Passenger Avoids Delay By Fixing Plane Himself

It would be a shame if an engineer on a recent Thomas Cook Airlines flight doesn't get a complimentary first class upgrade every time he flies. The engineer was on flight TCX9641 when it was announced that the trip would be delayed eight hours, while a mechanic was flown in to fix a problem. Luckily for the other passengers, the engineer happened to work for Thomsonfly Airlines, which has a reciprocal maintenance agreement with Thomas Cook. After about 35 minutes the man fixed the problem and the flight was on its way. A spokeswoman for Thomas Cook said, "When they announced there was a technical problem he came forward and said who he was. We checked his licence and verified he was who he said he was, and he was able to fix the problem to avoid the delay. We are very grateful that he was on the flight that day."

Comments

I noticed this comment doesn't have a first post..

[GigaHurtsMyRobot]

That's a problem.. just thought I'd show my ID and let you know I could fix it.

Security Flaw #1, Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they check his score as a flight risk?

Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout

Charity is Unpatriotic

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I imagine if he had tried to pull that in the US he'd be colling his heels naked in a TSA holding cell by now.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[scubamage]

My thoughts exactly. DHS has shown numerous times that its illegal for a civilian to be on the tarmac by arresting veterans, photographers, off-duty DHS agents, school children, cats, dogs, and other domestic terrorists (I'm only partially joking). Seems strange to me that they make an exception for this gentleman - going so far to allow him to actually work on a plane while off duty.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even in the US you dumb fuck.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

The incident happened in Menorca, the USA's DHS has no jurisdiction in Europe...

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[scubamage]

Noted. Still strange in this day and age!

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[jav1231]

"...imagine IF HE HAD...."

Read much, Dumbfuck?

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[jav1231]

Actually, union rules would have forbidden him from touching the plane in the U.S. even if were an American in that union.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be the norm for the post (michael) jacksonian age. Seriously, the guy worked for a company with a reciprocal maintenance agreement so he was certified to work on it so why would that be a security risk?

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Volante3192]

Assuming the teamsters didn't get to him first.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[FictionPimp]

The USA's DHS has no jurisdiction in Europe....

YET!

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

DHS has shown numerous times that its illegal for a civilian to be on the tarmac ... Seems strange to me that they make an exception for this gentleman
 
Your brain doesn't work, faggot.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[V!NCENT]

Now only if there was a terroristic attack...

*ducks and runs*

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah - the corporate ass-covering lawyers would have got there first.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in the US we sue everyone for anything. In fact, I'm suing slashdot, sourceforge, the Michael Jackson estate, and your internet service provider because your post has caused me emotional distress.

We would've arrested him or shot him, but we sure as hell wouldn't let him work on a plane!

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[palegray.net]

Mod parent up for pointing out abject failure to even read the summary before replying.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[gubers33]

Nah it has been over 24 hours, he would be in Gitmo by now.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[afidel]

Note that the two airlines had a maintenance agreement so it's likely he could have worked on the plane unless the union rules were particularly bad.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually I think you're on to something there. Here in Brussels, the unions would have screamed bloody murder over this and staged protests until it became illegal. The guy would be lucky not to end up strung up.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if he _could_ work on the plane. Many union rules forbid unscheduled activity. In effect, this guy took away 8 hours of pay from his union brother.

What if he got hurt while working on the plane? Would the airline claim responsibility? His employer, even though the were not paying him for the labour?

I'm not saying what he did wasn't sensible, but when you're dealing with unions and bureaucracy you must discard all common sense and reasonableness first.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[dcollins]

Actually, union rules would have forbidden him from touching the plane in the U.S. even if were an American in that union.

Skeptical. Reference?

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[nizo]

Actually I was thinking that they should make the repair crew regularly fly on the planes they service. I would be much more trusting of repairs made by people who are planning on flying on the planes they are servicing.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[sumdumass]

I can't give you a reference on that but I can tell you I was reprimanded and almost fired from a factory job where I assembled cartons for glass packaging. We had to cut strands of the cardboard away from the boxes to deal with mismatched cartons. Anyways, one day the shavings and cuttings were getting particularly heavy and started to create a hazard where the floor became slippery and presented a tripping hazard. I picked up a broom and swept the cuttings away from my work area and the shop steward started jumping my ass because they paid someone else to sweep the floor and I was taking his job away. I was told I was getting wrote up over it. I went off on the guy and the floor supervisor when he backed him up.

I quit the job before the reprimand could go through. That's my experience with a union and it backs the idea put forth by the GP. Of course every union will be different but I'm not sure if in this area. Unions are about getting money for people at the expense of the business, not saving the business money.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[droptone]

Is the failure rate nearly bad enough to justify the costs of a) flying non-paying people on every single flight and b) hiring more mechanics since after every successful fix some number of mechanics would be busy flying on the plane that they fixed for a couple of hours? I highly doubt it.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[nizo]

Is the failure rate nearly bad enough to justify...

Possibly not, though after the first few weeks you could discontinue the program since all of the bad mechanics would have weeded themselves out by then.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[digitalhermit]

I worked at UPS in the Technology Support Group some years ago. One day I was in Naples, FL training employees how to scan packages using a new tracking system. I was standing next to an employee and showing him how to hold the scanner (distance from package, laser placement etc.). So I take up a letter, scan it, then put it into a bin to get processed. Soon as I do this, two very large guys walk up behind me. "What are you doing?" they ask. Because they're in suits, I think they're some managers. I explain that I'm showing the employee how to use the scanner. "I saw you load that package," one guy tells me. Not familiar with all the vagaries of union rules, I say, "Yes, just a couple." I'm thinking that they want to make sure I put it in the right bin or something else. "What are you doing touching packages?" they ask me. I really didn't know what to say because I was really confused by his question. Luckily an actual manager rushed up at that point to straighten out everything.

I hear later that not being an hourly employee, I am not allowed to touch packages. This is doubly true when union reps are standing behind me.

I'm not particularly fond of many of the managers at UPS as they would do things that I thought were just as shady. For example, managers would instruct the belt supervisors to stagger the start times on each employee working a conveyor belt. The reasoning was that packages would get to the rear of the belt several minutes after they hit the front of the belt. But they wouldn't tell this to the employees. The employees had to be in their area and ready to work at start time (around 4AM), but because of the stagger, would be cheated out of 30 minutes to an hour each week. I.e., show up to work at 4AM and you won't get paid until 4:20AM but you need to be prepared as soon as the belt starts up.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Forge]

Can I be your attorney in this matter? I am sure that together we can force an appropriate settlement.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[darthwader]

First of all, many small airlines are not unionized. And even if they are, emergency maintenance is unscheduled by definition, so any union agreement would allow the company to send in the first qualified mechanic they could find. Secondly, what makes you assume the work was unpaid? I think it is reasonable to assume his company, Thompsonfly, approved the work under the existing cross-maintenance agreement, and that the AME was paid for the work just as if he was the on-call mechanic and got the phone call from his company dispatcher. He was probably paid the standard "callout" rate for his 1/2 hour work. They had to verify his identity and his credentials, which means that Thomas Cook Airlines needed to phone Thompsonfly for that information. Since they had them on the phone anyway, it's reasonable to assume they also got his company to authorize the work and assign him to the job.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[badasscat]

Doesn't matter if he _could_ work on the plane. Many union rules forbid unscheduled activity. In effect, this guy took away 8 hours of pay from his union brother.

His "union brother" works a standard work week regardless. He'll just be working on a different plane. There is no shortage of work for airline engineers.

And the repair took 35 minutes, not 8 hours. The 8 hours was presumably to fly an engineer in. He likely would not have been paid for all that time (he would have been paid for "flight time" but not his full transit time, which is what the 8 hours refers to).

What if he got hurt while working on the plane?

Covered in the maintenance agreement.

I would like to point out that various airlines have maintenance sharing agreements in the United States as well. The industry wouldn't work otherwise. Imagine an airline that flies just one or two flights into an airport per day - as many do to many airports - but having to have a full maintenance contingent at every one of those airports. Talk about inefficiency...

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[HTH NE1]

Is why no good deed goes unpunished because the best-laid schemes of mice an' men gang oft a-gley an' la'e us nought but grief and pain for promis'd joy?

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[hesiod]

the corporate ass-covering lawyers would have got there first.

Actually, they already were... they are a prime reason why such stupid rules exist.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Bertie]

I must say that as a British citizen I was amazed at the power unions have in America. Prior to dealing with them, my perception had always been that labour laws in America were much more lax than ours, and that people got screwed by their employers left, right and centre. What I didn't expect was that the unions, where present, would more than make up for this by being chokingly overbearing.

I was working for a company who were developing systems for guiding US Marine mechanics through repair procedures. Being British, we weren't allowed to play with the Marines' toys, so we ended up using the local bus company for testing stuff, as they had nearly exactly the same problems. Or so we thought. But as soon as we started trying out our gadgetry, we ran into a succession of shitstorms with the unions. "If this thing allows a novice to carry out a procedure, then all our expertise is worthless. Is this a management scheme to replace us with cheaper, less skilled mechanics?" "Er, no, we're just trying to do a bit of user testing". "Hey, Bill, try following this procedure you don't normally do" "Can't do that, that's another man's job and I can't be taking it from him". And so on and so on. These guys were hugely mistrustful of their management, and by extension, us. And I really could see where they were coming from, but boy was it frustrating for us, having come thousands of miles just to try some stuff out.

For the most part, this stuff never really happens in the UK any more, because the unions won most of their battles for better conditions a long time ago, and as a result of their efforts legislation provides a good degree of protection whether you're in a union or not. And thankfully, and whatever the right-wing press would have you think, it rarely gets in the way of Getting Stuff Done. We've struck a pretty good balance.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[jeff4747]

You do realize that these situations were completely different, right?

In the factory, it makes sense to not have you sweep, since you can't do your real job while you sweep. Your problem was the sweep guy wasn't getting his job done. When you cover for the sweep guy, he's able to slack off more while you get less done.

As for this situation, it's pretty clear from the article that the airline assigned this guy to do the repair work on the other airline's plane as part of their agreement. The tech will have to fill out his time card a little differently, but there's no particular reason to union-bash....the union approved the work.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[KillerBob]

the reason unions have so much power in the US is because the labour laws are so lax. in countries with strong labour protection laws, like most of Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., the government has been set up to protect the workers. Unions aren't needed as much, and so they do not exert their power... truth be told, I have never worked at a company that was unionized, because unions are dying a slow death in this country (Canada). Outside of the federal government and manufacturing sectors, most people are not unionized any more. who needs collective bargaining when we have public health care benefits, labour laws that say you can't be fired without cause and that you're entitled to severance if you've worked there more than 90 days, and a wealth of other fundamental rights that have traditionally been fought for by unions?

In the US, though, things are different. Employers have much more power that they can exert, and as a result, the employees need to exert more collective power. It's protectionism. For starters, look up what it means to live in an "at will" state: you can be fired at any time, with no notice, no severance, and without cause. they need unions in the US, and so the unions exist, and they exert power.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[rnelsonee]

An anecdote:

One of my coworkers was at a warehouse type facility and needed to put his laptop on the bench area to troubleshoot a problem. There was a box in the way, so he picked it up and moved it to another pile of boxes a few feet away. He got reprimanded for his behavior (although not formally as we don't work for that facility, they are our customer), because he took work away from the box-moving people.

With that behavior, I find it very plausible that he wouldn't have been allowed to work on that plane if someone else who was scheduled to work that day was available (even with a long commute).

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Atario]

Unions are about getting money for people at the expense of the business, not saving the business money.

Yes, and the business is about getting money for itself at the expense of anyone it can, including the employees, not treating employees fairly. What's your point?

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[JuzzFunky]

Reminds me of a story about some Engineering lecturers on a conference who were asked whether or not they would get in a plane that their students had designed and built. Only one said that he would. When asked why he felt so safe, he responded that he was absolutely certain that the plane would not even get off the ground.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[omb]

After Obama is done, presumably in 7 years, you need to find a Margret Thacher to deal with your unions.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[sumdumass]

Well, actually, no. I didn't sweep up, I swept it out of my road. The sweep guy still had plenty to do (wherever he was) as it all was around the perimeter of my workspace. My guess he was the one gluing the boxes together on the line before me because they were all fcked up. And I'm not going to risk personal injury to protect someone's job who wasn't doing it. That's a lot to ask of a person and it never should be done in a work place around conveyor belts, sharp knives, and moving machinery.

If it wasn't his job and he did it, then the union could have bashed him for it. As I said before, not all unions are the same but I have seen nothing indicating they wouldn't cause a fuss over something like this.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[mysidia]

Nah - the corporate ass-covering lawyers would have got there first.

Apparently they weren't on site, they'd have to be flown in (in 1st class, at the company's expense, including a 5-night stay at the highest-end hotel in the area and 3 luxurious meals a day, of course).

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[daemonenwind]

n the US, though, things are different. Employers have much more power that they can exert, and as a result, the employees need to exert more collective power.

So....your argument is that employees have too much power over companies, because companies have too much power over employees?

Wow...just...wow.

There's just layers of ignorance and government co-dependency there.

Let me add something to the mix for you:
The company can't move to another place without this sort of union abuse because federal laws prohibit that sort of union busting.

Care to try again?

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[clint999]

I must say that as a British citizen I was amazed at the power unions have in America. Prior to dealing with them, my perception had always been that labour laws in America were much more lax than ours, and that people got screwed by their employers left, right and centre. What I didn't expect was that the unions, where present, would more than make up for this by being chokingly overbearing.I was working for a company who were developing systems for guiding US Marine mechanics through repair procedures.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

If that last paragraph is correct, that's grounds for a class action lawsuit. A few Wal-Mart stores got nailed a few years ago by trying to get employees to do work without being paid for it, and now there's a huge company-wide policy stressing not to do anything if you're off the clock, and if it's not possible to get clocked back in, after doing what you did you're supposed to immediately head to personnel and fill out a time adjustment form.

That's a company that's only unionized in countries where it's illegal to work if you're not in a union.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[residents_parking]

Unions are about getting money for people at the expense of the business, not saving the business money.

More specifically, unions place the interests of their members above the company's customers.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[joss]

Let's try it like this: in US, unions act like dicks, because companies act like dicks. Where laws prevent companies acting like total dicks, unions act less like dicks.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[KillerBob]

So....your argument is that employees have too much power over companies, because companies have too much power over employees?

No, my argument is that companies cannot be trusted to treat their employees properly when enlightened self-interest is their prime limiting factor. There are companies that will treat their employees well... I've had *very* good experiences working for both Compaq and Dell, where they provided benefits and compensation well above the minimum required by law without a unionized workforce, but there's also a whackload of companies which do the bare minimum as dictated by law, and who try to get away with stuff like mandatory overtime, and firing you for refusing to work an 80h week... which is legal in the US, but decidedly illegal in Canada and most of Europe. Without labour laws to protect the employees, the employees need to exert more collective power.

Or as joss put it:

in US, unions act like dicks, because companies act like dicks. Where laws prevent companies acting like total dicks, unions act less like dicks.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[sumdumass]

Actually, no.

Almost all profitable businesses that go beyond mediocre small time operations know you have to compensate and retain your employees or the product/service will suffer and costs increase due to the lack or employee retention. Unions are a dieing breed and if it wasn't for union only shops, they probably would have went the way of the dodo bird a long time ago. a good majority of union shops that have been around since before the 1950 has been either forced off shore, replaced largely by automation, or closed down because of their practices.

Unions aren't even good for the people in them sometimes either. I know of at least 5 equipment operators who claim to be making $22-$28 per hour. I laughed at them when I found they have only worked 2 out of the last 6 months and probably less then 3 months of the last year total. The say they can't take non-union jobs or they lose their union membership. I know of several equipment operator jobs that came open during that time span paying at least $16-$18 an hour and they had consistent work over 10 months of the last year and look to be busy the rest of the summer. So you end up with non-union employees making $30k a year while the union employees can't $10k. Oh sure, some of those union employees are getting more work then others, but tell that to the guy who would make more working at burger king then his skilled profession because of union rules.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[indros13]

That's because unions exist to protect the WORKER, not the BUSINESS. Business wasn't in the habit of providing 8 hour workdays or 40-hour weeks until unions came along.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[sumdumass]

Lol.. The 8 hour work day and 40 hour weeks was the communist platform that Roosevelt adopted in his new deal before WWII. It was an attempt to combat unemployment by restricting how much a person could work in an effort to make more jobs availible to more people. Roosevelt attempted to organize unions and have them implement that because the US supreme court said that the federal government had no right dictating hours of work.

Also, how is that "protecting the worker" working out when GM is almost gone, Chrysler is in bankruptcy and pretty much gone, the American steel industry is all but gone, almost all of our factory production has either went off shore or closed up shop or automated all the union employees out. It seems to me that keeping the company around is just as important as protecting the worker because without the company, there are no fucking workers. Perhaps someone needs to get some priorities in order.

Re:Charity is Unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've answered your own question here.

Would the airline compensate him if he was injured? Who knows, but you can be certain they'd make life difficult if it did happen.

Why would his employer cover him? He'd need a union to back him up to get a claim through like that!

Pay a solicitor to run a case in court? Where would he get the money from in the first instance - he's injured and now unemployed.

It's good that he could fix the plane, but in countries with very poor worker protection laws he'd have a serious problem if something did happen.

The boring answer to it all is that unions have created the rights many take for granted. While they may have odd or ridiculous rules, this is not so much the case in First World countries with legislated protection and free/very low cost health care provided to everyone.

People can can bash unions as much as they like, but the day you are not in one and you're in a legal fight with an organisation with more money than you, or unfair legislation...people shouldn't bet on their hot air, deluded sense of superiority and overstated claim to legal now how and a willingness to be bankrupted to succeed in winning justice.

This is too much.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

First they took away all the food and gave us peanuts. Then they went all the way and said, "Bring your own food". Now bring your own technician. What next? Bring your own pilot?

Re:This is too much.

[tom17]

Naah, bring your own plane.

Re:This is too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, bring your own plane..

Re:This is too much.

[KronosReaver]

It really isn't fair to mod someone down as redundant when you can clearly see the time stamp on their post is exactly one minute after the original post... which is more likely, they intentionally said almost the exact same thing changing only one of the five words, or that the took a few seconds longer to review and submit a post than the first person did?

If only there were a way to mod down the modders who waste mod points...

Re:This is too much.

[cptdondo]

And then we can just GPL the whole thing....

Re:This is too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is fair to mod a redundant post as redundant, so that those browsing comments at a certain threshold don't need to be bothered with extra posts. If only it were karma neutral.

Re:This is too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Metamod Much?

Re:This is too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring your own handcuffs to arrest yourself for thinking about bringing your own tech to work on the plane.

Re:This is too much.

[V!NCENT]

That's nothing! Bring your own airport.

Re:This is too much.

[jason.sweet]

Didn't your mother ever tell you that life is not fair. Moderation isn't there to make you feel good. It is there so you can filter comments based on quality. (Why is it that I couldn't help chuckling as I wrote that.) A comment is just as redundant whether it was made by a dumbass who doesn't bother to read or by someone who posted between refreshes.

Re:This is too much.

[palegray.net]

I'd bring that cropdusting pilot from Independence Day. -Phil

Re:This is too much.

[palegray.net]

I brought my own pilot, flying my own plane, but I can't get clearance to land because apparently I should have brought my own air traffic controller, too. Now I'm going to die when my plane runs out of fuel, thanks.

Re:This is too much.

[jamstar7]

Prob is, it's against FAA regs to drink 24 hours before flying, isn't it?

Re:This is too much.

[Dunbal]

wait - soon it's going to be everyone stick their arms out the window and flap real hard

Re:This is too much.

[dkleinsc]

What, you didn't think to bring your own parachute either?

Re:This is too much.

[palegray.net]

Maybe so, but every now and again you hear news reports of a pilot being removed from a plane pre-takeoff for smelling like booze... kinda makes you wonder how many don't get caught. -Phil

Re:This is too much.

[palegray.net]

I was broke after paying for the plane and the pilot. Looks like the he *does* have a chute, however. I'll just ask him to come over here for a minute...

Re:This is too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody: Stick your arms out the windows and flap.

Re:This is too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, 8 hours. If you show up with a BAC above both the legal and company limits (company is far lower, I assure you), then you're boned if someone smells it.

Re:This is too much.

[selven]

No need to worry about forgetting anything. I brought my own airborne factory.

Re:This is too much.

[brusk]

Bring your own sky.

Re:This is too much.

[PsychoSlashDot]

First they took away all the food and gave us peanuts. Then they went all the way and said, "Bring your own food". Now bring your own technician. What next? Bring your own pilot?

No, no. First they took away all the food and gave us peanuts. Then they took away the peanuts and said, "bring your own food." Then they forbade us to bring our own food and forced us to buy theirs. Now you bring your own technician. What's next, you ask? You won't be allowed to bring your own technician, but for an extra $5,000 per flight they will let you pay to have the plane put in working order. Passengers will take up collections amongst themselves to come up with the extortion money before the plane will be permitted to fly.

Oh, and no... you can't get off the plane. What are you, a terrorist? You planted a bomb and now you want off, don't you?

Who is "the engineer"?

[Qzukk]

The article quotes Keith Lomax as saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane" which strongly implies Lomax is not the engineer. No other individual is named.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[pete-classic]

John Galt.

-Peter

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[YrWrstNtmr]

The quote should probably read:
"It was reassuring [to the other passengers] to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane"

The sentence just above that talks about applause from the other passengers.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[retchdog]

It doesn't imply that. It was either a slip-streamed quote from the stewardess (as mentioned in the preceding paragf), or a pompous use, by Lomax, of the third-person to generalize a specific narrative into an aphorism.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[yincrash]

Yup, there is an errorinsummary. I wonder if they compensated the dude.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article quotes Keith Lomax as saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane" which strongly implies Lomax is not the engineer. No other individual is named.

Um...Actually I think he was speaking generally, as in "People felt safer that he trusts his work enough that he'd be on the plane after fixing it" I'm pretty sure he was expressing the sentiment of other travelers, and maybe of the airline.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Replying to myself:
On second read, Mr. Lomax appears to be just some dude on the plane, and not the repairman.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

how does that relate to the issue of if Lomax is the engineer?

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[parvin]

If Lomax is a typical engineer (i.e., logical smartass), he could very well be referring to himself when saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane".

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[Dare nMc]

Seams like a excellent new procedure for any major repair; from now on the lead mechanic that works on a plane, must be on the next flight with their first born, or some equally important family member.
That's what happened with a co-worker who repaired hand held mine detectors in Vietnam. The field Sargent asked him if it was fixed, then physically drug his (very unwilling) ass and the detector to a live mine field to prove it. It made him a very through technician, even to this date.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could spell correctly your story might be more believable.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[introspekt.i]

Pfff. Who is John Galt?

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is he?

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[JuzzFunky]

No, Who is the pilot. What is the engineer.

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[RockWolf]

Quoth the AC:

If you could spell correctly your story might be more believable.

If you be bothered to create an account, the rest of us non-ACs might give a shit.

/~Rockwolf

Re:Who is "the engineer"?

[hey!]

Of course he'd be a smartass. Natural selection discourages dumbass engineers who fly on planes they fix themselves.

Hrm

[Steauengeglase]

Shouldn't you get the death penalty for something like this? Seriously, this malcontent took work from airline repairmen. That is almost like eating babies. I say death to the traitor.

Re:Hrm

[tnk1]

No, no, this is win-win. The reason that it was going to take hours to fix was due to the technician's union mandated 5 hour coffee break. Since the other guy was already there, the first guy didn't have to leave the coffee shop.

Don't worry, neither of the poor technicians was denied their 100 dollars/hr rate, they both still got paid time and a half for their efforts. The airline was just happy that they could leave almost on time for once.

Re:Hrm

[SheeEttin]

You say that in jest, but you pretty accurately summarized most unions' stance on labor.

Re:Hrm

[elrous0]

Don't worry, our noble unions men are already preparing to give him the standard scab treatment. Once they get the brick to through his plane's window, they'll teach him!

Re:Hrm

[ScoLgo]

"Don't worry, neither of the poor technicians was denied their 100 dollars/hr rate"

I know you're trying to be funny, (and apparently succeeding!), but, a good friend of mine works as an airline repair tech. He makes ~$25.00 per hour.

Maybe some airlines pay $100.00 per hour, but not the one he works for.

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[digitalgiblet]

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express....

During the flight he delivered a baby, performed a partial liver transplant, devised an experiment to test string theory, rescued Schrodinger's cat from the "box of death", and helped the elderly Fitzsimmons sisters join the "mile high club".

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Anonymous Coward]

If your post was supposed to be funny, I have some bad news.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[DaHat]

Agreed! More so when I consider that my mother's family name is Fitzsimmons!

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[digitalgiblet]

Well, it was both informative and funny until you looked at it...

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[gavron]

He fixes airplanes. With toothpicks. He debunks myths. Without snopes or wikipedia. He once delivered a baby airplane from a mother airplane at forty-thousand feed - in the wind! He is the most interesting man's next door neighbor's cousin. "I don't always drink single-malt Scotch. But when I do, it's pretty decent. Stay thorsty, my frenz."

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Anonymous Coward]

I've made a huge mistake.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is a partial liver transplant? Did you only replace a part of the liver?

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[schon]

What exactly is a partial liver transplant? Did you only replace a part of the liver?

No, it's where you get to the part where you take the old one out, but don't bother to finish.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[dzfoo]

What, no pony? sheeez!

        -dZ.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not his fault liver delivery isn't available in-flight.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! More so when I consider that my mother's family name is Fitzsimmons!

Is she currently Elderly? Does she have a sister? Did she recently fly? ... Just asking and all.

I guess I could see where that might be "not funny" to you.

Your mom on the other hand ...

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[introspekt.i]

I thought it was funny, you insensitive clod!

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[tinkerghost]

performed a partial liver transplant,

I certainly hope you had someone else finish it. Poor guy running around with his liver hanging out - "There we were at 30,000 feet and my surgeon just walked away...."

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[brusk]

Hate to break it to you but your mother was inducted into the mile-high club by the Montgolfier brothers.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[digitalgiblet]

What exactly is a partial liver transplant? Did you only replace a part of the liver?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/356/15/1545

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Kittenman]

Don't jest - my friend had a transplant recently and they found three old kidneys inside. The original, and two previous transplants that they hadn't whipped out.

And hes doing well, thanks.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[The Iso]

It's when you replace the liver with part of a liver from a living donor. Unlike most organs, the liver regenerates.

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[Obfuscant]

The best part of that ad is "he knows what he'd do for a Klondike bar."

Re:No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

[St.Creed]

Don't jest - my friend had a transplant recently and they found three old kidneys inside. The original, and two previous transplants that they hadn't whipped out.

And hes doing well, thanks.

Its always a smart idea to bring a couple of spares :)

diy

[Anonymous Coward]

better than FA announcing "does anyone know how to fly a plane?".

Keith Lomax is getting undue credit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article doesn't give the engineer's name. Keith Lomax is just some dumbass passenger soaking up all the credit.

Reading Is Fundamental.

I tried this once...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was flying on one of those flights with free satellite TV service. And guess which seat's TV was malfunctioning?

So I touched the touch screen in such a way to activate the diagnostic system (the system was continually restarting, so I touched the screen), and a stewardess noticed me "fucking around" with "important flight systems" and promptly removed me from the flight.

I spent the rest of the day being interviewed by the FBI. I simply said "ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS WATCH THE FUCKING TELEVISION! I'M NOT A FUCKING TERRORIST! What do you think I was going to do, change the channel to 'American Jihad' or something?"

Re:I tried this once...

[PalmKiller]

Maybe it was your attitude. Your language probably pissed them off, so they decided to screw with you.

Re:I tried this once...

[Lord Jester]

Sounds like a self-fulfilled prophet. I've known people like this. "Everybody thinks I'm a(n) [insert term here], so I will act like a(n) [insert term here]."

The sad thing is they often think that the world will stop viewing them that way.

Re:I tried this once...

[jamstar7]

I didn't know they had internet access at Gitmo.

Bad summary!

[dzfoo]

Keith Lomax was not the engineer who fixed the plane. From the article:

Holidaymaker Keith Lomax, from Stirling, was travelling home from a week's break with his wife when the plane's captain announced the expected delay.

"We were in the plane, ready for take-off, when he announced there was a technical problem and that an engineer might have to be flown out from Manchester to fix it," he said.

"Then a stewardess told us there was an engineer on board and they were checking out to see if he could work on it. He was obviously successful. When he came back onto the plane there was a round of applause from the back of the aircraft.

Keith Lomax is just a passenger, on vacation with his wife, who witnessed the event and talked about it to the reporter.

Jeez! now not even the submitters are R'ingTFA!

        -dZ.

Re:Bad summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

let's all call him, just to make sure

Re:Bad summary!

[chord.wav]

Damn man! They were trying to preserve his identity and you blew it!
Now MacGyver is exposed! Thank-you-very-much! All these years of hard work trying to infiltrate him in an undisclosed terrorist cell for nothing!

Re:Bad summary!

[xOneca]

Did they pay him for the fix?

Thomas Cook & First Class

[Anonymous Coward]

I very much doubt that they even know what 1st class is. This airline is primarily a cattle class holiday shifter. Cram them in and get them to the beach.

At least you get a seat. RyanAir is proposing to fly with passengers 'standing'. If that 'takes off' then airlines that cater for this market will be falling over themselves to follow suit. Not more bums on seat but 'Move along inside. Standing room only' will be the cry from the crew.

Re:Thomas Cook & First Class

[PalmKiller]

I can see it now, the toilet will be alway occupied by lazy cattle class who don't want to stand.

Re:Thomas Cook & First Class

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Cook did a study and found that squat toilets are cheaper.

Re:Thomas Cook & First Class

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Standing on planes....

just wait when there are shear winds and thunderstorms ahead....

Re:Thomas Cook & First Class

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now, the toilet will be always occupied by lazy cattle class who don't want to stand.

I would actually prefer standing to the cramped seats they have now. As it is, I go to the toilet for excuse to stand up and stretch - and because I never know if the pilot is going to suddenly turn on the "fasten seat belts" sign and then keep it on for the next five hours.

idleispants

[martas]

can someone please explain to me the meaning of the idleispants tag? i've been trying to figure out what those pants have to do with anything for 3 years now...

Re:idleispants

[Anonymous Coward]

'Pants' is a UK term meaning 'crap'.

Re:idleispants

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it referred to the Slashdot slogan, "Pants are optional."

Re:idleispants

[maxume]

I don't feel like typing, so you have to do extra reading:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+pants%22+british+colloquialism

Re:idleispants

[amicusNYCL]

When did UK slang become all the rage on Slashdot?

Re:idleispants

[lessthan]

After a news story about a man suing a British ISP. He got nasty with a help desk tech. The tech changed the guys password to (guy's name)ispants. I'd reference the story, but I can't find it.

Re:idleispants

[SanityInAnarchy]

Well, that has to do with this story, which was featured on Slashdot.

Re:idleispants

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot story is here, where user zobier suggested people start using the tag "idleispants".

Re:idleispants

[amicusNYCL]

Are we sure that there is more than one person tagging, or has zobier just been trying to create his own meme for the last year?

More useful than a skymarshall...

[yogibaer]

Swords to mutitools :-)

Re:I noticed this comment doesn't have a first pos

[V!NCENT]

This has got to be the best, and the first funny, 'frist psot' I've ever read. And so original :D

Mod parent +5, funny

Mod Up

[CambodiaSam]

Please mod up. It's a rare first post that is relevant and entertaining.

Know We Know The Difference...

[Snowcap557]

...between an open source and proprietary airline.

BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[bonch]

This whole story boils down to a plane engineer fixing a plane. Why is it news? So that the BBC News can trick people with a headline that says "Passenger fixes plane" without giving away that the passenger is actually a licensed plane engineer whose company even does work for that airline?

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[clone53421]

Plane engineer fixes plane, and what's news about that, you ask?

How often does the engineer just happen to be there already, as opposed to needing to be flown in from eight hours away...

How often does an engineer do the job for free...

And how often does one ride in the plane after he successfully repairs it? Personally, if my flight is delayed because the plane is broken down, I'd be very reassured to have the guy who fixes it riding in the same flying tin can as myself...

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[Forge]

In a small country everybody has to do multiple things and local talent is never far away. This means all kinds of crazy things like the PM not having a "Marine one". Instead he just borrows a regular chopper and a flight crew from the army as needed.

This led to an interesting fiasco in around 1987. A chopper on route to pick up the Prime minister has technical difficulties and makes an emergency landing on a high school football field (You yanks call it soucker). One of the Army Helecopter mechanics teaches math at that high school so he gos out to fix it. Then he offers to fly it back to camp (Another bird picked up the PM while the repair was going on).

How is this relevant?
He crashed the helicopter on the way back to camp.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[badasscat]

Where does it say he fixed it "for free"?

It says ThomsonFly and Thomas Cook have a reciprocal maintenance agreement, and he worked for ThomsonFly and was on a Thomas Cook airplane. This is really no different than if a company engineer had been on the plane.

He did his job and he will get paid for it. There's nothing all that remarkable about it. Engineers fly all the time just like anybody else. The only thing remotely unusual about this story is that there was a reciprocal maintenance agreement involved and this guy worked for the other airline, but I sincerely doubt it's unusual at all for engineers on airlines with reciprocal agreements to fly on the other airline.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[clone53421]

It didn't really say either way. Since the summary falsely implied that the guy who was quoted was the engineer who fixed the plane, and he was on holiday, I at first assumed that he was on his own time. Since he wasn't the same guy, I have no idea whether the engineer was able to go on the clock or not, but the informality of it would lead me to guess that he did it on his time.

I looked to see if I could find a more informative article but I didn't come up with much.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[darthwader]

It is quite a coincidence that a qualified mechanic from a company with a co-maint agreement happens to be on the flight, I agree.

The article doesn't say anything about him fixing it for free. He probably filled out a time-card for overtime as soon as he got to work the next day.

When an engineer is flown into a remote airport to fix something, she's got to get home somehow. I bet she takes a ride on whichever airplane is going in the direction she needs to go, regardless of whether it is the one she just fixed or not. These people are professionals, if they didn't think it was safe to fly in, they would not have signed off on the work. Forcing the mechanic to fly in the aircraft that was just fixed isn't going to make it any safer, it will just lead to more mechanics getting paid to sit in airplanes rather than fixing them.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[clone53421]

The article doesn't say anything about him fixing it for free. He probably filled out a time-card for overtime as soon as he got to work the next day.

True enough, although I'd expect there'd be plenty of red tape involved in actually getting paid for that unapproved overtime. Or, maybe they were able to get it all called in and approved in advance... no telling without more information, I suppose.

When an engineer is flown into a remote airport to fix something, she's got to get home somehow. I bet she takes a ride on whichever airplane is going in the direction she needs to go, regardless of whether it is the one she just fixed or not. These people are professionals, if they didn't think it was safe to fly in, they would not have signed off on the work. Forcing the mechanic to fly in the aircraft that was just fixed isn't going to make it any safer, it will just lead to more mechanics getting paid to sit in airplanes rather than fixing them.

Also true enough. Obviously it would be entirely impractical to make that mandatory. However, it'd still be reassuring to an already uneasy passenger (and there are plenty of people who are uneasy fliers) whose flight is delayed cause the plane's busted... okay, it's fixed, and the guy who fixed it is sitting up in first class. smile, wink...

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[spectre_240sx]

Marine one isn't one specific helicopter. It's a floating designation given to a transport with president is on board. It changes depending upon what service is providing it, however.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[spectre_240sx]

Wow... that was some bad grammar. That's what I get for editing a comment half way through, I guess.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[4D6963]

Isn't it more like bad syntax?

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[darthwader]

I know it's bad form to reply to your own posting, but my pilot wife points out that mechanics are usually eager to fly in the plane that they just fixed. After all, she's got to get home somehow, and faced with flying in the plane that she *knows* is fixed correctly because she just worked on it, or another plane that she has no idea who has been working on, the typical mechanic would put more trust in the plane she just fixed.

She's also told me an amusing story about a flight attendant who is also an AME (aircraft mechanic). Alas, that story didn't end so well, because although she was a licensed AME, she didn't have the bit of paper that allowed her to legally work on that particular type of plane, and even though the problem was trivial to fix, she had to sit there and glare at it for several hours until the proper mechanic arrived. It's kind of like not being allowed to change the oil in a Chevy Sprint because you are only licensed to work on the Suzuki Swift (and yes, they are identical cars).

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[Anonymous Coward]

And how often does one ride in the plane after he successfully repairs it? My younger brother was an airline mechanic with Delta. When a check-flight was needed after major repairs, the pilots strongly encouraged the mechanics to come along for the ride. Smart pilots!

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[twosat]

I read of a situation in the early days of the Lockheed Tri-star where it took multiple attempts for a particular flight to depart. Planes were much less reliable then, and the Tri-star also had some teething problems. After takeoffs suffering a blown engine, landing gear failing to retract and a host of other problems, the passengers refused to board the last replacement plane until the aircraft engineer flew with them to their destination.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[clone53421]

Yeah, and I can also envision other scenarios where it would be advantageous to have the mechanic on board: if something wasn't quite right, he's right there, and they won't have to fly another mechanic in (delaying everything) and he'll be right on board and able to see what's going on so they won't have to describe the problem to him when he shows up.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Plane engineer fixes plane

[sv_libertarian]

In Soviet Russia, airplane fix you!

lol

[hurfy]

been there, done that.

more or less :)

I got drafted by our airplane mechanic a couple times to help as i was the only one who could reach the other end of a bolt. Apparently the license test for a mechanic neglects to include a test for double jointedness.....

As long as the dude fixing it is going to fly on it i am all for it. After a couple major repairs on my dad's plane he would take the mechanic along on the 1st flight. Since he got on board we figured the front gear would come down this time ;)

Our little flight school had some crack people tho. The chief instructor got an ovation from the tower bringing in a fast little twin with no nose gear. Dead stick, both props feathered and moved with the starter out of the way...only scrapped up the nose a bit. Well, as little as sliding aluminum onto concrete at 50mph can be...

Re:lol

[Intron]

I was once at a one-slope ski area in Pennsylvania when the rope tow broke. I offered to splice the rope and got them running again. They gave me a free pass, but I never went back.

Re:lol

[Deadstick]

Dead stick, both props feathered and moved with the starter out of the way...only scrapped up the nose a bit.

Most insurance companies will terminate your policy if you try that crap. They may appreciate the $20,000 you saved them, but they aren't about to let you put millions at that level of risk again.

rj

Re:lol

[cybernanga]

Out of interest, what would the insurance companies prefer was done in that case?

Re:lol

[hurfy]

hehe, just a little Cessna 310 albeit a fast one. Charters and training and noone else onboard at the time and lots of runway but still took some nerve. Did so little damage they got the ok to drop and lock the gear and fly it back a few miles for repair (without retracting gear obviously)

We gave her a hard time (in jest) as it was insured for more than cost ;) Both engines and the nose probably would have totaled it back then (quite some time ago)
So would have the repair, as we also owned a repair facility.
Dad did ok on flight school and repair until he blew it all trying to start an 'airline' ala the TV show Wings :(

I wonder what the actual issue was they had to fix. Didn't sound like it needed parts and 45 min isn't much time. Probably found a loose wire ;) 90% of the issues really aren't anything special to fix even on the big boys.

Re:lol

[Deadstick]

Out of interest, what would the insurance companies prefer was done in that case?

Fly to an airport with full emergency equipment, declare an emergency, make a normal, fully controlled landing and let the damn props hit the runway. It means an engine teardown (two in the case of a twin), but it doesn't endanger life and limb any more than an ordinary landing.

Once the main gear is on the ground, it's not unreasonable to kill the engines; if they stop completely before the props touch down, the bill will be smaller.

rj

brave passengers ?

[parallel_prankster]

I would put a lot of thought into flying on a plane that was fixed by some guy voluntarily. But I am just an American, nevermind!

Re:brave passengers ?

[gstoddart]

I would put a lot of thought into flying on a plane that was fixed by some guy voluntarily.

If it was just some random guy, sure, then you should worry.

Don't forget, this guy was a real, licensed aircraft mechanic who was qualified to work on this type of aircraft, and would have had a decent chance of working on that specific aircraft given that they had reciprocal maintenance agreements.

This isn't the same as having the fat guy with 10,000 hours in type on Microsoft Flight Simulator fly you in when the pilots have all died. This is what he does for his day job.

Cheers

Re:brave passengers ?

[yabos]

News flash: Aircraft mechanics fly on airplanes

A caveman could have done it

[microbee]

It's nothing, just push the 'reset' button, and tell the pilot 'no more porn on the plane computer!'

Oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down for being unable/unwilling to even read the grandparent post before replying.

How long to re-fit

[Meskarune]

How long to re-fit?" -- Kirk "Eight hours. But you don't have eight hours, so I'll do it for you in 35 minutes." -- Scotty, "Do you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of thirteen?" -- Kirk

Why does this account sound like a Linux story

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad it only took one of the passengers to fix the plane. But this story reminds me of the joke about if airplanes were made the way that operating systems were made.

The Microsoft airplane costs you twice, once for the reservation and a second time to board. And it takes you where it wants to go and the flight attendants serve you bad food.

The Apple airplane costs more, but it's very beautiful, and has a limited number of places that it can go.

The Linux airplane costs nothing, but, because it gets assembled by the passengers, you have to know how to fly it and fix it.

Peer review?

[DissociativeBehavior]

Did someone review the "fix"? Because a technician can patch something that will break many years later, causing one of the deadliest airplane crash of all time. Knowing how airplane companies put pressure on pilots and technicians, I would not have taken a chance and left the plane.

Re:Peer review?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're bloody stupid mate. Nobody has to sign of an engineers work. That's why they've got their engineers license. It's only those who don't have their license who get their work checked off at a repair station.

Cheers

ob NiemÃller

[Penguin]

.. but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Soylent Green. .. but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Charlie Brown. .. but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Technician Ted. .. but I didn't speak up because I wasn't Striker, Ted.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[denzacar]

Quite insightful.

Unions are dying in the US as well

[btellier]

Unions are dying a slow, painful death here in the US too.

That Engineer is a SPY!

[bronney]

bleh.

Oblig. joke

[Anonymous Coward]

A Windows tech, a Linux tech, and a Mac tech get on a plane. The plane has trouble starting, and so the staff as the technicians if they could fix it.

The Windows tech pushes the "fix" button on the plane's dashboard, and waits patiently while the plane processes the task. He gets 90% of the way before the task locks up, and the flight is cancelled.

The Linux technician takes apart half the plane, rebuilding some peices from scratch. He gets about 90% of the way before realising that some of the parts have missing dependencies and the community-supported hotline isn't working. The flight is cancelled.

The Mac technician puts on his best suit, has sex with all the flight attendants, then declares the problem fixed after fitting new housing for the planes parts. The housing's don't actually affect the mechanics of the plane; but they are made of a shiney white plastic and have nice decals on them. The plane gets 90% of the way to it's destination before falling out of the sky.

Cost vs. Schedule

[s31523]

After reading the article and the posts, I see a very common theme: "Oh the union guy this, oh now he won't get paid, etc.". The fact of the matter is the Union, if one existed, would have been paid anyway. The airline would happily pay it too!. The union contract would mandate the worker be paid "book time" for the job. The fact that some other Joe was there to do the repair would not mean squat; he just saved schedule. In fact if you add up the time the crew spent sitting there, the gate time rental fees, passenger compensation for rebooking flights and/or hotel stays, I figure this guy saved a shit-ton of money for that airline in the Union scenario, even accounting for what the Union bill would be for work they didn't do.

I'd like to know more....

[PatLam]

Like what the problem was, why fly in an engineer from 8 hours away (for a 35 mins job) and wasn't there any tech on site to at LEAST check if he could fix the thing first?