Air France Frequence Plus - AF CDG-SIN kept on tarmac in 40 degree heat with no a/c: man dies

from the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/man-dies-on-unbearable-flight-20091008-gnpa.html)

what a nightmare. RIP to the deceased. I've been on a plane without a/c before. It's a very different experience than being in a hot room on the ground. Something about the closed air in a plane, the proximity of other people, it's absolutely awful.

Hmmmm, 40° in the middle of the night in october :confused::confused:
The AF flight to SIN departs around 11:00 or 11:30 pm from CDG, so I doubt it was "outrageously hot" inside at that time, even if the weather has been nice in Paris these last weeks (but always "cold" in mornings & evenings). They were also obviously in the middle of the night at Bucharest.
So it's another case of a lawyer who's making some noise.:(:td:
But of course, it's very sad for this poor man and his family, but his health condition was likely very bad before boarding the flight.

AF256 Flight left from Paris (CDG) at 23:45 Tue 6 Oct 09

Flight arrived in Bucharest (OTP) at 03:45 Wed 7 Oct 09

Scheduled
Paris, Charles de Gaulle (CDG) - France
terminal 2E
23:30 on 6 October 2009

Singapore, Changi (SIN) - Singapore
terminal 1
18:05 on 7 October 2009

Rescheduled
Paris, Charles de Gaulle (CDG) - France
Bucharest, Henri Coanda (OTP) - Romania

Comments
Due to a technical incident, the itinerary of flight AF256 has been changed.

Connecting flight
Bucharest, Henri Coanda (OTP) - Romania
04:30 on 7 October 2009

Singapore, Changi (SIN) - Singapore
terminal 1
19:10 on 7 October 2009

Rescheduled
Bucharest, Henri Coanda (OTP) - Romania
Paris, Charles de Gaulle (CDG) - France
terminal 2E

Comments
Cancelled due to operational difficulties.


FYI there is a AF 4190 flight that took off from CDG to SIN yesterday 7 October in addition to regular AF 256. AF 4190 is delayed.

AF4190 Flight left from Paris (CDG) at 00:20 Thu 8 Oct 09

Scheduled arrival in Singapore (SIN) at 18:33, Thu 8 Oct 09

Scheduled
Paris, Charles de Gaulle (CDG) - France
terminal 2E
14:30 on 7 October 2009

Singapore, Changi (SIN) - Singapore
terminal 1
08:55 on 8 October 2009

Comments
Flight AF4190 is delayed.

It must be the reason why yesterday on the CDG-HKG route they replace the 777-300 by a COI 777. I am sure biz pax on that flight where happy to end up in alize!!!

And Premiere pax ending up in a 2-3-2 config with 14 seats instead of 8.

Where you on that flight?

I was on AF257 yesterday, which got canceled due to the afore mentioned story. No information provided to either member of my party of 3, although we all have subscribed to the so-called ROC program (Rappel Opérationnel du Client).

Were offered to all fly Y (even though one of us was booked in J) via AMS, arriving in CDG 2 hours later than scheduled. Put up a huge fight until we found an extremely helpful and competent agent at AF Le Club line, who booked us all on SQ334. But the whole thing was a very stressful experience...

Got to experience both the 388 (was kinda sorry to loose my 388 virginity in an SQ plane as I'm on AF6 on Nov. 24th) and SQ Y; quite an eye-opener for the ever AF fan I am. Seat, Food, IFE, Crew... There isn't any single aspect where AF can stand the comparison now that they have this horrible 3-4-3 configuration. There even are some aspects for which SQ Y beats AF J... (hot bread or constant drinks/snacks rounds for instance).

AF took/had to take another strategic direction. This flight really made me wish they had not.

(sorry I went off-topic, kinda ;))

And Premiere pax ending up in a 2-3-2 config with 14 seats instead of 8.

Where you on that flight?

No I wasn't on that flight was just checking availability for award availability on KVS since a few days as I was looking for a last minute CDG HKG flight. Finaly none opened so I didn't ended up in this mess!!!
from what i could see in the previous days Premiere was empty but J was very full.

Hmmmm, 40° in the middle of the night in october :confused::confused:
The AF flight to SIN departs around 11:00 or 11:30 pm from CDG, so I doubt it was "outrageously hot" inside at that time, even if the weather has been nice in Paris these last weeks (but always "cold" in mornings & evenings). They were also obviously in the middle of the night at Bucharest.
So it's another case of a lawyer who's making some noise.:(:td:
But of course, it's very sad for this poor man and his family, but his health condition was likely very bad before boarding the flight.

The heat wasn't coming from the sun, it was coming from 200+ bodies+assorted equipment. With no air conditioning at all, it will get pretty uncomfortable [granted, it probably won't get to forty, which is above body temperature].

Before you ask, I WAS on that flight and, yes, the temperature on the plane at 11PM in October in Paris WAS in the high 80's and very humid - it genuinely felt like the feeling I get when I step outside the terminal at Changi into the tropical heat. There was a late boarder, whcih held things up, the crew told us the AC pumps were not working because there was a fault with the standby generator, but after several attempts, I believe, the engines were fired up and we left.

The guy who collapsed was in the rear of the plane and had just come out of the restrooms, an on-board doctor attended and we diverted to Bucharest, much as the AF details confirm.

What these details do not confirm is what happened next. While the medical emergency was being attended to, the captain refuelled, perhaps with a view to continuing shortly to SIN, but, guess what, there was no adequate facility on the ground to start the engines. The sun rose a couple of hours after our arrival but we remained on the plane for a total of 6 hours on the ground, by which time, many of the 300+ passengers were showing signs of severe heat stress, including blotchy rashes, profuse sweating and, in the case of the few infants on board, some emotional distress. Although the scheduled time for serving breakfast was not particularly relevent, no attempt was made by the cabin crew to feed anyone substantially. I asked for an ice-cream, and was told that would not be possible, as everyone would want one. It was getting increasingly uncomfortable.

At around 9AM, the local AF manager and the crew agreed to disembark everyone, after a considerable delay for the authorities to complete the paperwork re the deceased. We were bussed to the terminal building and 300+ passengers queued with their hand luggage to be security screened - by 2 machines. We were then taken through to the 'Business Lounge', which was capable of seating around 100 people, where the only food on offer was crisps, pretzels, nuts and chocolate wafer biscuits. Drinks were also available.

Another long delay with little information coming from the AF agents, although they arranged for local hotel accommodation so that people could shower/rest/change. Some took this offer up, as there was supposed to be a full meal service being offered, but feedback later revealed that too few rooms were available and the food was appalling. In order to use this facility, we were all required to recover our checked baggage an pass through immigration. Only, the plane was on the perimeter fence and the ground handlers were hell-bent on servicing the scheduled services, so this process took a couple of hours to complete. Tempers by now were fraying and more was to come.

Nearing the end of this process, AF managed to schedule the arrival from CDG of 2 smaller planes to ferry everyone back to Paris to re-start the journey - at this point, no further hotel-options were offered and instead, having spent all this time waiting to pick up our luggage, we had to move around to the check in facility, and queue again, this time for nearly 2 hours, to complete a check in process which involved hand-writing the majority of the boarding cards, 2 per passenger, one back to CDG and one on to SIN. During the whole of this process, collecting and re-checking bags, AF made no effort to feed or water anyone, including a young pregnant woman travelling with her infant child on her own. AF claimed they were no allowed to do anything, the airport said it was AF's responsibility. What AF did say was that, on completing check-in we would each be given a voucher for food in the departure lounge, which turned out to be a rather stale sandwich and a bottle of water.

The return flight to CDG was crewed by full-on PR team, who, among other offerings of apologies, hoped that we would soon forget our experience.

AF told us that food and drink would be waiting for us at the gate for our 2nd attempt from CDG - again, stale sandwiches and canned pop. No senior company representative available.

The CDG-SIN trip was about half an hour later than the normal scheduled flight. Dinner was served shortly after take-off - identical menu to the previous evening and the first 'proper' meal anyone had had since then. Shortly after, and announcment was made on the tannoy, asking if there was a doctor aboard.... a crew member had fallen ill. No need to say what effect that had.

Arrival at SIN was on schedule and many staff on hand to assist with transit passengers who had missed their links.

I am now out of the system and guess what?

MY LUGGAGE IS IN PARIS

I am now out of the system and guess what?

MY LUGGAGE IS IN PARIS

I know, I shouldn't, and I really feel for you as this truly sounds like an horrible experience, but I bursted out laughing when I read the last line of your post!!

What a shameful way to handle things:(...

Hmmmm, 40° in the middle of the night in october :confused::confused:
The AF flight to SIN departs around 11:00 or 11:30 pm from CDG, so I doubt it was "outrageously hot" inside at that time, even if the weather has been nice in Paris these last weeks (but always "cold" in mornings & evenings). They were also obviously in the middle of the night at Bucharest.
So it's another case of a lawyer who's making some noise.:(:td:


I wouldn't be so sure. I was on a BA flight from Heathrow to the States last November, and the aircon couldn't be turned on for a good 45 minutes after boarding. It got unbearably hot.

KLM have a habit of not putting on the aircon until they're fully boarded, too, at least on the AMS-LHR route - it's the reason I never board until the last possible minute!

Before you ask, I WAS on that flight

<snip>

I am now out of the system and guess what?

MY LUGGAGE IS IN PARIS

What an absolutely horrendous experience, and what terrible service you all received!

I am afraid Tango302's experience is fairly reflective of the present state of affairs chez AF. The constant pressure of cost cutting means that staff no longer give a you-know-what about passengers. They are cranky and feel under-appreciated by management. In an exceptional situation such as that arising on the 256 in question there is just no longer either the corporate infrastructure or the employee goodwill available to deal with it.

In the savage environment in which airlines currently operate AF's worn out product and increasingly bad tempered service does not bode well for the future. Granted that AF has never been an industry leader in terms of service or product, these frequent and very public slips must ultimately have some impact.

Thank you Tango302 for your constructive report. I am shocked at what I have just read.

Probably AF has lost 300+ customers.

Before you ask, I WAS on that flight and, yes, the temperature on the plane at 11PM in October in Paris WAS in the high 80's

guess what, there was no adequate facility on the ground to start the engines. The sun rose a couple of hours after our arrival but we remained on the plane for a total of 6 hours on the ground

With a take off at 11pm+ at CDG, it means that you landed at around 3am+ local time in Bucharest. It is also not so surprising that you did not receive that much assistance, as the airport was closed (and it would be difficult - if possible - to disembark the 300+ passengers in these conditions).

And serving food could be a problem if there is no way to refill the plane by local suppliers.


At around 9AM, the local AF manager and the crew agreed to disembark everyone, after a considerable delay for the authorities to complete the paperwork re the deceased. We were bussed to the terminal building and 300+ passengers queued with their hand luggage to be security screened - by 2 machines. We were then taken through to the 'Business Lounge', which was capable of seating around 100 people. (...) Another long delay with little information coming from the AF agents, although they arranged for local hotel accommodation so that people could shower/rest/change. Some took this offer up, as there was supposed to be a full meal service being offered, but feedback later revealed that too few rooms were available and the food was appalling.

This is precisely the reason why disembarking is not always the best solution (long time to proceed, hotel rooms not necessarily available, and sometimes customs/immigration issues).

Hey all,

A shameful experience indeed. Just to add some more data about the heat. I was on AF256 a few days earlier (Oct 4), and at boarding, the temperature on the plane was hot indeed.

As some have posted, I was quite surprised to have a plane this hot at 23:00, but the FA told me it was quite normal. Once the AC kicked in, the temperature dropped to normal levels. However, I can imagine what would happen if the AC did not kick in.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer

Goodness, what an ordeal.

tango302, welcome to FT and THANK YOU for joining and providing us with this detailed "insider's" view of the incident.

nicolas75, whereas I understand that what you write is more "justification" than "excuse", I still find the way this was handled completely unacceptable and unjustified. BTW, are you really suggesting they should NOT have disembarked those 300+ pax even AFTER all that?! Or did I misread you?!

Goodness, what an ordeal.
nicolas75, whereas I understand that what you write is more "justification" than "excuse", I still find the way this was handled completely unacceptable and unjustified. BTW, are you really suggesting they should NOT have disembarked those 300+ pax even AFTER all that?! Or did I misread you?!

I am just saying that disembarking 300+ passengers in the middle of the night in a presumably closed airport is certainly not (if possible) the easiest thing to do.

And I am not quite sure that the Bucharest airport is the most trained / equipped to do so.

The same for the food, for the reasons explained above.

Hmmmm, 40° in the middle of the night in october :confused::confused:
The AF flight to SIN departs around 11:00 or 11:30 pm from CDG, so I doubt it was "outrageously hot" inside at that time, even if the weather has been nice in Paris these last weeks (but always "cold" in mornings & evenings). They were also obviously in the middle of the night at Bucharest.
So it's another case of a lawyer who's making some noise.:(:td:
But of course, it's very sad for this poor man and his family, but his health condition was likely very bad before boarding the flight.

Lawyer bashing, without any knowledge of any facts whatsoever, is SOOOOO old.

I am just saying that disembarking 300+ passengers in the middle of the night in a presumably closed airport is certainly not (if possible) the easiest thing to do.




Plus one musn't forget AF are 'tighter by nature' - in the pecuniary sense of the word that is.:)

I know that I could not stand to be on a plane for 6 hours in such conditions and no doubt being seated in the exit seats I'd threaten to open the overwing exit and get off if something wasn't done.

If the police were called I'm sure they would have to get on via the airstairs!

Plus, in case I have misinterpreted all this time there has been a corpse on the plane.

Or, I'd do what happened on a BA flight at TXL where the captain kept them on for hours until someone called the police and they negotiated a return to the terminal.

OK, Folks, I'm back, slept, fed, showered and ready to rock into the claims procedure...

Thanks for all your comments, needless to say, my earlier offering was by no means comprehensive and I was, to put it mildly, not on peak form. I've read what I put up last night again an, actually, it is all on the button, with some detail left out, but I can touch up a few of the points raised.

Once on the ground in Bucharest, the main priority was to deal with the medical emergency, which, by the time the deceased had been removed from the plane and the paperwork completed, took us through to around sun-up. The issues re AC in CDG the night before were still there, so, even before we started to suffer solar-gain, it was pretty damned hot before any plans for departure could be put in place.

The problems AF had to contend with were medical (resolved), technical (how to start the engines plus the AC) and personnel (crew hours plus 300+ passengers). The impression at the time was that was pretty much their priority - keeping us revenue-generators informed didn't seem a high priority. While we were on-board, we were drip fed messages such as 'we will depart in half an hour', 'we will depart in an hour', 'we will depart as soon as possible' and finally 'we will go to the terminal building'. Whatever information we were given, there was certainly no concrete plan as to when we would reach SIN.

In just about any country I can imagine, I would think that if you treated a similar number of livestock in the same way, heat, food and drink-wise, you'd be banged up pretty fast for animal welfare issues. Whatever happens, you do not take responsibility for 300+ souls for 36 hours and simply feed them 2 sandwiches and some peanuts - leastways, not unless your destiny involves a cross! At one point during the baggage reclaim/re-check debacle, I spoke with several AF/airport representatives about distributing bottles of water - they had been freely available in the Business lounge - but no-one seemed willing or able to do this - the Gallic shrug was much in evidence.

The long and the short of it is really this - AF had no outward plan coming from its centre to deal with the passenger issues on the ground - their local guy was caught between a rock and a hard place because he was not getting the authority to spend money at the scene - this, after the plane was refuelled on arrival, presumably with a view to the onward flight to SIN, but, I gather, charged at a punitive rate by the Bucharest supplier, this fuel then not being needed.

As far as lawyer bashing is concerned, if the guy being quoted in the Aus press is the guy I think it is, he pointed out to the local AF agent in Bucharest that the legal issues facing the company might not just be civil action but criminal, in regard to flying an aircraft with a known fault which might be contributary to the demise of the passenger - this appeared to come as a shock to the AF guy, who immediately phoned Paris to talk about it - I witnessed both sides of this incident.

Anyway, now feeling a little jaded and can't wait for my razor to arrive. I suppose it's too much to expect my luggage not to have been tampered with...

Once the plane was in the air, the air-conditioning functioned but the Australian man, who was travelling with family, became seriously ill.

The plane was diverted to Bucharest, where efforts to revive the man failed. (...)

It is not clear if heat played a role in the man's death and Air France has told Qantas there was no air-conditioning problem before in Bucharest.

source: The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/national/consular-help-for-family-of-man-who-died-on-plane-20091008-gp2b.html)

I know that I could not stand to be on a plane for 6 hours in such conditions and no doubt being seated in the exit seats I'd threaten to open the overwing exit and get off if something wasn't done.

If the police were called I'm sure they would have to get on via the airstairs!



Ms Prinselaar, who had been in Paris attending her grandmother's funeral, was sitting in the row in front of the 85-year-old Western Australian man Arthur Hesket when he suffered a fatal heart attack.

She said nobody had visas for Romania and the country was reluctant to let them in.

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26187231-12377,00.html)

Ms Prinselaar, who had been in Paris attending her grandmother's funeral, was sitting in the row in front of the 85-year-old Western Australian man Arthur Hesket when he suffered a fatal heart attack.

She said nobody had visas for Romania and the country was reluctant to let them in.

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26187231-12377,00.html)

We need to be a bit careful about sweeping statements like this - the majority of passengers on the plane were EU nationals and therefore did not need visas. Not sure how the Aus contingent were sheparded through, there may be a reciprocal arrangement with the EU that meant they did not need them either - I don't think I needed a Visa other than the usual tourist-entry when I visited Aus a few years ago. I think someone said that there were about 20 on the flight who may have had a problem that way, but that is all.

Also, not sure about the quote from the Aus media about admission of the AC fault - the cabin crew were saying, before departing CDG, that there was a fault and apologising, also explaining that the AC would function once the engines were fired up, all of which happened.

I have also seen reports that AF want to charge a large sum for the repatriation of the deceased - I didn't hear anything about that on the ground, so don't know where that comes from either.

Take large doses of salt with some of these reports - they may be right, but there does seem to be confusion in some areas.

Ever heard the phrase "Trust me - I'm a journalist!"?

Ms Prinselaar, who had been in Paris attending her grandmother's funeral, was sitting in the row in front of the 85-year-old Western Australian man Arthur Hesket when he suffered a fatal heart attack.

She said nobody had visas for Romania and the country was reluctant to let them in.

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26187231-12377,00.html)

Romania should have let in all the EU nationals without a second glance. Any Americans, Japanese, Australians, Kiwis would ahve also been unemcumbered by a visa.

The web also indicates Singaporeans also don't need Romanian visas.

Surely that would have taken care of a large majority of the plane?

As far as lawyer bashing is concerned, if the guy being quoted in the Aus press is the guy I think it is, he pointed out to the local AF agent in Bucharest that the legal issues facing the company might not just be civil action but criminal, in regard to flying an aircraft with a known fault which might be contributary to the demise of the passenger - this appeared to come as a shock to the AF guy, who immediately phoned Paris to talk about it - I witnessed both sides of this incident.

Hi Tango302,

"Nice" to hear the story from a person who actually were on the flight and not only hear/read speculations regarding the incidence. Thanks for sharing ^

First of all I'm neither accusing nor defending AF.

The lawyer man obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. A generator not working on the ground at CDG to keep auxiliary electrics going such as the A/C is NOT a know fault on the actual aircraft. The fault could have been a contribution in a chain of event's that caused the unfortunate death of the 85 year old man. If he (i.e. the unfortunate soul) had taken the RER from Paris to CDG he could have suffered the same fate (of you who have taken the RER know what I'm talking about) as what he did in the flight.

If AF (or any airline for that sake) was to be held criminal liable for any death on board in a case similar to the unfortunate AF incidence, I guess no one over the age of 65 would be allowed to fly as the risk of dying is getting to high.

It's not that long ago that airplanes could no longer use the AC while on the ground as the AC system got way too hot (the AC compressor is placed under the middle fuel tanks on most aircraft) and could cause the fuel to vapourise which holds extreme explosive properties (Source: NGC).

I also can't understand why airlines in general NEVER can give basic information on what's going on how long delays are going to be :mad:

Hi Tango302,

"The lawyer man obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. A generator not working on the ground at CDG to keep auxiliary electrics going such as the A/C is NOT a know fault on the actual aircraft. The fault could have been a contribution in a chain of event's that caused the unfortunate death of the 85 year old man.

You are of course right - which is why I used conditionals throughout. However, that fault with the AC on that aircraft on that day WERE known about and discussed by the crew. The rest of it is what lawyers are for and bet your sweet bippy the insurance guys will be lining a few up.

One 'amusing' aside - one guy on the flight had his luggage lost in Bucharest - he works in insurance and guess who one of his company's clients is? Yup, Air France!! Moral question - does HE claim for his luggage!!!?

Ms Prinselaar, who had been in Paris attending her grandmother's funeral, was sitting in the row in front of the 85-year-old Western Australian man Arthur Hesket when he suffered a fatal heart attack.

She said nobody had visas for Romania and the country was reluctant to let them in.

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26187231-12377,00.html)

This is the weakest of the arguments you have advanced to excuse AF. As has been pointed out elsewhere Romania does NOT require pre-entry clearance visas from, amongst others, EU nationals, USA/Canada, Australia, NZ, Singapore or Malaysia. That incomplete list would, I imagine, cover most of the passengers on board 256.

The point that Tango302 was making is that the AF response to this emergency was, on the whole, poor. Compare his experience to an almost identical experience I had aboard an SQ flight 2 years ago. In that case at an airport not served by SQ, in the very early hours of the morning, SQ had managed to put in place an adequate response. All handled expeditiously and professionally.

Sadly, AF seems to be intent on turning itself into a sort of intercontinental Ryanair. I stress that it is not the fault of the personnel. They feel (they have told me!) disenfranchised by management, and they certainly feel very undercompensated. Additionally, they are perfectly aware of the inadequacies of the product they work with.

Sadly, AF seems to be intent on turning itself into a sort of intercontinental Ryanair. I stress that it is not the fault of the personnel. They feel (they have told me!) disenfranchised by management, and they certainly feel very undercompensated. Additionally, they are perfectly aware of the inadequacies of the product they work with.

Great that these opportunities arises so some can have a rant on AF :rolleyes:

Unfortunately these things happens more often on airplanes than most of us are aware off, but as we're living in an age of sensation hungry news readers and involving a large airline who unfortunately have been stricken by an awful and quite large accident lately it couldn't come at a better time for some :rolleyes:

Bucharest Airport (is what I know - never been there) a very small airport compared to other European airports and could imagine more or less closed around the time that AF made the unscheduled stop. What could/should AF have done instead? I think they did the correct thing and land at the closest airport possible; if they did or not I don't know - I was not sitting in the cockpit at the time listening in on the conversation between the Capt., ops in Roissy and/or Bucharest airport. I can for sure say that AF followed the protocol to the letter and did the correct thing.

Sadly, AF seems to be intent on turning itself into a sort of intercontinental Ryanair.

The main point is IMO here.

Any airline (even SQ) could fail in handling when circumpstances are really hard. In our case, I was not there so I could not comment. I have some good experiences on irregular ops with AF, as well as some very bad.

But back to the main point, by reading the tone of the threads on AF & KL forums compared to other ones for some times by now, I have the feeling that AF has indeed radically changed its business model. And I am not talking about the crisis.

Great that these opportunities arises so some can have a rant on AF :rolleyes:

Unfortunately these things happens more often on airplanes than most of us are aware off, but as we're living in an age of sensation hungry news readers and involving a large airline who unfortunately have been stricken by an awful and quite large accident lately it couldn't come at a better time for some :rolleyes:

Bucharest Airport (is what I know - never been there) a very small airport compared to other European airports and could imagine more or less closed around the time that AF made the unscheduled stop. What could/should AF have done instead? I think they did the correct thing and land at the closest airport possible; if they did or not I don't know - I was not sitting in the cockpit at the time listening in on the conversation between the Capt., ops in Roissy and/or Bucharest airport. I can for sure say that AF followed the protocol to the letter and did the correct thing.

This has also happened on domestic flights within the USA, with no immigration involved. The last occurrence was early August for a CO flight in Rochester, with passengers reportedly "trapped" for 9 hours. Not a pretty sight, either. Hopefully, airline and airport management, as well as security, customs and immigration officials can learn from these mishaps in order to work together much better when these unforeseen circumstances happen.

I think we have to be careful about writing this off as an elderly passenger who died because he was old. Consider:

* If the passenger had been a healthy 30 year old, would he have also suffered a fatal heart attack? Probably not.

* If the plane had working A/C systems (on a 777, that means temperature regulated, no matter how long it sat on the ground), would he have suffered a fatal heart attack? Maybe not.

Yes, you assume a risk, as an elderly person, that you may die on a flight. You can only assume risks you know about though! As a passenger, I assume the risk that:

* My plane may crash
* My luggage may get lost
* I may be seated next to someone smelly or obnoxious
* I may be yelled at by a flight attendant
* I will be surrounded by lots and lots of people

Here's a risk I don't assume, because I don't know about it: that my plane won't have on-ground A/C and that the plane will in fact sit on the ground for over 6 hours without any form of regulated air, with over 300 passengers heating up cabin air. Since this is not a well-known risk, if (and I stress "if") the death is attributed to the hot and stressful atmosphere as a contributing factor, then at least in the US, AF would be partially liable, regardless of underlying medical conditions.

AF had choices here. Based on the eyetwitness accounts we've heard on this forum, I'd say they made some wrong ones.

This has also happened on domestic flights within the USA, with no immigration involved. The last occurrence was early August for a CO flight in Rochester, with passengers reportedly "trapped" for 9 hours. Not a pretty sight, either. Hopefully, airline and airport management, as well as security, customs and immigration officials can learn from these mishaps in order to work together much better when these unforeseen circumstances happen.

I think it happens frequently in the US but is this the new standard by which AF expects to be judged? There will be no 'learning' from this or any other incident. To be fair AF is probably not very interested in lessons. AF is in the midst of a progressive reduction of its products and services. The business model has been changed and that is just fine. Impossible to argue though that AF's response in this case was sufficient by the standards of leading competitors. By the new stripped down ('enhanced') standards of AF it is only to be expected.

This has also happened on domestic flights within the USA, with no immigration involved. The last occurrence was early August for a CO flight in Rochester, with passengers reportedly "trapped" for 9 hours. Not a pretty sight, either. Hopefully, airline and airport management, as well as security, customs and immigration officials can learn from these mishaps in order to work together much better when these unforeseen circumstances happen.

Ah yes,,,in step the usual flag wavers to morally support their ailing airline with the predictable comparions of other airlines.This particular google search does slightly smack of desperation .

I think it happens frequently in the US but is this the new standard by which AF expects to be judged? There will be no 'learning' from this or any other incident. To be fair AF is probably not very interested in lessons. AF is in the midst of a progressive reduction of its products and services. The business model has been changed and that is just fine. Impossible to argue though that AF's response in this case was sufficient by the standards of leading competitors. By the new stripped down ('enhanced') standards of AF it is only to be expected.

Well CO is not considered as a LCC, yet. And other carriers involved include AA, unless I am mistaken, not a LCC, either.

My point was that the situation in Bucharest involved additional difficulties with respect to customs and immigration that are not found in the case of US domestic flights.

With respect to whether AF and the other authorities involved will learn from this mishap can only be assessed in the future. I am more positive than you are, but we will have to see how things evolve and whichever opinion is closer to what happens.

Ah yes,,,in step the usual flag wavers to morally support their ailing airline with the predictable comparions of other airlines.This particular google search does slightly smack of desperation .

I believe everyone is entitled to his opinion. And no, it wasn't a Google search, just reading the CO board on FT ;).

Still, we are not here to discuss other posters and label them. Thanks.

Thanks Tango 302 for a very accurate account. Yes, my wife and I were on that flight and won't forget the experience. My thoughts: (i) forced to land in Bucharest, why did AF pilots not realize immediately that they would not be able to restart engines there? why did they not ask/insist to the local authorities for passengers to be allowed to disembark and stay in transit while continuation or other were decided and plane(s) to move us were dispatched ? French embassy in Bucharest could have lent a hand? AF should have sent somebody straight away to deal with the situation but nobody ever turned up. The death was unfortunate and the forced lading unavoidable. Everything else was a total failure of Air France to handle adequately a crisis of this order.
finally...during the horrible crowded transfers at the airport, we tried to use a lift to get to the second floor because my wife has a broken foot. WE GOT STUCK BETWEEN FLOORS and only the combined force of another passenger and me finding the lever to open the door that was some 20-30cm off base let us out after useless ringing the alarm bell.

Is there any report of these incidents in French news?

ok I have got only one : http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/europe/20091007.FAP7025/un_vol_air_france_atterrit_durgence_a_bucarest_apr es_le.html

The article is inconsistent because it says first trhat the plane was forced to do an emergency landing because of the dead passenger aged 85, then it talks about technical problems on the aircraft preventing it to take off again, then it says the the cause of the death is not known.

The article also says that "AF is acting to solve the situation".

Article from AP dated 07 October, 1 PM Paris time.

Hmmmm, 40° in the middle of the night in october :confused::confused:
The AF flight to SIN departs around 11:00 or 11:30 pm from CDG, so I doubt it was "outrageously hot" inside at that time, even if the weather has been nice in Paris these last weeks (but always "cold" in mornings & evenings). They were also obviously in the middle of the night at Bucharest.


Well, that´s easy to explain.

In a plane you have no window to open for fresh air and if you´re travelling in 30.000 ft the air outside is quite fresh with very few oxygene. You cant´t use this air in this condition. But you need fresh air.

So a plane takes the air with the engines. There the air is set under more pressure and it´s getting much warmer. If you put this air into the cabin you have to cool it down again. And if this step isn´t working the fresh air could be very warm.

Hi Johnnys and welcome to the forum :)

Sorry to hear that you were "caught" up on the AF flight which seems to be splitting the camp in two :(

Please don't take my answers the wrong way it's just my view on the situation (and again, I was not there)! Please let me know if you feel unwelcomed by my comments :)

Yes, my wife and I were on that flight and won't forget the experience. My thoughts: (i) forced to land in Bucharest, why did AF pilots not realize immediately that they would not be able to restart engines there? why did they not ask/insist to the local authorities for passengers to be allowed to disembark and stay in transit while continuation or other were decided and plane(s) to move us were dispatched ?

A forced landing as you say is not a planned one. Landing at Bucharest was probably the quickest way to get the aircraft down so getting engines started again was probably not a priority in this case if there was a possibility to save a persons life.

French embassy in Bucharest could have lent a hand?
This is not the responsibility of any embassy. If any embassy was going help out every single time something out of the ordinary was going to happen it would be all an embassy would be doing. This is not what embassies are there for.

AF should have sent somebody straight away to deal with the situation but nobody ever turned up.

It was in the middle of the night at a minor hub for AF. Where on earth should they (i.e. AF) get the personnel from?

finally...during the horrible crowded transfers at the airport, we tried to use a lift to get to the second floor because my wife has a broken foot. WE GOT STUCK BETWEEN FLOORS and only the combined force of another passenger and me finding the lever to open the door that was some 20-30cm off base let us out after useless ringing the alarm bell.

Can't really see how this is AF's fault...

This said, I can appreciate the frustration having left CDG late and then being tangled up in an involuntary stop somewhere else and then feeling that no one took responsibility and/or ownership of the situation. Unfortunately I believe this is the norm when an unforeseen crisis rises in any situation :(

Well, that´s easy to explain.

In a plane you have no window to open for fresh air and if you´re travelling in 30.000 ft the air outside is quite fresh with very few oxygene. You cant´t use this air in this condition. But you need fresh air.

So a plane takes the air with the engines. There the air is set under more pressure and it´s getting much warmer. If you put this air into the cabin you have to cool it down again. And if this step isn´t working the fresh air could be very warm.

The A/C was not working while on the ground because of a faulty generator. Had nothing to do with the actual flight were it apparently was working...

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Is there any report of these incidents in French news?

A Google search ;) will return it has been reported by le Nouvel Obs.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/europe/20091007.FAP7025/un_vol_air_france_atterrit_durgence_a_bucarest_apr es_le.html

This is not the responsibility of any embassy. If any embassy was going help out every single time something out of the ordinary was going to happen it would be all an embassy would be doing. This is not what embassies are there for.

The embassy (or its consular office) could have exerted some influence. Just as AF may have tried to do. Ultimately, the final decision makers remain the Romanian police/immigration/customs authorities (and they all need to be available on location and at the time) and the airport management with respect to leaving the aircraft, entering the terminal and picking up baggage.

AF has more responsibility for the services (or lack thereof) provided to the passengers, such as catering, even though it may have been difficult to find service providers on short notice. Still, this is very much the purview of a carrier.

I have no idea of the usual status of the Bucharest airport at the time the AF flight was diverted. Is it open to traffic or closed ?

ok I have got only one : http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/europe/20091007.FAP7025/un_vol_air_france_atterrit_durgence_a_bucarest_apr es_le.html

The article is inconsistent because it says first trhat the plane was forced to do an emergency landing because of the dead passenger aged 85, then it talks about technical problems on the aircraft preventing it to take off again, then it says the the cause of the death is not known.

The article also says that "AF is acting to solve the situation".

Article from AP dated 07 October, 1 PM Paris time.

A Google search ;) will return it has been reported by le Nouvel Obs.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/europe/20091007.FAP7025/un_vol_air_france_atterrit_durgence_a_bucarest_apr es_le.html

Looks like I answered myself to my question :p

I wonder if the fact that these incidents were not developed in French media is intentional.

Maybe there were not many French passengers onboard after all.

It was in the middle of the night at a minor hub for AF. Where on earth should they (i.e. AF) get the personnel from?

(
As I mentioned above a similar experience arose on an SQ flight on which I was traveling necessitating a landing at an airport not served by the airline at all, and yet adequate services were provided in an efficient and professional manner. The reason AF does not respond in a similar vein in similar situations (this has happened before!) is COST. It is expensive and time consuming to start finding un-contracted ground handling at 4 in the a.m. It can be done (cf SQ) but probably does not fit into AF's current budgetary arrangements. As it was, the diversion will have cost the company a great deal of money. Expenditure on potentially unnecessary ground handling (if plane was able to turn around and go back to CDG) wld have been mal vu to say the least.

Ultimately, the final decision makers remain the Romanian police/immigration/customs authorities (and they all need to be available on location and at the time) and the airport management with respect to leaving the aircraft, entering the terminal and picking up baggage.

AF has more responsibility for the services (or lack thereof) provided to the passengers, such as catering, even though it may have been difficult to find service providers on short notice. Still, this is very much the purview of a carrier.

I have no idea of the usual status of the Bucharest airport at the time the AF flight was diverted. Is it open to traffic or closed ?



OTP the international airport of Bucharest is not closed at 4:30 am when AF did an unplanned landing there. Just check the webpage of the airport and you will find out that usually at 4:30 am the first flights are departing (f.e. to Syria).

An unplanned landig of a passenger jet is nothing spectacular, it happens often and there are procedures how to handle it. If it is clear to the crew that the flight cannot be continued with this plane the passengers have to disembark. Immedately. Not after six hours of waiting in the plane. Waiting for what?

As OTP is not such a small airport as some here think it would be no problem to accomodate the passengers. Airport management, immigration or customs never denied to AF the disembarking.

It was the responsibility of AF to take care of the 300+ passengers and provide the necessary care taking. There is no need to fly in AF personnel from Paris to do so. Just send the stranded passengers to the existing lounges, restaurants or even waiting areas at the airport. If it comes to the point to pay for the food and drinks for the passengers maybe one of the crew members has a credit card. BTW anybody here who knows why the purser is called "purser" ? Probably AF is not obliged to pay cash.


And another hint for the AF supporters: At OTP there is a lot of staff who speaks fluent english or french. In plus the romanian language is very close to french that you don`t even need an interpreter. I know what I am talking about.

The embassy (or its consular office) could have exerted some influence. Just as AF may have tried to do. Ultimately, the final decision makers remain the Romanian police/immigration/customs authorities (and they all need to be available on location and at the time) and the airport management with respect to leaving the aircraft, entering the terminal and picking up baggage.

Let's not get confused here. This really has nothing to do with any Embassy, especially the French Embassy (unless indeed French citizens were mistreated by the Romanian authorities etc). The French Embassy is certainly not going to intervene for non-French citizens. Oh, btw, on top of that, AF is a private company AFAIK :)

I suspect that if indeed there was an immigration issue, this probably arose from the fact that if the airport was closed, hence there were no immigration officials working at the time. Regardless of whether a person needs a visa or not, they DO need to go through immigration to enter a country.

Sure, if the situation was clear, I suspect they would have brought people in, eventually, to check the passengers "into" the country. However, if - as has been suggested - AF kept saying the flight would take off "in half an hour" or "in an hour" then surely they would not mobilise reserve immigration officers in the middle of the night - esp. if AF had not even taken the decision to disembark the pax.

Landing at Bucharest was probably the quickest way to get the aircraft down so getting engines started again was probably not a priority in this case if there was a possibility to save a persons life.

It was in the middle of the night at a minor hub for AF. Where on earth should they (i.e. AF) get the personnel from?

With a take off at 11pm+ at CDG, it means that you landed at around 3am+ local time in Bucharest. It is also not so surprising that you did not receive that much assistance, as the airport was closed (and it would be difficult - if possible - to disembark the 300+ passengers in these conditions).

If the AF cockpit crew decided to divert to Bucarest, it is because Bucarest is a designated diversion airport. Being a designated diversion airport means not only that there is somebody in the tower who - to put it simply - lets the plane land, but also that this airport has the facilities to handle plane emergencies (i.e. things like sufficient fire engines available), medical emergenices (i.e. things like medical team and facilities available), the plane (i.e. things like infrastructure in terms of runway, tarmac, fuel, startup support) and passengers (things like stairs to disembark them, some sort of real estate to shelter them, feed them, etc). If these facilities didn't exist Bucarest would not be a designated diversion airport, and I whilst I do hold some minor reservations about some of Air France's cockpit decisions I am convinced that the AF pilots would not have decided to go there.

A plane doesn't just fly to the "nearest airport" when there's a medical emergency, it flies to the nearest designated diversion airport. Only there can they be sure that appropriate infrastructure, facilities and human resources exist to deal with the situation at hand.

Thus, the excuse that Bucarest was "closed" is a very lame one (but sounds very AFish to me, they're great at giving lame excuses). It was open in terms of dealing with a B777 making an unplanned stop.

Now, although facilities at Bucarest do exist, not all of them come by themselves. If you don't tell the guys on the ground that there's a medical emergency, there won't be an ambulance waiting for you; if you don't tell them that you have a fire on board they won't pull the fire engine out of the garage; likewise, if you don't tell them that you want to disembark 300 pax and that you want them to be taken care of not a lot will happen.

And this is where AF's lousy "ca ira" attitude comes in, they first left things go their own way, then they improvised a lousy solution forgetting about half the details, but spend a lot of effort on PR. I am sure the pax from that flight will at some point get 4,000 miles on their FB account.

It's not the A/C problems in Paris or Bucarest that are an issue (can happen to anyone and once the engines are running there is enough bleed air to supply your A/C. Why ground air wasn't used or the APU wasn't an option I don't know, but I can understand that there is such a scenario - not AF's fault). Neither can we say that it is their fault that the passenger died, and certainly linking the dead only to whatever happened in AF's responsibility seems exaggerated. But the things that are in AF's responsibility - proper information of pax, getting them some food organized, taking care of people in need - they failed miserably. Bucarest may or may not be as well organized as Tokyo or Montreal certainly are - but having seen from the inside the possibilities an airline has to get things moving even at an airport like Bucarest I know for sure a lot more could be done than was described by the pax who were on that flight.

But that requires for the airline to recognize that pax need attention (which AF unfortunately has lost over the years), and it requires organizational skill (which AF never had) and the means to fix a problem (which in the past compensated for the lacking skills, but now are no longer there).

The performance and resilience of an organization shows not how they handle normal operations (already not stellar for AF, but OK), but when a problem arises (no other airline at least in Europe has so many stories of f**king up problem and crisis handling). Same old story with AF...

Let's not get confused here. This really has nothing to do with any Embassy, especially the French Embassy (unless indeed French citizens were mistreated by the Romanian authorities etc). The French Embassy is certainly not going to intervene for non-French citizens. Oh, btw, on top of that, AF is a private company AFAIK :)

Well, if you want to speed up an unexpected immigration process during the night by dialoguing with immigration authorities, I would guess that any influence exerted by the French Embassy would be useful. And I would also guess that there was at least one French national onboard the aircraft. So enough justification IMHO for an involvement by French representatives, but perhaps I expect too much. Anyway, it is a side issue.

As for flights out of OTP, the 4:30 AM flight is indeed the first one after midnight, followed by the next flights at 6:00 AM.

It was the responsibility of AF to take care of the 300+ passengers and provide the necessary care taking. There is no need to fly in AF personnel from Paris to do so. Just send the stranded passengers to the existing lounges, restaurants or even waiting areas at the airport. If it comes to the point to pay for the food and drinks for the passengers maybe one of the crew members has a credit card. BTW anybody here who knows why the purser is called "purser" ? Probably AF is not obliged to pay cash.

I will not advocate AF in that case but it is certainly NOT the role of crew member to use their credit card to pay drinks to stranted passengers.

Passengers do have their own credit cards and can thereafter send (or at least try to) the bills to AF if necessary.

I would certainly have done that.

A reminder to please focus on the issues and refrain from making personal comments on other members of the FT community. Thanks.

Jouy31
AF/KL co-moderator

I will not advocate AF in that case but it is certainly NOT the role of crew member to use their credit card to pay drinks to stranted passengers.

Passengers do have their own credit cards and can thereafter send (or at least try to) the bills to AF if necessary.

I would certainly have done that.

There are two lines of reasoning that are possible:

1. airline doesn't care, thinks that pax should get by on their own, use their own card, and let them wait for the lottery draw of whether they'll have their expenses reimbursed

2. show that you care and have your staff take care of the pax also and especially in this difficult situation. One - maybe unconventional, but possible - methods is to have staff members get things organized. There are stories where in the US (of all places!) Delta crew members got off the plane and got pizza for all the pax, paying with their corporate credit card.

Not surprisingly AF lacks the phantasy and will to go along the second route.

The performance and resilience of an organization shows not how they handle normal operations (already not stellar for AF, but OK), but when a problem arises (no other airline at least in Europe has so many stories of f**king up problem and crisis handling). Same old story with AF...

Just a datapoint on management of irrops, unrelated to the Bucharest mishap. I had a minor problem exactly two weeks ago on the second early morning flight from ORY to LCY. During the flight, 10mn after our scheduled arrival time, we were informed that we would be landing in ... STN. Not really happy as my meeting was scheduled to start 30mn after landing, the time we arrived in STN and I was paying a CRT fare. I fully expected the worst, as there is no AF flight at STN, but was greeted by Servisair staff (I usually also expect the worst from Servisair), who led us to the baggage carousel and then to a bus stand where we waited 15mn for a chartered coach to bring us back to LCY, where we arrived at 11:10, 2h10 after our scheduled arrival time. It was irritating, but adequately managed on that occasion by AF.

This has also happened on domestic flights within the USA, with no immigration involved. The last occurrence was early August for a CO flight in Rochester, with passengers reportedly "trapped" for 9 hours. Not a pretty sight, either. Hopefully, airline and airport management, as well as security, customs and immigration officials can learn from these mishaps in order to work together much better when these unforeseen circumstances happen.

Indeed, this has happened a few times in the USA, although not aware of any associated death. But even without a dead pax, each of these incidents created a national uproar, with huge front-page media coverage. Several US senators even wanted to introduce legislation to force airlines to provide better care. Clearly, the culture between the US and France is quite different in terms of public reaction.

The A/C was not working while on the ground because of a faulty generator. Had nothing to do with the actual flight were it apparently was working...

Please correct me if I'm wrong

I´ve read this in a German article. But this can´t explain what happened on the flight.

If someone is interested how a Commercial Airliner Environmental Control System
works (in a Boeing), he would find the Information here:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/ecs.pdf

That's just horrible. And I was just complaining about my recent awful flight out of ORD for the first time. We were in queue to take off and had to wait 50 mins with the AC not turned. With the lateness, a chain of events happened and when I got home, I was just in a foul mood. After reading this, my experience just sounds like small potatoes.

MY LUGGAGE HAS ARRIVED!!!!! Now, I can swim...

MY LUGGAGE HAS ARRIVED!!!!! Now, I can swim...

Congratulations tango302 :D ^

tango302, Glad you got your bags and thanks for the detailed posts.

The heat wasn't coming from the sun, it was coming from 200+ bodies+assorted equipment. With no air conditioning at all, it will get pretty uncomfortable [granted, it probably won't get to forty, which is above body temperature].

40C = 104F Can it really get up that high with just a lack of A/C when its Oct weather outside? If so, I would think that more people would have passed out at least. I really don't mind the lawyer exaggerating because it will grab headlines and keep the story in the news a little longer.

With a take off at 11pm+ at CDG, it means that you landed at around 3am+ local time in Bucharest. It is also not so surprising that you did not receive that much assistance, as the airport was closed (and it would be difficult - if possible - to disembark the 300+ passengers in these conditions).

And serving food could be a problem if there is no way to refill the plane by local suppliers.


This is precisely the reason why disembarking is not always the best solution (long time to proceed, hotel rooms not necessarily available, and sometimes customs/immigration issues).

This is not a wild scenario that no one could have predicted. AF as well as the rest of the passenger airlines of the world need contingency plans. Perhaps tango can answer whether there were water fountains in the terminal areas. He mentioned no offerings of bottled water and little food. Just wondering if airports are so myopic that they don't provide adequate water fountains in "secure" areas.

Lawyer bashing, without any knowledge of any facts whatsoever, is SOOOOO old.

And the comments by the lawyer in the article probably gave legs to this story. GOOD!


This said, I can appreciate the frustration having left CDG late and then being tangled up in an involuntary stop somewhere else and then feeling that no one took responsibility and/or ownership of the situation. Unfortunately I believe this is the norm when an unforeseen crisis rises in any situation :(

Again.. unforeseen? Emergency landings are a foreseeable event. Since plane fly at night it is also foreseeable that an emergency landing/diversion could occur during less-than-peak staffing levels of an airport. Even if there weren't any food vendors available at that time, water should have been the number one priority for those stranded in the terminals.

All of this is not only foreseeable but downright predictable. Too many airlines work well only when everything goes right.

Also, I wouldn't pull out my personal cc to pay for others' food and drinks unless there were a bona fide written policy instructing me to do so. I would not want to fight a corp red-tape nightmare trying to get reimbursed just to end up being told, at best, "Okay, but we don't cover the interest charges you incurred during the x-months it took to get paid!"

Also, I wouldn't pull out my personal cc to pay for others' food and drinks unless there were a bona fide written policy instructing me to do so. I would not want to fight a corp red-tape nightmare trying to get reimbursed just to end up being told, at best, "Okay, but we don't cover the interest charges you incurred during the x-months it took to get paid!"

Fully agree. But it's precisely that corporate attitude ("who are you to believe that you must buy food for your stranded pax?") rathern than FAs' individual attitudes that is the problem here.

I had two unplanned landings or emergency stops so far in my life and these cases always turned out to be a bit chaotic esp. on airports where the airline hasn't any partner or own local crew (here Bukarest)

Once our LH flight to PVG couldn't land in Pudong due to a Taifun and after a trial to land anyway in PVg (Captain decided not to take the risk) we headed to Beijing instead. We were brought with a bus to a 5* hotel, got out rooms and were invited for a dinner buffet. The flight was continued the next morning 7:30 but we decided to stay in Beijing as this was anyway out final destination for the next week but there was no offiicial from LH to be informed. The hotel woke us several times early next morning till they understood that we won't join.

The other time I had start interrupt on CAN-BKK with TG (ThaiAirways) which caused a broken aircraft and we need to stay in hotel overnight. After disembarking information flew slow but after hours we were told to stay in hotel that night w/o any new departure time. Me and some ohters went (with the crew!!) to the nearby Novotel (now Pullman), others were driven by bus to downtown hotel (?). The next day 10:30 we continued our trip to BKK. Chaos was because the limited amount of local staff and because they went home after 17:00 :rolleyes:


Probably AF has lost 300+ customers.

even more: I hope that AirFrance will loose even more customers and soon disappear from the market

...
even more: I hope that AirFrance will loose even more customers and soon disappear from the market

Yes, I am sure this would be great for competition and hence for the cosnumer :rolleyes:

even more: I hope that AirFrance will loose even more customers and soon disappear from the market

Even if AF would disappear, it will be saved in a way or another by the French government and/or a partner.

Look at what happened to Alitalia, Swissair etc...

Even if AF would disappear, it will be saved in a way or another by the French government and/or a partner.

Look at what happened to Alitalia, Swissair etc...

Swiss is in German hands now and Alitalia is somehow in the boat with AF-KLM... bad luck Italy:rolleyes:

Of course: the fewer the big players are the lower the competition the higher the prices

I hope that AirFrance will loose even more customers and soon disappear from the market

If a leading company disappears, some other may die even before :rolleyes::rolleyes:

And not necessarily the worst of them in terms of quality of service: Singapour Airlines, Thai Airways, Jal, Cathay Pacific, Austrian Airlines, CSA, Kingfisher Airlines are currently facing some heavy financial difficulties

MY LUGGAGE HAS ARRIVED!!!!! Now, I can swim...

do you swim with your suit-case !? :D:D

Well, if you want to speed up an unexpected immigration process during the night by dialoguing with immigration authorities, I would guess that any influence exerted by the French Embassy would be useful. And I would also guess that there was at least one French national onboard the aircraft. So enough justification IMHO for an involvement by French representatives, but perhaps I expect too much. Anyway, it is a side issue...

Why would a French citizen documented well enough to enter Singapore have any issue to enter another UE country? French consular assistance would have no role or remit in the event.

AF's various needs that night would have been variously available from the panopoly of airport service providers.

These things happen all the time, and usually it's never pretty.

Why would a French citizen documented well enough to enter Singapore have any issue to enter another UE country? French consular assistance would have no role or remit in the event.

Unless I am mistaken, what is important for the lack of border controls in Europe is being part of the Schengen zone, not the EU. Romania is not yet within the Schengen zone.

If a leading company disappears, some other may die even before :rolleyes::rolleyes:

And not necessarily the worst of them in terms of quality of service: Singapour Airlines, Thai Airways, Jal, Cathay Pacific, Austrian Airlines, CSA, Kingfisher Airlines are currently facing some heavy financial difficulties

CX and SQ are doing rather well, considering. Mind you the economic crisis has not hit Asia nearly so hard as it has the US and Europe. But yes, ultimately, AF would always be saved by the state, even in contravention of EU law. Certainly the Italians and Greeks have not seemed overly constrained by those same laws. I would bet that AF will emerge well from the crisis. It has a new model of stripped down super high density aircraft. P will disappear (thank goodness) and there will be fewer J seats as AF's premium business shrinks. It is increasingly uncompetitive.

Unless I am mistaken, what is important for the lack of border controls in Europe is being part of the Schengen zone, not the EU. Romania is not yet within the Schengen zone.

True, but this is not what SYDguy was saying. Read his post. What he is saying is that the French pax on board presumably all had their passports with them, as they were headed to SIN. So, they had all the necessary documents to enter Romania - a non-Schengen country but still an EU member state.

Unless I am mistaken, what is important for the lack of border controls in Europe is being part of the Schengen zone, not the EU. Romania is not yet within the Schengen zone.

In the case of AF256 the fact that Romania is not yet part of Schengen would have been irrelevant as regards those passengers who were either EU nationals or nationals of countries not requiring a visa for entry into Romania. That group includes Singaporean, Malaysian, Australian, and New Zealand citizens. Most of the passengers would have fallen into these two groups. The problem would only arise in relation to citizens of other countries not in possession of a Romanian transit visa (obviously everybody other than the two groups mentioned above), for instance an Indian citizen resident in Singapore travelling from the US via CDG with a Schengen transit visa. This would require a decision by the chief immigration officer at Bucharest airport to admit passengers in the third group on a very temporary basis. It is common - if infrequent - practice by immigration officers in precisely this sort of case to do so.

It requires though action on the part of AF to contact the authorities and inform them of the situation and request all assistance. At this point there might be some use in the Embassy of France (NOT consular service) to also request assistance on behalf of a French company. In the present case AF was hedging its bets waiting to see if the crew would be out of hours or not before they started incurring large UNRECOVERABLE costs in Bucharest. The obvious procedure would have been to engage ground services (including emergency immigration - it can be done, and certainly possession of a Schengen transit visa would weigh heavily in favour of the third group of passengers) while AF256 was still on its way to Bucharest. But that is time consuming and costly and therefore not in the AF operating manual any longer.

True, but this is not what SYDguy was saying. Read his post. What he is saying is that the French pax on board presumably all had their passports with them, as they were headed to SIN. So, they had all the necessary documents to enter Romania - a non-Schengen country but still an EU member state.

You're right. Though it was misguided, my point was that they still needed to go through Romanian immigration to enter the country, even though they had the necessary documents. My apologies for misunderstanding SYDguy's comment.

do you swim with your suit-case !? :D:D

No, I let the butler do it for me!! Seriously, over the years, one whittles down the things you carry in hand luggage, but spare underwear, climate-appropriate clothes etc are always there - must think seriously about the budgie-smugglers in future!!

Now that it is about a fortnight since the nightmare began, let me tell you about my experiences with trying to initiate a claims dialogue with AF.

Rule 1 ; AF doesn't do dialogue - ever tried to ring a customer care centre of theirs? After much trawling of the internet and ringing about a dozen Singapore numbers, including freight desks etc, all of which resulted in either NO ANSWER or SORRY, CAN'T HELP reponses, I eventually phoned their sales desk - surely, they WILL speak to passengers!! Got forwarded to a guy in Sydney, who said I would have to speak with the London office (I'm UK resident) Gave me a telephone number, which gets through to someone who is NOT customer services and who tells me, quote, "Customer services do not speak with people on the telephone - it slows them down too much"!!!:D:mad::confused:

Also tried to email Bernard Anques, who is listed on AF's website as their head honcho in the UK, no response yet after 9 days. Finally initiated a complaint form on their website and had a reply from a do-not-reply address, telling me that they would pay me a sum of money in the form of an e-voucher with AF + affiliates, valid for 12 months. 1) They haven't heard my side of the story yet, despite 2 weeks of trying to get through to them. 2) the amount does not even begin to cover the trauma involved and 3) TRAVEL WITH AF AGAIN??? ARE THEY MAD??? Cash, Mes Amis, hard moolah!!

My parting words to the AF ground manager in Bucharest before flying back to Paris on the 7th were " If you can think of another way to screw up my day more completely, please keep it to yourself!" Little did I know just how much more *** they had to dish out!

3) TRAVEL WITH AF AGAIN??? ARE THEY MAD??? Cash, Mes Amis, hard moolah!!!

Why should they make an effort to say sorry with a check if they have lost your business anyway?

Having said that. I can only remotely imagine what sort of horror you have been through.

...they would pay me a sum of money in the form of an e-voucher with AF + affiliates, valid for 12 months...

Just to let you know, that AFAIK most AF vouchers can be exchanged for cash, within their validity, for sthg like half the amount of the voucher.

AF doesn't do dialogue - ever tried to ring a customer care centre of theirs? After much trawling of the internet and ringing about a dozen Singapore numbers, including freight desks etc, all of which resulted in either NO ANSWER or SORRY, CAN'T HELP reponses, I eventually phoned their sales desk - surely, they WILL speak to passengers!! Got forwarded to a guy in Sydney, who said I would have to speak with the London office (I'm UK resident)

If you are a FB Elite cardholder, try 0871 66 33 77. One of the option will direct you to the customer care team after you've keyed-in your FB number.

Also tried to email Bernard Anques, who is listed on AF's website as their head honcho in the UK, no response yet after 9 days.

Bernard Anquez was replaced twice already as AFKL's UK General Manager. The current one is Henri Hourcade who took over the position from Christine Ourmieres. At least this is what the AF website says here (http://www.airfrance.co.uk/GB/en/local/toutsurairfrance/actualites/pr_new_general_manager.htm)

Just to let you know, that AFAIK most AF vouchers can be exchanged for cash, within their validity, for sthg like half the amount of the voucher.

I believe that, like all other airlines, AF will only offer cash when they are obliged to do so by law. The vouchers you are referring to would be those given to travellers being denied boarding and who can indeed be redeemed for cash. Unless you mean the €60 "Bon de Service Clientele" something given on board for "smaller incidents" such as failing IFE and who have a cash value of €30? Other "Goodwill gestures" offered by customer care are normally strictly non-refundable and can only be used to book another flight on AF or KL.