Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
smartplane
Posts: 1527
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:25 am

Call International Rescue (also known as Hi Fly) as soon as BA realised the fault wasn't fixed.

The only way to change behaviour are dollars. Link compensation to the scheduled flight time and actual take off delay. For example, if a flight's duration is 10 hours (600 minutes), and it takes off 61 minutes late, passengers get 10% of their air fare refunded, 121 minutes - 20% and so on.

That makes decision making easier - sending a replacement aircraft promptly, booking passengers with competitors, chartering a replacement versus incurring financial penalties, and still ending up incurring these costs. At the moment, it's cheaper to upset customers and get a bit of negative PR.
 
max999
Posts: 1233
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:08 am

Right now, the passengers will get some reassurance they will have a baseline for compensation because of EU261

Post Brexit, there's no guarantee that the British government will carry over EU261 or they can use loopholes to get around it. As this flight is only between the US and the UK and it's on a British carrier, the post Brexit scenario would mean BA can shortchange the passengers with whatever compensation (if any) they want to give. I'm sure BA is lobbying the government behind the scenes not to carry over EU261 or to water it down after Brexit.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:26 am

maint123 wrote:
So many "understanding" posters here flying the flag for BA makes me think that some have been sponsored by BA.
A 8 hour flight takes 77 hours, ie nearly 10 times normal and people here are blaming the passengers for complaining ? And actually complimenting BA ? Wow.
Just imagine it was a Indonesian airlines(favourite of some nowadays) , taking 77 hrs for a 8 hr flight?
Also I like how some people are even more understanding of the difficulty the ground maintenance crew faces , who let a defective plane take to the air multiple times .
No aim at the competence of the maintenance crew of BA.
No wonder I take all these airlines ratings , in which BA is always near the top , with a heavy dose of scepticism , since these agencies are all UK based or near their. You scratch my back and I will yours.


Please explain how you judge that ground maintenance let a defective plane take to the air multiple times ? the scenario is clear, fault shown at MCO, fault eventually shown as clear, plane takes off from MCO, fault reshows shortly after, plane lands at JFK. I make that zero times the plane took off with a fault showing and one time it showed a fault in the air.
 
pdp
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:14 pm

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:46 am

Not knowing the fleet utilisation of AA, could they not have asked nicely to see if there was a spare aircraft? I’m sure AA would have something that could go TATL, even if it needed a fuel stop on the east coast. It wouldn’t have been cheap for sure but this is a bit of a PR disaster for BA - after two hacks!

Alternatively, did someone like Hi Fly or Titan (who BA regularly use) not have a heavy available?
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:16 pm

smartplane wrote:
If you take the initiative and leave the airport, then miss the flight, your insurer invokes 'mitigation' clauses, and you end up with virtually no cover.


guyanam wrote:
Travel insurance is to cover issues like weather, acts of God, local instability, or airport related delays


Indeed. Insurers are known to try and look for excuses not to pay out. In this case, I assume the travel insurers would have wanted to know if the airline had tried/failed to make arrangements or if they were told to fend for themselves, otherwise they could just turn round and say "Sorry, we're not paying out as the airline had a duty to look after you but you took things into your own hands. Please see Clause x.y of our T&C's."

That's not to say airlines or the staff involved with dealing with disruption are angels when it comes to passenger's rights. I was recently successful in getting easyJet to pay out compensation under EU261 after a 24 hour delay as well as reimburse my expenses incurred during the delay, however they did initially reject my expense claim and tried to fob me off by claiming they were incurred before/after the flight before someone else picked it up and agreed with me that they were incurred during the delay and wouldn't have otherwise been incurred had the flight been on time.

PITingres wrote:
I suspect that the one bad decision here was to divert to JFK. Sure, it sounds plausible, but someone should have realized that it was going to be a passenger nightmare. JFK has plenty of operations side resources but essentially zero passenger side resources. Going almost anywhere other than NYC would have been a better choice.


Indeed, And to be fair, how was the person who made the call to divert to JFK supposed to know there was a major event on that weekend? BA may have noticed if their New York flights were busier than normal, but would every BA employee be expected to know? Unless you're a runner, know someone who is into running/participating or a local, I don't think many people would have realised there was a marathon on that weekend and that hotel rooms would be fully booked with thousands of runners, spectators and staff. Same applies to other cities worldwide, it's a bit tricky to be aware of every single event going on that may impact hotel room availability
 
kalvado
Posts: 2897
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:44 pm

By the way... Flight was scheduled for Thursday afternoon EST. It arrived to London Sunday morning. So they had 30 hours delay in MCO, few hours of flight to JFK, ay 18 hours in JFK for 9 PM departure (cannot find the number), and few hours of flight. That doesn't add up to 3 full days, even less to 77 hours, more like 50-something..
 
Airbuser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:04 pm

I’m not sure it was discussed above but after taking off for LHR the aircraft would be way too heavy to land in MCO. Why not continue on to JFK where opportunities to help rectify the situation are more abundant. The 20,000 foot altitude was probably to help burn enough fuel to land in JFK.

Every airline faces these situations from time to time. The sheer magnitude of the logistics involved is astounding. Hotels, gate agents, customs closed at 3am?, flight crew duty, spare aircraft, gate space, catering, etc.. I am sure the premium flyers were taken care of. The amount of money People pay for tickets is proportional to the service they get.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:28 pm

    kalvado wrote:
    By the way... Flight was scheduled for Thursday afternoon EST. It arrived to London Sunday morning. So they had 30 hours delay in MCO, few hours of flight to JFK, ay 18 hours in JFK for 9 PM departure (cannot find the number), and few hours of flight. That doesn't add up to 3 full days, even less to 77 hours, more like 50-something..


    Thursday 19:25 ET to Saturday 01:00 ET departure from Orlando are already 29 hours and 35 minutes delay.
    Arrival in JFK 06:00 ET. 18 hours wait in JFK should see a departure from JFK around midnight. That are 23 hours from departure in Orlando.
    That makes it for me the whole Friday, whole Saturday and 4:35 hours on Thursday and does add up to 52:35 hours delay only.
    Than add the flight time to Gatwick.
    A passenger would add the travel time to the airport check in and wait for boarding and deboarding and getting home on the London side.
     
    mjoelnir
    Posts: 9391
    Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:32 pm

    When I read the comments here, I must say people have not the slightest understanding of the side of the passenger. The time for calling out a replacement frame was before the plane left Orlando. A delay of 30 hours is already past the limit. A replacement frame should have been called when it was clear that the repairs would take more than a few hours.
     
    Newbiepilot
    Posts: 3641
    Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:08 pm

    mjoelnir wrote:
    When I read the comments here, I must say people have not the slightest understanding of the side of the passenger. The time for calling out a replacement frame was before the plane left Orlando. A delay of 30 hours is already past the limit. A replacement frame should have been called when it was clear that the repairs would take more than a few hours.


    I see a lack of understanding of how airlines operate. There is no way a rescue plane would be dispatched to an outstation 8 hours away once it was known repairs would take more than a few hours. That is just not economically feasible. Mechanical delays happen about 1% of all flights. International long haul flights have a narrow window before the crew times out (usually 90 minutes to 4 hours). If it takes longer maintenance control will decide if they should take a 24 hour delay or cancel the flight. 24 hour delays are common since it allows the crew to rest and then lets the next days flight bring in a spare part if it is needed. If it was expected to take over 24 hours then a rescue plane or alternative flights should have been arranged. Sounds like BA thought they could get it fixed

    The issue here was the diversion since they didnt fix the problem. That is an event that BA will have to explain to their regulatory authority for why that happenes. The regulatory authority will want to know why they dispatched and had a problem. This is where BA did dispatch a rescue plane. It took 18 hours to pick up the passengers. This is actually a pretty good response.

    Sounds like the ground staff at JFK didnt meet the customers expectations. I have little to say about that since it isnt my expertise
     
    BobbyPSP
    Posts: 345
    Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:37 pm

    flyguy84 wrote:
    Indicative of contract customer service.


    Care to elaborate? Has nothing to do with maintenance and as another poster said, comedy of errors. It happens even to the best of airlines.

    My one concern is why did they have to spend all day at JFK waiting for a rescue aircraft? At this point irrop everyone you can on to other airlines, not to mention AA at JFK and huge amount of lift to LHR.
     
    Bhoy
    Posts: 554
    Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:16 pm

    BobbyPSP wrote:
    flyguy84 wrote:
    Indicative of contract customer service.

    My one concern is why did they have to spend all day at JFK waiting for a rescue aircraft? At this point irrop everyone you can on to other airlines, not to mention AA at JFK and huge amount of lift to LHR.

    People keep going in about rebooking Pax given the amount of flights between JFK and London. We're talking about Saturday 3 November here, right?

    Here are ALL the scheduled departures JFK to LHR:

    BA182 departure 00:15am
    BA178 departure 09:05am
    VS026 departure 09:10am
    BA112 departure 07:30pm
    VS004 departure 07:30pm
    AA100 departure 07:50pm
    BA174 departure 07:55pm
    DL001 departure 08:00pm
    BA176 departure 08:25pm
    VS046 departure 09:00pm
    BA116 departure 09:15pm
    AA106 departure 09:35pm
    BA172 departure 09:55pm
    VS138 departure 10:00pm
    BA114 departure 10:55pm
    VS010 departure 11:00pm
    AA104 departure 11:25pm
    DL003 departure 11:59pm

    And all the scheduled flights from JFK to LGW:

    DY7018 departure 08:40pm
    BA2272 departure 11:05pm
    DY7016 departure 11:30pm

    And looking at NYC to LON in general, EWR to LHR schedules are [nb there are no scheduled EWR-LGW flights, no flights to either LTN or STN from either JFK or EWR, and BA2 doesn't operate on Saturdays as LCY is closed between Noon on Saturdays and Noon on Sundays]:

    AI172 departure 01:15am
    UA934 departure 09:30am
    UA110 departure 07:10pm
    UA014 departure 07:35pm
    BA184 departure 07:40pm
    UA016 departure 10:20pm
    BA188 departure 10:30pm
    VS002 departure 10:35pm
    UA940 departure 11:05pm



    So effectively, despite the total of 30 scheduled NYC to London flights that day, there were only the three daytime flights to Heathrow just after 9am available that would have seen a much earlier arrival - any earlier dispatched rescue Aircraft couldn't have turned round with a departure before 7:30pm anyway, due to the curfew in London, and obviously the crew would have timed out until the evening anyway.
     
    Etheereal
    Posts: 374
    Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:44 am

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:05 pm

    gatibosgru wrote:
    Why not get them on another flight out of either MCO/JFK to LHR/LGW instead of having to deal with the PR nightmare and eventual lawsuits/complaints? Ah, yes, profits.

    It'd be very wise to read the entirety of the thread, since that question has been answered several times already.


    Edit: Also, let me remind you: BA IS NOT A CHARITY.
     
    brucetiki
    Posts: 227
    Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:36 am

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:34 am

    Boeing74741R wrote:
    smartplane wrote:
    Indeed, And to be fair, how was the person who made the call to divert to JFK supposed to know there was a major event on that weekend? BA may have noticed if their New York flights were busier than normal, but would every BA employee be expected to know? Unless you're a runner, know someone who is into running/participating or a local, I don't think many people would have realised there was a marathon on that weekend and that hotel rooms would be fully booked with thousands of runners, spectators and staff. Same applies to other cities worldwide, it's a bit tricky to be aware of every single event going on that may impact hotel room availability


    Spot on. Recently I was flown to Sydney for work (the TR for part 1 is up), and the organisation flying me was only going to cover the first night's accommodation. So off I went to find the second night's accommodation, thinking the place I was staying was charging quite a steep price for the second night (mind you, it would've been worth it as the place was very fancy - I'll throw some pics up in part 2 of my TR for this weekend). Turns out it was pretty much the going rate for accommodation in Sydney that weekend, and a few of us spent several weeks scratching our heads as to why accommodation in Sydney was even more expensive than normal for this weekend.

    It was only a week or so before I went on the trip that it clicked that the Invictus Games were kicking off that weekend - and even then that only clicked because of the media attention around Harry and Meghan being in Sydney for the games.

    A London based dispatcher, or crew, is not going to be aware of every major event in every city.
    The early bird catches the worm, the late bird will be featured on a You Tube video
     
    User avatar
    AirlineCritic
    Posts: 1768
    Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:47 am

    Airline apologists, thread full of them!

    I do want to thank Newbiepilot however for a very informative post.

    The sequence of events relating to plane breaking down is very logical and we can't fault BA there.

    I think what happened however at JFK is very typical airline decision that is against norms.

    Very clearly, BA decided to not spend money on hotels. Or effort. Either way, passengers are on their own. Of course they can get services on their own, at their own cost (good luck trying to get reimbursement for costs you paid from *any* airline, btw). Often that is difficult when you're not in your own country; in this case most likely passengers spoke the local language at least. But, for sure there were hotel rooms available somewhere in NY. But, BA would have had to pay for them and may be call several hotels.

    I'm sorry it is so difficult to be an airline. Have to take care of your customers and all. Yes, stuff happens. If it does, you should be able to deal with it. If you can not, maybe you cannot or cannot afford to be an airline?
     
    maint123
    Posts: 396
    Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:10 am

    Etheereal wrote:
    gatibosgru wrote:
    Why not get them on another flight out of either MCO/JFK to LHR/LGW instead of having to deal with the PR nightmare and eventual lawsuits/complaints? Ah, yes, profits.

    It'd be very wise to read the entirety of the thread, since that question has been answered several times already.


    Edit: Also, let me remind you: BA IS NOT A CHARITY.

    Looking after inconvenienced and severely delayed passengers is doing charity to them ? Wow the BA touts on this site are doing long term damage to their own paymasters.
    The problem is very simple and occurs very frequently across all airlines , a flight gets delayed due to technical issues.
    The solution - passengers either have to be accommodated in other flights or given hotel stays to mitigate the discomfort.
    Now the defence lawyers here are trying to confuse with explanations of long winded internal processes. As a passenger I don't care about that.Thats your problem.Only If delays due to weather are their , I totally understand.
    Does BA have a SOP for dealing with delays or every captain has to wing it to the best of his abilities ? Seems for a highly rated airlines , their is no SOP.
    Very poor , incompetent and uncaring service from BA and the passangers should sue the pants of them.
    - I got a partial refund voucher from a domestic airlines for a 4 hour delay due to operational reasons . If I become inconvenienced due to your INCOMPETENCE , you pay-
     
    bx737
    Posts: 629
    Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:47 am

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:41 am

    There are a few points to bear in mind.
    1) A lot of contributors are saying that BA dispatched an aircraft with a problem. My reading of what is stated in the forum is that the aircraft was fixed in MCO in accordance with correct procedures. The fix was tested and showed that it was working normally, but en route the problem manifested itself again and meant the aircraft could not get back to London, so it diverted to JFK. These problems can happen on machines.
    2) A number of people are saying that when it diverted into JFK that BA should have immediately hired in Hi Fly/Titan to rescue the passengers. This is a worthy idea. Let’s look at timelines. At 3am JFK time (8am LGW time) a call would have gone out. Assuming that crews and aircraft were available for the rescue flight, the quickest the aircraft could have left Portugal or the UK (assuming that is where the aircraft were located) would be about 10am (LGW time), there would have been a seven hour flight. Then as Hi Fly/Titan do not have crews in the US, there would have been a further delay to allow for LEGAL rest periods (minimum 11hours). So that is about 21 hours (to allow crews to do their mandatory checks).
    3) The main area of failure seems to have been in customer care in JFK. A few thoughts here, at 3am, there would be no BA staff there, it has to be wondered would any other handling agent be available at that hour to deal with the flight. The marathon meant that hotels were not available. I remember a few years ago a similar situation where hotels were sourced, but they were over 100miles from the airport. Passengers complained about the long bus journey being so long.

    It was a mess, but bearing in mind the facts that have been presented in this discussion, I don’t think BA could have done much better
     
    mjoelnir
    Posts: 9391
    Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:24 am

    Newbiepilot wrote:
    mjoelnir wrote:
    When I read the comments here, I must say people have not the slightest understanding of the side of the passenger. The time for calling out a replacement frame was before the plane left Orlando. A delay of 30 hours is already past the limit. A replacement frame should have been called when it was clear that the repairs would take more than a few hours.


    I see a lack of understanding of how airlines operate. There is no way a rescue plane would be dispatched to an outstation 8 hours away once it was known repairs would take more than a few hours. That is just not economically feasible. Mechanical delays happen about 1% of all flights. International long haul flights have a narrow window before the crew times out (usually 90 minutes to 4 hours). If it takes longer maintenance control will decide if they should take a 24 hour delay or cancel the flight. 24 hour delays are common since it allows the crew to rest and then lets the next days flight bring in a spare part if it is needed. If it was expected to take over 24 hours then a rescue plane or alternative flights should have been arranged. Sounds like BA thought they could get it fixed

    The issue here was the diversion since they didnt fix the problem. That is an event that BA will have to explain to their regulatory authority for why that happenes. The regulatory authority will want to know why they dispatched and had a problem. This is where BA did dispatch a rescue plane. It took 18 hours to pick up the passengers. This is actually a pretty good response.

    Sounds like the ground staff at JFK didnt meet the customers expectations. I have little to say about that since it isnt my expertise


    Do you want to explain to me how it was more economical, they way they did it? You need boundless optimism to operate the way they did and perhaps the airline decisions are based on boundless optimism.

    Additional to in the end sending a new frame, they paid for accommodation in Orlando, blew their reputation in JFK and are bound to pay out heaps of compensation. Plus having thoroughly disgusted their passengers. Neat job.

    Very economical you would call that, I call it shit for brains.
     
    mjoelnir
    Posts: 9391
    Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:50 am

    bx737 wrote:
    There are a few points to bear in mind.
    1) A lot of contributors are saying that BA dispatched an aircraft with a problem. My reading of what is stated in the forum is that the aircraft was fixed in MCO in accordance with correct procedures. The fix was tested and showed that it was working normally, but en route the problem manifested itself again and meant the aircraft could not get back to London, so it diverted to JFK. These problems can happen on machines.
    2) A number of people are saying that when it diverted into JFK that BA should have immediately hired in Hi Fly/Titan to rescue the passengers. This is a worthy idea. Let’s look at timelines. At 3am JFK time (8am LGW time) a call would have gone out. Assuming that crews and aircraft were available for the rescue flight, the quickest the aircraft could have left Portugal or the UK (assuming that is where the aircraft were located) would be about 10am (LGW time), there would have been a seven hour flight. Then as Hi Fly/Titan do not have crews in the US, there would have been a further delay to allow for LEGAL rest periods (minimum 11hours). So that is about 21 hours (to allow crews to do their mandatory checks).
    3) The main area of failure seems to have been in customer care in JFK. A few thoughts here, at 3am, there would be no BA staff there, it has to be wondered would any other handling agent be available at that hour to deal with the flight. The marathon meant that hotels were not available. I remember a few years ago a similar situation where hotels were sourced, but they were over 100miles from the airport. Passengers complained about the long bus journey being so long.

    It was a mess, but bearing in mind the facts that have been presented in this discussion, I don’t think BA could have done much better


    The moment they realized that the repairs in Orlando would take more than a few hours, they should have organized the new frame. The delay in Orlando only was already 30 hours.
     
    Newbiepilot
    Posts: 3641
    Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:57 pm

    mjoelnir wrote:
    Newbiepilot wrote:
    mjoelnir wrote:
    When I read the comments here, I must say people have not the slightest understanding of the side of the passenger. The time for calling out a replacement frame was before the plane left Orlando. A delay of 30 hours is already past the limit. A replacement frame should have been called when it was clear that the repairs would take more than a few hours.


    I see a lack of understanding of how airlines operate. There is no way a rescue plane would be dispatched to an outstation 8 hours away once it was known repairs would take more than a few hours. That is just not economically feasible. Mechanical delays happen about 1% of all flights. International long haul flights have a narrow window before the crew times out (usually 90 minutes to 4 hours). If it takes longer maintenance control will decide if they should take a 24 hour delay or cancel the flight. 24 hour delays are common since it allows the crew to rest and then lets the next days flight bring in a spare part if it is needed. If it was expected to take over 24 hours then a rescue plane or alternative flights should have been arranged. Sounds like BA thought they could get it fixed

    The issue here was the diversion since they didnt fix the problem. That is an event that BA will have to explain to their regulatory authority for why that happenes. The regulatory authority will want to know why they dispatched and had a problem. This is where BA did dispatch a rescue plane. It took 18 hours to pick up the passengers. This is actually a pretty good response.

    Sounds like the ground staff at JFK didnt meet the customers expectations. I have little to say about that since it isnt my expertise


    Do you want to explain to me how it was more economical, they way they did it? You need boundless optimism to operate the way they did and perhaps the airline decisions are based on boundless optimism.

    Additional to in the end sending a new frame, they paid for accommodation in Orlando, blew their reputation in JFK and are bound to pay out heaps of compensation. Plus having thoroughly disgusted their passengers. Neat job.

    Very economical you would call that, I call it shit for brains.


    Mjoelnir, mechanical problems happen every day. BA would be sending rescue planes all over the world every day with your logic. That isn’t economically feasible and more half the planes would come back empty if sent to Orlando in situations like this since the broken plane got fixed within 24 hours. It is not boundless optimism to estimate return to service times. Airlines have a desk of Maintenance controllers at their operations control center making these decisions. Sometimes people make mistakes.

    What experience do you have estimating return to service and working with the airplane maintenance manual and mechanics to justify your position? I don’t know of any airline who sends rescue planes to outstation to rescue long haul passengers if the estimated return to service is within 24 hours.
     
    bx737
    Posts: 629
    Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:47 am

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:23 pm

    mjoelnir wrote:
    bx737 wrote:
    There are a few points to bear in mind.
    1) A lot of contributors are saying that BA dispatched an aircraft with a problem. My reading of what is stated in the forum is that the aircraft was fixed in MCO in accordance with correct procedures. The fix was tested and showed that it was working normally, but en route the problem manifested itself again and meant the aircraft could not get back to London, so it diverted to JFK. These problems can happen on machines.
    2) A number of people are saying that when it diverted into JFK that BA should have immediately hired in Hi Fly/Titan to rescue the passengers. This is a worthy idea. Let’s look at timelines. At 3am JFK time (8am LGW time) a call would have gone out. Assuming that crews and aircraft were available for the rescue flight, the quickest the aircraft could have left Portugal or the UK (assuming that is where the aircraft were located) would be about 10am (LGW time), there would have been a seven hour flight. Then as Hi Fly/Titan do not have crews in the US, there would have been a further delay to allow for LEGAL rest periods (minimum 11hours). So that is about 21 hours (to allow crews to do their mandatory checks).
    3) The main area of failure seems to have been in customer care in JFK. A few thoughts here, at 3am, there would be no BA staff there, it has to be wondered would any other handling agent be available at that hour to deal with the flight. The marathon meant that hotels were not available. I remember a few years ago a similar situation where hotels were sourced, but they were over 100miles from the airport. Passengers complained about the long bus journey being so long.

    It was a mess, but bearing in mind the facts that have been presented in this discussion, I don’t think BA could have done much better


    The moment they realized that the repairs in Orlando would take more than a few hours, they should have organized the new frame. The delay in Orlando only was already 30 hours.


    The repairs could have taken a few hours and then it was compounded by the operating crew going out of hours. Sadly with technical issues, it can be a creeping delay, one fault could be fixed, but another one can be uncovered during tests. It could have taken three hours to find and fix the fault, but the crew are now out of hours. Then you still would have been in the same scenario I outlined above with hiring an aircraft from Hi Fly/Titan. In the case of Orlando, to get the hire-in to be ready for passengers would have resulted in about a 24 hour wait for the hire-in to be able to operate legally for reasons I outlined above, so no benefit there. I think operationally they did the best, from a customer service perspective, in Orlando it seems to have been handled well, but failed in JFK due to external forces.
     
    slcdeltarumd11
    Posts: 4795
    Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:49 am

    Looks like BAs social media team is doing a great response job here. Thanks team.

    77 hours for an 8 hour flight landing in a city by choice with a marathon and no hotel rooms and you see nothing they did wrong! They landed by choice in a city with no hotel rooms! They took 77 hours to get people home at a time of year where airlines have tons of seats to London.
     
    mjoelnir
    Posts: 9391
    Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:50 am

    Newbiepilot wrote:
    mjoelnir wrote:
    Newbiepilot wrote:

    I see a lack of understanding of how airlines operate. There is no way a rescue plane would be dispatched to an outstation 8 hours away once it was known repairs would take more than a few hours. That is just not economically feasible. Mechanical delays happen about 1% of all flights. International long haul flights have a narrow window before the crew times out (usually 90 minutes to 4 hours). If it takes longer maintenance control will decide if they should take a 24 hour delay or cancel the flight. 24 hour delays are common since it allows the crew to rest and then lets the next days flight bring in a spare part if it is needed. If it was expected to take over 24 hours then a rescue plane or alternative flights should have been arranged. Sounds like BA thought they could get it fixed

    The issue here was the diversion since they didnt fix the problem. That is an event that BA will have to explain to their regulatory authority for why that happenes. The regulatory authority will want to know why they dispatched and had a problem. This is where BA did dispatch a rescue plane. It took 18 hours to pick up the passengers. This is actually a pretty good response.

    Sounds like the ground staff at JFK didnt meet the customers expectations. I have little to say about that since it isnt my expertise


    Do you want to explain to me how it was more economical, they way they did it? You need boundless optimism to operate the way they did and perhaps the airline decisions are based on boundless optimism.

    Additional to in the end sending a new frame, they paid for accommodation in Orlando, blew their reputation in JFK and are bound to pay out heaps of compensation. Plus having thoroughly disgusted their passengers. Neat job.

    Very economical you would call that, I call it shit for brains.


    Mjoelnir, mechanical problems happen every day. BA would be sending rescue planes all over the world every day with your logic. That isn’t economically feasible and more half the planes would come back empty if sent to Orlando in situations like this since the broken plane got fixed within 24 hours. It is not boundless optimism to estimate return to service times. Airlines have a desk of Maintenance controllers at their operations control center making these decisions. Sometimes people make mistakes.

    What experience do you have estimating return to service and working with the airplane maintenance manual and mechanics to justify your position? I don’t know of any airline who sends rescue planes to outstation to rescue long haul passengers if the estimated return to service is within 24 hours.


    The only sane reaction by BA would have been dispatching a replacement frame to Orlando, the moment BA realized that the repairs would take more than a few hours. It would also have been the most economical reaction. That exactly is why airlines should have an replacement frame available. We are not talking about long haul here, this is TATL. It is not the height of the summer season, it should not in any way be difficult to find a replacement frame. We are talking about a full service airline behaving like the cheapest ULCC here.
    BA friends and "experts" declaring that they can see no fault with BA in this case, just demonstrate what is wrong with today's airlines thought process. Saving the penny and throwing away the pound. An
     
    bx737
    Posts: 629
    Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:47 am

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:29 am

    [quote="mjoelnir"

    The only sane reaction by BA would have been dispatching a replacement frame to Orlando, the moment BA realized that the repairs would take more than a few hours. It would also have been the most economical reaction. That exactly is why airlines should have an replacement frame available. We are not talking about long haul here, this is TATL. It is not the height of the summer season, it should not in any way be difficult to find a replacement frame. We are talking about a full service airline behaving like the cheapest ULCC here.
    BA friends and "experts" declaring that they can see no fault with BA in this case, just demonstrate what is wrong with today's airlines thought process. Saving the penny and throwing away the pound. An[/quote]

    From LGW the flight time to MCO is about 9 hours. It also takes time to organise a replacement aircraft, if there is one available. The Northern Hemisphere winter is the time that annual maintenance is done by airlines. There is also the availability of crews, they may have a 747 available but no spare crews, or a 777 with no available crew. As I stated twice previously a rescue mission as you would like could take up to 25 hours to get in place, it is still quicker to fix the aircraft. Sadly the problem recurred on the way to JFK. The New York marathon was taking place and it was the end of midterm holidays all adding to increased passenger numbers and lack of hotel space. I previously acknowledged that BA let the side down in JFK. Bearing in mind the logistical and legal problems that I outlined with your solution (three times now), what would you have done. You would have dispatched an aircraft which due to legal rest requirements would result in a delay approaching 24 hours, so no benefit there. I have found fault with how passengers were looked after, but operationally I think that BA did their best. The initial delay would not have been minimised by sending an aircraft out quickly. The delay in JFK would not have been minimised by sending an aircraft from London either, both due to legal rest requirements.
     
    BA777FO
    Posts: 580
    Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:36 am

    slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
    Looks like BAs social media team is doing a great response job here. Thanks team.

    77 hours for an 8 hour flight landing in a city by choice with a marathon and no hotel rooms and you see nothing they did wrong! They landed by choice in a city with no hotel rooms! They took 77 hours to get people home at a time of year where airlines have tons of seats to London.


    A time of year when airlines have tons of seats to London? You mean the end of British schools' half term?! Everything was rammed. Lots of misinformation on this thread.

    The flight was nightstopped in Orlando as the fix took longer than the crew had hours for. The fix was completed by the time the crew had sufficient rest to operate the next day, sending a rescue aircraft to Orlando would have been a pointless waste of time as the original crew and aircraft could legally dispatch before the rescue mission.

    The flight departed but had a reoccurence of a spurious EICAS message that required a diversion. JFK was chosen because it was BA's biggest operation on the east coast. People act like hotels and flights these days are running at 50% occupancy and have oodles of spare capacity - they don't. Yes, New York was busy, but so too was Philadelphia and Boston. JFK meant some passengers were dispersed onto the daylight BA flight to LHR - it was however already booked at ~90% capacity so dispersion options were limited. A rescue aircraft, a 777-300, was dispatched to JFK. However, the crew needed their minimum legal rest periods which meant an immediate departure wasn't possible, just as it wouldn't have been with any other EU-based carrier.

    Passengers were fed and watered and provided with bedding in BA's First lounge. As much as possible was done for every passenger. None of the suggestions from anyone here would have improved the situation or were not alreafy considered by BA network ops. It's an unfortunate event that occurs hardly ever. However, if I was to experience this kind of disruption with any airline I'd rather it was with BA than just about any other.

    On the whole the dispatch reliability of the 777 fleet has been exceptional especially considering that due to ongoing 787 engine issues the 777 fleet operated more than 100 extra sectors in August 2018 compared with August 2017 despite the same number of airframes.
     
    Bhoy
    Posts: 554
    Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

    Re: BA2036 passengers in three-day journey 'hell'

    Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:31 pm

    Talking of '4 day Journeys from hell',
    AF116 from Paris to Shanghai on November 10, a 77W, was diverted to Irkutsk, Siberia after smoke was detected on board on the early hours of November 11. The Passengers and crew were locked by Immigration in a Hotel there, as they had no Russian visas. A replacement 77W was dispatched from CDG, but having arrived in Irkutsk on November 12 it too developed a technical fault, so a second replacement was dispatched, and finally the Passengers got to Shanghai this morning (November 14).

    But don't expect any big stories about this in the UK unless the tabloids can find someone british on board who was inconvenienced, as no doubt Johnny Foreigner brought it on themselves.

    https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charp ... in-siberia

    Who is online

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos