BA Keeps On Flying After Engine Flameout

I'm no fan of British Airways, but this story (paid sub. required) from the Wall Street Journal gives me another reason to think again before doing a BA flight. Last year, after an engine flamed out minutes after takeoff from Los Angeles, the pilots decided to "get as far as we can" with the remaining three engines on a trans-Atlantic flight to London. They made it to Manchester, with an emergency landing over fears of running out of fuel.

LAX's air traffic controllers saw the flame-out when the plane was only 300 feet in the air and prepared to guide it back. Was the decision prompted by costs? The Wall Street Journal covers out $30,000 in fuel would have been dumped, plus $275,000 owed in compensation under the EU's delayed flight rules.

BA denies costs were a factor. BA says continuing on posed "no evidence" of a significant increase in risk. Of course not -- I mean if it did, you'd think they would have had to do an emergency landing some place -- oh, yeah, they did.

The story gets into a fight between the US FAA and the UK's Civil Aviation Authority. The FAA wanted to fine BA $25,000, despite a UK regulatory ruling that seemed to find things were OK. The FAA then quietly dropped its attempt, after the CAA said it would push for changes to BA's procedures when flying in US airspace.

The story goes on to say the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch found BA has flown 747s to long-haul destinations 15 times since April 2001. Three other airlines polled said they have policies similar to BAs; two require the plane to land, if it has not reached cruising altitude and one had no policy. The other airlines aren't named in the article.

So. As I understand, you've had one bad experience with British Airlines and you now hate flying on them? (I'm referring to your time in Munich where they didn't allow you to take the earlier flight.)

Granted, I've only flown BA once, but they were *very* nice to me. I even slept through lunch, and they didn't have any more, so one of the flight attendants allowed me to share her lunch.

Help me out here. What's yoru beef with BA?

Comment by grnidone | September 25, 2006 3:23 PM

Lounge is no comparison to Virgin. The staff at Virgin actually seems to like you being on board, rather than BA which generally makes you feel like you're lucky to be allowed on board. Quality of service, food, etc. on BA generally only average compared to other airlines I've flown. Premium economy style seating is something four across -- four across! Been on flights where amazingly, the in flight entertainment was still a movie shown on a common screen.

Absolute nightmare trying to get back my Nintendo DS as covered here, My Nintendo DS Lite Enters The British Airways Lost Property Hell, certainly didn't help (it was never found).

Glad if you love them; I'm sure plenty of people over the years have enjoyed them. I've just generally not had a great experience flying with them.

Comment by Danny Sullivan | September 25, 2006 3:33 PM

I already need Xanax to fly. The airlines are going to drive me to drink! (Good thing "as far as we can" didn't end up being in the middle of the Atlantic.)

Comment by Vanessa | September 25, 2006 4:05 PM

Want to comment? If you are signed into TypeKey, you'll see a form below. No form? Click on the sign-in link below, and you can sign-in or sign-up for a free account. Sorry you have to use TypeKey, but I use it to avoid comment spam. All comments currently appear automatically after posting.

Leave a comment