Cayman Airways plane hits jet bridge in Jamaica

| 01/04/2012

(CNS): Cayman Airways flight KX621 was stuck in Jamaica on Friday evening after the aircraft hit a bridge on the tarmac at Montego Bay. A spokesperson for the airline said that as the plane was taxiing to the gate after arriving at the airport from Kingston, the “tip of the aircraft’s left wing came into contact with a jet bridge.” CAL said the bridge was incorrectly positioned on the tarmac and the marshaller directing the CAL plane was unaware of the potential obstacle. The captain reportedly felt the brief impact but the airline claimed it was not detectable to the 45 passengers on board and the aircraft taxied to the gate normally.

Maintenance checks confirmed the need for the aircraft to remain in Montego Bay until replacement parts are flown in for repairs and the flight’s onward departure to Grand Cayman was delayed out of Montego Bay until after midnight.

Other flights were subsequently delayed up to an hour on Friday afternoon and through Saturday but Cayman Airways said it had contacted all affected passengers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    People need to understand the airline business before making irresponsible comments. I am sure the flight left GCM with at least 100 passengers, meaning that 55 disembarked in KIN, possibly passengers getting on for the flight to GCM. The continuation to MBJ infers that CAL had passengers in that city who was wishing to embark for the flight to GCM. So out of the 45 passengers on board- if say 20 were getting off in MBJ and lets say 40 passengers got on in MBJ, the flight would have returned to GCM with at least 65 passengers- a clear break even for the airline. However, lets not concentrate on the passenger load, I have seen no mention of the significant revenue that these  flights earn from overweight and excess baggage. This is where revenue is also earned. And this incident had nothing to do with Cayman Airways- this is SOLELY the fault of the INCOMPETENT gorund staff and personnel that was marshalling- the Captain depends and relies on this individual to ensure that the aircraft is brought to the gate safely.

  2. Anonymous says:

    And Guess where all the people that are in charge were?


  3. Anonymous says:

    was this an April Fools?

  4. BBL Brown says:

    What is a jet bridge?

    • Anonymous says:

      Also know as a "jetway" at most airports.

      • BBL Brown says:

        Thanks for the information, Anonymous.  Maybe someday I'll fly somewhere and get to see one. 

  5. Anonymous says:

    If the flight was coming from Kingston, maybe the other passengers disembarked there

    I don't think that the plane  flies half empty to Jamaica

  6. Anonymous says:

    To Sunday 08:57 – Turning everything into a "them and us" is peurile and totally unproductive. Airports all over the world require "wing-walkers" and marshallers for a reason.  Pilots in a cockpit averaging 15' off the ground and double that in front of the wings cannot be expected to watch the wingtips and watch the parking stand centreline simultaneously and ensure safe docking. 

    Yes, believe it or not, incidents such as this at airports are usually caused by some flaw in the "wing-walking" and marshalling process implemented at the given time.  It's not about where it happened. One such incident which happened here between a British Airways aircraft and an American Airlines aircraft (wingtips touched) was precipitated by the lack of coordination between the wing-walker and the marshaller. No one heard British and Americansturn that into a foreigner/Caymanian issue just because it happened here.

    Grow up!! 

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, Lah di Dah Mon 7:15, where is your sense of ironic humour? I was going to post "Thank God for the brilliant Cayman Airways pilots" but rejected that for the post that riled you up.. My point was to poke gentle fun at our tendency here on this website NOT to post something as sensible as you in fact posted about the incident.

  7. Anonymous says:

    @15:28…..According to Cayman 27 the flight had 95 passengers, 45 coming from Kingston to Cayman and the rest going to Montego from Cayman, I imagine they were going to pick up passengers in Montego as well. The loads on those Jamaica flights are usually quite good. 

  8. Anonymous-awoa says:

    Has nothing to do with the fact the person was Jamaican, it could have happened anywhere! Once an airplane is taxiing into a gate it is the marshaller’s responsibility to make sure no obstacles are contacted, and that person is ultimately responsible for anything that happens. The captain is following their direction and relying on them to make sure they don’t hit anything. An unfortunate event for sure

  9. Anonymous says:

    Sounds like a good call all round on the incident but doesn't the '45 passengers on board' raise a few questions.

    That's under 50% capacity and way below the break even load factor for the flight. No wonder CAL can't make money. 

    • Anonymous says:

      The flight very well may have been the Grand Cayman-Kingston-MoBay route.

      The plane may have left Cayman packed to capacity, but dropped off all but 45 passengers in Kingston before continuing to Mo Bay.

      People are so quick to judge & criticize round' here even if they don't have all of the facts.

    • been there done that says:

      this was a flight from kingston,i am sure other passengers were picked up for the onward journey.

    • Anonymous says:

      The 3 way route between GCM, Kingston and Mo Bay is bound to be under capacity for some of the legs as people will only be travelling between 2 of the 3 stops and it is quite unlikely that they could resell the seat for the next leg once somebody has disembarked.


      A full flight to Kingston and a full flight back from Mo Bay would usually be expected so the 3 way trip would therefore have become profitable. So unfortunately you are not as clever as you think. Smug yes, clever no.


    • Anonymous says:

      They had 45 on board and were stopping in Montego Bay to pick up additional passengers …Give them a break!!

    • A REALIST says:

      The plane comes from Cayman to Kingston where it offloads and picks up passengers and then flies to Montego Bay  where it picks up more passengers before departing to Cayman.

      The 50% load factor would only be for Kingston to Montego Bay leg. After picking up passengers in Montego Bay the flight would be full to near full.

      I have never flown on a Jamaica flight less than 75% full and I fly that route at least twice a month. And Cayman Airways has consistently stated that Jamaica is their only consistently profitable route.

    • WREX says:

      Dude, they were picking people up at Montego Bay, they had to put them somewhere…

    • Anonymous says:

      You should read the article more indepth, as it states that the aircraft had arrived in Montego Bay FROM Kingston that is why it only had 45 passengers on board, the majority got off in Kingston.

    • Anonymous says:

      The flight just arrived in MoBay after leaving Kingston.  The flights tend to leave full from Cayman to Kingston and back to Cayman.  The short haul between MoBay and Kingston is rarely full and I have done that route loads of times.  If CAL isnt making money its not because of this.  I used to work with the airline and Kingston flights are notoriously full and have been this way for years.  50% capacity for a 15 minute(ish) flight is not why CAL is not making a profit.



      • Anonymous says:

        On a 15-minute flight the fuel burn must be comparatively very high for the mileage flown so this goes back to the question raised at the beginning of this post – is this sensible, or even economical, scheduling.

        OK CAL flew 95 people to Kingston, then flew 45 on to Montego Bay but does that make the route viable? Of course it doesn't. If CAL can fill the planes on the Kingston route why bother with Montego Bay? They could just concentrate on the high load factor route to Kingston then hand the Montego Bay passengers over to a local Jamaican carrier.

        This is like some of the other routes CAL operate. They could easily be dealt with under code-sharing arrangements with other airlines.

        There just doesn't seem to anything resembling proper airline management in place when it comes to route planning or scheduling.

        • Anonymous says:

          16:46: Since when did we ever worry about CAL being profitable? It NEVER has been and  NEVER will be. Since Jim Bodden kicked LACSA out, it has all been about "national pride" and jobs for Caymanians. CAL has lost gazillions of dollars over the last 30 years. Can anyone name any other jurisdiction with around 17,000 voting electorate and 55,000 residents that has …..what is it now?……5 Boeing 737s?. No, I thought not.

    • Anonymous says:

      They were going to pick up a load of HTB buns to sell on da side, they make more money selling HTB buns than traveling passengers these days.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, the Jamaica and Miami routes are the most profitable routes for CAL.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Of course, it was Jamaica's fault!! How strange!

    • Anonymous says:

      Of course it's Jamaica's fault. If you know anything about what happens on the tarmac you would know that after an aircraft departs from a gate the jet bridge should be retracted to a position where it is not a hazard to aircraft approaching at the gate beside it. Furthermore the marshaller should have seen the hazard long before the plane was marshalled to the gate. Now the question is, were those marshallers employedby Cayman Airways or a ground handler then some joint liability may be in order.

      • A REALIST says:

        The article makes clear that the plane was taxi-ing TO THE GATE AFTER ARRIVAL.

        The plane was not leaving and so there was no need to retract anything. As some one who was on the plane can tell you, the pilot (who happens to be the son of a former pilot) was most likely at fault.


        • Anonymous says:

          How on earth would someone on the plane know. The pilot will  be at fault if either a) he could plainly see the jet bridge and ran into it anyway or b) the wingwalker / marshaller game him instructions that he ignored.

          Unless CAL's in flight entertainment ahs been significantly upgaded since I last flew with them it dioesn'tinclude an option to listen into the pilot's ground converstations or take a video feed from the cockpit so I guess that rules out anybody eon the plane except the crew 'knowing' that the pilot was at fault under b).

          As far as a) goes the wing 'clipping' a jet bridge so that thepassengers were unlikely to have felt it does not seem like this was in plain view of the pilot (and again last time I checked the passenger windows look out sideways so a passenger can see very littel of what the pilot can se and vice versa last time I looked the wing was behind the pilot.

          On the other hand why let the fact that your statement is highly unlikely to bear scrutiny get in the way of your clear desire to have a pop at a specific individual.

    • WREX says:

      Of course it was, what were you expecting?

    • Anonymous says:

      I'm sure it was some expat from oversea's who's to blame.. Either an expat pilot or expat airport worker… Don't worry..