ewt340 wrote:

I'll say give her 5 million instead. Also I'm pretty sure you wouldn't scared to jump of 4 story building either.

WHAT?!?!

Wise up!

5k tops - enough for a nice holiday.

Ziyulu

Aren’t there FA at the back as well.

chrisair wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

The plane landed, normally with a fair bump and she slept on.

The other passengers deplaned, hardly a quite time and she slept on.

Those meds must be pretty strong.

No idea if this is true, and I'm sure this reply will get completely ignored-if someone quotes me and responds to my comment below, I'll give you a purple monkey dishwasher-but sleeping through everything doesn't seem unrealistic to me. I've done it.

Many years ago, I had a really bad cold but had to absolutely be in PHL for work. I had a shot of Wild Turkey on a short WN flight then completely forgot I did that and downed NyQuil before departing on the long flight. I was asleep from pushback to landing, taxiing, deplaning and the first two through pax counts. I only woke up when the FA shook me and asked if I wanted to go to whatever the next stop was. To date, that was my best sleep on a plane and I've flown EK F!

Yes, sleeping through flights is very easy, even for someone like me who loves to stay awake and take in every detail - happened to me many times,could be anything from a drink or 2 on board, to a night or two of limited sleep before... and I'm out. **

I confess, when I first saw this and started reading, I actually clicked "back" out of disgust at the attitudes of the initial posts which all jumped to the conclusion that the passenger was clearly incompetent / a scammer / in cahoots with terrorists (or worse - a lawyer!). I'm happy to see there are still some reasonable people on a.net, even airline crew (and even airline crew that work for AC).

YYZYYT

** ps, Now, what about this "purple monkey dishwasher"?

Ziyulu wrote:

Also, do aircraft have keys like a car? Can anyone start a plane up?

Pretty much anything larger than a light twin won’t have a key, if you know what you’re doing you can start it up. Remember the AS Q400 incident last year.

During the last 3 days I have read about this "event" in about every news outlet there is, got about 5 notifications on Google News, some articles decorated with crazy stock photos of Air Canada B747-200, heard it on talk radio, WTF, aren't there any more important topics in the world? Even on A.net this gets a 3 page thread while other events go unnoticed. It never ceases to amaze me how the average people go all crazy about a totally irrelevant non event

Birdwatching wrote:

During the last 3 days I have read about this "event" in about every news outlet there is, got about 5 notifications on Google News, some articles decorated with crazy stock photos of Air Canada B747-200, heard it on talk radio, WTF, aren't there any more important topics in the world? Even on A.net this gets a 3 page thread while other events go unnoticed. It never ceases to amaze me how the average people go all crazy about a totally irrelevant non event

Isn't that the truth, there's always a "that wouldn't happen at airline X or in country Y because we're more refined" attitude on here. Canadian air travel can never win. You have the Europeans who have the attitude that they're much more civilized and refined than Canada and then the Americans who are always right because they "invented" air travel.

This topic should've been the one maybe 2 pages but it turned into a senseless bashing of grooming standards/procedures all the way to accusing the victim (she was clearly the victim because AC admitted that. I digress though...

bennett123 wrote:

Ziyulu

Aren’t there FA at the back as well.

100%, at least 2 of them depending on how many are on the flight!

This story reminds me of UK sensationalism tabloids stories or like the balloon boy…. Its hard to believe it.
It may be true. Nevertheless, hard to believe it…

DIRECTFLT wrote:

As a Non-Rev college student, when I had to catch the Friday 6:30am flight to get from Austin to Dallas on Texas-OU weekend, I remember the plane taking off, and the next thing I remember is landing.

I've had similar happen in the past. Given the 06:00 AM departure out of DSM, I got to the airport the night before via shuttle and spent the night in the terminal. I got on the plane, plane took off. Few minutes later, I woke up, expecting the drink service to happen. I looked out the window, only to see the flaps coming down as we were on final going into ORD. My next flight out, I actually managed to wake up in time for the drink service. Next thing I knew, I was flipping through the entire plane trying to find my soda. Finally, after a few minutes of me flipping through everything, the lady next to me told me she got rid of it because it was empty. Probably would have been nice to know that BEFORE I spent all of about six minutes flipping through the entire plane.

CFM565A1 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Ziyulu

Aren’t there FA at the back as well.

100%, at least 2 of them depending on how many are on the flight!

AC was trying to save money, so less flight attendants. Also, the rear flight attendant left from the rear door.

KentB27 wrote:

This story reeks of bullshit. I don't believe any of it.

You might want to get your bullshit meter checked, because AC confirmed the story. It’s in the OP’s link.

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Ziyulu

Aren’t there FA at the back as well.

100%, at least 2 of them depending on how many are on the flight!

AC was trying to save money, so less flight attendants. Also, the rear flight attendant left from the rear door.

Nothing to do with money.. search up the 1 in 50 rule that Transport Canada has in place you’re obviously ignorant!

As I said, this flight was an AC Rouge flight. So Rouge runs 319,320,321s to YQB. 319s must have 3 FAs, 2 of which sit in the aft galley, the 320 has 4 and the 321 I’m not 100% but it’s no less than 4 since the mainline 321 carries that many for its 8 exit door config requiring each jump seat to be manned.

Nice try though!

GoSharks wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

This story reeks of bullshit. I don't believe any of it.

You might want to get your bullshit meter checked, because AC confirmed the story. It’s in the OP’s link.

Hint it’s more out of calibration than my bathroom scale saying I’m 125LBs

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

100%, at least 2 of them depending on how many are on the flight!

AC was trying to save money, so less flight attendants. Also, the rear flight attendant left from the rear door.

Nothing to do with money.. search up the 1 in 50 rule that Transport Canada has in place you’re obviously ignorant!

As I said, this flight was an AC Rouge flight. So Rouge runs 319,320,321s to YQB. 319s must have 3 FAs, 2 of which sit in the aft galley, the 320 has 4 and the 321 I’m not 100% but it’s no less than 4 since the mainline 321 carries that many for its 8 exit door config requiring each jump seat to be manned.

Nice try though!

Well, there could have been less than 50 passengers on board, so only 1 flight attendant is needed. Also, I said if there are more than 2, the ones from the rear might have left from the rear door.

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

AC was trying to save money, so less flight attendants. Also, the rear flight attendant left from the rear door.

Nothing to do with money.. search up the 1 in 50 rule that Transport Canada has in place you’re obviously ignorant!

As I said, this flight was an AC Rouge flight. So Rouge runs 319,320,321s to YQB. 319s must have 3 FAs, 2 of which sit in the aft galley, the 320 has 4 and the 321 I’m not 100% but it’s no less than 4 since the mainline 321 carries that many for its 8 exit door config requiring each jump seat to be manned.

Nice try though!

Well, there could have been less than 50 passengers on board, so only 1 flight attendant is needed. Also, I said if there are more than 2, the ones from the rear might have left from the rear door.

Uhhh…. The flight is staffed based on seating capacity and not the amount of booked passengers. There's no might... It's clear that they missed her and that there was 2 pilots and at least 4 flight attendants!

I encourage you to educate yourself on how Canadian Air Regulations requires airlines to staff flights.

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Nothing to do with money.. search up the 1 in 50 rule that Transport Canada has in place you’re obviously ignorant!

As I said, this flight was an AC Rouge flight. So Rouge runs 319,320,321s to YQB. 319s must have 3 FAs, 2 of which sit in the aft galley, the 320 has 4 and the 321 I’m not 100% but it’s no less than 4 since the mainline 321 carries that many for its 8 exit door config requiring each jump seat to be manned.

Nice try though!

Well, there could have been less than 50 passengers on board, so only 1 flight attendant is needed. Also, I said if there are more than 2, the ones from the rear might have left from the rear door.

Uhhh…. The flight is staffed based on seating capacity and not the amount of booked passengers. There's no might... It's clear that they missed her and that there was 2 pilots and at least 4 flight attendants!

I encourage you to educate yourself on how Canadian Air Regulations requires airlines to staff flights.

Yes, I'm aware of regulations. I also said there could be 4 flight attendants, but the rear flight attendants exited out of the rear door.

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Well, there could have been less than 50 passengers on board, so only 1 flight attendant is needed. Also, I said if there are more than 2, the ones from the rear might have left from the rear door.

Uhhh…. The flight is staffed based on seating capacity and not the amount of booked passengers. There's no might... It's clear that they missed her and that there was 2 pilots and at least 4 flight attendants!

I encourage you to educate yourself on how Canadian Air Regulations requires airlines to staff flights.

Yes, I'm aware of regulations. I also said there could be 4 flight attendants, but the rear flight attendants exited out of the rear door.

I'll copy and paste a quote you said though "Well, there could have been less than 50 passengers on board, so only 1 flight attendant is needed." obviously you aren't.

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Well, there could have been less than 50 passengers on board, so only 1 flight attendant is needed. Also, I said if there are more than 2, the ones from the rear might have left from the rear door.

Uhhh…. The flight is staffed based on seating capacity and not the amount of booked passengers. There's no might... It's clear that they missed her and that there was 2 pilots and at least 4 flight attendants!

I encourage you to educate yourself on how Canadian Air Regulations requires airlines to staff flights.

Yes, I'm aware of regulations. I also said there could be 4 flight attendants, but the rear flight attendants exited out of the rear door.

Oh so at first you say they only put as many FAs as they need for booked passengers, but then you realize that he proved you had no clue what you were talking about and changed your mind and agreed that they do follow the 1 in 50 regulation and said you are aware of regulation but found another excuse to be right. I’m sorry if you don’t even know if an A321 has keys to start or not, you don’t know about CARs at all.

Could you imagine what a mess only putting FAs for the number of booked passengers would be. How would their work schedules look, what would happen if a bunch of people booked standby last minute (it happens), and how would that even be safe?!?

767333ER wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Uhhh…. The flight is staffed based on seating capacity and not the amount of booked passengers. There's no might... It's clear that they missed her and that there was 2 pilots and at least 4 flight attendants!

I encourage you to educate yourself on how Canadian Air Regulations requires airlines to staff flights.

Yes, I'm aware of regulations. I also said there could be 4 flight attendants, but the rear flight attendants exited out of the rear door.

Oh so at first you say they only put as many FAs as they need for booked passengers, but then you realize that he proved you had no clue what you were talking about and changed your mind and agreed that they do follow the 1 in 50 regulation and said you are aware of regulation but found another excuse to be right. I’m sorry if you don’t even know if an A321 has keys to start or not, you don’t know about CARs at all.

Could you imagine what a mess only putting FAs for the number of booked passengers would be. How would their work schedules look, what would happen if a bunch of people booked standby last minute (it happens), and how would that even be safe?!?

I didn't say that was the case. I said, "it could", which means a few likely scenarios.

And like I said earlier, the rear flight attendants could have exited out of the rear door and not realized the passenger was still sleeping.

Ziyulu wrote:

767333ER wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of regulations. I also said there could be 4 flight attendants, but the rear flight attendants exited out of the rear door.

Oh so at first you say they only put as many FAs as they need for booked passengers, but then you realize that he proved you had no clue what you were talking about and changed your mind and agreed that they do follow the 1 in 50 regulation and said you are aware of regulation but found another excuse to be right. I’m sorry if you don’t even know if an A321 has keys to start or not, you don’t know about CARs at all.

Could you imagine what a mess only putting FAs for the number of booked passengers would be. How would their work schedules look, what would happen if a bunch of people booked standby last minute (it happens), and how would that even be safe?!?

I didn't say that was the case. I said, "it could", which means a few likely scenarios.

But it is not the case because it cannot be the case. There is no could.

Ziyulu wrote:

767333ER wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of regulations. I also said there could be 4 flight attendants, but the rear flight attendants exited out of the rear door.

Oh so at first you say they only put as many FAs as they need for booked passengers, but then you realize that he proved you had no clue what you were talking about and changed your mind and agreed that they do follow the 1 in 50 regulation and said you are aware of regulation but found another excuse to be right. I’m sorry if you don’t even know if an A321 has keys to start or not, you don’t know about CARs at all.

Could you imagine what a mess only putting FAs for the number of booked passengers would be. How would their work schedules look, what would happen if a bunch of people booked standby last minute (it happens), and how would that even be safe?!?

I didn't say that was the case. I said, "it could", which means a few likely scenarios.

I have no issue with the "exited out the rear door" bit if they use both exits on remote stands at YYZ, I've never had the misfortune of using one thankfully.

As for the amount of FAs comment I'll reiterate what I said as there's ZERO chance for your COULD statement. Fact, you said there's a chance they could have only 1 FA on board if there were 50 or less on board. That's false for a variety of reasons some of which I laid out above and you ignored for whatever reason. One being the 1 in 50 rule and the other reason is that exit doors require at least 1 FA sitting next to them. Therefore, no Airbus narrow body could legally release the brakes without at least 2 FAs on board.

You tried to tell me that you know the regulation but then said there's a possibility of a scenario that they could've only operated with one FA and also tried to be cheap by using less FAs, all of which is FALSE!

Ziyulu wrote:

I didn't say that was the case. I said, "it could", which means a few likely scenarios.

Um, you want some advice? Stop talking.

You said something that was simply wrong and had it pointed out - there is NO scenario in which a Rouge / 32X flight can legally operate with 1 FA in Canada. So, stop digging yourself in deeper.

767333ER wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

767333ER wrote:

Oh so at first you say they only put as many FAs as they need for booked passengers, but then you realize that he proved you had no clue what you were talking about and changed your mind and agreed that they do follow the 1 in 50 regulation and said you are aware of regulation but found another excuse to be right. I’m sorry if you don’t even know if an A321 has keys to start or not, you don’t know about CARs at all.

Could you imagine what a mess only putting FAs for the number of booked passengers would be. How would their work schedules look, what would happen if a bunch of people booked standby last minute (it happens), and how would that even be safe?!?

I didn't say that was the case. I said, "it could", which means a few likely scenarios.

But it is not the case because it cannot be the case. There is no could.

Were you there? You never know. Regulations can be broken accidentally. AA flew a non-ETOPS plane to Hawaii, for example. NZ was attempting to fly to China without papers.

Ziyulu wrote:

767333ER wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

I didn't say that was the case. I said, "it could", which means a few likely scenarios.

But it is not the case because it cannot be the case. There is no could.

Were you there? You never know. Regulations can be broken accidentally. AA flew a non-ETOPS plane to Hawaii, for example. NZ was attempting to fly to China without papers.

So you change you’re tune again, first it was cutting out FAs deliberately to save money and now it’s by mistake so which is it? Make up you’re mind!

Nobody that was there when those lousy 737-8 crashed are here now to say there were there and know what happened yet we pretty much know what happened.

The difference between this and your other examples is that it’s the difference between an employee working or not. An A321 is scheduled on a flight 4 FAs have to be scheduled to work on it and there isn’t a situation where by mistake 3 got scheduled. Just give up trying to save face, you can’t!

Yet another occurence of abandonment, this time with Rouge. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/sc ... -1.4484381

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Yet another occurence of abandonment, this time with Rouge. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/sc ... -1.4484381

Previous incident was Rouge too I believe.

TObound wrote:

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Yet another occurence of abandonment, this time with Rouge. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/sc ... -1.4484381

Previous incident was Rouge too I believe.

Is this some systemic problem with the airline, or just coincidence? And if it is an airline flaw, how come it's only started to happen now?

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Yet another occurence of abandonment, this time with Rouge. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/sc ... -1.4484381

cue up the previous dozen posters who will tell us this wheelchair bound lady actually hid in the overhead bins.

I get how a mix up means no wheelchair shows up.... but how is it that no gate agent or FA remain aboard when there's a pax remaining?
Oh yeah, she was in the bins, or hiding in the lav, or laying hidden on the floor, seeking a large cash settlement.