Not a good time for BA's 747's

After the reporst earlier in the week about the 747 flight from the USA which had to land at cardiff with 17 crew and 2 pax, reporst have come in that another BA 747 had to return to New York this morning due to an engine fire.
Not a good time for BA's 747's I wonder if its the same aircraft??

Remember recently when a BA 747 had engine failure twice and BA flew it to its destination?

That's not to say I necessarily agree Alan ... with 57 747s and being a high profile carrier any fault is likely to be reported. However I would not like to look out of my window to see an engine fire so feel for the passengers and crew on this flight.

You have to be sympathetic... BA's 747s aren't the newest things in the world ever (*cough* broken Y seats)

It's when you're on a 767 and the Flightdeck decide to shut down the L/H engine due a warning alarm - That's when I started to worry.

I was even more worried on a BA 777 2 years ago from Orlando to London when the passenger in front told the crew he could smell smoke under his seat [:#]

After a search they decided that it was their lunch that got burnt in the Gallery, and had drifted through the AC

It seems that they also have an RJ100 stuck in the mud when it ran off the runway at BHX yesterday, plus on 26th dec they had a 737 return to Greece after a flight deck warning.
I just think that they are having a run of bad luck at the moment.

Originally posted by InsertNameHere
You have to be sympathetic... BA's 747s aren't the newest things in the world ever (*cough* broken Y seats)

Yes, I wonder what they'll do to replace them. BA will have to think about ordering soon 'cos some of them will be getting on for 20+ years old when replacements may be delivered. Slightly OT I know but perhaps back to the 380 v. new 747 debate.

Originally posted by slinky09

Originally posted by InsertNameHere
You have to be sympathetic... BA's 747s aren't the newest things in the world ever (*cough* broken Y seats)

Yes, I wonder what they'll do to replace them. BA will have to think about ordering soon 'cos some of them will be getting on for 20+ years old when replacements may be delivered. Slightly OT I know but perhaps back to the 380 v. new 747 debate.

As they only appear to now only operate 744's then there is no way these can be 20 yrs old. The first commercial 744 flight was in 1991 meaning that these are more like 15 yrs old. Still getting long in the tooth I grant you.

Paul

[Scrooge]

not quite true,the first 744 was Delivered on 1/26/89 and it's first commercail flight was on 2/9/89 by NWA.

The first of BA's Boeing 747-436s were delivered in Oct of '91

Yes, but what I meant was that if they order now it will be some years before delivery - the new 747 passenger is not due before 2009 and the 380 has a good early order book so BA might not get planes quickly. By then of course some of the current 747s will be 20+ years old.

When the new MD of BA joined, he said that fleet renewal was not a priority.

BA are trying to get the Terminal 5 move in place first. Apparently they will then think about fleet renewal after that...

[ChuckC]

Originally posted by slinky09
Remember recently when a BA 747 had engine failure twice and BA flew it to its destination?

Slinky,
Had forgotten that but, yes, now I remember. Two incidents, mere days apart, this past February. And, as fate would have it, this photo was taken after the first and prior to the second incident.

Chuck-

Has it been established that it was the same aircraft?

Paul

[Scrooge]

if you mean what chuck is talking about then yes it was the same aircraft,different engines.

I don't think the planes are the problem (many other airlines operate aircraft that are much older than those of BA). It could more be with the engines or the expertise of the maintenance crew. I don't think these incidents make me less likely to fly BA though, however if something were to occur like the Alaska Airlines problem a couple days ago I might be a little worried.

Originally posted by jetwet1
if you mean what chuck is talking about then yes it was the same aircraft,different engines.

Thats interesting, if the engines have a similar service date, then it could point to a problem in the BA engineering dept.

...or it could just be coincidence of course.

on a.net they have some links to the JFK tower when the incident happened - the BA captain sounded very cool and in command, as if it was an every day occurance, whilst other aircraft were very vocal pointing out the flames over the radio! BA capt sounded very proffessional - good job [y]

When the new MD of BA joined, he said that fleet renewal was not a priority.

BA are trying to get the Terminal 5 move in place first. Apparently they will then think about fleet renewal after that...

At the moment, Willie Walsh's priorities for BA seem to gradually downgrading the product. There's been talk of paying for meals on regional flights, no Club Europe...
If this talk turns into reality, there'll be no difference between BA and the LFAs other than the price![:(]
The exception to the rule seems to be new, new, new (what are we on now?) Club World;)

Anyway, back on topic, I just think it's a spell of bad luck for them as their maintenance is, on the whole, second to none.

Cheers,
VS045

[preiffer]

Indeed.

I do wonder how long the shareholder discount (10% off if you hold 200+ shares) will last under Willie.

Originally posted by preiffer
Indeed.

I do wonder how long the shareholder discount (10% off if you hold 200+ shares) will last under Willie.

Golly, had forgotten that ... was looking at PE/WT+ fares to NYC in Feb and BA already undercut VS by a mile ... that makes it even more of a difference (thanks to Ma for BA shares which I'd forgotten about).

I find that CEOs can usually handle up to three big issues, so for BA T5 is one, that doesn't mean Willie isn't juggling a few more like fleet renewal - it'll have to happen.

Meanwhile back on topic, I agree with all - a few highly publicised incidents doesn't tarnish BA's safety record necessarily.

Originally posted by slinky09
I agree with all - a few highly publicised incidents doesn't tarnish BA's safety record necessarily.

There was a small piece in todays Times about the fire, not exactly highly publicised, it wasn't front page news. I doubt many people even heard about the engine fire.

Hasn't Walsh been trying to make the short haul BA operation a 100% low cost service?

Hasn't Walsh been trying to make the short haul BA operation a 100% low cost service?

Yup, that seems to be one of his main aims.[:(!] That's what he did to Aer Lingus (I think) but that was a different situation as they have never been particularly successful and they have been hit hard by Ryanair. IMO, BA is a different case as it has a large following of business travellers which I doubt would be impressed if that happened.

Cheers,
VS045

So was the engine fire, cockpit smoke and the bird stike all the same plane?

[Scrooge]

Well as Mr VS45 says it's a different situation than Aer Lingus.
The fleet re-newal isn't going to be high on the list,with the premium cabins getting a re-fit over the next couple of years these aircraft still have a lot of life left in them.

They could always go the same route that NWA went with their DC-9's,which was to pretty much gut them then put in new interiors.

This would be a lot more cost effective than getting 748's.

At least in the short term 5-10 years this would be a good hold over till BA decide's which way they want to go.

With BA moving to the smaller 777's on a lot of their route's instead of 744's I can't see them going for the 380's.

As Dave said, I can see BA getting a good 5-10 years out of the 744s. They arn't going to re-fit them and then quickly sell them off. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but fitting out an aircraft can cost millions, so I doubt they're going to treating them lightly.

Cheers,
VS045

[Scrooge]

yes it will cost millions,but it will cost a lot less than any new longhaul aircraft can cost.