Flight diverted from Manchester to Liverpool

abff · 20-06-2015 09:27AM #1

I was on a Ryanair flight from Dublin to Manchester yesterday afternoon. A few minutes before we were due to land, there was an announcement that there was a problem on the runway in Manchester airport and that the flight was diverting to Liverpool. After we landed, very little information was provided about what was happening apart from occasional updates that we would know more in 5 or 10 minutes, which invariably turned into 20 minutes or more.

Eventually, we took off again back to Manchester, but not before around 20 passengers were allowed to disembark. Our flight eventually landed around two hours late.

I'm not trying to bash Ryanair. They provide incredibly cheap flights to loads of destinations and their attitude to customers seems to have improved considerably in the recent past. But it appears (please correct me if I'm wrong) that ours was the only flight that diverted to another airport and that other flights due to land merely circled for a few minutes before arriving maybe 15 minutes behind schedule.

I'm curious as to why our pilot chose to land in Liverpool rather than put the plane in a holding pattern. Is it possible that the plane took off from Dublin with so little excess fuel that it would not be able to stay in the air long enough? Or can anyone come up with an alternative explanation?

I'm also curious as to why passengers were allowed to disembark in Liverpool, thereby delaying the flight even further. It took quite a while as each passenger had to have their passport and boarding card checked and was asked to confirm that they had no luggage in the hold. But I don't think (I could be wrong) there was any check that the passengers were telling the truth about whether or not they had luggage in the hold.

I know that it's unlikely (almost to the point of impossibility) that someone might just happen to have a bomb in their hold luggage on the off chance that their flight might be diverted and they would be allowed to leave the plane before it reached its final destination. But in this age of extraordinary security measures and paranoia about terrorism, this strikes me as something that might be considered an inappropriate risk to take. Thankfully, I'm still here to talk about it.

LXFlyer · 20-06-2015 10:16AM

abff wrote: »

I was on a Ryanair flight from Dublin to Manchester yesterday afternoon. A few minutes before we were due to land, there was an announcement that there was a problem on the runway in Manchester airport and that the flight was diverting to Liverpool. After we landed, very little information was provided about what was happening apart from occasional updates that we would know more in 5 or 10 minutes, which invariably turned into 20 minutes or more.

Eventually, we took off again back to Manchester, but not before around 20 passengers were allowed to disembark. Our flight eventually landed around two hours late.

I'm not trying to bash Ryanair. They provide incredibly cheap flights to loads of destinations and their attitude to customers seems to have improved considerably in the recent past. But it appears (please correct me if I'm wrong) that ours was the only flight that diverted to another airport and that other flights due to land merely circled for a few minutes before arriving maybe 15 minutes behind schedule.

I'm curious as to why our pilot chose to land in Liverpool rather than put the plane in a holding pattern. Is it possible that the plane took off from Dublin with so little excess fuel that it would not be able to stay in the air long enough? Or can anyone come up with an alternative explanation?

I'm also curious as to why passengers were allowed to disembark in Liverpool, thereby delaying the flight even further. It took quite a while as each passenger had to have their passport and boarding card checked and was asked to confirm that they had no luggage in the hold. But I don't think (I could be wrong) there was any check that the passengers were telling the truth about whether or not they had luggage in the hold.

I know that it's unlikely (almost to the point of impossibility) that someone might just happen to have a bomb in their hold luggage on the off chance that their flight might be diverted and they would be allowed to leave the plane before it reached its final destination. But in this age of extraordinary security measures and paranoia about terrorism, this strikes me as something that might be considered an inappropriate risk to take. Thankfully, I'm still here to talk about it.

By checking the boarding passes the crew would know if the passengers who were disembarking had checked luggage or not, as the boarding pass will have how many checked pieces of luggage they have printed on it!

You're getting worried about nothing.

Presumably at the time the crew didn't know how long they would be diverted until, and some of the passengers may have found Liverpool a handier option depending upon where their final destination was.

PinOnTheRight · 20-06-2015 01:07PM

abff wrote: »

I'm curious as to why our pilot chose to land in Liverpool rather than put the plane in a holding pattern. Is it possible that the plane took off from Dublin with so little excess fuel that it would not be able to stay in the air long enough? Or can anyone come up with an alternative explanation?

Probably because there was no accurate information of when they would be able to land, so why hold for 20 minutes only to then divert, particularly if the situation isn't likely to be resolved quickly.

As for the passengers offloading, it happens often enough and procedures are in place. Check the pax ID, boarding card, check agains the manifest or system to see if they have bags against their name etc. On a LPL-DUB I'd go as far to say it'd nearly even be quicker to manually check the half dozen bags in the hold.

Reoil · 20-06-2015 04:17PM

abff wrote: »

Thankfully, I'm still here to talk about it.

Your plane got diverted. :rolleyes:

Has anybody called you a drama queen in the past?

FWVT · 20-06-2015 06:41PM

Reoil wrote: »

Your plane got diverted. :rolleyes:

Has anybody called you a drama queen in the past?

Cue this story in the Daily Mail tomorrow. I won't even attempt to go for a headline...

abff · 20-06-2015 09:08PM

Reoil wrote: »

Your plane got diverted. :rolleyes:

Has anybody called you a drama queen in the past?

No. But thank you for the helpful reply.

abff · 20-06-2015 09:44PM

FWVT wrote: »

Cue this story in the Daily Mail tomorrow. I won't even attempt to go for a headline...

What part of my post made you think I was likely to go running to the Daily Mail with a lurid story about my bomb scare hell? Or did you just read the sarcastic response from someone who decided to quote one line from my post out of context and totally ignore the questions I was answering?

homerjay2005 · 20-06-2015 11:30PM

abff wrote: »

What part of my post made you think I was likely to go running to the Daily Mail with a lurid story about my bomb scare hell? Or did you just read the sarcastic response from someone who decided to quote one line from my post out of context and totally ignore the questions I was answering?

in fairness, the entire post comes across as being drama queen-esque and not just one line....he just spared us the hassle of having to read the post twice.

you can rest assured, that the pilot diverted in what was yours and the others best and safest interests and did so, for good reason. count yourself lucky that you were only delayed 2 hours and that you didnt have to bus it down though its only a 45-60 mins trip.

abff · 20-06-2015 11:32PM

PinOnTheRight wrote: »

Probably because there was no accurate information of when they would be able to land, so why hold for 20 minutes only to then divert, particularly if the situation isn't likely to be resolved quickly.

As for the passengers offloading, it happens often enough and procedures are in place. Check the pax ID, boarding card, check agains the manifest or system to see if they have bags against their name etc. On a LPL-DUB I'd go as far to say it'd nearly even be quicker to manually check the half dozen bags in the hold.

Thanks for your response. I guess that makes sense. But he was the only pilot to make this decision out of several who I presume were affected by the same issue. If other pilots had made similar decisions, I would be more inclined to accept that what the pilot did was reasonable.

At the end of the day, it was not that big a deal for me and for most of the people on the flight. It was a bit more of a problem for three women on the flight who were worried about missing a connecting flight (hopefully they made it).

Anyway, thank you for providing a reasoned response rather than a knee jerk jibe based on taking part of what I said out of context.

homerjay2005 · 20-06-2015 11:42PM

FWVT wrote: »

Cue this story in the Daily Mail tomorrow. I won't even attempt to go for a headline...

MAN NEARLY SUFFERS HEART ATTACK ONBOARD RYANAIR FLIGHT.

A man has told of his near death experience onboard a Ryanair flight to Manchester yesterday, which was sensationally diverted to Liverpool.

Daily Mail sources revealed that the cost-cutting airlines pilot decided at the last second to recklessly divert the Boeing 737 aircraft to nearby Liverpool when it was discovered that he believed he was landing at the wrong airport.

shocking details have emerged how Ryanair crew put lives at risk by allowing 20 passengers, each of whom was believed to be carrying explosives in their hand luggage, to disembark the plane before it took off again and landed back in Manchester.

The stricken passengers arrived at their destination, a whole two hours later, many of whom were believed to be sporting brown patches in their trousers.

Unconfirmed rumours suggest that they were also refused the use of the toilets or toilet paper during their shocking ordeal.

"Thankfully, I'm still here to talk about it," the terrified passenger stated as he presented his shocking ordeal on popular website, boards.ie.

Cessna_Pilot · 21-06-2015 12:01AM

Recent situation myself (a year ago or so) Peak summer afternoon...Arrived at X airfield (busy London), advised by final London controller that the runway just closed due aircraft disabled on runway due tyre issue. Into the hold, runway expected to open in 20 minutes. On asking for our position in the approach told we were no 8. Decision made! Off to another nearby London airport, landed in just over 10 minutes. If we'd stayed in the hold and the approach sequence following 7 aircraft ahead of us in, and bearing in mind you need to add the at least 20 mins waiting for the runway to open for the no 1 aircraft to even start making his way towards it.

As it happened once on the ground, I found out the runway ended up closed for almost 45 mins, and 3 (if I remember correctly) more aircraft followed us in to our diversion airport with the first of them landing about 20 mins after us.

Tony Beetroot · 21-06-2015 12:04AM

Was it getting low on fuel maybe?

abff · 21-06-2015 12:52AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

in fairness, the entire post comes across as being drama queen-esque and not just one line....he just spared us the hassle of having to read the post twice.

you can rest assured, that the pilot diverted in what was yours and the others best and safest interests and did so, for good reason. count yourself lucky that you were only delayed 2 hours and that you didnt have to bus it down though its only a 45-60 mins trip.

Really? That's how you interpreted it?

You ignored my comment about it being unlikely almost to the point of impossibility that it would actually be a deliberate plot to blow up the plane and chose instead to focus on my tongue in cheek comment that at least I survived to tell the tale.

I've either entered an alternate reality where what I posted was so over the top that someone who had posted thousand of times on this forum has interpreted what I said as a frantic rant - or you are just winding me up. Please, please tell me that it is the latter.

By the way, nobody has responded to my question about why the captain of our particular flight was the only pilot who chose to divert his flight. Was he right and everyone else wrong? Or is it just (applying Occam's razor) that he was running short on fuel as I suggested in my original post and others have suggested subsequently?

Cessna_Pilot · 21-06-2015 01:03AM

abff wrote: »

By the way, nobody has responded to my question about why the captain of our particular flight was the only pilot who chose to divert his flight. Was he right and everyone else wrong? Or is it just (applying Occam's razor) that he was running short on fuel as I suggested in my original post and others have suggested subsequently?

See my post above, I would suggest it was a very similar situation. Nothing to do with being "short of fuel", more making an early decision so as not to waste fuel burning holes in the sky for an undetermined timeframe.

abff · 21-06-2015 01:16AM

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

See my post above, I would suggest it was a very similar situation. Nothing to do with being "short of fuel", more making an early decision so as not to waste fuel burning holes in the sky for an undetermined timeframe.

Apologies. I was so focused on responding on what I saw as a frivolous and unfair attack on what I said that I failed to acknowledge your post.

I accept that the pilot probably had his reasons and he may well have been told that he was a long way down the queue. Maybe I was over focused on why he was the ONLY pilot to make this decision and, at the end of the day, it wasn't me making the decision, so I probably should just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for remaining civil and for responding directly to the questions that I raised. I should know better than to get exercised over flippant (or sarcastic, or condescending) responses to things I post on a discussion board.

FWVT · 21-06-2015 05:46AM

abff wrote: »

Apologies. I was so focused on responding on what I saw as a frivolous and unfair attack on what I said that I failed to acknowledge your post.

I accept that the pilot probably had his reasons and he may well have been told that he was a long way down the queue. Maybe I was over focused on why he was the ONLY pilot to make this decision and, at the end of the day, it wasn't me making the decision, so I probably should just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for remaining civil and for responding directly to the questions that I raised. I should know better than to get exercised over flippant (or sarcastic, or condescending) responses to things I post on a discussion board.

In fairness, there was nothing wrong with what you asked. It was just the "Luckily I'm here to tell the tale" comment that came across as overly dramatic and Daily Mailesque. Can you not see that?

Of course I didn't think you'd go running to them with the story. It was just an attempt at a bit of satire, but sorry for joking about what must have been an awful ordeal for you. Maybe just take the ferry next time to be safe.

abff · 21-06-2015 08:44AM

FWVT wrote: »

In fairness, there was nothing wrong with what you asked. It was just the "Luckily I'm here to tell the tale" comment that came across as overly dramatic and Daily Mailesque. Can you not see that?

Of course I didn't think you'd go running to them with the story. It was just an attempt at a bit of satire, but sorry for joking about what must have been an awful ordeal for you. Maybe just take the ferry next time to be safe.

The final sentence of my post was a joke. I would have thought that was obvious when considered in the context of what I said at the start of the paragraph. Clearly, it either wasn't that obvious or people deliberately chose to ignore the context.

I know that lots of people have nothing better to do than waste their time winding other people up on the Internet. If I was actually being a drama queen about what happened, then your joke Daily Mail article might have been an appropriate response, but I can only consider it a wind up when you can't resist adding another jibe about my "awful ordeal" in your most recent post.

One final word on the subject. If I had posted this thread on after hours, I would have expected the type of silly responses that I received. But I deliberately chose to post in this forum as I thought this would elicit responses from people who know about aviation. Which it did. It was the additional after hours type responses that were unexpected.

LXFlyer · 21-06-2015 09:15AM

abff wrote: »

The final sentence of my post was a joke. I would have thought that was obvious when considered in the context of what I said at the start of the paragraph. Clearly, it either wasn't that obvious or people deliberately chose to ignore the context.

I know that lots of people have nothing better to do than waste their time winding other people up on the Internet. If I was actually being a drama queen about what happened, then your joke Daily Mail article might have been an appropriate response, but I can only consider it a wind up when you can't resist adding another jibe about my "awful ordeal" in your most recent post.

One final word on the subject. If I had posted this thread on after hours, I would have expected the type of silly responses that I received. But I deliberately chose to post in this forum as I thought this would elicit responses from people who know about aviation. Which it did. It was the additional after hours type responses that were unexpected.

Humour doesn't always come over that well online. And it certainly isn't clear in your initial post. An emoji helps a lot.

But I'd have to say that you didn't help yourself.

Suggesting a professional crew would take off without sufficient fuel in the event of a delay, suggesting that the company did not have proper procedures for checking whether passengers had hold luggage, and then mentioning bombs in the hold luggage.

Are you really surprised that people are having difficulty taking this post seriously?

abff · 21-06-2015 09:54AM

lxflyer wrote: »

Humour doesn't always come over that well online. And it certainly isn't clear in your initial post. An emoji helps a lot.

But I'd have to say that you didn't help yourself.

Suggesting a professional crew would take off without sufficient fuel in the event of a delay, suggesting that the company did not have proper procedures for checking whether passengers had hold luggage, and then mentioning bombs in the hold luggage.

Are you really surprised that people are having difficulty taking this post seriously?

Fair enough when you put it like that. It wasn't how I intended it, but I can see how it might have come across that way.

Reoil · 21-06-2015 03:34PM

abff wrote: »

Clearly, it either wasn't that obvious or people deliberately chose to ignore the context.

It wasn't that obvious. But hey, at least you're here to read the replies. :pac:

Seriously though, Manchester airport is a lot busier than Liverpool. Chances are there were a lot of planes already in hold around Manchester.
Which is better - burn thousands of pounds (currency) of fuel, and time, flying around Manchester, or land at an airport a 45mins train ride away?

Bear in mind, BFS is 35-40 mins from Belfast...

abff · 21-06-2015 07:24PM

Reoil wrote: »

It wasn't that obvious. But hey, at least you're here to read the replies. :pac:

Seriously though, Manchester airport is a lot busier than Liverpool. Chances are there were a lot of planes already in hold around Manchester.
Which is better - burn thousands of pounds (currency) of fuel, and time, flying around Manchester, or land at an airport a 45mins train ride away?

Bear in mind, BFS is 35-40 mins from Belfast...

True. Probably not expressed as clearly as I intended and I'm not quite sure why I got so exercised about the responses I received.

Anyway, no big deal and time to move on to more pressing matters, like whether Shane Lowry will win the U.S. open this evening.

FWVT · 21-06-2015 10:18PM

abff wrote: »

True. Probably not expressed as clearly as I intended and I'm not quite sure why I got so exercised about the responses I received.

Anyway, no big deal and time to move on to more pressing matters, like whether Shane Lowry will win the U.S. open this evening.

Or McIllroy!!

Strumms · 22-06-2015 12:22AM

Better be Dustin... I backed the mofo... Two shots clear so far...

Flight diverted from Manchester to Liverpool

Comments