-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Flying Faulty Jumbo Across Atlantic Saves BA £100,000
- Thread starter Fly Navy
- Start date
- Status
HMMmmmm ... maybe : But what makes you think I'm OVER 30 ???Brett327 said:"drink the company Kool-Aid"
Does anyone under 30 know where that reference comes from? I'll bet A4s has got some nifty pics of Jonestown somewhere.Brett
IF YOU DRINK TOO MUCH OF THIS ....
YOU EITHER GET THIS ....
BUT HECK, YOU HAVE A GOOD DENTAL PLAN IN THE NAVY, YES???
A4s: I knew you wouldn't disappointsqueeze said:uh... some of us are, you know, educated
it's not THAT obscure
I'd be willing to bet the majority of random people polled on the street would have no idea about something like that which happened 25+ years ago. Should I give our little microcosm of society more credit? perhaps
Good times,
Brett
BA probably lied or had bad initial info and chose to put it out to quell any criticism -- i.e., the engine failed "one hour" after take-off as opposed to immediately after take-off (i.e., at rotation, for all practical purposes). But so what if it had been one hour? It changes nothing about the apparent absense of the aircraft Captain's authority and lead in decision-making. Or possibly to cover the poor decision made by -- flight ops? -- marketing ?? who knows -- that resulted in an emergency fuel landing after 11 hours of flying with a significantly degraded system (i.e., 3 engines). Bottom line : a very bad decision by whomever made it. You can always declare an emergency -- and I would have in this instance to get priority handling -- and discuss it with operations when you are back on deck and across the desk. BA evidently prefers their captains exhibit no decision-making qualities nor have any evidence of balls.
The management Captain's comments re: flying on 3 or 2 engines are totally disingenuous. Completely insincere and calculating to dissuade the press and public from questioning the safety of the decision to press on .... This "Captain Brown" is without too much doubt an ambitious philistine and a hypocritical operator, who exemplifies the most disagreeable traits of management personnel in aviation.
The incident sounds like a compressor stall, brought on by virtually anything, with FOD always being a prime candidate in this part of the profile. On T/O @ LAX, the possibility of ingestion of sea birds on a 2045 local takeoff certainly is present. If the pilot did not want to dump and return to LAX (and why not? ), he could have diverted to Minneapolis, Phoenix, St. Louis, Chicago, JFK or many others -- all bases where maintenance could be had. But to press on with the original flight plan is absolutely crazy -- as events proved.
A side note: This incident is an example of why we should NOT want foreign airlines flying between city pairs in the U.S. That's called CABOTAGE and would be very, very bad for you and I. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that originates and terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of another country. And this BA incident also illustrates why we should NOT want more bureaucratic or EU interference in what is the finest air transportation system in the world -- ours.
Remember all these things the next time you book a ticket on an airline. It's a much more complex set of questions than just "how cheap a ticket can you get" ... and you usually get what you pay for.
That's it -- A4s just doesn't care anymore .... about British Airways
Since I isn't that edumicated about commercial air...
Have there ever been instances of the FAA laying the smack down on foreign airlines for violating FAA regs? (I'm not talking about this particular case, of course.) I mean things like a foreign carrier violating airspace, not having airworthiness docs on board, etc.
Or would this be something handled by the ICAO?
Have there ever been instances of the FAA laying the smack down on foreign airlines for violating FAA regs? (I'm not talking about this particular case, of course.) I mean things like a foreign carrier violating airspace, not having airworthiness docs on board, etc.
Or would this be something handled by the ICAO?
A4s, interesting that you bring that up, I know pre 9/11 that international lobbyists were pushing hard for cabbotage reform in our legislation, and was something the airlines (US) were fighting tooth and nail. I remember reading articles that were comparing what the outcome of this might be, to what happened to the US merchant flagged sea going vessels (I know, other factors, such as countries of convenience and over regulation/taxes, killed that)... But I thought that all attempts at lobbying for cabbotage repeal by int'l carriers had gone away since 9/11, or has it made a "stealthy" comeback?
THE SHORT ANSWER IS : it's always there. And from types who would ruin the U.S. air transport system if given the opportunity. Anyone out there want an airline job someday? Want to keep one? Read on:webmaster said:
As recently as last Thursday, according to Air Transport World, Air France-KLM CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta said " U.S. and European Union negotiators should accept "a certain degree of realism" and not get bogged down in details (italics added) while pursuing a transatlantic open-skies deal".
"Not get bogged down with 'details'" ... RIGHT !!
Head Frog went on to say : "Air France and KLM "remain committed in the longer term to the broad concept" of an open-skies regime, where every licensed carrier on both sides would be able to operate freely between any pair of cities on either side of the Atlantic. He urged that the goal be achieved "through a multiphase approach" rather than focusing on "endless discussions around tricky issues of no interest such as cabotage" — picking up and dropping off of passengers or freight by a foreign carrier solely within another country.
"Endless discussions"? "Tricky issues"? "NO INTEREST" ?? NO FRIGGIN' INTEREST !!! MON DIEU !!!
If you think this thread's previous posts indicate "problems" @ BA, try Air France on for a real screamin' nightmare.
O.K. I know I said I'm sick of BA, but ... these guys are priceless!!
NOW ... British Airways Plans to Put Focus Back on Service
Wednesday March 2, 12:28 AM EST
LONDON -- After five years of retrenchment and crisis management, British Airways PLC is again concentrating on wooing passengers, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported.
The world's largest international airline by traffic, BA has been aggressively cutting costs since before the sector's struggles following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But cost cutting is no longer coming as easily as it had, and some industry observers ask whether the carrier has cut too far. (note: So does this mean they have abandoned the aforementioned plan to "cut back on costs" by flying from LAX to LHR on 3 instead of 4 engines ?!?!)
Meanwhile, competition is heating up on its key long-haul routes, with foreign carriers -- including U.S.-based UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, Air France-KLM and Dubai-based Emirates Group -- looking to boost their presence in those markets.
Now, in a new two-year business plan that Chief Executive Rod Eddington unveiled to BA staff Tuesday, the carrier is placing renewed emphasis on building its brand and improving service for fliers. BA hopes the enhanced amenities will help it maintain a competitive edge -- especially with high- paying business- and first-class passengers -- as U.S. rivals compete mainly by slashing fares. ( AND --- U.S. rivals will secondarily compete by flying with all engines turning and burning -- we hope)
Wednesday March 2, 12:28 AM EST
LONDON -- After five years of retrenchment and crisis management, British Airways PLC is again concentrating on wooing passengers, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported.
The world's largest international airline by traffic, BA has been aggressively cutting costs since before the sector's struggles following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But cost cutting is no longer coming as easily as it had, and some industry observers ask whether the carrier has cut too far. (note: So does this mean they have abandoned the aforementioned plan to "cut back on costs" by flying from LAX to LHR on 3 instead of 4 engines ?!?!)
Now, in a new two-year business plan that Chief Executive Rod Eddington unveiled to BA staff Tuesday, the carrier is placing renewed emphasis on building its brand and improving service for fliers. BA hopes the enhanced amenities will help it maintain a competitive edge -- especially with high- paying business- and first-class passengers -- as U.S. rivals compete mainly by slashing fares. ( AND --- U.S. rivals will secondarily compete by flying with all engines turning and burning -- we hope)
Hail Britania !!!!!!!
British Airways 747 Flies Again On Three Engines
Friday March 4, 12:07 AM EST
The same British Airways 747 that flew from Los Angeles to England on only three of its four engines had a repeat occurrence on its next round trip: It lost an engine en route from Singapore to London, but the crew continued, flying 11 hours with a dead engine, Friday's Wall Street Journal reported.
British Airways said Flight 18 left Singapore with 356 passengers shortly after 11:35 p.m. local time on Friday and suffered an engine failure three-and- half hours into the flight. (NOTE -- THEY ORIGINALLY SAID THE LAX-LHR FLIGHT LOST THE ENGINE ONE HOUR INTO THE FLIGHT -- do you "believe" them now ??? --- A4s)
As in the Los Angeles incident, the crew communicated with the airline's operations center in London and decided to continue. About 11 hours later, the flight landed uneventfully at London's Heathrow Airport, only about 15 minutes late, a British Airways spokeswoman said.
"It's perfectly safe to fly with three engines," the spokeswoman, Diana Fung, said. (NOTE: WITH PAX ??? WITHOUT PAX ??? THAT'S A FREAKIN' LIE ... I wish I could say the "real" word ... A4s)
Many pilots and aviation experts have questioned whether it is prudent to fly a Boeing 747 over long distances after one engine fails, because it narrows the safety margin should something else go wrong. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said it had "concerns" about the Los Angeles flight. Thursday, an FAA spokesman, Les Dorr, said the agency is still investigating, as is the British Civil Aviation Authority.
OPINION: If you have no concern for your life --- and ONLY value the "bottom line" --- FLY BRITISH AIR ... HEY !!! They're not even that cheap !!!
WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT FROM AN AIRLINE WHERE 50% OF THE CAPTAINS ARE NAMED ... " NIGEL "???
Friday March 4, 12:07 AM EST
The same British Airways 747 that flew from Los Angeles to England on only three of its four engines had a repeat occurrence on its next round trip: It lost an engine en route from Singapore to London, but the crew continued, flying 11 hours with a dead engine, Friday's Wall Street Journal reported.
British Airways said Flight 18 left Singapore with 356 passengers shortly after 11:35 p.m. local time on Friday and suffered an engine failure three-and- half hours into the flight. (NOTE -- THEY ORIGINALLY SAID THE LAX-LHR FLIGHT LOST THE ENGINE ONE HOUR INTO THE FLIGHT -- do you "believe" them now ??? --- A4s)
As in the Los Angeles incident, the crew communicated with the airline's operations center in London and decided to continue. About 11 hours later, the flight landed uneventfully at London's Heathrow Airport, only about 15 minutes late, a British Airways spokeswoman said.
"It's perfectly safe to fly with three engines," the spokeswoman, Diana Fung, said. (NOTE: WITH PAX ??? WITHOUT PAX ??? THAT'S A FREAKIN' LIE ... I wish I could say the "real" word ... A4s)
Many pilots and aviation experts have questioned whether it is prudent to fly a Boeing 747 over long distances after one engine fails, because it narrows the safety margin should something else go wrong. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said it had "concerns" about the Los Angeles flight. Thursday, an FAA spokesman, Les Dorr, said the agency is still investigating, as is the British Civil Aviation Authority.
OPINION: If you have no concern for your life --- and ONLY value the "bottom line" --- FLY BRITISH AIR ... HEY !!! They're not even that cheap !!!
WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT FROM AN AIRLINE WHERE 50% OF THE CAPTAINS ARE NAMED ... " NIGEL "???
- Status