Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Interesting Story about Passenger Perspectives on Safety
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
Apparently, two things occurred which were almost certainly unrelated. Not the luckiest flight of the day.
I'm wild guessing the crew made an FMGC entry error which was revealed during the take-off roll, maybe as a performance problem, maybe an inadequate power setting, 80 kts coming too far down the runway, or something like that. Whatever the case, why don't they just tell them?
Also, 80kts is considered low speed regime for the A320, entering high speed at 100kts.
-
Offered a $500 "credit against future travel" ???
Most peoples reaction would be "Sorry Air Canada, I want cash. What makes you think I would want to fly with you again".
As far as I am concerned whether I use them again or not, compensation to me means cash. Vouchers don't really cost the company offering them anywhere near their face value.Last edited by brianw999; 2017-06-16, 10:46.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostOffered a $500 "credit against future travel" ???
Most peoples reaction would be "Sorry Air Canada, I want cash. What makes you think I would want to fly with you again".
As far as I am concerned whether I use them again or not, compensation to me means cash. Vouchers don't really cost the company offering them anywhere near their face value.
Comment
-
On the other hand, I wonder if high temps in the main gear bay might cause a malfunction with the fuel transfer system. If they did not allow for adequate cool-down after the reject (30 minutes) before the second roll, and this caused the in-flight problem, then you could have a case against them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostIf they did not allow for adequate cool-down after the reject (30 minutes) before the second roll, and this caused the in-flight problem, then you could have a case against them.
If those pax think an RTO is a horrible awful experience, they should try being on a flight where the takeoff is not rejected and instead slams into a building off the end of the runway.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostCompensation for what? As far as I can tell, the crew acted appropriately in both instances and protected the safety of the passengers. Beyond that, flying carries inherent risks. A $500 voucher is generous.
-Right main shimmy damper failure [without runway excursion and without air conditioning] in some instances (ISIs) will get you $100 voucher
-Canceling your 7:00 PM flight at 1:30 AM with no open flights for 36 hours ISIs will get you a $50 gift card
-4 hour delay ISIs gets you a $100 voucher
I think $500 for slamming on the brakes and 20 seconds of being slammed against your belt and wondering if you'll go off the end in a big fire ball (hopefully at a speed below V-3BS).
Footnote: I did redeem the gift voucher...11 more months on the 4-hour deal...The right main shimmy damper voucher expired.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostOffered a $500 "credit against future travel" ???
Most peoples reaction would be "Sorry Air Canada, I want cash. What makes you think I would want to fly with you again".
As far as I am concerned whether I use them again or not, compensation to me means cash. Vouchers don't really cost the company offering them anywhere near their face value.
As for a $500 voucher I don't think it's too bad. I have received both cash and vouchers and depending on the circumstance I think they are both appropriate. AA gave some generous ones for overbooked flights which we took full advantage of (again opting for a non-direct "free" flight with a huge airport tax) and Air France dished out a generous amount of hard cash ($400 each) when they overbooked a flight forcing us to lose a day of our vacation. We spent the day shopping.
Comment
Comment