Tri-Star from LUZAIR replacing Jetair's famous OO-TUC B767

rut-her · Post by **rut-her** » 16 Jun 2007, 23:23

I remember when I flew Martinair back in 2005, the Dutch crew really didn't understand the french-speaking pax at all. I was translating all the time for the french-speaking pax sitting next to me.
So it will be hard times for the Jetair-crew indeed

TUB023 · Post by **TUB023** » 16 Jun 2007, 23:26

i remember my last flight last year from thailand with Martinair. the crew brabbled something in french and the whole aircraft was laughing

rut-her · Post by **rut-her** » 16 Jun 2007, 23:34

TUB023 wrote:i remember my last flight last year from thailand with Martinair. the crew brabbled something in french and the whole aircraft was laughing

I also remember things like this

But to stay on topic:
CS-TMP is scheduled to arrive 17/6 12:10LT
OO-TUC is scheduled to arrive 17/6 13:45LT

Greetz,
Rutger

stefanel · Post by **stefanel** » 18 Jun 2007, 10:54

rut-her wrote:
TUB023 wrote:i remember my last flight last year from thailand with Martinair. the crew brabbled something in french and the whole aircraft was laughing
I also remember things like this

But to stay on topic:
CS-TMP is scheduled to arrive 17/6 12:10LT
OO-TUC is scheduled to arrive 17/6 13:45LT

Greetz,
Rutger

Oh my ! I'm so lucky to be always on time when I fly to Cuba, had I flown two weeks later, I would have experienced a 32 hours delay (the planed landed at 14:30) !
I don't understand either why the correct info isn't given, displayed, whatever (as usual, the aviation freaks know more than the concerned people! If we know, the responsible people should know better!).
Also, I don't understand why the scheduled time was changed. The plane is supposed to land on Saturday at 06:50, not on Sunday at 12:10, this is misleading as if Jetair doesn't want to recognize there is a 28 hours delay or something...
And again, I'm having issues about this super old Tri-Star, is it 100% safe ?
And why Jetair is not offering the due compensations for delays ? Many of my friends had 8-10 hours delay and were never given any compensation, although the European law implemented a mandatory comepnsation for such huge delays...
To Jetair staff reading this thread, please acknowledge the dirty tax traffic at Varadero airport and do something, I'm serious and reliable.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 09 Aug 2007, 23:48

According to the tracking module from BRU, tonight's JAF304 (coming from Punta Cana and Montego Bay) is a L-1011

expected 02h30
delayed 05h41

http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/flight ... 0708100230

seems OO-TUC has done Kos on Thursday.

- - -

edit after posting: just saw in the Spotters Database it's indeed CS-TMP

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 10 Aug 2007, 05:34

Wasn't OO-TUC technical due to a cargo door issue ??

I might be wrong though..

Greetz
Chris

rut-her · Post by **rut-her** » 10 Aug 2007, 08:19

Avro wrote:Wasn't OO-TUC technical due to a cargo door issue ??

That's what I heard too. EC-IOO and CS-TMP were brought in to replace it.
07/08: OO-TUC arrived from POP
09/08: OO-TUC departed to and came back from KGS
10/08: OO-TUC departed to PUJ at 06:28

Greetz,
Rutger

JAFflyer · Post by **JAFflyer** » 10 Aug 2007, 11:49

Avro wrote:Wasn't OO-TUC technical due to a cargo door issue ??

I might be wrong though..

Greetz
Chris

You're totally right, somebody in Brussels decided to run into the cargo door with a lifter causing heavy damage and grounding the plane for two days.

grtz!

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 10 Aug 2007, 12:10

JAFflyer wrote:
Avro wrote:Wasn't OO-TUC technical due to a cargo door issue ??

I might be wrong though..

Greetz
Chris
You're totally right, somebody in Brussels decided to run into the cargo door with a lifter causing heavy damage and grounding the plane for two days.

grtz!

That's not the fault of the plane though. Or was it someone fed up with it constantly breaking down?

JAF 23 · Post by **JAF 23** » 10 Aug 2007, 12:36

No, this was pure a human fault. It was a mechanic of Sabena Technics by the way...

Greetzz

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 10 Aug 2007, 12:44

JAF 23 wrote:No, this was pure a human fault. It was a mechanic of Sabena Technics by the way...

Heh, weren't they the ones who had to fix that plane all the time?

JAF 23 · Post by **JAF 23** » 10 Aug 2007, 12:51

Yes, but they decided to close the cargo bay door in the front to do a run up of engine #2, without having informed anybody else. They already started to close the door, with still the loader in place, when at that time an other mechanic went to the captain who said that he didn't need a run up of #2. At that time it already was to late, and the door hit the loader very lightly, but hard enough to bend a few latches.
The mechanic re-opened the door, and took off...

That is the story as I recieved it from the crew on that flight.

Greetzz

332addict · Post by **332addict** » 10 Aug 2007, 13:32

Flying in a 24-year old bird is dangerous?

Stupid question! Driving in a 50-year old car is not dangerous either.

You can without problems fly a plane this long as long as it had maintenance properly. Vital parts are replaced when necessary, checks are there to keep the plane safe.

So: if the airline invests enough in the maintenance of their aircraft, there is nothing wrong with a 14-, 24- or 34-year old plane. Some companies still have some DC-3 which flies 100% safe. Only used for special occasions, though. (e.g. Icelandair).

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 10 Aug 2007, 16:07

Which almost begs for the philosophical question: how much parts can you replace on an old plane before it basically becomes a new plane?

stefanel · Post by **stefanel** » 16 Aug 2007, 11:06

JAF 23 wrote:Yes, but they decided to close the cargo bay door in the front to do a run up of engine #2, without having informed anybody else. They already started to close the door, with still the loader in place, when at that time an other mechanic went to the captain who said that he didn't need a run up of #2. At that time it already was to late, and the door hit the loader very lightly, but hard enough to bend a few latches.
The mechanic re-opened the door, and took off...

That is the story as I recieved it from the crew on that flight.

Greetzz

Gee, this OO-TUC is cursed!

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 16 Aug 2007, 11:41

stefanel wrote:
JAF 23 wrote:Yes, but they decided to close the cargo bay door in the front to do a run up of engine #2, without having informed anybody else. They already started to close the door, with still the loader in place, when at that time an other mechanic went to the captain who said that he didn't need a run up of #2. At that time it already was to late, and the door hit the loader very lightly, but hard enough to bend a few latches.
The mechanic re-opened the door, and took off...

That is the story as I recieved it from the crew on that flight.

Greetzz
Gee, this OO-TUC is cursed!

Varig probably transported some Pharaoh's mummy with it.

757Mech · Post by **757Mech** » 17 Aug 2007, 18:23

JAF 23 wrote:Yes, but they decided to close the cargo bay door in the front to do a run up of engine #2, without having informed anybody else. They already started to close the door, with still the loader in place, when at that time an other mechanic went to the captain who said that he didn't need a run up of #2. At that time it already was to late, and the door hit the loader very lightly, but hard enough to bend a few latches.
The mechanic re-opened the door, and took off...

That is the story as I recieved it from the crew on that flight.

Dear JAF 23,
Before you anounce something about an incident/topic, it is maybe interesting too know exactly how everthing went!
The mechanics took off, yes, because their were at the end of their shift and I can asure you, they waren't aware of the problem with the door. One mechanic stayed behind and checked the aircraft minutes before departure and noticed the damage. After the assesment of that damage there is decided that the aircraft wasn't OK for flight and stayed in BRU!

SNT mechanics doing everything possible too keep the aircrafts/customers in the air, but sometimes incidents happen, it shouldn't, but it does...

Therefore next time weigh your information before you announcing it to the public, be sure you don't wrongly accuse people...!

R

TUB001 · Post by **TUB001** » 17 Aug 2007, 19:27

Well, JAF 23 doesn't seem to have said anything wrong after reading your own post, 757Mech...

She didn't accuse anybody either... well, at least, you cannot say anybody else than SNT is responsible for the incident... sorry.

757Mech · Post by **757Mech** » 17 Aug 2007, 20:55

TUB001 wrote:Well, JAF 23 doesn't seem to have said anything wrong after reading your own post, 757Mech...
She didn't accuse anybody either...

Dear

Yes but accusing wrongly... there has been said that they, and I recall, "without having informed anybody else...they took off" sorry but that isn't right, and I'm trying to point that out.
The way JAF 23 is discribing the incident is just as the mechanics of SNT didn't care, that they walked away from their responsability, they just took them and kept the aircraft on the ground.
As I already said, weighing your words is important...

Grts
R

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 17 Aug 2007, 21:21

The L1011 was a solid plane and as comforatable as the DC-10. I've flown the L-1011 with Delta, Eastern and TWA. Trips included monthly round trips between Washington DC and LAX, DFW, ORD and, SFO. There was nothing special about the L-1011, but it was a reliable plane.