Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Aircraft Trouble At ORD?  
User currently offlineJetdoctor From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 257 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7891 times:

Got a call from my co-worker that there is a BA (he thinks 777) surrounded by emergency equipment on 14R/32L.
Anyone have any info? It has not made the news here yet.

Regards

Jetdoctor


Break ground, and head into the wind. Don't break wind and head into the ground.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7828 times:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ays-flight-evacuated-at-ohare.html

User currently offlineJetdoctor From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7698 times:

Thanks Josh32121

Regards,
Jetdoctor



Break ground, and head into the wind. Don't break wind and head into the ground.
User currently offlineEnginebird From United States of America, joined May 2007, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7432 times:

89 passengers on a 777, that's a terrible load!!!

That is probably why BA is offering extremely cheap seats between Europe and the US at the moment.


User currently offlineBFS From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7318 times:

When they say evacuated, do they mean down the slides or a precautionary disembarkation off steps or a jetty? 89 is a pretty poor load - are they still on for upgrading one of the daily 777s to a 747?

User currently offlineAmax1977 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6793 times:



Quoting Enginebird (Reply 3):
89 passengers on a 777

Good for the crew... Not much work to do during the duty!


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

G-VIIS

Must have been initially thought as quite serious to get HAZMAT called out


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3930 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5886 times:



Quoting Swiftski (Reply 6):
Must have been initially thought as quite serious to get HAZMAT called out

Probably automatic because of some cargo.
Anyway a pax IFE screen overheated. All is well now.


User currently offlineHeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5811 times:



Quoting Enginebird (Reply 3):
89 passengers on a 777, that's a terrible load!!!

It was IAH bound which (when it was at LGW, don't know LHR loads) often had 90/100 pax but F and J were normally pretty full which is where the money is and also a characteristic of the IAH route, it doesn't attract high numbers of passengers but a lower number of high yielding pax.


User currently offlineBA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5734 times:



Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 8):
It was IAH bound which (when it was at LGW, don't know LHR loads) often had 90/100 pax but F and J were normally pretty full which is where the money is and also a characteristic of the IAH route, it doesn't attract high numbers of passengers but a lower number of high yielding pax.

Yes, it was IAH bound and diverted into ORD.

As HeeBeeGB says, the pax load on this is very variable, but often very high yield. There is also often a high amount of freight weight/revenue on this route.

Cheers
 Smile



Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5171 times:

It was a seat IFE fire. There was not an evacuation, passengers were dis-embarked at a remote stand, down steps and onto buses to the terminal. The same aircraft continued onto IAH a few hours later.

User currently offlineBALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting BFS (Reply 4):
89 is a pretty poor load

It might sound like it but BA's loads on the IAH are mostly made up of F and J pax.

I have done flights recently to IAH full in F and J and with only 10 pax in M.

The aircraft config would have been

14F/48J/40W/124M.

Also up until recently in the aftermath of the recent Hurricane the foreign office in the UK advised against all non essential travel to IAH. This has only just recently been removed

[Edited 2008-10-06 10:11:52]

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...
BA Aircraft Numbers At Gatwick. posted Thu Jan 20 2000 17:29:29 by CX747
Odd Aircraft At ORD Yesterday Afternoon posted Sat Feb 4 2006 20:57:58 by BHXDTW
BA: No New Long Haul Aircraft Until At Least 2008 posted Fri Feb 3 2006 15:22:51 by BestWestern
BA Aircraft At The Desert Boneyard posted Thu Feb 24 2005 21:20:02 by Shuttle3echo
Disabled Aircraft At ORD posted Sun Mar 3 2002 05:05:30 by FrequentFlyKid
BA 744 At ORD In 11/00 posted Sat Aug 26 2000 04:29:20 by Doc k
MX Minor Overrun At ORD posted Fri Jul 18 2008 19:24:41 by N6238P
BA Aircraft Management / Less (1) 777 posted Tue Jul 15 2008 14:37:38 by BP1
BA744 At ORD T5 Early This Morning posted Mon Jul 7 2008 10:52:46 by 22right
777 Emergency Landing At ORD? posted Mon Jun 30 2008 10:37:58 by Planespotting