BOE773
Topic Author
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:16 am

With the continuation of the 3 engined flight from LAX to MAN and the recent 772 flight with 4 injured flt attendants from TPA to LGW; it would appear that BA is suffering from 'No-Turnback-Itis'. Most likely the European regulations with regards to pax rights also plays a major part.
 
SQno1
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:41 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:28 am

Two flights out of the thousands that they operate every single day of the year. It doesn't really matter to be honest.

You seem like someone who puts a lot of attention onto yourself, for all of the wrong reasons, having read your previous posting about the two execs who had resigned and how BA was a failing airline.

Mods: Time for a permaban me thinks.

With Regards,
Alex.B
 
mainMAN
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:29 am

Quoting BOE773 (Thread starter):
Most likely the European regulations with regards to pax rights also plays a major part.

A very large part, along with those precious shareholders.
 
Demoose
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 8:06 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:31 am

Seems a bit insignificant in the grand scale of BA's operation.
Take a ride...fly across the sky
 
BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:47 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:36 am

Quoting BOE773 (Thread starter):
4 injured flt attendants from TPA to LGW

How injured? I never heard this story. Assuming nothing too serious, and also assuming most BA crew are from the UK, if you were already on route far better to be heading home to family and friends than be sitting in hospital 1000's of miles away. That said, if they were that seriously injured the flight would have turned back.
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
 
BritPilot777
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:05 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting SQNo1 (Reply 1):
Mods: Time for a permaban me thinks.

Agreed  thumbsup 
Forever Flight
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:41 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 2):
A very large part, along with those precious shareholders.

And also the INSURERS!

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:47 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:46 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 7):
And also the INSURERS!

I thought about the medical insurance issue if that's what you're refering to, but I'm pretty sure BA would have a worldwide medical policy for all flight crew/FA's etc, so picking up the tab for a stay in a Florida hospital wouldn't be a problem.
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:57 am

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 9):
several were badly injured - at least 4 were so bad that they were unable to continue working.

Do you have specifics on the injuries?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
BOE773
Topic Author
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 10):

Sorry, I do not have any specific information with regards to their injuries.

Here is a link with rgds to the incident:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247503
 
Vref5
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:55 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:28 am

I'm certainly intrigued as to what extent their injuries were known to be as the incident unfolded, as well as the severity.

It's also not always apparent at the outset when an injury is serious. (This is one of the issues that first responders to a motor vehicle accident has to deal with. Some MVA victims may initially walk around OK immediately following an accident without obvious trauma but in the end, succumb to serious internal injuries.)

I have a hard time imagining that BA would intentionally fly 7 hours with serious injuries if they knew it was serious and occurred only 15 minutes after takeoff.

Procedures for dealing with serious in-flight injuries would have likely included consulting with a company doctor to assist in making determination for a medical emergency diversion versus continuing to destination.

It is also possible that injuries were initially deemed relatively mild but then became more serious or worsened somewhere past the halfway point during flight. But, this, I do not know because I do not have any real details of that incident.

I'm not a BA apologist by a long stretch, not a customer or employee, nor do I have any interest in suppressing criticism. I'm just a neutral third party observer whom is curious if there is more to the story than is publically known.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:52 am

Injuries to cabin crew members due to turbulence etc do happen from time to time - an injury doesn't have to be serious or life-threatening to prevent a crew member from continuing with their duties.

In these circumstances, once the Captain is satisfied that the injuries to the crewmembers concerned are non-critical, he will normally ask those concerned what they want to do. In my experience, crewmembers suffering minor injuries will always elect to continue to destination rather then divert the aircraft...

This is especially true when inbound to home base...

In no way a negative reflection on BA, but more likely a positive reflection on it's staff members on the flight concerned who elected to allow the flight to continue. Had passengers been injured then it's a far more complex situation, and the decisions made by the aircraft commander and the company may well have been different.

The notion that the aircraft continued on a Trans Atlantic crossing with crewmembers lying injured in agony on the galley floor is laughable.

Best Regards
CROSSWIND
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:15 am

BHXFAO,
No, non-medical insurance... For medical insurance I'm sure BA would have had that covered.

BOE773,
There was a paramedic on board to assess the situation, and the injured crew were consulted in the decision made by the captain... which takes into account safety consideration. The paramedic said it was OK to continue, so they continued. The flight also followed the US coast anyways, so, if the injuries got worse, they had plenty of places to land for a medical emergency (Greenland exempted from the "plenty" category though).

The paramedics in LGW of course assisted on arrival.

So, the BA 777 was carrying 11 crew, 4 injured, still got... 7? They'd still comply with the 1 F/A per 50 pax and the "mythical" 1 F/A per pair of doors (1 F/A per door on rear door) policy... (even with a second F/O covering the door). So, I see no problems... and this accident is definitely NOT a "No-Turnback-Itis".

Since you mentioned the topic in PPruNe, I suggest you read the replies there about the BA SOP on handling medical problems while on board (Satphones & Medlink), and the examples mentioned there too.

So, your suggestion of BA suffering from No-Turnback-itis in this case is utterly baseless and unqualified.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
BOE773
Topic Author
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:50 am

The European passenger rights regulations that were implemented will have an impact on the decision making for flight continuation for European carriers.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:01 am

I still find it amazing how easily people could jump onto conclusions with just about a journo title to back them up.
And I find it distressing that some posters are actively proving they have an agenda and that some so-called "aviation fans" chose to ignore that SAFETY is the first parameter any aircrew would consider.
I haven't heard anything about that incident but I could well imagine the sequence of events :
- A TCAS RA, a descent resolution and some FAs are injured.
- Now comes the time for response to the incident and evaluation of the situation :
1/-How badly were they injured : get a doctor or a paramedic and establish a SatCom link with base and Medlink/Samu for a conference..... Can the injured people be treated on the aircraft ? They are also my colleagues and I care about their comfort. Would they be better in a hospital and can I ask their opinion ?
2/-Then assess how the incapacitations affect the flight : enough FAs for an emergency or not ? -->Get the book on minimum crewing requirements... Get the purser to the flight deck and ask about his opinion on the service.
3/- Back to SatCom with base. Inform them of the decision and what will be required on arrival : medics, Transport, family...maybe a psychological help in attendance.
That's what happened on that flight. I'd bet my bottom euro on it.
Contrail designer
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:05 am

Here we go again banghead 

I have read the pprune report and it clearly states what happened in there, i take it you did not fully read before you posted this information

Signed
Annoyed a.netter
Where does the time go???
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting Vref5 (Reply 13):
It's also not always apparent at the outset when an injury is serious.

The only suggestion anywhere that the injuries suffered by the FAs were 'serious' is by two people with no medical qualifications. Another passenger with medical qualifications disagreed and after examining and attending to the injured said that the FA's injuries were not serious enough to require that the aircraft turned back. The pilot then consulted with the FAs before making what obviously is an appropriate decision.

As for the attendance of paramedics once the aircraft landed in the UK this would be standard practice. It is a requirement in your own interests, for example, that if you are working in an office and prick your finger with the sharp end of a paperclip that you report it to the individual nominated as being responsible for health and safety in your work area. That individual if not medically qualified should then arrange for you to see an appropriate medically qualified individual as soon as possible. In this case this would be as soon as the aircraft landed.
 
BMED
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:01 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:26 am

I have read the report and it didn't say that any flight attendents couldn't perform their duties. I'm sure that if they couldn't then the flight would have returned to its departure airport.

It might be true but unless you was there you never know for sure the full story I'm afraid.
Living the jetset life! No better way to be
 
flyguy595
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:47 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:48 am

Quoting BOE773 (Thread starter):
BA is suffering from 'No-Turnback-Itis'

 no Im certainly glad you werent the crew on the flight becuase I know you would throw a tantrum until the plane was diverted becuase you might have a minor injury. cry  hissyfit 

I think BA should commend the crew becuase they contiued the flight. Obviously they werent paralized or knocked out bleeding from the neck becuase Im sure anyone would have diverted the plane imeadiatly. Maybe they spilt coffee on them burning their hand. While this could be uncomfortable Im sure they would have iced it and continued on. Sometimes they can treat the injury just the same onboard as on the ground.
 praise 

As for the Engine out scenario three engines seem fine to me Honestly I like three holers better (DC-10, 727 Fan cloudnine  ) still very safe the plane didnt crash, it didnt get damaged, it didnt cost BA a significant amount of money. The 747 can fly on one engine I think your chances are good.

Dumb topic Should be deleted  tombstone 
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:15 pm

LOL...
1. I don't care about BA
2. My experiences with BA are not exactly a perfect record
3. I don't join the "let's bash BA" bandwagon nor do I "jump on the Bash (insert Airline here) bandwagon" without a reason/data.

If you give me a blatant JAR violation, I'd bash BA with no hesitation! *LOL*

*grin*

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9751
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:52 pm

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 16):
The European passenger rights regulations that were implemented will have an impact on the decision making for flight continuation for European carriers.

This is a false statement. Airlines do not pay compensation if the reason for delays or cancellations was due to "extraordinary circumstances". This is obviously not an ordinary occurrence.

Refer para 14 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...erv.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:NOT

Your 'No-Turnback-Itis' allegation is baseless, this flight and the LAX-MAN flight no compensation would be paid. In both cases they are "extraordinary circumstances".

Quoting Pihero (Reply 17):
That's what happened on that flight. I'd bet my bottom euro on it.

From what I hear, the pilots not being medical experts did obtain the best medical advice they could have received both from people onboard and from the company back home.

I agree safety would come first, economy last.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:33 pm

Zeke,
Don't you mean Safety FIRST and economics SECOND? (Economy class is probably last anyways! LOL)

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Cadet57
Posts: 7174
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:40 pm

You know... Its rather funny that he starts yet ANOTHER BA/UK bash fest and he has yet to come back and defend his rather dumbass motives....
Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:21 pm

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 15):
The European passenger rights regulations that were implemented will have an impact on the decision making for flight continuation for European carriers.

Absolute RUBBISH!

Neither I nor my colleagues would ever make a decision based on this. Safety of the passengers, crew and a/c are always paramount.

But why believe me, I only do the job!
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
jfk777
Posts: 5822
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:30 pm

BA has its policies but flying from LAX to LHR with an unscheduled stop in MAN on 3 engines was unfortunate. How much negative PR has this gotten BA ? TOO MUCH. BA has gotten panned in the press and should have stopped at JFK where another 747 could have been flown in from LHR to meet the 3 engined 744. That would ahve sounded much more favorable in the press and only gotten the passenger a few hours late to LHR. Being dumped in Manchester would have royally pissed me off, a nice smooth JFK to LHR subsititute plane would have defused me, FAST.

Would a Qantas Captain fly his 744 fully fueled from LAX to Sydney on 3 egines, I doubt it. He/SHE would dump and return, too much Pacific ocean to worry about on 3 engines.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9751
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:54 pm

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 40):
Would a Qantas Captain fly his 744 fully fueled from LAX to Sydney on 3 egines, I doubt it. He/SHE would dump and return, too much Pacific ocean to worry about on 3 engines.

Funny you should mention that, as just a few weeks after the BA incident happened, a QF 747 did end up flying to SYD on 3 engines from the USA. No charges from the FAA to QF for operating and unairworthy aircraft, no bad PR.

In terms of bad PR, I doubt anyone really remembers the incident much at all, outside aviation circles little is remembered unless a loss of life if associated.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
BA777ER236
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:18 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:10 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 40):
Would a Qantas Captain fly his 744 fully fueled from LAX to Sydney on 3 egines, I doubt it. He/SHE would dump and return, too much Pacific ocean to worry about on 3 engines.

You are not comparing like with like here. Setting out straight across the Pacific on 3, is completely different to setting out towards Newfoundland from LAX on 3 where there are numerous diversion options should anything else occur.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 40):
should have stopped at JFK where another 747 could have been flown in from LHR to meet the 3 engined 744

Yes, this would have been an option, and I'm sure it would have been considered, but to suggest that BA could find a spare 744 at such short notice, and send it to JFK with the PAX suffering only a 'few' hours delay, is wildly optomistic. IMHO, this would probably entail a HOTAC nightstop for all concerned. Crewing such a rescue a/c with a rested crew, would be a major problem for a start.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Funny you should mention that, as just a few weeks after the BA incident happened, a QF 747 did end up flying to SYD on 3 engines from the USA. No charges from the FAA to QF for operating and unairworthy aircraft, no bad PR.

I didn't know that Zeke, thanks for the info.
Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:24 am

I have taken several flights between the NYC area and the UK on BA and have no concern of my safety with them then or in the future. Still, while these incidents may have caused minimial additional risk to the passangers-customers, those on those flights and some others may have a different and very negative preception of BA. Perception, reputation, concern for every pax-customer, crew and staff members are all very valuable to the existance of BA.
One has to wonder too how such incidents on similar routes would be handled by an American based airline. There is also other issues including crew hours, and of security, of landing back in the USA or in Canada with non-citizens of either countries or of the UK, especially in the post-9/11 enviroment and the EU compensation rules. Still safety must come first and you try to work out the other issues.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5822
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:10 am

BA777ER236,

The raeson I sompared to Qantas is the obvious difference between flying over water(Pacific) and land(US east coast).

Zeke, from Canada:

That Qantas 744 flying with 3 engines all the way to Australia, did it loose the engine on takeoff(as BA did) or was it far into the flight, having used up much of its fuel where turning back wouldn't have made any difference ?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9751
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:08 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 46):
That Qantas 744 flying with 3 engines all the way to Australia, did it loose the engine on takeoff(as BA did) or was it far into the flight, having used up much of its fuel where turning back wouldn't have made any difference ?

Not long after takeoff.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
BOE773
Topic Author
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:25 am

Here is a link to another example of questionable no-turnback-itis.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...aaib%20airbus%20a319%20budapest%22
 
Vref5
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:55 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:31 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
This is a false statement. Airlines do not pay compensation if the reason for delays or cancellations was due to "extraordinary circumstances". This is obviously not an ordinary occurrence.

Refer para 14 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...erv.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:NOT

Your 'No-Turnback-Itis' allegation is baseless, this flight and the LAX-MAN flight no compensation would be paid. In both cases they are "extraordinary circumstances".

Ah, a slight clarification:

What you refer to as 'para 14' is only a 25 item summary of the scope and intent of the regulations. The actual regulations are listed below that section, and has headings of 'Article xx'. This is important because:

Article 6 speaks of delay. Article 6(1)(c) indicates flights of over 4 hours in length (but with delay length under a day) that doesn't also fall under provisions 1(a) or 1(b), is allowed compensation which will be at least the stuff specified in Article(9)(1a) and (9)(2).

Article(9)(1a) stipulates: meals and refreshments.
Article(9)(2) stipulates: two free telephone/telex/fax/email messages.

Delays that results in overnight stays results in additional compensation such as lodging be provided.

The extraordinary circumstances mention in the actual regulations appears to only apply to cancellations; see Article(5)(3). No mention of exclusion of compensation for delays anywhere in the regulations (ie, in any of the Article xx sections).

I know it is strange that they would mention in the summary that delays would be excluded from compensation in extraordinary situations, but then not mention such in the actual regulations. It's possible that an earlier draft of the actual regulations did indeed contain this provision but was edited out in committee prior to final approval?

I only wanted to clarify this part of the regulations; I'm not commenting further on the incident mentioned in this thread (TPA-LGW) since I'm satisfied it was well handled.

[Edited 2006-10-16 03:43:05]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:43 am

BOE773,
I'm sorry, I am not familiar with the accident details, but so far in that bulleting you linked, I see no "No-Turnback-Itis"...

It only goes as far as the crew doing the display failures procedures and nothing further. It didn't state the outcome and/or the crews action afterwards.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Ejazz
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 10:26 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:51 am

BOE773

I, too, have to wonder if you have an agenda here. When I am in the Tech/Ops forum your topics appear to always relate to RR and in this forum it appears to be BA.

Why are you not relating this topic to many Airlines such as Singapore Airlines? Just off the top of my head.

SQ aircraft wing struck and damaged ground equipment whilst taxing in Taipei. Aircraft advised after take-off and they continued.

SQ Deputy Director of Flight Operations has a hard tail strike after taking-off from San Francisco to Hong Kong but elects to continue to fly across the Pacific. Why he was not concerned about his rear pressure bulkhead I will never know. Aircraft was badly damaged and grounded after arriving into Hong Kong.

SQ B777 aircraft has engine fire eicas message. The Instructor pilot elects not to complete the recall items after message disappears and continues.

SQ A310 exceeds all parameters after almost inverted dive over Bay of Bengal, 110 degree bank 16,000 feet loss of altitude. Even after mayday call they continue on then criminally attempt to cover up the epsiode.

Before singling out any particular Airline it may be best to do a little investigating first to see if the problem is solely related to them.
Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9751
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:09 pm

Quoting Vref5 (Reply 51):
Ah, a slight clarification:

Clarification for yourself, a flight that departs on time and direvts is not delayed. A delay is "when an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure".

The events I was talking about before would fall into the "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" extraordinary circumstances, i.e. events that were not known to the airline at the time the service was advertised/sold.

This regulation was in main brought in as number of airlines were consistently overbooking passengers, and had their reservation systems set up to accept bookings on full flights. This practice is still done by airlines.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:52 am

[quoteBOE773,reply=48]Here is a link to another example of questionable no-turnback-itis.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...irbus%20a319%20budapest%22[/quote]
Where in that report does it say the plane didn't turn back ?, I don't see anything to determine a 'no turnback-itis' in that report.
I've got a whole book full of incidences involving BA aircrafts over the past year from engineering, there's loads of things you could no doubt determine was a 'such and such itis' or LOOK LOOK, such and such happened at BA last year, obviusly this is due to reason X !
The fact is, every airline has problems, it's just you decide to only pick on BA.

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 57):
Banning someone b.c they believe BA is evil (or what have you) or suggesting that they be banned is ... well ..wrong!

Perhaps, but maybe the fact that he has made not one (or almost) not one OTHER thread that doesn't involve something anit-British, is getting tiring.

Wrightborthers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:21 am

Quoting BA787 (Reply 63):

We can all give it a rest when a certain member shuts the hell up and gives it a rest him-self.
Where does the time go???
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Is BA Is Suffering From 'No-Turnback-Itis?

Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:44 pm

OK, second attempt...

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 24):
BA has its policies but flying from LAX to LHR with an unscheduled stop in MAN on 3 engines was unfortunate. How much negative PR has this gotten BA ? TOO MUCH. BA has gotten panned in the press and should have stopped at JFK where another 747 could have been flown in from LHR to meet the 3 engined 744.

Too much bad publicity? Hardly anyone I know had heard of the incident. Those who had wanted to know what "the authorities" thought. Enter one AAIB report and that was that. You can't blame BA for inaccurate journalism.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 28):
The raeson I sompared to Qantas is the obvious difference between flying over water(Pacific) and land(US east coast).

What about the other obvious differences? For example, it's not as easy to cross the Pacific while remaining within 2-engine diversion distance of a suitable alternate, which the BA crew did without any difficulty (a procedure that's perfectly legitimate according to many governing bodies and also to Boeing). I think there are still some people who think the BA crew just closed their eyes and "hoped" they'd make it. The truth was very different.

[Edited 2006-10-18 16:47:11]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: angelopga, Bing [Bot], Bluebird191, BreninTW, BrianDromey, cuban8, dk44, EA CO AS, frigatebird, Google [Bot], INFINITI329, kriskim, LCKip, neutrino, PerfectGriffin, qf789, quiet1, rhuns, Scorpio, StTim and 276 guests