BA 747-400 at Luton?

[King Pong]

Originally Posted by vintage ATCO

From today's Sun. Priceless! .

So vintage ATCO reads the Sun
Brave man to admit that here

[HZ123]

At BA Waterworld and the Operations centre we are proud to acknowledge that we could not make up stunts like this. I have written to BA news, so I await to see if it is published and if so whom might respond. I will infom the thread if I achieve these goals?

[davedek]

Originally Posted by Buster the Bear

Someone, somewhere within BA made the decision to land at Luton

That would be the captain making that descision (after advice from his ground superiors I suppose)?

[King Pong]

The bottom line is that someone at servisair gave the wrong information to the tower that there was a tow bar available. If the correct info had been given then the aircraft would have parked nose out, refuelled and would have been gone within an hour. The question still remains as to why the passengers were kept on board for 3 hours when they could have been disembarked. Servisair’s failure to monitor and answer their radio certainly didn’t help but was there another factor at play here like the airport not wanting 350 passengers milling around in arrivals while coaches were organized and sent to the airport to pick up the passengers.

I can remember being diverted to Manchester on a BA 747 years ago and spent 3 hours sitting on a remote stand before we were allowed to disembark so it is not only Luton where problems can occur.

[saggst]

I was actually at work that day and id like to add that nobody from the airport had actually asked servisair or any other handling agents if they had a towbar until the a/c was on the ground.

Also the passengers were also kept on board for that amount of time as the c/ crew were still in hours and when it became apparent that they weren't leaving in any hurry BA made the decision to offload the pax and transport them back to LHR.

One last thing the towbar problem was already being sorted once the a/c arrived on stand at LTN there were two towbars sourced and dispatched to LTN one from LHR and another from STN

So it was not Servisair's fault but more an airport problem for accepting the a/c without speaking to anyone.

[LTNman]

Originally Posted by saggst

So it was not Servisair's fault but more an airport problem for accepting the a/c without speaking to anyone.

That’s a bit unfair, I would have thought that if an aircraft wants to divert due to low fuel then you don’t ask too many questions. It has already been stated here that when ATC did ask questions someone (servisair?) told them that a tow bar was available so the aircraft parked nose in.

[TUGNBAR]

I agree, that if an aircraft wants to divert due to low fuel then you don’t ask too many questions. Although you would think ATC or more importantly Airfield Operations would have a list of towbars from each handling agent,so that they can at least have a rough idea as to what aircraft they can and cannot accept.

[vintage ATCO]

Let's be clear about this, the pilot declared a PAN. There was never going to be a conversation about towbars.

And King Pong, there is no where a B747 can park nose-out. We did it years ago with the Virgin one on the south apron, which was empty at the time, it never is now. When the BA one diverted in years back that was parked nose in on south apron, and a tow bar had to be sent from Heathrow. We later worked out that the tail plane infringed the 1 in 7 transistional slope. Whoops.

As others have said, it is not unheard for pax to be kept on board for lengthy time after an unplanned diversion and it's sowewhat unfair blaming the airport and the handing agent for not being equipped. It was also around the time of the 'tea time rush' so I guess everyone was also busy with the usual traffic.

No, I am not a Sun reader, it was drawn to my attention by others. Had to share it though.

[voyager65]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Yes. Your brother should get a grip.
Sorry to sound harsh, but this could have happened to any airline at any time and anywhere. British Airways would have been informed that Luton was a suitable diversion point (by ground support teams from Servisair) and so the decision to divert there was taken. What happened after that can't really be blamed on British Airways.
From what I can tell, the company have handled this situation well. I understand that passengers have been kept up to date, accommodation was provided last night and BA did everything they possibly could to get the flight away. It's poor support on the ground that lead to the continued delay of this flight.
Again, the decision to divert isn't taken lightly and it isn't solely the Captain's decision as to where the aircraft lands. BA have a large team of staff working 24h who deal with these problems and contact would have been made with LTN before the decision to land there was taken.

Hello Eddy,

this was not the first time he has had problems with BA. Being couped up in an aeroplane for 3 hours is no fun. The supposed updates on board were also just a joke!
As an after-thought, do I detect a BA-employee here....?

[ebenezer]

Originally Posted by easyprison

All in all, this proves Luton is a cr@p airport.
....Back to the orange tent..............

Sorry, but all your post proves is that you're ill-informed and subjective. LTN nowadays, is no more a cr@p airport than easyJet is a cr@p airline. Unless you compare LTN with LHR or easyJet with say, Singapore Airlines which is hardly comparing like for like. As for ATC vectoring the aircraft to the wrong airport i.e. LTN instead of STN, come on bacardi, get real!! And as for ATC knowing what towbars are where, LTN isn't a military aerodrome handling two or three aircraft types. It's got absolutely NOTHING to do with ATC or even the Airport Operations. It's entirely down to the ground handling agents.

[Buster the Bear]

"ATC vectored it to the wrong airport".

I haven't laughed so much in ages!

[CAP493]

Some of the comments in this thread seem to be in danger of becoming the rantings of the unhinged.

Some basic facts:

1. BAW268 encountered longer than anticipated holding delays at LHR owing to enhanced spacing due to adverse local weather (thunderstorms)
2. The flight crew of BAW268 correctly, declared a "Pan" owing to their fuel state (there's no category in the UK such as "fuel emergency" or "priority low fuel" such as in the US)
3. It was determined by the crew and agreed by BAW Ops that Luton was the nearest suitable diversion airport
4. The landing run at Luton on RWY 26 at 2075 metres was acceptable to the flight crew having regard to aircraft weight and local weather conditions
5. ATC at West Drayton & Luton Tower provided an expeditious and highly professional service into Luton (well done guys) enabling BAW268 to land there with minimal delay
6. Servisair provided the appropriate ground equipment such as steps and baggage unloaders
7. The decision to keep the passengers on board pending a possible quick refuel and positioning across to LHR was initially a good plan, thwarted by knock-on delays into LHR
8. Given that Luton doesn't retain the capacity to ordinarily handle 747s without prior notice (the airport fire service for example, is Category 8 and so normally insufficient to provide on-request cover for Categeory 9 movements), BAW 268 was given the appropriate level of service and priority to get it down and onto the gate.

As for Luton being "a cp airport" easyprison, it seems nonetheless, able to generate an acceptable level of profit for your low-cost airline; after all, over 5 million passengers this year isn't bad and presumably, this is why EZY will have 19 based aircraft there by the Autumn of this year.

Luton may not be another Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted but it does seem to be helping EZY pay your monthly salary.

[ManofMan]

Has anyone actually answered my question yet ?????

Why was EGBB/EGKK/EGSS/EGCC/EGFF all over-looked and the decision made to divert into EGGW ??.

Come on answeres on a postcard to.....The worlds favourite airline my big fat hairy A**e competition.......

Why did this non Budget/Business aircraft end up in such an ill equiped airport?????


ManofMan

[Fried_Chicken]

Possibly EGKK/CC/FF were all too far away with the fuel status at the time.

Long landing delays (similar to EGLL) into EGKK/SS due to the weather so as mentioned in CAP493's posting, Luton was deemed the most suitanle diversion airport at the time

FC

[King Pong]

Originally Posted by vintage ATCO

And King Pong, there is no where a B747 can park nose-out. We did it years ago with the Virgin one on the south apron, which was empty at the time, it never is now.

I hear your words but that BA 747 sat on the centre line of an EMPTY east apron for at least 15 minutes. A conversation then took place about a tow bar and that that the aircraft was to park noise in. Are you saying that a 747-400 can’t turn around on its own on an empty apron designed to accommodate 6 wide-bodied aircraft? Even if the aircraft could not park on stand without blocking several stands I would have thought it could have turned around. It then could have been re-fuelled and sent on its way.

[vintage ATCO]

I dunno, I wasn't there. You can't just spin an aeroplane anywhere without considering the jet wash implications. That has to be a decision for the airport not ATC.

[EI-CFC]

The supposed updates on board were also just a joke!

When you're sitting on a very delayed flight, are they ever good enough? To say they were a "joke" is rather subjective.

[bacardi walla]

Originally Posted by Buster the Bear

"ATC vectored it to the wrong airport".
I haven't laughed so much in ages!

I agree, sounds very laughable, I hooted at the time too, but the point is, my question came after contact with BA. Now how funny is it ??

[CAP493]

Originally Posted by King Pong

Are you saying that a 747-400 can’t turn around on its own on an empty apron designed to accommodate 6 wide-bodied aircraft? Even if the aircraft could not park on stand without blocking several stands I would have thought it could have turned around.

This is correct. The risk of jet-blast to other aircraft (if present), structures, personnel and equipment is considered too hazardous unless the aircraft weighs less than 43,000 kgs - this isn't just a LTN restriction. At LGW, I was nearly given a bo**ocking by my watch manager once, when a Lauda Air (I think it was a 737) made a 180-degree turn on the Cargo Apron (before it was a 'through route') having taxiied the wrong way for 08R. Luckily, he did it without my approval so I was found not guilty.

Why did this non Budget/Business aircraft end up in such an ill equiped airport?????

ManofMan - at the risk of repetition, LTN is not an "ill-equipped airport", the provision of ground handling equipment is down to the ground handling agents at the airport. And the aircraft diverted into LTN because of the delays into the other two main London airports and because of its fuel state. Better to get on the ground safely and then hang around, than to end up gliding into a field somewhere.

[richardnei]

I work for a handling agent and the way we work is that we have the ground equipment that we need for our regular scheduled flight program.

We don't have tow bars for aircraft we don't handle on a regular basis.

For example we never have B777 flying into our airport, so we don't have a tow bar for a B777. However if we were advised in advance that we would be getting B777 in we would make arrangements to have a suitable towbar.

Best Regards

Richard