Morning Globaliser.
Not sure Danny recommended reading any posts, and I what he says doesn't help me understand what happened in the slightest.
One of the pax on the flight mentioned 'consent' this morning. This concept has been kicking around in my head for a few days now and I think is what us 'enthusiasts' and pax need to consider.
My trade uses 'informed consent' in it's line of work. When you walk through the hospital door you don't suddenly give up all your rights to make informed choices. The same applies to when I walk though the door of an aeroplane.
Informed consent was developed by the courts to restrict the previous 'godlike' powers and attitudes of surgeons who were making inappropriate decisions on behalf of their customers. I think somebody needs to hit BA with a lawsuit and let the courts decide the limits of authority of airline pilots when out of the ordinary events happen. I'm not suggesting the courts should decide which buttons a pilot pushes and in which order when an engine fails, but they should set out the rights of the people in the back (who are quite capable of understanding risk etc) when things like this happen. There is obviously significant 'professional' opinion out there saying what BA did is wrong, it needs clearing up, and the courts are the place to do it.
Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer.
Looks like the US business press has got hold of the story, one can see US companies not wanting to put their highly paid executives in BA's premium cabins now. Would you blame them?