LMFNINJA wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

Transat is a terrible airline known for cramming in as many passengers as possible. Haven't flown them in 25 years and never will. Not surprised they did nothing to improve the safety and comfort of the passengers.

If you haven't them in 25 years, your opinion of the carrier and its level of service should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Except for the fact that Transat is well known for having aircraft with a minimal amount of legroom and not known for their quality of service. It is a well-documented fact.

And have you ever flown on Transat? Or maybe you are an employee of that airline.

I'm not a TS employee, and I have flown with them recently. The A310's are not so nice as the A330's, but they will all be gone within the next 2-3 years. The flight in question here was an A332, and the A330 fleet all have low-profile seats, so the 32" pitch actually gives decent legroom. The food is at least as good as AC, and it's free unlike WS. The seats in Y are narrow, but they're on par with AC's 10-across 777's and 9-across 787's. Service-wise, I have found the crews to be very pleasant and attentive. The only significant difference between TS and AC (intercontinental) is that you pay for alcohol on TS. When booking for any travel, I consider TS equally with WS, AC, or any of the legacies. I consider TS above most other leisure airlines, especially for intercontinental. The only downside for me is the lack of partnership connections.

I too would suggest your opinion is out of date, if you haven't flown with them for 25 years. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that your "well-documented facts" consist mostly of seatguru and skytrax reviews, which, personally, I would take with a pretty big grain of salt.

aerolimani wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

If you haven't them in 25 years, your opinion of the carrier and its level of service should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Except for the fact that Transat is well known for having aircraft with a minimal amount of legroom and not known for their quality of service. It is a well-documented fact.

And have you ever flown on Transat? Or maybe you are an employee of that airline.

I'm not a TS employee, and I have flown with them recently. The A310's are not so nice as the A330's, but they will all be gone within the next 2-3 years. The flight in question here was an A332, and the A330 fleet all have low-profile seats, so the 32" pitch actually gives decent legroom. The food is at least as good as AC, and it's free unlike WS. The seats in Y are narrow, but they're on par with AC's 10-across 777's and 9-across 787's. Service-wise, I have found the crews to be very pleasant and attentive. The only significant difference between TS and AC (intercontinental) is that you pay for alcohol on TS. When booking for any travel, I consider TS equally with WS, AC, or any of the legacies. I consider TS above most other leisure airlines, especially for intercontinental. The only downside for me is the lack of partnership connections.

I too would suggest your opinion is out of date, if you haven't flown with them for 25 years. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that your "well-documented facts" consist mostly of seatguru and skytrax reviews, which, personally, I would take with a pretty big grain of salt.

i've flown with TS several times but stopped doing so last year their onboard service is ok same as AC i would say i didn't mind it flight attendants were nice and all .. now their customer service on ground phone in handling situations such as emergencies lost luggage that's where the disaster starts showing it's just a mess they are good to connect you from point A to point B but if anything goes wrong you are done. so i decided to avoid them i do think it's not OK to leave pax 6 hours on a plane after a long flight or any flight this whole situation was mishandled i can't believe there are users defending TS .

OGLOBAL wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

Except for the fact that Transat is well known for having aircraft with a minimal amount of legroom and not known for their quality of service. It is a well-documented fact.

And have you ever flown on Transat? Or maybe you are an employee of that airline.

I'm not a TS employee, and I have flown with them recently. The A310's are not so nice as the A330's, but they will all be gone within the next 2-3 years. The flight in question here was an A332, and the A330 fleet all have low-profile seats, so the 32" pitch actually gives decent legroom. The food is at least as good as AC, and it's free unlike WS. The seats in Y are narrow, but they're on par with AC's 10-across 777's and 9-across 787's. Service-wise, I have found the crews to be very pleasant and attentive. The only significant difference between TS and AC (intercontinental) is that you pay for alcohol on TS. When booking for any travel, I consider TS equally with WS, AC, or any of the legacies. I consider TS above most other leisure airlines, especially for intercontinental. The only downside for me is the lack of partnership connections.

I too would suggest your opinion is out of date, if you haven't flown with them for 25 years. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that your "well-documented facts" consist mostly of seatguru and skytrax reviews, which, personally, I would take with a pretty big grain of salt.

i've flown with TS several times but stopped doing so last year their onboard service is ok same as AC i would say i didn't mind it flight attendants were nice and all .. now their customer service on ground phone in handling situations such as emergencies lost luggage that's where the disaster starts showing it's just a mess they are good to connect you from point A to point B but if anything goes wrong you are done. so i decided to avoid them i do think it's not OK to leave pax 6 hours on a plane after a long flight or any flight this whole situation was mishandled i can't believe there are users defending TS .

Airlines and crew will always find defenders on a.net.

mjoelnir wrote:

OGLOBAL wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

I'm not a TS employee, and I have flown with them recently. The A310's are not so nice as the A330's, but they will all be gone within the next 2-3 years. The flight in question here was an A332, and the A330 fleet all have low-profile seats, so the 32" pitch actually gives decent legroom. The food is at least as good as AC, and it's free unlike WS. The seats in Y are narrow, but they're on par with AC's 10-across 777's and 9-across 787's. Service-wise, I have found the crews to be very pleasant and attentive. The only significant difference between TS and AC (intercontinental) is that you pay for alcohol on TS. When booking for any travel, I consider TS equally with WS, AC, or any of the legacies. I consider TS above most other leisure airlines, especially for intercontinental. The only downside for me is the lack of partnership connections.

I too would suggest your opinion is out of date, if you haven't flown with them for 25 years. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that your "well-documented facts" consist mostly of seatguru and skytrax reviews, which, personally, I would take with a pretty big grain of salt.

i've flown with TS several times but stopped doing so last year their onboard service is ok same as AC i would say i didn't mind it flight attendants were nice and all .. now their customer service on ground phone in handling situations such as emergencies lost luggage that's where the disaster starts showing it's just a mess they are good to connect you from point A to point B but if anything goes wrong you are done. so i decided to avoid them i do think it's not OK to leave pax 6 hours on a plane after a long flight or any flight this whole situation was mishandled i can't believe there are users defending TS .

Airlines and crew will always find defenders on a.net.

All these posters have done is give their opinions on the airline's hard and soft product. How are they defending the airline by stating that they find the service they've received in line with their expectations? The posters you quoted weren't even talking about this incident. Just the airline in general. There is nothing to defend.

Specific to this event, I'm having trouble finding a single poster on this thread that came to the "defense" of the airline. Most posts I've read have all stated the airline should or could have done more.

77H

I'm curious to know why only this flight seemed to be a problem. Twenty planes diverted to YOW, including AC, RV, KL, AF, EK, and two other TS flights. According to news reports, none of them deplaned. So, what went wrong on this aircraft? How did the other airlines keep their passengers happy enough that it didn't blow up on social media. How did TS handle the other two flights differently from TS157?

I know some of the other flights weren't on the ground as long. But, the EK flight was in the air for 13 hours before it sat on the ground for 3 extra hours. So… what gives with TS157? Did they run out of fuel (and lost A/C) long before anyone else?

As I understand it, an AirFrance flight from Paris and a KLM flight from Amsterdam was also diverted to Ottawa do to the weather. Does anyone know how AirFrance-KLM handled the situation? Did they disembark the passengers?

I find keeping the passenger confined to their seats for 6 hours while the plane standing still on the tarmac is unacceptable. The police should have boarded the aircraft to assess the situation.

reidar76 wrote:

As I understand it, an AirFrance flight from Paris and a KLM flight from Amsterdam was also diverted to Ottawa do to the weather. Does anyone know how AirFrance-KLM handled the situation? Did they disembark the passengers?

I find keeping the passenger confined to their seats for 6 hours while the plane standing still on the tarmac is unacceptable. The police should have boarded the aircraft to assess the situation.

I agree that the airline handled it poorly. No arguments there. But what exactly do you think the police could/would do in that situation? They get on and "assess" the situation, now what ? I'm not trying to be argumentive, simply curious as to your thoughts.

I understand that this happened in Canada and the police there aren't known for their agression and violence like their counterparts to the south but I think we've all seen this year that police on planes is almost as bad a combination as snakes on a plane.

Did I just come up with summer's new blockbuster ?

77H

77H wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

As I understand it, an AirFrance flight from Paris and a KLM flight from Amsterdam was also diverted to Ottawa do to the weather. Does anyone know how AirFrance-KLM handled the situation? Did they disembark the passengers?

I find keeping the passenger confined to their seats for 6 hours while the plane standing still on the tarmac is unacceptable. The police should have boarded the aircraft to assess the situation.

I agree that the airline handled it poorly. No arguments there. But what exactly do you think the police could/would do in that situation? They get on and "assess" the situation, now what ? I'm not trying to be argumentive, simply curious as to your thoughts.

I understand that this happened in Canada and the police there aren't known for their agression and violence like their counterparts to the south but I think we've all seen this year that police on planes is almost as bad a combination as snakes on a plane.

Did I just come up with summer's new blockbuster ?

77H

Poorly? I would rather talk about a complete disregard for the safety of the passengers.

6 hours on the tarmac on a hot day. Running out of fuel. Therefore losing air conditioning, on an airplane stuffed to the gills with passengers, on a hot day while not providing water, I would say that is putting the safety of passengers in danger. People get heat strokes in those conditions, little children are especially in danger. No wonder someone called 911.

How much fuel had the airplane left after the diversion? Does the captain needed a special permission from his airline to tank more fuel?

Not providing food for a 6 hours wait is not dangerous, but at least not acceptable.

What the police could have done? Get the people of the plane and arrest the captain. In this case they provided EMTs and water.

mjoelnir wrote:

77H wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

As I understand it, an AirFrance flight from Paris and a KLM flight from Amsterdam was also diverted to Ottawa do to the weather. Does anyone know how AirFrance-KLM handled the situation? Did they disembark the passengers?

I find keeping the passenger confined to their seats for 6 hours while the plane standing still on the tarmac is unacceptable. The police should have boarded the aircraft to assess the situation.

I agree that the airline handled it poorly. No arguments there. But what exactly do you think the police could/would do in that situation? They get on and "assess" the situation, now what ? I'm not trying to be argumentive, simply curious as to your thoughts.

I understand that this happened in Canada and the police there aren't known for their agression and violence like their counterparts to the south but I think we've all seen this year that police on planes is almost as bad a combination as snakes on a plane.

Did I just come up with summer's new blockbuster ?

77H

Poorly? I would rather talk about a complete disregard for the safety of the passengers.

6 hours on the tarmac on a hot day. Running out of fuel. Therefore losing air conditioning, on an airplane stuffed to the gills with passengers, on a hot day while not providing water, I would say that is putting the safety of passengers in danger. People get heat strokes in those conditions, little children are especially in danger. No wonder someone called 911.

How much fuel had the airplane left after the diversion? Does the captain needed a special permission from his airline to tank more fuel?

Not providing food for a 6 hours wait is not dangerous, but at least not acceptable.

What the police could have done? Get the people of the plane and arrest the captain. In this case they provided EMTs and water.

What do you want me to say mjoelnir? TS acted completely reprehensibly? Does that adjective satiate your incessant loathing for commercial airlines? I'm not defending the airline, no one on this thread has? Not sure what the airlines have done to you personally to create this chip on your shoulder toward them or anyone that doesn't share your views 100% but it sounds like you may want to look into buying time through Netjets or the like for your air travel needs.

Arrest the captain? On what charges exactly? Let's try and be rational and realistic. I get the captain is ultimately in charge of that flight while under power but what authority do you think he truly had over the situation he, his passengers and crew were in? I'm sure he was on the phone with operations at HQ who were calling the shots on once the aircraft was on the ground. Let's not forget, the flight/cabin crew were on the same airplane, in the same conditions as the passengers. I'm sure they were just as pissed off and frustrated as the passengers.

Someone at TS made a string of bad calls that day. That much is certain. But of all people, you're suggesting the police drag another person off a plane? Someone who likely had little more in control of the situation than the people sitting behind him? And if you posit that the captain has authority of the aircraft, then what makes you think the police have the authority to arrest him?

P.S. I welcome your response to any of my questions, comments. I would ask that you refrain from the ad hominem name calling like "airline apologist/defender". Disagree with my point of view, fine. Calling names because you disagree. Lowly. I'm not defending or apologizing for them. I think I've made that quite clear. I'm trying to look at the situation from all angles. Believe me, I feel for everyone that was on board that plane. It must have been miserable.

77H

My best guess is there were no gates available for the flight in YUL either. Remember that they also went through a severe TStorm /groundstop, and if you've been there from 5PM to 10PM any evening they are packed with overseas flights to the point that the moon buggies are still used to offload & reload the overflow flights. Saw this in action 2 weeks ago with the flight from Tunis. AT probably had no gates or ground staff in YUL even if they were to arrive back.
That being said, I agree 100% things should have been handled differently here big time. Like the Southwest flight several years ago - one call to Domino's around 8:00PM and the Captain would have been a hero.

YOWVIEWER wrote:

My best guess is there were no gates available for the flight in YUL either. Remember that they also went through a severe TStorm /groundstop, and if you've been there from 5PM to 10PM any evening they are packed with overseas flights to the point that the moon buggies are still used to offload & reload the overflow flights. Saw this in action 2 weeks ago with the flight from Tunis. AT probably had no gates or ground staff in YUL even if they were to arrive back.
That being said, I agree 100% things should have been handled differently here big time. Like the Southwest flight several years ago - one call to Domino's around 8:00PM and the Captain would have been a hero.

The non availability of a gate in YUL should have than been an information the captain had, his decisions would look even less rational if that is true.

Well, the government investigation is underway here so I am hopeful the truth will be out fairly soon. Should be interesting to hear the facts.......

Why would the crew demand over the p.a. that the 911 caller identify him or herself? I wish that one person would have raised their hand, then another, then another until the entire cabin had a hand in the air.

Shameful, unacceptable situation and AirTransat seems to have brought on a proposal for new regulations.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transat ... -1.4231286

77H wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I find keeping the passenger confined to their seats for 6 hours while the plane standing still on the tarmac is unacceptable. The police should have boarded the aircraft to assess the situation.

what exactly do you think the police could/would do in that situation? They get on and "assess" the situation, now what ? I'm not trying to be argumentive, simply curious as to your thoughts.

Canada is a democratic Western country. Without having specific knowledge of the Canadian legal system, there are a number of fundamental rights that will also apply in Canada. This includes not being held back against your will. It includes having access to food and water, a place to sleep, access to a bathroom as well as basic health care.

There is a limit for how long and for what reason someone may deny you access to these basic needs. Of course, it is possible to discuss whether 6 hours extra exceeds that limit, but when passengers need to call 911 something is wrong. The police should have boarded the aircraft in order to assess whether the crew is acting illegally, listen to the passengers complaints, assess whether the passenger basic needs are beeing meet, and whether there is a danger to life and health. For example, riots may occur on board when basic needs are not met, which endanger life and health of both crew and passengers. The police could order the crew to carry out deboarding. It is illegal not to follow the police's instructions.

Of course, if it is considered to be a serious negligence by the crew, the police can bring the crew to the police station for questioning. Normally you can be held for questioning for up to 24 hours. After questioning, a public prosecutor can decide whether to press charges, and a court must decide whether you can be held in custody, or whether you must be released pending trial.

How long would you have accepted to be held hostage by the crew? 10 hours? 24 hours? 48 hours? Until someone died on board?

aerolimani wrote:

LMFNINJA wrote:

drgmobile wrote:

If you haven't them in 25 years, your opinion of the carrier and its level of service should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Except for the fact that Transat is well known for having aircraft with a minimal amount of legroom and not known for their quality of service. It is a well-documented fact.

And have you ever flown on Transat? Or maybe you are an employee of that airline.

I'm not a TS employee, and I have flown with them recently. The A310's are not so nice as the A330's, but they will all be gone within the next 2-3 years. The flight in question here was an A332, and the A330 fleet all have low-profile seats, so the 32" pitch actually gives decent legroom. The food is at least as good as AC, and it's free unlike WS. The seats in Y are narrow, but they're on par with AC's 10-across 777's and 9-across 787's. Service-wise, I have found the crews to be very pleasant and attentive. The only significant difference between TS and AC (intercontinental) is that you pay for alcohol on TS. When booking for any travel, I consider TS equally with WS, AC, or any of the legacies. I consider TS above most other leisure airlines, especially for intercontinental. The only downside for me is the lack of partnership connections.

I too would suggest your opinion is out of date, if you haven't flown with them for 25 years. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that your "well-documented facts" consist mostly of seatguru and skytrax reviews, which, personally, I would take with a pretty big grain of salt.

No actually my observations are based on what friends and numerous contributors on this site have stated.

And the fact that Transat is not considered a premium carrier.

However if you wish to state otherwise then I think you will be in the minority.

P.S. -And what about the 737s flying YUL-YYZ? My sister was one one of them and she said never again.

One fine day in January 2000, I got caught on a CO DC-10 out of GIG that got caught on the tarmac for four hours. The APU either was INOP or not doing its job. A few elderly passengers started to lose consciousness. The crew seemed not to care. There was minimal communication. There was no water. I was 22 years old and *I* almost lost consciousness. Once we finally took off, it took begging from other passengers to get water to the unconscious passengers and try to rehydrate them (a risky task when someone may not be guarding their airway, but I wasn't even accepted to medical school yet at that point). Once I got home, I filed a complaint with the FAA and the DOT over the incident. Of course, in 2000 extended tarmac delays had only just started to attract public attention and so not much action was taken.

An airline has a duty to transport passengers safely, whether it is SQ/ME3 or the cheapest LCC. Safety does not only mean: "the airplane doesn't crash." It also means that conditions inside the airplane remain habitable and that passengers are generally subjected to conditions that don't violate the Geneva Convention.

When passengers are trapped about an uninhabitable airplane and the flight crew are declining offers of assistance from the airport, then the flight crew, in my opinion, have become criminally negligent in their duties. Keeping passengers safe is FAR more important than transporting them. Given a choice between inconveniencing passengers with a further delay or endangering and/or torturing them, I think the correct course of action is obvious.

Perhaps it's time for crews and airline managers to face criminal consequences for this kind of thing. I'm no expert on Canadian law, but most Western democracies have criminal laws against illegal detention, gross negligence, and forcibly subjecting people to inhumane conditions. Remember, the captain is ultimately responsible for the safety of all souls aboard the airplane.

C-GTSI was stuck in a line of other planes which would all have had to move in order to bring C-GTSI to where it could have been refueled. Maybe fuel could have been trucked to the plane, but maybe not. Could it even have been safely/legally refueled in its position on the taxiway?

Some here have called other posters airline apologists, but that's not how I see myself. I'm trying to bring some balance to this discussion. Some posters have already declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner, and decided that the airline and its captain are to blame for all. I think it's WAY too soon to make that call. Let all the facts come in first. Right now, none of us have all the information.

As to the court of public opinion… I wonder, would the TS157 passengers have been happier were they offloaded, moved out to a hotel for the night, and then flown to YUL the next day?

As to conditions on the plane, again we don't know what they really were. We have some anecdotal comments from passengers, but as far as we know, there were no loss-of-consciousness incidents. One puking kid is hardly evidence that it was a dangerous situation. I really wish people would stop making this judgement call without having all the evidence.

Anyhow… this thread has degraded from a source of interesting information, into a fight between accused apologists and self-appointed judges. Time to un-bookmark it.

reidar76 wrote:

As I understand it, an AirFrance flight from Paris and a KLM flight from Amsterdam was also diverted to Ottawa do to the weather. Does anyone know how AirFrance-KLM handled the situation? Did they disembark the passengers?

I find keeping the passenger confined to their seats for 6 hours while the plane standing still on the tarmac is unacceptable. The police should have boarded the aircraft to assess the situation.

No PAX from any of the diverted aircraft disembarked. Some of the aircraft lined up on C and RWY 07 had the APU and beacons on, while others did not (A310's). The last to divert was the ACA 77W, and they had a fuel truck, airstairs and a tug cross the runway to service it. It departed minutes before sunset.

aerolimani wrote:

...

As to the court of public opinion… I wonder, would the TS157 passengers have been happier were they offloaded, moved out to a hotel for the night, and then flown to YUL the next day?

As to conditions on the plane, again we don't know what they really were. ...

The passengers would have been happier and would have likely had limited complaints and no 911 calls if they had maintained AC and water. That alone is sufficient to justify "conditions" that were poorly handled and possibly violations of regulation/law/tariffs, which the CTA has launched investigation on its own volition.

Whatever circumstances there are beyond this are merely explanations for the "court of public opinion" that may mitigate the sentence but not relieve the conclusion of guilt.

It's the Nordstrom rule.

"At all times, use your best judgment."

Air Transat did not.
We all talk about it when these situations come up, but I wait for the day when passengers just say "hell with it" and plop open the emergency exit door. I would love to see the result.

aerolimani wrote:

C-GTSI was stuck in a line of other planes which would all have had to move in order to bring C-GTSI to where it could have been refueled. Maybe fuel could have been trucked to the plane, but maybe not. Could it even have been safely/legally refueled in its position on the taxiway?

other airplanes not on the apron were refuelled. A tanker was used.

aerolimani wrote:

Some here have called other posters airline apologists, but that's not how I see myself. I'm trying to bring some balance to this discussion. Some posters have already declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner, and decided that the airline and its captain are to blame for all. I think it's WAY too soon to make that call. Let all the facts come in first. Right now, none of us have all the information.

yes if balance means defending the airlines

aerolimani wrote:

As to the court of public opinion… I wonder, would the TS157 passengers have been happier were they offloaded, moved out to a hotel for the night, and then flown to YUL the next day?

Why do you set that up as alternative? How about deplaning, waiting 3 to 4 hours in the terminal and boarding again.

aerolimani wrote:

As to conditions on the plane, again we don't know what they really were. We have some anecdotal comments from passengers, but as far as we know, there were no loss-of-consciousness incidents. One puking kid is hardly evidence that it was a dangerous situation. I really wish people would stop making this judgement call without having all the evidence.

Bad enough for people to cal 911. We know a hot day, a crowded aluminium tube, no air conditioning and not enough water to distribute. What more do you need to know?

aerolimani wrote:

Anyhow… this thread has degraded from a source of interesting information, into a fight between accused apologists and self-appointed judges. Time to un-bookmark it.

You just have too come to the defence of airline and crew.

stlgph wrote:

We all talk about it when these situations come up, but I wait for the day when passengers just say "hell with it" and plop open the emergency exit door. I would love to see the result.

Can't arrest all 250 of them.

The same thing happened to me on a YVR-YUL flight about 4 years ago. We held north of YUL for about an hour and then diverted to YOW due to continuing t-storms. It was about 23:00 when we landed at YOW.
The airport was dead. We waited for a gate and after a long wait finally got one and deplaned. Since it was a domestic AC flight (largest operator at YOW) there were no customs issues. There was no ground staff available so 180 passengers wandered aimlessly around an airport with nothing open. We waited and waited with little or no communication from anybody.
Finally we were told that the pilots had timed out and so we waited even longer until a couple of aircrew finally showed up. Then we waited again. I don't remember if the aircraft had to refuel but I don't think so.
We final got airborne at about 02:00 for the 20 minute hop to YUL. Once we arrived there we simply disembarked, picked up our luggage and went home without any further delay.
The only thing AC did for us was to pass out some water bottles about 2 hours after we landed. The staff at YOW airport did absolutely nothing.
All in all I would venture to say that diversions are more complex to deal with than most people realize.
I suspect that both the YOW airport authority and Air Transat are guilty of letting this particular situation out of control.

That APU burns 200 kg/h max. Six hours, 1200 kilos.

The question I have is how much fuel was in that thing when it landed? An airplane of that size would require between 2000-3000 kilos of gas to meet its reserve minimum requirements. Rarely would you burn into that in fact it would be an emergency situation.

So this tells me they burned into that, or he had the engines running for sometime after landing. If he burned into his reserves prior to landing he would have likely declared a "min fuel" or fuel emergency.

And why couldn't he get gas? He would have needed it to get to YUL whenever it was that they left. Or was there an extended lightning alert which prohibited any fuelling ops for anyone?

Does Transat not have any fuel account in YOW? Surely his operations could make a call, they must have at some point.

sixtyseven wrote:

That APU burns 200 kg/h max. Six hours, 1200 kilos.

Is there a limit to how long it will run before it quits? I have to think, that like a main engine, it could run indefinitely if supplied with fuel and oil.

That's right. It'll run indefinitely with fuel and oil. It would have flamed out due fuel starvation.

Before it's ETOPs flight it would have had a mandatory Pre Departure Check completed by local maintenance, where APU, engine oil and other checks would have been made.

The blame game between Air Transat and YOW has now started:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ai ... -1.4240405

Air Transat says they were never provided with the option of air stairs and ground power units, and that they were continuously bumped in the line for refueling, meaning they were the last aircraft to be refueled from all of the diversions.

YOW's airport authority says that both a gate and air stairs were made available to both Air Transat aircraft, but never got clearance from Air Transat to provide them. And they are also saying that the refuelers at YOW are third party contractors and not employees of the airport.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ai ... -1.4268235

Live coverage. YOW Airport Authority aren't looking particularly competent from what I've heard from testimony and the Q & A.

We have a recent story on the BBC site related to this:

Air Transat probed after flights delayed for hours on Ottawa runway

I hope that all do understand that there is, in fact, a "collective responsibility" that deserves a place on the Who-Did-Wrong scale.

Allow me to quote the end of the BBC article:

Airline CEO Jean-Francois Lemay said on Thursday that "something did not work well, obviously" on 31 July.

"I am not saying there is a fault or blame but there is a collective responsibility that has to be observed in these events."

Christophe Hennebelle, vice president of corporate affairs, said other planes also suffered significant delays, but that Air Transat was being singled out because of the media attention over the call to emergency services.

@Jankek777 Cool photos! Thanks for sharing/posting.

Moe