Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
'Empty' BA 777 Emergency-landing At BOS  
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4086 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 22746 times:

The Boston Herald states that a morning BA flight bound for Heathrow turned around and made an emergency landing at Logan, due to a report of 'smoke in the cabin.' That by itself isn't news, but what came next in the article was: The report stated that the plane, presumably a 777, had no one but thirteen crew members on board.

Did the Boston Herald make another 'Stupid Media Aviation Error,' or was this plane actually heading to London with no passengers on it?

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKHPN From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 22735 times:

I dont know the details... but Id be shocked if this was correct.
even if it was a ferry flight, why not sell seats..
BA might as well burn a stack of money instead of fly an empty 777, might save them a few bucks   


User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3795 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 22676 times:

Quoting KHPN (Reply 1):
I dont know the details... but Id be shocked if this was correct.
even if it was a ferry flight, why not sell seats..


If the plane has a mx issue and was signed off to fly one more flight back to the base to be fixed.. that's not a good idea. Airlines ferry planes all the time and don't sell seats. Just part of the cost of doing business.


User currently offlinepwm2txlhopper From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 22674 times:

According to Flightaware, it was flight 9608. Since it was a flight number in the 9xxx series, it's a safe bet to assume it was ferry flight back to LHR? Couldn't have been too urgent? They were closer to Halifax or BGR than BOS at the time they turned back.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW9608


User currently offlinegunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 22529 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 2):
If the plane has a mx issue and was signed off to fly one more flight back to the base to be fixed.. that's not a good idea.

Exactly. Given what apparently happened here, I think it's pretty clear that the aircraft may have had an mx issue of some kind. Still, pax or no pax, you can't avoid the unwanted publicity of an emergency landing!



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 22317 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Thread starter):
was this plane actually heading to London with no passengers on it?

Yes it was empty.

An earlier flight of this aircraft was BA flight 292 from Washington Dulles,DC (USA) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), was about 20nm northeast of Boston,MA (USA) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Boston reporting no serious problem and no assistance required after smell of fuel was noticed on board.

The aircraft was to be ferried to London as flight BA-9608 with 13 crew about 32 hours later (departure Jan 31st), the airplane was already enroute at FL370 about 160nm northeast of Boston when the crew decided to return to Boston again due to haze in the cabin. The airplane landed safely on runway 33L about 40 minutes later.

The airport reported mechanics are suspecting oil leaked from the APU into the air conditioning system.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=437154bd&opt=0



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineN901WA From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 21975 times:

I wonder if its the same acft that is on the Tech ops page with a diversion due to smoke in the cabin a few days back. If it is, I wonder what they did to fix the problem. I also wonder what kind of engine it has. I know of a operator that had the same problem on a brand new trent, that required a engine change.

[Edited 2011-01-31 18:15:38]

User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 21929 times:

That explains the BA 772 I saw parked at North Cargo earlier this afternoon.


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 21886 times:

Quoting KHPN (Reply 1):
even if it was a ferry flight, why not sell seats..

1) Because you're not allowed to sell seats on ferry flights.
2) Because you're not allowed to just 'add' flights.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1927 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 21744 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 2):
Airlines ferry planes all the time and don't sell seats. Just part of the cost of doing business.

Exactly. When a plane breaks down in a non-MX facility, then it has to be ferried to a mx base.

The longest MX ferry I remember was FEB 09, when QF ferried an A380 from SYD to LAX.

This was the exact flight which surprised us all at around 430-5pm.......


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Piskol




My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4868 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 21516 times:

QANTAS747-438,
Did I read you right, QF operated a A380 ferry flight SYD-LAX...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 21500 times:

How cool is that to have an entire 777 virtually to oneself (until the smelly haze of course). Were the 13 crew members - other than the pilots - paid for the flight? I imagine the FAs pulling out a deck of cards with the BA logo on the back (remember when airlines used to have decks of cards?), rolling the drink trolley up to rows 2 and 3 and having a rousing game of poker and dancing for the 7 hour flight!

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 9):
The longest MX ferry I remember was FEB 09, when QF ferried an A380 from SYD to LAX.

So why did QF ferry the 380 all the way to LAX? Doesn't SYD have 380 mechanics? Or was the plane fixed and now heading back into its rotation?


User currently onlineCaryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 21280 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
So why did QF ferry the 380 all the way to LAX? Doesn't SYD have 380 mechanics? Or was the plane fixed and now heading back into its rotation?

I believe that ferry flight occurred because QF was changing out the defective Rolls Royce engines. Mechanics are available at LAX but QF wasn't set up to perform that task at that location.
As recall, all QF A-380s were pulled from service for the change outs.
Thanks,
Cary


User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1927 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 21128 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 10):
QANTAS747-438,
Did I read you right, QF operated a A380 ferry flight SYD-LAX...?

You read it right! We were all shocked it flew that far... empty.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
So why did QF ferry the 380 all the way to LAX? Doesn't SYD have 380 mechanics? Or was the plane fixed and now heading back into its rotation?

Yes, I believe it was the return from a mx fix. It was flown to LAX to be put back into service. It was flt 6021 on Feb 16, 2009.

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 12):
I believe that ferry flight occurred because QF was changing out the defective Rolls Royce engines. Mechanics are available at LAX but QF wasn't set up to perform that task at that location.
As recall, all QF A-380s were pulled from service for the change outs.

No, this flight was in FEB 2009.



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineBA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 20463 times:

Quoting N901WA (Reply 6):
I wonder if its the same acft that is on the Tech ops page with a diversion due to smoke in the cabin a few days back.

No it isn't.

Quoting N901WA (Reply 6):
I also wonder what kind of engine it has.

They're both GE90-85B aircraft.

The first incident was not engine related, but don't know about the BOS one.

Cheers
 



Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
User currently offlinetristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 19709 times:

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 14):
The first incident was not engine related, but don't know about the BOS one.

IIX at BOS had an APU Oil leak into the air conditioning system.
The APU was made inop, and the packs cleaned, but not enough.
It is now waiting for new heat exchangers to be flown in.


User currently offlinenclmedic From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 19509 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
Were the 13 crew members - other than the pilots - paid for the flight?

Yes, they will have been. Crew will still be paid because they are away from base, so will be getting their hourly pay.


User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 17699 times:

Excuse me people, but what does MX flight and MX issue mean?

Thanks in advance!


User currently offlinehaggis73 From New Zealand, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 17497 times:

Quoting 4tet (Reply 17):
Excuse me people, but what does MX flight and MX issue mean?

MX = Maintenance


User currently offlinehaggis73 From New Zealand, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 17371 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 9):
The longest MX ferry I remember was FEB 09, when QF ferried an A380 from SYD to LAX.

Don't forget Emirates A345, A6-ERG, MEL to TLS at 10000ft after the tail strike in MEL.


User currently offlinechristopherwoo From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 17260 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
How cool is that to have an entire 777 virtually to oneself (until the smelly haze of course). Were the 13 crew members - other than the pilots - paid for the flight? I imagine the FAs pulling out a deck of cards with the BA logo on the back (remember when airlines used to have decks of cards?), rolling the drink trolley up to rows 2 and 3 and having a rousing game of poker and dancing for the 7 hour flight!

It's a nice break for the crew, a couple that I did - All we did is go and sit in first class, eat some food, watch some movies and sleep! I have heard other reports of surfing down the aisle on takeoff on the trays as well as a game of hide and seek on a dark 747-400! Good times!


User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3810 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 17069 times:

Wasn't there a breaking news story in some British tabloid newspapers 2 or 3 years ago about "BA flying (ghost) planes EMPTY around the world" or something along those lines? Wonder what they'll do when they hear about this.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 8):
1) Because you're not allowed to sell seats on ferry flights.
2) Because you're not allowed to just 'add' flights.

Wrong and wrong. Repositioning flights are sold to passengers all the time, sometimes even to destination the airline doesn't even serve. I joined a bunch of A.net users lat year to fly on an Aer Lingus A330 between Cardiff and Dublin which was just to ferry the plane back, and it was bookable through the web site. It happens all the time.

Quoting 4tet (Reply 17):
Excuse me people, but what does MX flight and MX issue mean?
Quoting haggis73 (Reply 18):
MX = Maintenance

Like many things in aviation, the abbreviations make no sense, especially when there are X's stuck in there for no reason (see PAX, CANX)

Soren   



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 16934 times:

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 21):
) Because you're not allowed to sell seats on ferry flights.
2) Because you're not allowed to just 'add' flights.

Wrong and wrong. Repositioning flights are sold to passengers all the time,

Ferry flights and repositioning flights are two different types of flights. Ferry flights usually is the term for flights that do not generate revenue, while repositioning flights are like deadheading flights. I believe that one are operated per Part 91 rules, while the other are Part 121 operations. An airline is operating a ferry flight when the aircraft has a maintenance issue, for instance unpressurized or gear extended or some other system non-operational. You definitely cannot sell seats on that flight. If you can sell seats on the flight it is not called a ferry flight in the airline industry, but maybe by the general public.

[Edited 2011-02-01 03:11:42]


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 15377 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Thread starter):
Did the Boston Herald make another 'Stupid Media Aviation Error,' or was this plane actually heading to London with no passengers on it?

As much as it might surprise/annoy you the Boston Herald was actually correct......it was empty! Therefore it was not "another stupid media aviation error" as seems fashionable here to declare without anything actually being checked.


User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 15257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 8):
1) Because you're not allowed to sell seats on ferry flights.
2) Because you're not allowed to just 'add' flights.

Indeed, they are tens of ferry/positioning flight each day around the world. Sometimes in order to safeguard regular ops crew and planes must be positioned. I know it doesn't please the good thinking spirit of the professional green washers though.  



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
25 bluewhale18210 : Actually both are operated under Part 91. Now there are ferries, and there are repos. Ferry=Aircraft w/ MX issue that does not allow it to carry any
26 ordjoe : With all the nooks and crevices of the 747 (which is why I love it so much as a passenger) it would be a good place to play hide and seek. But these
27 4xear : Guys, These ferry flights take place all the time, part of doing business. Sometimes you win some and sometimes you lose some. This should not be shoc
28 CitationJet : I would think that a repositioning revenue flight, as you call it, would be Part 121. If you are making revenue, it cannot be Part 91.
29 Kaiarahi : Every time you post on here, you dump on a.netters. If a.net is that bad, I really don't understand why you keep coming back. All the OP did was to a
30 chuchoteur : A ferry sometimes isn't just because of maintenance issues. For example, if you are repositioning with just the pilots on board, you could not take o
31 captainstefan : I know for one United does this as part of their regularly scheduled operations - a 763 will fly from Europe to ORD, then after being cleaned and mov
32 YULWinterSkies : Actually, why does an empty 777 with just a cockpit crew on board need as many as 11 flight attendants? I would have assumed that since 2 people are o
33 CitationJet : No, this flight didn't require any flight attendants, because it was not a revenue (Part 121) flight. Part 121 specifies the minimum required flight
34 VV701 : Do you have a source for this. I find it very implausible for four reasons: 1. Slots are not allocated for specific routes but simply for specific ti
35 planefixer : QF used this service to protect their slot at MAN rather than LHR
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...
777 Emergency Landing At ORD? posted Mon Jun 30 2008 10:37:58 by Planespotting
BA A320 Emergency Landing At BRU / Smoke In Cargo posted Sun Sep 10 2006 20:50:14 by Luchtzak
BA 777 Emergency Landing Today posted Thu Sep 2 2004 21:00:05 by EZYAirbus
BA 747 Emergency Landing At Montreal posted Sun Aug 22 2004 17:32:38 by Ts-ior
777 Emergency Landing At CWL posted Fri Mar 26 2004 18:47:35 by Txiki1uk
AA 777 Emergency Landing At YYZ posted Sun Jul 7 2002 01:21:28 by Captaingomes
Air Europe Jet Emergency Landing At BOS posted Thu Jun 6 2002 00:50:25 by Zeus01
Unruly Passenger Causes Emergency Landing At BOS posted Wed Jun 5 2002 17:43:30 by Ilyushin96M
Emirates 777 Emergency Landing At Aden posted Mon Dec 24 2001 19:37:26 by Jiml1126
China Southern 777 Emergency Landing At Beijing posted Sun Feb 4 2001 18:54:55 by Singapore_Air