Empty flight .. Unsheduled stop over to pick up passengers.

stoneman

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The best bits are the take off and landing.

I just love that shove in the back on take off.

I was thinking the same thing. I would pay MORE fro the flight

mandi

budgetflyer wrote: »

For all the advances in travel and technology, the world seems so intolerant these days. So much complaining and compo seeking for such trivial matters.

I'm surprised at your responses stoneman / budgetflyer for the record I was asking for advice as in" recourse " defined in the English dictionary as " a source of help in a difficult situation " and not compensation seeking as you appear assume .

For the record I also travel extensively . When I book a direct flight I expect it to be just that . comprende

Pollycat

mandi wrote: »

I'm surprised at your responses stoneman / budgetflyer for the record I was asking for advice as in" recourse " defined in the English dictionary as " a source of help in a difficult situation " and not compensation seeking as you appear assume .

For the record I also travel extensively . When I book a direct flight I expect it to be just that . comprende

Mandi
It's you that is non comprende.

Your son's flight is direct, it's just not non-stop.
You've been told this at least twice.

If you travel extensively, I'm surprised you're not aware of the difference.

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Technically they are still on a direct flight, they will not have to leave the plane at LGW. As Caz3121 notes, they may be entitled to compensation if their flight is delayed over 3 hours, but stop offs like this rarely take more than an hour.

peachyprice wrote: »

They're not getting off at Gatwick, therefore it's a direct flight, no compo due unless it results in a delay of over 3 hrs.

peachyprice

mandi wrote: »

I'm surprised at your responses stoneman / budgetflyer for the record I was asking for advice as in" recourse " defined in the English dictionary as " a source of help in a difficult situation " and not compensation seeking as you appear assume .

For the record I also travel extensively . When I book a direct flight I expect it to be just that . comprende

A difficult situation? Jesus, it's a minor inconvenience nothing more, and they landed early, so no inconvenience at all.

What 'recourse' where you anticipating?

photome

peachyprice wrote: »

A difficult situation? Jesus, it's a minor inconvenience nothing more, and they landed early, so no inconvenience at all.

What 'recourse' where you anticipating?

As someone else posted.

this country has gone Compo mad!!!!

aliasojo

I'd be well ticked off if this happened to me. I'm a nervous flyer who once spent 9 hours gripping the seat arms very tightly and refused to speak to anyone (including my own kids) whilst in the air.

If someone told me I'd have to endure an extra take off and landing, after I'd booked a direct flight specifically because I couldn't handle the take off and landing and didn't want to do it more than once, I'd be as well chucking myself out the nearest window.

This is obviously no big deal for all you seasoned travellers but it's enough to make me want to cry in a corner like a big baby. :rotfl:

I hate the way airlines can just change what they offered before they took your money. What other industry would get away with this?

peachyprice

As I said at the beginning of this thread Ali, the alternative would have been to cancel the flight and bump them onto another one, perhaps a day earlier, or later, or to a different airport. I know which I would prefer.

Sometimes airlines can't do right for doing wrong.

aliasojo

peachyprice wrote: »

As I said at the beginning of this thread Ali, the alternative would have been to cancel the flight and bump them onto another one, perhaps a day earlier, or later, or to a different airport. I know which I would prefer.

Sometimes airlines can't do right for doing wrong.

I'd have preferred it if they put me on a bus instead. :rotfl:






(Clearly just joking! )

Pollycat

aliasojo wrote: »

If someone told me I'd have to endure an extra take off and landing, after I'd booked a direct flight specifically because I couldn't handle the take off and landing and didn't want to do it more than once, I'd be as well chucking myself out the nearest window.

I do appreciate how you feel as a nervous flyer - but a direct flight does not mean that you get from A to B without a stop.

You need to ensure you book a non-stop flight, and I think airlines can even change this for 'operational reasons'.

Monarch fly long-haul to Goa, the flight is generally non-stop but towards the end of the season they sometimes substitute a smaller aircraft that can't fly non-stop so has to stop to refuel in Bahrain.

The flight is still direct but it is not non-stop.
There is no recourse for that change.

Anyone wanting a non-stop flight should be very clear about the difference between non-stop and direct when booking.

I doubt that airlines flying from Glasgow (or any other UK airport) to Dalaman (or any other airport in Greece or Turkey etc) would guarantee non-stop flights.

mcfisco

I've been on 2 flights back from Lanzarote in recent years that have needed to make fuel stops at Faro.
I wouldn't think they're anything other than non-stop

Besides I'd rather they did a 'splash and dash' than not make it over the volcano after take off in Lanzarote.