Dave Noble

so - nowhere near the 1.5 hours that you were stating?

I would say so. A 35 minute delay is pretty insignificant I would say

1Aturnleft

I dont think its within the realms of possibility to move to the next carriage on board a plane at flight level 3-3-0....

That said some people do seem to be able to muster an immense sense of entitlement out of nowhere where plane travel is concerned. Be that a last minute nut allergy that requires immediate attention and everyone to dance to their beet for the duration.... or banging on about a 35 minute flight delay. Sometimes the less that's said the better.

Dave Noble

Really need to get to the root of the beet dance requirement

1Aturnleft

I'm shocked and appalled. At my shoddy comprehension this evening more than any allergy or delay.

Detroiter

But BA themselves tell pax to inform the crew of their allergies, as they are unable to put the information on the manifest. Seems to me your beef is with BA IT for their inability to transfer information about passenger allergies to crew.

weegraeme

It seems to me that there are a heap of reasons why that could have happened. Perhaps the passenger was transferred on to that flight following a delayed connecting flight. We're entitled to know if we're placed at risk by the actions of other people, but I don't really think we're entitled to know the specific reasons for a delay, particularly if it invades the privacy of another passenger. I do understand that we all want our flights to arrive on time. But we all know that in aviation, that's never guaranteed.

Ghoulish

Exaggerated or fabricated food allergies are a plague unique to English speaking western countries.

Yes, some do suffer from life threatening allergies. That's very, very rare and those people only survive by carefully managing their lives.

Wandering onto a plane without being well aware of the allergen exposure potential seems highly unlikely by those facing potential death, unless by allergy they mean "Timmy doesn't like xxx and I'll be damned if I suffer one of those tantrums again, surely he must be allergic, that's it."

I'll bet there's a good chance that had pax known their usual demands for special accommodation would result in removal they wouldn't have even brought it up. Once said though it could not be retracted.

mtofell

Maybe everyone on board planes should be forced to wear masks to prevent infecting the few vulnerable people. Ah, never mind, that would be completely illogical and crazy. Wait, hold on.... this sounds familiar.

JD1905

We were sat on the tarmac at heathrow for over an hour and a half. Is that just acceptable now then?

Edit: Apparently 74 Minutes.

Tobias-UK

I find this rather curious. Was there any indication why the delay was necessary or why the passenger was unable to/did not travel?

JD1905

I think Passenger was likely moved onto the flight and the allergy wasn’t communicated. This unfortunately lead to them being offloaded and the flight being held for over an hour.

People can try and defend BA on this all they want and say that the delay is insignificant, but when you’re spending more time on the aircraft on the ground than you are in the air on a short haul like this for something avoidable it’s frustrating.

Oh, and just to add, so we are clear.

We were delayed by 1hr and 12 minutes it appears. With an arrival 45 minutes behind schedule.

JD1905

Reason I was given was to offload Passenger and their bags.

Tobias-UK

That’s why I’m curious, why would a peanut allergy prevent a passenger from travelling? Even with advance warning all an airline can do is make an announcement requesting passengers not to consume peanuts on board. As BA does not use peanuts in any meals it could not have been a catering issue.

JD1905

I also don’t recall seeing anyone being offloaded. This is why i’ve made the thread, we can speculate away!

Tobias-UK

That’s not unusual in itself, a passenger can be offloaded without setting foot on the aircraft. It’s possible any discussion occurred at the gate or on the jetty.