Hugh_Hoy Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Although it happened a couple of weeks ago, only in yesterday's Los Angeles Times was it revealed that a non-stop BA flight from LA to London continued after "blowing" one of four engines during take-off. This was 3 days after the EU policy of increasing reimbursement to passengers who were delayed on international flights by more than 4 hours (the amount having been increased to over $500). Seems the captain of the flight circled for about 20 minutes off shore while consulting with the ops people at LAX and BA Hqs in the UK before deciding "phuket" and continued on. The flight had to terminate short of its destination in Manchester (said to be only 165 miles from London. That's gotta be running on fumes not to be able to do the last 165 miles. Seems like without the 4th engine, the plane had to fly at a lower altitude where economy/efficiency of the engines is reduced. Also, tailwinds were not as strong as predicted. What if another engine stopped operating at the point of no return...and caused further problems. Yeah, the plane can fly on 2 engines...but how far? Naturally, BA said "no prob"; but others in the industry disagree. I guess still not as bad as a few years ago when a Malaysian flight landed at Heathrow but ran out of fuel on the tarmac and had to be pulled to the gate !!! That was blamed on not putting enough fuel on board in consideration of weight/cost formulations. Hugh (mak) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samak Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 i guess there are much more of those incidents happening then are reported in public! where are the airline insider; OH, Hua Nguu, UA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thalenoi Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 No "engine blow-off during take-off" from luchtzak.be: "Saturday, just an hour after take-off, there was a power surge through engine number 2 on the port side of the British Airways B747 in flight BA 268 from LAX to LHR, with 351 passengers on board. The pilot switched off the broken engine. The flight continued over the US on 3 engines. This gave the captain time to calculate that the plane could make it safely to London Heathrow (LHR). Once over the Atlantic Ocean BA 268 experienced some unexpected headwind, which depleted its fuel reserves. Here the captain saw it could not make it to LHR and decided to make a landing in Manchester and made a mayday call asking to land at Manchester, where he landed at around 4pm on Sunday BA confirmed that the pilot had made a "diversion landing" but stressed that he was following normal procedure. Manchester Airport confirmed that staff had been put on a "full emergency alert"." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusty Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 We'll leave this one to Old Hippie,our resident aircraft engineer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Not long ago Malaysian Airlines were fined for being stingy and not carrying a full payload of fuel to fly to LHR, well, just enough to get from point A to point B without room for emergencys.....I'll stick to EVA in a few weeks, the hostesses dont look my old primary school dinner ladys like BA trolly dollys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 O.k. my "expert" opinion here. The pilot should be hung. First off, a 747 can stay flying one ONE (1) engine at about 50% power, or so they say. It would not be a safe or comfortable flight by any means. Each engine controls a different part of the controls, via a hydraulic system. Forget which one #2 powers. In otherwards, lose an engine maybe lose full control of say flaps, or brakes, yes, there are redundant back ups of sorts, but not same same the the intended deal of having all systems working properly. The idea of attempting to fly that far, on 3 engines is rediculis. The pilot should have just aborted the flight, and returned to the nearest airport. Fuck what management says, he is in charge not them, they 'd not have the balls to dicipline him for it either, if it got out they'd be mud! O.k. time to rant now. YOU/ME the fly public want cheap fares, so all corners must be cut to save you that extra $20 or so. In the end, the employees (Me) and safety end up eating it! I am on a 30++% pay cutso people don't have to pay an extra 20-30$$ for a ticket (long haul) out sourcing to low cost venders (where work is done by unlicensed "repairmen" operating on that company's license) is rampent, the FAA now allows work to be done in third world countries with cheaper labor, all "to compete" with low cost carriers (if no one was allowed to have the maintaince work done off shore, it would be a level playing field) etc...so expect many problems in airline travel, low fares=low wages=pissed off incompetent employees=bad service and safety, but hey, you're saving $20 so it's worth it right...? :soapbox: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrenova Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 I agree that the low cost boys are biting into the major players but where are the low cost airlines flying international and global ? They are not and you don't use 747s for local hops unless you're in Japan. Also, the airlines had it cushy for too long that they forgot how to compete. Unions were too strong and everyone got fat and lazy. They people started to question why it should cost so much to fly from A to B when another guy can get you there for 20% of the price. If they invented economy class now, it would be banned. Premium economy is not the way forward but it is a start. The problem is that the fares for Premium Economy can be 3 times that in the back of the plane, exactly the same argument that business fares are 10 times that in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 "...Also, the airlines had it cushy for too long that they forgot how to compete..." Agreed, during the regulated period, there was no need to compete, as there was no competition and the government set the prices...relatively speaking, air travel is at an all time low price wise. "...Unions were too strong and everyone got fat and lazy...." BULLSHIT! That is the Wall street answer. Truth is, most major airlines have been on concessions for several years. There is a big difference between a "book rate" (what they should pay) and the actual rate (What they do pay). I agree the pilots and upper management rape the airlines salary wise, even in bankruptcy. Additionally, Major airlines have a long history of concessions and give backs, salaries and benifits are at an all time low. The current situation is being exploited by many airlines to break all contracts, not just labor, but contracts with suppliers, creditors, venders etc... Don't limit fat lazy over paid union guys to just the airlines, it is nation wide, in all industries, at all levels. Take a look at the rediculis salaries "Dot commers" were paid, and you see why they all went to India... The real thing hurting corporate America/the world is/are the over paid CEOs and upper management. "...They people started to question why it should cost so much to fly from A to B when another guy can get you there for 20% of the price..." That is the case with damn near any commodity, people basically want everything for free so to speak, which explains all the crap imported into this country. As for the airlines, low cost carriers out source almost all their work, and pay the rest of their employees shit. The bottom line is, as people demand cheaper fares, the airlines will cut more costs, which will ultimately have a negative impact on Service and safety... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 OH said "That is the case with damn near any commodity, people basically want everything for free so to speak, which explains all the crap imported into this country. As for the airlines, low cost carriers out source almost all their work, and pay the rest of their employees shit. The bottom line is, as people demand cheaper fares, the airlines will cut more costs, which will ultimately have a negative impact on Service and safety..." I am not sure that people are demanding cheaper fares at the risk of safety and some minimum comfort level. The average person has no say in what airlines charge. The problem is that airlines have the ability to outsoure and offshore and when one does it to reduce costs they all follow suit to stay competitive. It is a bit of a viscious circle. Now if planes start falling out of the sky as a result of these measures things might change but at the moment it doesn't seem like that is happening. I don't buy into the union bashing. Management are very quick to accept the plaudits when times are profitable and are equally as quick to shift the blame when times are bad. Unions are often a convenient target in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 "...The average person has no say in what airlines charge..." they sort of do, by buying the lowest fares, and passing on the higher ones, or staying home if the fares are to high. The biggest problem with major airlines is poor management and greed at the top, no reason to give a guy a few million in retention bonus if they are in bankruptcy... "...The problem is that airlines have the ability to outsoure and offshore and when one does it to reduce costs they all follow suit to stay competitive. It is a bit of a viscious circle. Now if planes start falling out of the sky as a result of these measures things might change but at the moment it doesn't seem like that is happening..." I think it was that jackass Reagan who first encouraged and allowed the off shore outsourcing of aviation jobs, their work is within standards, but is still not as good as was done in house. You are right, so far planes are not falling out of the sky, but many major disasters, value jet, TWA and a few others can be tied to decisions to save money. "don't upgrade/replace the firedection system" (Value Jet) It can fly with MEL...or don't replace the Fuel pump (TWA) even if it is at max hours...etc... Airplanes have a M.E.L. This is minimum equipment list, the bare minimum needed to fly safely. If it has 2 pumps, and can fly with one inoperable for 2 days...guess what? it does! so as to get the maximum life out of it. Any item that can be defered for repair is defered...still allowed by law, and still "Safe" and within standard, but not as strong a standard as the major airlines use. This is what you get with these low cost carriers, and yes, most people will board these planes to save $20-30. Hell, most people bitched about the $5 fuel surcharge...people want stuff cheap! and often fail to see the big picture of what is at stake... I recall my adorable neighbor bitching that the airfare to Maui went up $40 one year. I told her well, everything else went up, hotels, car rental, drinks, food...this is $80 for the 2 of you, for a 14 day trip...stay home if you don't want to pay it...seems she was o.k. with everything else going up, but not the airfare...odd... As for union bashing, I agree, it is to convienient. Why is it o.k. for CEOs to loot millions, but a union worker can't make enough to buy a house or pay his bills? Shit is expensive! and working people need increases to stay even with inflation and maintain a standard of living...getting harder to do in this industry...o.k. rant over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.