Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
British Airways 747 Flies Again On Three Engines  
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26512 times:

Quite interesting indeed..

"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. 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.""

rest of the story at

http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt...=20050304&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw


"Up the Irons!"
116 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBAW716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26346 times:

Anyone know which engine went down during the flight?
Please advise asap. I am working on a theory about this aircraft.

Also, can someone get me a tail no?
Thanks
baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5204 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26331 times:

I don't see what wrong with it. It's no problem flying with only 3 engines.

KL911


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26328 times:

Sounds like someone in Cardiff is in for a bollocking.

User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1916 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 26262 times:

Three letters for you:

S.O.P.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24947 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 26137 times:

JGPH1A, perhaps it was a different engine this time, and I believe theyy do some minor maintenance on the 744s at LHR, so it may not be the fault of anyone at CWL.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26098 times:

It might be SOP (Standard Operating Procedures or ?) but once more new sources get wind of this story BA is going to be S.O.L.

Now that I think about it, while the crew was circling figuring out what to do, did they think about the shit PR this is going to bring. Regardless of the fact that the a/c was perfectly able to fly such a distance on only 3 engines, BA just had their asses handed to them by the news and, in my opinion, from a business stand point you don't want to get back in line for that ride. I understand that the EU just passed a law and I get the fact that a 744 can fly at such a distance on up to 2 in-op engines.

On the other hand, this failure occurred later in the flight at cruise therefore allowing for them to shut the engine down, milk the tail winds if any, and arrive at the final destionation.

W/e, they felt that it was still save to fly on then they felt it was safe to fly on. If you think about it, 2 engine failures in one week............Double Trouble?

Thanks again,

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24947 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26046 times:

Of course, it could all just be co-incidence, and knowing what the media is like, this was probably a different 747 anyway  Wink


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26035 times:

Golly gosh... bad machine, bad Rolls Royce, bad, bad, bad!  stirthepot 

[Edited 2005-03-04 10:10:02]


Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26012 times:

I don't think there is any reason to divert to some remote place in central asia if you have 3 good engines running.

SailorOrion


User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26000 times:

Quoting KL911 (reply 2):
I don't see what wrong with it. It's no problem flying with only 3 engines.


Right, great idea, so why not convert all 4 Engines to Trijets?  crazy 


User currently offlineReady4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 25949 times:

Quoting KL911 (reply 2):
I don't see what wrong with it. It's no problem flying with only 3 engines.

You are obviously right given that it landed only a few minutes late.

Quoting UA777222 (reply 7):
Now that I think about it, while the crew was circling figuring out what to do, did they think about the shit PR this is going to bring. Regardless of the fact that the a/c was perfectly able to fly such a distance on only 3 engines, BA just had their asses handed to them by the news and, in my opinion, from a business stand point you don't want to get back in line for that ride. I understand that the EU just passed a law and I get the fact that a 744 can fly at such a distance on up to 2 in-op engines.

So BA should give in to the media? Someone always has it in for BA - and this is just ignorance by the public if they are shocked that they flew for such a long way on just 3 engines. Didn't they see the new 772LR roll out last week? You raise the point of the new EU regulations - but at the end of the day, these are designed to minimise the number of delays. So, even if the new EU regulations were a part of it, what's wrong with that - what they did was in the interests of the pax....


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 25903 times:

I don't see what wrong with it. It's no problem flying with only 3 engines.

Noting wrong except that in this situation there's no more safety net.
If it was really "no problem" all 747s would have only three engines.


User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 25872 times:

Seems to me that the Wall Street Journal has a definate "down" on BA and should start to grow up a little.

Amazing that BA seems to be the only airline thye hear about that does this sort of heinous thing.

Wonder what other sort of drivel they publish in their rag?

Andy



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1093 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 25870 times:

poor MX work at BA - one and only one conclusion about this. I dont care about diverting or continuing, but the ONLY conclusion is BAD MX at BA. end of story.


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineDiesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1638 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 25717 times:

Musapapaya

Quoting ,reply=16:
poor MX work at BA - one and only one conclusion about this. I dont care about diverting or continuing, but the ONLY conclusion is BAD MX at BA. end of story.


How do you know this.. no surmising, no guessing, no assuming, no second or third or fourth hand information - what facts do you have???

None. It be a maintenance issue, but I would suggest you wait until the details are known instead of making wild and groundless allegations.



I don't like signatures...
User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25593 times:

Does anyone know the regisrtation of the aircraft in both incidents?

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25554 times:

It was G-BNLG.


One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5204 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25530 times:

Noting wrong except that in this situation there's no more safety net.
If it was really "no problem" all 747s would have only three engines.


There is still a safety net, A 747 can land on 2 engines.

KL911


User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25518 times:

I agree with that silly woman from BA, it is perfectly safe to fly with 3 engines - on a trijet!

User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19236 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25489 times:

Another nice example of how these so-called experts in this thread know more about the true professionals. Why would BA risk the safety of X amount of passengers, and thus risk its reputation, when it could have diverted? Answer: because the 744 can safely fly on 3 engines so did not need to divert.


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineDbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 890 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25478 times:

Do you think they'd alert the passengers of the engine failure? It might just cause some undue panic among the people on board who wouldn't understand that it would be perfectly safe to fly on 3 engines.

User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19236 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25474 times:

Quoting Dbo861 (reply 24):
might just cause some undue panic among the people on board who wouldn't understand that it would be perfectly safe to fly on 3 engines.


Like from most of the people on this website?  Wink The 'experts'?  Wink



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25475 times:

I think the passengers had a right to be informed. I reckon if they didnt, many would have been angry to learn of it later!

User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25440 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (reply 23):
Why would BA risk the safety of X amount of passengers, and thus risk its reputation, when it could have diverted?


Because they can save a hell lot of money  Wink


25 LatinAviation : It was the same engine number (#2). British Airways said it flew the empty plane from Manchester to London, and replaced the No. 2 engine, located on
26 BALandorLivery : I don't see what all the fuss is about. The 747 is quite capable AND allowed to fly on 3 engines in such a situation. So why divert when there is no n
27 Myt332 : So BA thought they fixed the issue by changing the number 2 engine yet the new engine fails. So, BA got it wrong?
28 APFPilot1985 : So let me get this straight, 2 different engines fail on the same airplane same station and BA continues to fly this thing and no one sees a problem?
29 Col : If anything this was more risky than the LAX flight. SIN-LHR is normally with headwinds, and at a much heavier weight. The crew obviously followed the
30 Post contains links Ready4Pushback : Take a look at this thread: CO - World's Largest Airline That's the same sort of drivel. Newspapers will attack anything if they think it will sell.
31 Post contains images Leezyjet : "So, BA got it wrong?" I wouldn't say they got it wrong as such. When the first engine failed, BA did the right thing and removed it for inspection, t
32 HZ747300 : What are the procedures if they lost another engine after losing the first one? My guess is if the plane can fly on two engines with at least 75%-80%
33 Post contains images Manu : Here in Canada, we try and conserve fuel to the max Should I be looking on the web for some new fare sales at BA? Given all of this fuel they're savi
34 Revelation : BA is a fine airline. I don't understand why many of its fans have a persecution complex. I think this issue would be getting raised regardless of th
35 Tomindc : Slightly off topic, but impressive load factors on both flights!
36 Aogdesk : "Les Dorr, a spokesman for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, said the agency believed the Los Angeles flight would have violated U.S. regulati
37 Post contains images LTBEWR : I am quite sure BA's a/c insurer and the people at Lloyds of London may be very interested in these 3 engined flights. The insurers may say to BA that
38 Indio66 : Slightly off topic, but can a 74 loose two engines on the same wing and still fly??
39 Scbriml : Where has anyone said BA are continuing to fly this plane without further investigation?
40 Clickhappy : I wonder what the statistical chances are of a 747 losing the same engine twice in such a short span.
41 Agill : 3 engines 4 longhaul seems to be the new motto.
42 Post contains links Bar032 : Noting wrong except that in this situation there's no more safety net. If it was really "no problem" all 747s would have only three engines. Having fo
43 Spk : The route from SIN to LHR has plenty of diversion airport. In case that another engine fails, they would not have much problem landing at the nearest
44 Juventus : British Airways 747s, the best 3 engine airplanes in the sky.
45 252MKR : The Airplane G-BLNG should be nicknamed: TRIPOD
46 Jc2354 : The purpose, logic or spirit of a 747 to be able to fly on 3 engines is to enable the plane to continue to the nearest suitable air field. As this fli
47 APFPilot1985 : Sorry, What I meant is that they continued on the SIN-LHR flight. Not that it is still flying
48 KhenleyDIA : Anyone know the registration number of this plane? I am flying from LAX to LHR in early May. I know it is safe to fly on 3 engines, but I would prefer
49 Post contains images LAPA_SAAB340 : The news report mentions that the #2 engine was shut down 3 hrs into the flight as a precaution after an oil pressure light came on. If this is the ca
50 PlaneSmart : If my family were on board, i would be far more comfortable knowing they were on a 747 with 3 engines for 420 mins with lots of diversion options if t
51 Charliecossie : Unbelievable tripe being spouted, again, by the armchair experts of sad-spotters.net. Just a couple of points:- The world's 747 operators have been fl
52 Veeref : And again we see that this is a discussion not of legality but of judgement. Which side is correct? Some pilots would opt to continue, some would dive
53 Aak777 : Does the minimum equipment list have to do with engines? What does it say about it? And do the manufacturer allow this?
54 VEEREF : Aak777, You'll not find the engine itself on an MEL. The MEL isn't so much a list of what you must have to fly, but more a list of things that can be
55 Scbriml : OK, I see what you mean. The crew for the second flight would have fully evaluated the situation before making their decision to continue. It may wel
56 Hmmmm... : There seems to be a lot of people here who don't understand the concept of a safety margin. When those people say a 747 can "fly" on 2 engines, they d
57 Post contains images Scbriml : I find it amusing that many of the people who are surprised that this flight continued on 3 engines are the same ones who extol the virtues of ETOPS
58 GothamSpotter : Those questioning BA's judgement should keep in mind that take off and landing are the two most dangerous portions of any flight, regardless of how ma
59 Hmmmm... : You are not talking about me. Any twin that lost an engine better not decide to fly for 11 hours when it could land to make repairs to conserve the sa
60 LeanOfPeak : Hmmm....: The two-engine service ceiling for a 747 with typical loading was identified as 18,700 feet in the other thread on a similar topic. That's q
61 VEEREF : What makes you so sure that that exact possibility is not one of many things taken into consideration when making the decision on whether or not to c
62 LTBEWR : An article on CNN in the USA on this '3-holer's' 2nd flight noted the possibility that BA was trying to avoid recently enacted EU rules as to compensa
63 Martin21 : I totally agree that its was a good decision to continue the flight to LHR, it is safe to fly a 747 on 3 engines, especially on a over land flight. Bu
64 Antares : I'm flabbergasted by the apologising going on for this dangerous behaviour. Let's wait for BA to go for the trifecta, and do it one more time. They wi
65 Hmmmm... : My analogy is perfectly sound. If I lose a spare tire on my trip, I don't decide to continue half way around the world before fixing that spare. I sho
66 LeanOfPeak : What are your credentials?
67 Martin21 : It was not only his decision, read this: And when they would lose a second engine (which the didn't), than they wouldn't fly further "cross the world
68 Ultrapig : Is the distinction between the two flgiht that in opne the plane was already at altitutde? Does anyone with knowledge see a saftey difference in these
69 Nyskymasters : Am I missing something or what? With regard to the LAX-LHR (read MAN) flight, I thought the engine failure occurred right after takeoff from LAX? If s
70 Meister808 : I have stayed quiet on this subject until now, but Hmmmm...'s analogy to a spare tire really hit the nail on the head for me. I agree wholeheartedly w
71 NceBoy : I think we got the answer last week.. I still wonder what were the probability for the same aircraft to lose an engine on two consecutive flights...
72 Hmmmm... : Of course it was the pilot's decision. The pilot has final authority as to what to do in any situation. But more than likely was "urged" to make the b
73 Flybyguy : Flying on three engines on a four engined aircraft is perfectly safe. I wouldn't question the captain's judgement one bit. British Airways is a safe a
74 Scotron11 : Come on people! These pilots made their own decisions based on their experience and their knowledge. To suggest that their actions were influenced or
75 VEEREF : Don't forget that (a very big) part of the decision to continue the flight on three engines is what to do in the event of a second engine failure, tak
76 M27 : I find it amusing that many of the people who are surprised that this flight continued on 3 engines are the same ones who extol the virtues of ETOPS a
77 Scbriml : Well, when you're PIC on a 4-engined plane, you can make that decision.
78 EmiratesA345 : Well, we've seen a A330 land with no engines, or power altogether, so it could probably be done with a 747 as well. Those of you who are going ape sh
79 Wjcandee : The landing and takeoff performance of a 4-engine aircraft operating with 3 engines is materially different. Read the accident report on the ATI DC8 c
80 CosmicCruiser : VEEREF and HMMM made the best points for sure but folks your barking up the wrong tree when you try to justify whether the 74 with one or two out is s
81 WhiteHatter : If British Airways changed its operating procedures regarding the safety of flying on three motors to avoid financial penalties, then the CAA and JAA
82 Wjcandee : Cosmic Cruiser said: "The capt. has the ultimate say." My understanding is that on incidents like the one at issue here, the Captain does NOT have the
83 Aviationwiz : I don't see a big deal continuing the flight with 3 engines. 2 engines ok, then it's news-worthy, I recall hearing my Math teacher a few years back te
84 Jc2354 : No one is arguing the capability of the 747 to continue flight on 3 engines. That is what it was built to do. It's design allows for a 3 engine flight
85 Antares : Well I guess BA has proved that it will just keep on doing it, presumably until they kill a lot of customers, or a few, depending on how damaging this
86 CosmicCruiser : To Wjcandee " I didn't define that statement totally. This is the way it is: The Capt. has the final say in the safe operation of the A/C. No one can
87 WhiteHatter : FAR 121.565 (b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may p
88 Post contains images Lightsaber : Since this topic related a question: From 1998 to 2001 the engine makers (GE/Pratt/Rolls) were on a reliability streak with no in flight shutdowns for
89 LeanOfPeak : Ram Air Turbine (RAT).
90 747400sp : What did they think they was flying a L1011. Just Joking
91 Jonty : Its very hard to operate an airline these days, and with one that can fly safely on 3 engines and with the new EU regulation, which our parliament obv
92 Kieron747 : Hi I agree totally, and honestly don't understand why BA gets such a bashing. Fact. (The incidents) are within operation parameters. Fact. you can bet
93 Soaringadi : ***"If it was really "no problem" all 747s would have only three engines."*** So.... you mean if there was no problem with the 340's, they would have
94 Tockeyhockey : everyone who is saying that they should have diverted -- i have a couple of points: first of all, how many diversion possibilities are there that have
95 AsstChiefMark : I decide to drive from San Francisco to Reno in a Ford Escort. While driving through Sacramento, my number 2 spark plug fries. No way in hell will I t
96 Baw716 : In deference to my colleagues at BA (the real one), I am going to defer any further comment until the investigation is complete. Until then, anything
97 QantasHeavy : I like BA and consider them a good, safe airline and fly them frequently on this very route (Australia-Singapore-London). My thoughts on the first epi
98 B707Stu : I don't think the issue here is as much technical as it is public relations. OK, from a technical perspective the 744 can fly on 1 engine, fine. But p
99 B707Stu : I'm not so sure. Only BA has served me a cockroach in my beer on a LHR-JFK flight and frankly, the flat bad in Club World and the service with it, un
100 VEEREF : Something I left out of my last post regarding safety margins- What is a 777 or 767 with an engine out? It's a part 25 large transport category aircra
101 Jacobin777 : I certainly do not believe the pilot would in any way/shape/or from put the passengers, not to mention themselves at risk......knowing the capabilitie
102 VEEREF : [quote=]Quoting B707Stu (reply 98): people don't buy tickets on the 744 to fly on 1, 2 or 3 engines, they purchase a seat to fly on 4 engines. [/quote
103 B707Stu : You guys took me too literally. The point I was trying to make, and obviously not well, is that people do not pay to fly with less engines than the f
104 Wjcandee : My impression was that in the US, after the Alaska Airlines crash a few years ago, the policy at most carriers is expressly to get the thing on the gr
105 Lehpron : What are the chances that BA may indavertently shift the focus to twin engines airliners regardless of ETOPS? We all know how the public thinks.
106 VEEREF : Actually you are quite right in one aspect however. BA will take a pounding over this, but from a PR standpoint. But on the other hand be careful of
107 VEEREF : That's because your car only has ONE engine. You're losing part of your available power from your ONLY powerplant. This would be an accurate analogy
108 OPNLguy : This is how it works over here in the USA under FAR Part 121 Domestic regs. FAR 121.535 is identical and applies to "Flag" operations. § 121.533 Res
109 Baw716 : VEEREF The Warsaw Convention governs all rules pertaining to international air transportation; however, I am not entirely certain how germane that is
110 B707Stu : My sense is that those other (non engine) issues you mention are way down the scale of concerns for the average passenger. I believe there's a common
111 Post contains images OPNLguy : In a word, "Nope..." The dispatcher -isn't- like the guy who fires their starter's pistol and starts the race, and then has zero to do with the proce
112 Post contains links Jacobin777 : This is the funniest report I've seen so far, talk about inaccurate headings..at least rest of the story was correct.....I'm a bit disappointed in Ass
113 Patrickj : Let's see.... loose one shortly after take off and then fly for 10 hours on three, across regions of Canada that are remote, and bodies of water that
114 Post contains images Mrniji : Nice, Patrickj.. you say that one is supposed to get all out of the three remaining engines.. what would have happened (this is a questioN), when a se
115 FlyCaledonian : Maybe one of the flight deck members on the LAX-MAN flight had been on BA009 back in June 1982? That was the 747 that flew through the ash clud when M
116 Patrickj : To reply to Mrniji: When a four engine transport looses one engine, its altitude capability is degraded (it will not be able to operate above an altit
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
747 Taking Off On Two Engines .... posted Sat Dec 17 2005 17:41:09 by Condor24
British Airways 747-400 Over YYC posted Fri Nov 26 2004 06:28:04 by Vio
British Airways To Cut Back On 1st Class posted Thu Jul 29 2004 20:03:35 by Worldoftui
British Airways 747-400ER posted Sat Mar 1 2003 01:17:45 by ARGinMIA
Does British Airways Do Any Maintenance On LHR? posted Fri Feb 28 2003 14:34:28 by Keesje
Tribute To British Airways 747-200s! posted Sat Sep 22 2001 13:58:28 by 777-500ER
British Airways 747-136s Where Are They Now? posted Wed Dec 27 2000 06:00:46 by CX747
British Airways 747 Entertainment Upgrades posted Sat Jan 22 2000 16:38:15 by Jamesw
British Airways 747-400 At SAN posted Wed Jul 14 1999 00:46:13 by N507SW
British Airways 747-200 posted Mon Feb 22 1999 22:13:15 by avion