur and you/me/everyone else need to cope with that, which is the only fullproof mitigation here.

How would an Air Marshall have made this different? Point their gun at the passenger for the remaining 15 hours to London?

 

[Himeno]

If it gets worse, land in middle east, offload, and continue.

That isn't an option. More so with this flight. The crew limits on the PER-LHR flight are so tight that any landing, other then at the scheduled port, will cause the crew to run out of hours and the flight to be held or cancelled at the mid point port.

If QF9/10 were to land at DXB, they are staying at DXB for the day.

 

[RooFlyer]

Not to mention that an air marshal was recently arrested in the US for disrupting a flight (Republic Airways operating for United) and caused an emergency landing.

Not to mention pilots in the US who have been arrested when attempting to fly when intoxicated.

I can't see your point, sorry.

 

[juddles]

......Also re EU261, in another thread it was stated that this only applies to flights ex Europe, for non European Airlines, so wouldn't apply here. Is this true?

That is my understanding too. The only flights covered heading to the EU are those airlines that are based in the EU. So a QF flight headed there is not under that jurisdiction. But my knowledge base is just hearsay, with a smidgeon of wikipedia

 

[drron]

I would hope the multiple levels of security screening would stop most of the ones who are that way inclined from getting on board. Hard drugs should not be on the plane in the first place. So what left is alcohol, mental illness and other possible overdoes. A fully trained air marshal would be able to do more than an cabin attendant given their overall skill set. Hence the risk is lowered (by not expecting untrained crew to perform such tasks) and the plane can continue. Possible even a sedative could be administered.

A restrain and monitor is the best situation (which is what they had to do for 2 hours anyway when returning the plane to PER). 10-15 hours of restrain will their toll and they possible calm down and the disruption is minimized. If it gets worse, land in middle east, offload, and continue.

Having been present when a prisoner has been taken to hospital because he was seen taking ice I think you should rethink what an air marshall could do.Quite reasonable when he arrived in handcuffs with 2 armed prison guards.About 30 minutes later the guards were basically unconscious on the floor and he had removed the handcuffs.
An air marshall would have no chance by him or herself.

 

[tgh]

While I agree with the nub of Juddles post , it is also reasonable that a trained situation manager may assist enormously in managing a recalcitrant passenger. Rather than clog up another seat, it would probably be useful to have one conflict trained crew member on most flights. ( perhaps they already do this )
On AU flights , there will likely be a few competent volunteers available to assist in "negotiatons", however asking for volunteers probably creates a massive liability.
No easy answers…..

footnote after reading drrons post.. an appropriately trained air marshall could stop almost anyone bare handed...the challenge is stopping while warranting a live prisoner…..

 

[Himeno]

That is my understanding too. The only flights covered heading to the EU are those airlines that are based in the EU. So a QF flight headed there is not under that jurisdiction. But my knowledge base is just hearsay, with a smidgeon of wikipedia

EU261 applies to all flights within the EU and departing the EU by any airline and all flights to the EU by a carrier based in an EU nation.
*"EU" means the member states + EEA nations Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

 

[lastrow]

Unfortunately these instances are not rare. Almost every week we read of a difficulty with a passenger causing either a diversion or the scheduled landing, and in either case other passengers are held on the plane until police go aboard and take the offender into custody. The delay on disembarkation can easily be an hour together with disastrous flow on consequences. Would a sky marshal on board avoid these circumstances? I think not, except they may be authorized to carry a stun gun or capsicum spray and trained to use it effectively.
It seems to me that it would be better if these potential trouble makers never got past the boarding gate. I could envisage the AFP employing highly trained people who would quietly move around the waiting lounge being alert for signs that could mean trouble. It might be intoxication or extreme nervousness or anxiety or a dozen other indicators a trained person can pick up often by simply engaging the intending passenger in conversation.
A protocol would have to be established describing action to be taken when a suspected person is identified. .

 

[offshore171]

Unfortunately these instances are not rare.

How do you define rare? I'd counter that they are exceedingly rare and would be surprised if it was more than 1 in 1000 Qantas flights has been forced to divert due to a disruptive passenger.

Sure a route like the Easyjet buck's weekend special between Luton and Benidorm might have a higher rate, but even then I'd be very surprised if it were more than 2 or 3 per 1000 flights.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The issue of EU261 comes up only in respect of the ‘knock-on’ delays ex London. And the question is whether this type of knock-on would be considered an extraordinary circumstance (courts are generally holding that these types of delay aren’t considered extraordinary, but i haven’t come across anything specifically addressing the issue of a disruptive passenger, so who knows)

The issue of compensation is simply a cost of doing business. The airline is losing nothing as the fares are already priced to factor this in.

How an airline wishes to handle EU261 it up to itself... it could decide to buy an extra 787 and fly it around australia (instead of an a332/a333) and have contingency close by. Or they can decide that they would rather pay the compensation set out in EU261 if and when delays occur (bearing in mind that some figures estimate only a few percent of people eligible to claim will actually claim).

I don’t really see any case of ‘poor airline having to pay out’... passengers pay a portion of every ticket to cover this... think of it as insurance for our fellow passengers! And in other cases, airlines might be able to claim the compensation from insurance companies, or from manufacturers or airports (depending on the reason for the delay or cancellation).

 

[JohnM]

The 9 & 10 have not had a good run in the last week.

I was on the mega-delayed 10 on Sunday 2 Sept. No biggie for me as I have all the time in the world.

Someone behind the scenes probably thinking they were doing a good deed for a WP travelling in J rebooked me on BA to HKG that night, with QF connection to MEL (which was my final destination on the 10). But nobody told me and I only found out when I went to the lounge agent after the scrum had subsided. I had plenty of time to get on the BA flight, but I told the agent that I didn't want that option, so he got it reversed.

There were quite a few empty J seats when the 10 did fly. It was previously full. It played well for the woman over the aisle form me as she managed to snare an upgrade that she didn't have the day before.

I rummaged around on the QF website to find out the process for lodging a EC 261/2004 claim but couldn't see anything. A chat agent raised an incident report on Friday and I'm awaiting a response.

I can't see how EC261 is relevant to the aborted 9. The EC261 documents that I could find on the QF website specifically refer to 'flights departing from EU countries'.

While documents describing the EC261 policy are easily found, what QF seems to conveniently omit from their website is how to make a claim.

 

[mannej]

There was a thread about EU261 JohnM just recently - Will Qantas pay EU261 compo for QF2 LHR 4hr+ delays?

Perhaps a question to those affected may be in order, but I believe that QF are supposed to hand out an information sheet at check-in if the flight is affected by Eu261.