Prev: JFK Airport Arrival Avianca Terminal 4
Next: Names from the past
From: JohnT on 8 Apr 2008 14:05
<electrobilge(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d51a6b68-ba40-42d9-be87-5cc697e223f1(a)u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 3:13 am, Xanf <selen...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm one of the passengers of that flight too - and I'm going to pass
> my complain to the Air Canada office here in Frankfurt today. (it's
> only today I finally got time to file it all together).
>
> I can confirm everything what was said here by the author of the
> original message. Just the timing I have is different: as I saw it -
> it was longer on every stage than he writes. First 1.5 hours delay
> before first boarding, then 2 hours in the plane before fisrt
> unboarding, then another 2 hours in the gate before second boarding
> attempt. And then 5 hours in the aircraft - at least for us who was
> taken by the last bus from the plane. So total delay was more than 10
> hours before cancellation came.
>
> Those photos that show people pulling the clothing on and off are 100%
> correct: when it was already about 35-40 degree Celsius in the cabin
> (I had a termometer for our baby - so we saw the temperature on it),
> the crew opened the doors for some time - and for those fully wet (of
> sweat) people sitting near the doors it was an urgent necessity to
> pull something on when the wind of +3 degree celsius came in -
> otherwise they'd ctach a flu or worse. For us with a baby it was even
> worse - we had to pull it in and out the clothes too and it's not so
> easy as you know, especially when the baby is stressed and screaming
> all the time.
>
> For us the worst thing was that near the end of the first day we were
> already short of special baby food - and for a surprize there were no
> baby food onboard! I never seen that before - Quantas and other
> airlines always have some. And when they first promised to and then
> declined to give the baggage back (where we had more baby food) - we
> were really desperate. We had to run about to the shops to find some
> baby food immediately.
>
> On 5 ���, 03:12, electrobi...(a)hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > First, some pictures for you:
>
> >http://www.dunnett.com/AC875/ac875.html
>
> > April 1, 2008
> > skipped

Xanf and I have different recollections of the chronology. I do know
that the flight boarded on time, there is no doubt there, but if
anything Xanf's comments only underline the suffering of the
passengers when time becomes distorted - especially when traveling
with an infant. Xanf's comments bring to light a whole new and
different understanding of the level of discomfort that was
experienced by all of the passengers, but in particular those with
infants (there were at least 2 that were less than 1 year old and I
have video of one infant who is red from the heat and crying with the
mother trying to offer some comfort - I'm trying to get that one
televised on national TV). And of course there were several elderly
passengers who were also suffering greatly.

In my recollections what stood out was the heat and odor inside the
cabin, however Xanf is correct - when the FA's opened the doors it
must have been terribly cold for those sitting nearby.

I have yet to hear any sort of reply from Air Canada with regard to my
complaint.

I certainly hope other passengers on this flight step forward with
their personal experiences. As I said - I'm not about to let Air
Canada off the hook on this one.


As the flight originated in Frankfurt you have rights under EU Legislation.
Did Air Canada make you aware of this? See
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/information_en.htm
--

JohnT

From: electrobilge on 10 Apr 2008 05:02

> As the flight originated in Frankfurt you have rights under EU Legislation.
> DidAirCanadamake you aware of this? Seehttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/information...
> --


Air Canada provide passengers with information? Unlikely.

Thanks for that tip - I'll follow it up.

From: John Doe on 10 Apr 2008 05:30
electrobilge(a)hotmail.com wrote:

> And yes - Air Canada's fleet has some very dubious planes. These guys
> need a serious maintenance audit.

AC is getting rid of its Airbus 340s rapidly. If this is the type of
plane you flew, this may explain why. Once AC gets the 777 that replaces
the 340, the 340 goes in for real maintenance before being returned to
the lessor and sent to another airline.

The 330s are going to have to stay a few extra years due to the 787
delays. And the 767s will be quite long on the tooth by the time AC gets
its 787s.

In fairness, AC has (or at least had) good maintenance capabilities. But
ACTS was spun off (like just about everything else at AC) into a
separate company. So perhaps Air Canada (the airline) now doesn't want
to spend as much on maintenance since the money now leaves Air Canada.
From: electrobilge on 20 Apr 2008 14:01
On April 4, 2008 I submitted a complaint regarding flight 875 / 2875
to Air Canada.

As of April 19 I have received no response from Air Canada.

Please review one of the video clips taken from the flight.

http://www.dunnett.com/AC875/images/ac875.mov

From: electrobilge on 20 Apr 2008 14:03
On April 4, 2008 I filed a complaint with Air Canada with regard to AC
flight 875 / 2875.

As of April 19 I have received no response from Air Canada.

Please review one of the video images from the flight.

http://www.dunnett.com/AC875/images/ac875.mov
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: JFK Airport Arrival Avianca Terminal 4
Next: Names from the past