Hello,
First time poster, long time reader 🙂
I was on the above flight on Monday 28th Feb. The flight went smoothly until we arrived into Singapore. After the standard 2 hour wait we re-boarded the aircraft and were told they had a problem with a fuel indicator. After around an hour and a half they told us we could get off and strech our legs if we wished.
We went into the terminal and sat at the gate, after a further hour the captain came to the gate and informed us they would have to drain the middle tank, and that there was no where for us to stay in Singapore so we would have to wait at the airport and then they would fly us to the Middle East to refuel and then back to Heathrow after a stay in a hotel so the crew could rest. We eventually left Singapore 7 hours late….
On arrival at Dubai the captain informed us that we would not need to stay in a hotel but another crew would take us the rest of the way in 5 1/2 hours time and we would get a meal in the food court. To top it off our flight was delayed from Heathrow back to NCL!!!! What should have been a 23 hour trip turned in to a 35 hour journey!!
I have read elsewhere that a 744 had engine problems with BA and wondered if anyone knew if this was related? I’m sorry I did not get the aircraft’s reg.
By: Mark L - 4th March 2005 at 17:23
Unfortunate that it happened again, but that just points to the flaw not being quite what BA expected. It doesnt reassure the pax, but since when has any article about aviation been written with reassurance in mind? Unfortunatley BA is the type of company that will issue a poorly worded press statement or even worse not issue one at all, that will feed the media for a few more days, then they will find someone else to pick on as the story wears thin.
That is unless the Daily Mail turns it into one of their “campaigns”!
By: Mark L - 4th March 2005 at 17:23
Unfortunate that it happened again, but that just points to the flaw not being quite what BA expected. It doesnt reassure the pax, but since when has any article about aviation been written with reassurance in mind? Unfortunatley BA is the type of company that will issue a poorly worded press statement or even worse not issue one at all, that will feed the media for a few more days, then they will find someone else to pick on as the story wears thin.
That is unless the Daily Mail turns it into one of their “campaigns”!
By: Bmused55 - 4th March 2005 at 17:17
Expect to hear more about these kind of “incidents” as time goes on.
Better to fly on 3 engines than to divert or return and then have to pay all sorts of fees related to using the airport, handling etc, then replace the fuel that was dumped, hotel fees, fly a fresh crew out, maintenance of the engine by a third party or even have to fly an engine out. The list goes on. Add to it, £100K for the new compensation laws. Together with the associated fees above, diverting or returning could net a whopping £300K bill and thats being conservative.
By: Bmused55 - 4th March 2005 at 17:17
Expect to hear more about these kind of “incidents” as time goes on.
Better to fly on 3 engines than to divert or return and then have to pay all sorts of fees related to using the airport, handling etc, then replace the fuel that was dumped, hotel fees, fly a fresh crew out, maintenance of the engine by a third party or even have to fly an engine out. The list goes on. Add to it, £100K for the new compensation laws. Together with the associated fees above, diverting or returning could net a whopping £300K bill and thats being conservative.
By: green320 - 4th March 2005 at 16:52
The 744 with the engine failure en route to LHR from SIN was G-BNLG and at the same station but a different engine to the one that failed on take off at LAX.
By: green320 - 4th March 2005 at 16:52
The 744 with the engine failure en route to LHR from SIN was G-BNLG and at the same station but a different engine to the one that failed on take off at LAX.
By: happygolucky - 4th March 2005 at 16:24
No, we were due to arrive 0620 on Tuesday 1 March but did not arrive back till 1915 that evening.
The Boeing 747 left Singapore on February 25 and landed at London’s Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.
May of been the same aircraft tho…
By: happygolucky - 4th March 2005 at 16:24
No, we were due to arrive 0620 on Tuesday 1 March but did not arrive back till 1915 that evening.
The Boeing 747 left Singapore on February 25 and landed at London’s Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.
May of been the same aircraft tho…
By: Speedbird 12T - 4th March 2005 at 16:18
Was this your flight? http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.ap/index.html
By: Speedbird 12T - 4th March 2005 at 16:18
Was this your flight? http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.ap/index.html
Sign In
March 4, 2005 at 4:09 pm