Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Zoom JFK Chaos 20 OCT  
User currently offlineBAOPS777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

Just got back from JFK. Onboard had about 10 pax ex Zoom UK's JFK/BDA/LGW Flight.

They told us of chaos at the terminal Zoom operate from in JFK. One pax said it was like a refugee camp. According to them the flight UKZ106 took off as normal from JFK on Saturday evening. Prior to the aircraft landing in BDA the captain declared an emergency due engine problems. The Aircraft landed and during taxi over the PA the flight Crew said that they had missed the runway. Can only guess they meant the taxiway entrance.

The aircraft then after authorities in BDA refusing to allow the pax to disembark. Departed again with the engine fault seemingly to the pax un rectified took off and returned to JFK.

Pax disembarked and where offered hotel rooms in New York however they would have to make a 90 minute journey and at there own expense. Many of the pax stayed in the terminal sleeping on floors. Wheelchair pax were abandoned in there wheelchairs.

The pax where originally told that the flight would leave this am but just checked flight is not due to depart until 21:10 JFK time as flight UKZ106B.

Now sounds hard to believe but when you talk to 4 different pax who where all on the flight and they all tell the same story think it must have been true. All of them said they would NEVER fly UKZ again.......

Incidentally the 10 pax all payed full fare economy one way tickets because they didn't have any confidence in the safety of UKZ .

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3705 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
They told us of chaos at the terminal Zoom operate from in JFK. One pax said it was like a refugee camp. According to them the flight UKZ106 took off as normal from JFK on Saturday evening. Prior to the aircraft landing in BDA the captain declared an emergency due engine problems. The Aircraft landed and during taxi over the PA the flight Crew said that they had missed the runway. Can only guess they meant the taxiway entrance.

They contacted us (World Airways) last night about picking this trip up for them. We couldn't crew it on the DC-10, so we turned it down. We gave them North American's number and they were going to contact them to try to pick up the passengers.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineSpinkid From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

I'm a little confused, they reached BDA, were not allowed to deplane and had to fly back to JFK?

User currently offlineBAOPS777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Yes the pax didn't deplane and aircraft returned to JFK as no maintenance facility at BDA.

User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 3):
Yes the pax didn't deplane and aircraft returned to JFK as no maintenance facility at BDA.

Still, I find that rather curious that BDA authorities forced a plane to take off despite engine issues....



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineBAOPS777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

Well all the pax said it landed refueled and left...........................................

It could be that zoom knew a/c would be out of service and rather than having to pay the VERY expensive hotel prices in BDA , cost of shipping any parts and the delay in getting engineering to look at it. Not forgeting the lack of carriers in BDA who could do an adhoc flight on there behalf. Decided that the a/c could make it back to JFK and rather than tell the truth decided to tell the pax the BDA authorites would not allow them to deplane.

Remember Zoom uk only have one a/c G-UKZM so they will want it back in service quickly.

It sound far better than we are a LCC and cant afford engineering and hotel costs here in BDA so we are gonna fly you back to JFK where everything is much cheaper and leave you in a airport terminal for over 24 hours.


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3870 times:

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
All of them said they would NEVER fly UKZ again.

Unless, of course, they had the cheapest price.



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineBAOPS777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 6):
Unless, of course, they had the cheapest price.

Very true. As one of the pax said you buy cheap and you get cheap. However you do expect a little customer service

Clearly she has never been on a FR flight in europe when it all gles wrong.


User currently offlineBluewingwalker From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

I was wondering why I saw a Zoom Plane in the AA hanger @ JFK on my way into work


The recipe for perpetual ignorance is to be content with your knowledge and satisfied with your opinion.
User currently offlineCaaardiff From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

This has confused me. Was the Zoom flight full, but 10 pax had rebooked themselves onto a flight you were on?
Surely JFK themselves wouldnt be too happy about a few hundred pax abandoned in the terminal?

This all seems a bit overhyped.

A/c has a tech problem. As stated, Maintenance facilities better at JFK, better accomodation / pax handling. Easier to sub charter, organise own crew.

Big deal, planes have problems, airlines try to save money in the best possible way. Pax go completely over the top when the airline has actually done everything required of them. I've worked in the industry long enough to take pax comments with a pinch of salt. And the media for the matter!

Looking at Zooms site seems a 199F departing to YYZ


User currently offlineVAAengineer From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

No Wonder...As I was driving in terminal 4 last night I saw Zoom's 767 parked at gate 31......Well a good advice for those pax....Fly VS next time


God's Gift To Aviation
User currently offlineBy188b From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
Pax disembarked and where offered hotel rooms in New York however they would have to make a 90 minute journey and at there own expense. Many of the pax stayed in the terminal sleeping on floors. Wheelchair pax were abandoned in there wheelchairs.

LOL, these people are crazy! Lets face it getting from JFK to New york centre is very easy and very cheap on the tube. They would rather have spent the night on a terminal floor??? More fool them. At least Zoom offered them hotel rooms, the way Low cost airlines are in Europe a lot of them wouldnt have.



next flights : BD LHR-TXL J, FR SXF-STN Y, SN BRU-LHR Y, MA LHR-BUD Y, BA BUD-LHR J, BA LCY-SNN-JFK J, BA JFK-LHR J, BA
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5289 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting By188b (Reply 11):
getting from JFK to New york centre is very easy and very cheap on the tube

Also on the airport bus if they didn't want the "hassle" of going into Manhattan. Frankly, that's more desireable than being booked into some crappy Ramada at the airport.


User currently offlineJmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1301 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 5):
It could be that zoom knew a/c would be out of service and rather than having to pay the VERY expensive hotel prices in BDA , cost of shipping any parts and the delay in getting engineering to look at it. Not forgeting the lack of carriers in BDA who could do an adhoc flight on there behalf. Decided that the a/c could make it back to JFK and rather than tell the truth decided to tell the pax the BDA authorites would not allow them to deplane.

Theres a missing part to this story I'm sure of it... (and I'm not blaming you, as you've said you are just passing on what you were told). Something doesn't add up.

Zoom obviously made the decision that the aircraft, and pax would be better at JFK. Which is indeed a reasonable choice, JFK would be far more equipped to deal with engineering and pax facilities. So, rather than strand the aircraft at BDA, fly it back to JFK. Whatever the problem with the engine, the aircraft must have been fit to fly to JFK otherwise it wouldn't have left the ground.

But, surely there were pax on board that were due to get off at BDA? And also pax at BDA awaiting to board to return to the UK? Why would they not allow pax on and off? Otherwise you end up with a 767 in JFK, some passengers LGW bound, some BDA bound, and another set of pax in BDA also LGW bound. Which is a much bigger nightmare than a 767 in JFK with just LGW bound pax.

The only reason I can think of is if allowing pax on and off would somehow have grounded the aircraft? But surely that cannot be the case, as the aircraft was on the ground, it was either fit to fly, or not fit to fly, surely allowing pax on and off would not change this?

I just can't see why they'd get to BDA, then turn around for JFK with the BDA pax still on board, and stranding the LGW pax in JFK?

[Edited 2007-10-22 15:50:28]

User currently offlineB757capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 1):
They contacted us (World Airways) last night about picking this trip up for them. We couldn't crew it on the DC-10, so we turned it down. We gave them North American's number and they were going to contact them to try to pick up the passengers.

They called Pace too. Wanted to know if we could to JFK-LGW for them.....Never mentioned the BDA part.....



The views written by this user are in no manner the views of my employer and should not be thought as such.
User currently offlineHush-kit From Germany, joined Sep 2000, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

What confuses me: Leaving JFK, to BDA, on the ground, back to JFK. And JFK is not a hub for ZOOM, didn 't they have to get a new crew into JFK to get that 767 airborne again??? And from where do they get one ??? How long does that take ??? Just some thoughts, Chris

User currently offlineJmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1301 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

Quoting B757capt (Reply 14):
They called Pace too. Wanted to know if we could to JFK-LGW for them.....Never mentioned the BDA part.....

Which, added to my reasoning above, makes me believe the passenger change at BDA did happen (i.e. BDA pax got off and LGW got on). The bit about BDA authorities not letting people off, probably referred to the transiting passengers, those people from JFK that were going on to LGW. Many airports and countries don't allow transit pax off the aircraft for short turnarounds. Assuming there was an engine issue, they probably sat on the ground at BDA for a while deciding what was the best plan of action, so the crew explained to the passengers on board why they couldn't leave the aircraft.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9697 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

So I'm guessing that the plane flew JFK-BDA. The plane went to the terminal at BDA and passengers bound for Bermuda got off and passengers for LGW got on. Passengers in transit JFK-BDA-LGW stayed on board. The engine problems prohibited the flight from flying ETOPS, so the plane could not continue to LGW. So Zoom instead decided to fly the passengers to JFK where they hoped they would easily be able to find a charter or space on other airlines to get the passengers to London. BDA options were limited. Unfortunately they could not charter a plane, so passengers were left stranded in JFK on their way to LGW.

Overall, that chain of events makes sense, but still would be absolutely miserable. Since BDA is part of the UK and the flight was headed to the UK, I'd guess the passenger bill of rights for passengers on EU flights would apply and the passengers would be required to get a certain level of compensation.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSpinkid From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

Quoting Jmc757 (Reply 16):
Which, added to my reasoning above, makes me believe the passenger change at BDA did happen (i.e. BDA pax got off and LGW got on). The bit about BDA authorities not letting people off, probably referred to the transiting passengers, those people from JFK that were going on to LGW. Many airports and countries don't allow transit pax off the aircraft for short turnarounds. Assuming there was an engine issue, they probably sat on the ground at BDA for a while deciding what was the best plan of action, so the crew explained to the passengers on board why they couldn't leave the aircraft.

This seems to be the most plausible explanation. I didn't realize the flight stopped in BDA on the way to LGW. That makes the trip in their sub economy product to LGW seem even worse now.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
RG Extends 11 X Week JFK-GRU To Oct/06 posted Wed Jan 25 2006 14:20:56 by Hardiwv
FAA May Reduce Peak JFK Flights By 20% posted Sat Oct 20 2007 06:08:57 by FlyPNS1
DL 767 Coming To SBN Tomorrow (Oct 20) posted Fri Oct 19 2007 19:40:18 by RampGuy
IB 340 @ JFK 8/28 / AN-124 @ PHL 8/20 posted Fri Sep 21 2007 18:04:48 by Rw774477
Blue Zoom 767 @ JFK 8/28 posted Sat Sep 8 2007 05:30:10 by Rw774477
Zoom UK - JFK To LGW posted Sun Aug 12 2007 23:21:05 by VS747SPUR
Xtra Airways And Zoom Airways At JFK posted Wed Jul 4 2007 07:34:17 by RJpieces
Zoom To Go Transatlantic (LGW-JFK) posted Thu Apr 12 2007 17:48:02 by Kiramakora
Zoom UK: Inaugural Route Will Be LGW-JFK posted Wed Jan 17 2007 17:30:57 by FCAFLYBOY
DL In-Flight Engine Blow Fri Oct 20 posted Sat Oct 21 2006 20:48:23 by CuriousFlyer