BA 747-400 at Luton? [Archive]

King Pong

9th Mar 2006, 18:06

3 hours later and it would appear that the passengers are trapped on board. BA transmitting blind to servisair who don't reply that they are in desperate need of cars for the VIP passengers who are starting to get really angry.The strange thing is that servisair are having constant conversations with Britannia but when BA call servisair Luton there is a deafening silence.

Must be really frustrating for the VIP’s looking across at all those black cabs

The aircraft sat on the centre line for around 15 minutes before it parked nose in after it was confirmed there was a tow bar available. Now it can’t be found.

Guess it might be another 13 years before we see another BA 747.

bacardi walla

9th Mar 2006, 18:39

Ahhhhh good ol LTN, yet another 747 cock up :eek: Maybe next time, BA will go to STN when they need to divert away from LHR :suspect:

Circusair strike again.........:{

JIPPO

9th Mar 2006, 18:39

My sister came in on this flight. Just received a call from her at 19h30 - they are still at Luton!!! The whole thing is very disorganised. They are waiting for a coach to Heathrow. She was booked on a through-ticket to Belfast - I thought it would have been more logical to take the Easy-flight from Luton to Belfast, but BA wont allow her even though she will miss the last flight to from Heathrow to Belfast which leaves in 10 minutes. (Typical BA-incompetence.) I wonder if they'll pay for her overnight stay at LHR.....? She is NOT a happy bunny!

King Pong

9th Mar 2006, 18:52

Ahhhhh good ol LTN, yet another 747 cock up :eek: Maybe next time, BA will go to STN when they need to divert away from LHR :suspect:
Circusair strike again.........:{

Is a 747-400 tow bar different from other 747's which LTN handle. Servisair seem to have been caught with their pants down.:uhoh:

Don’t think the airport will be too happy if the aircraft night stops as it is taking up 2 valuable stands. Guess BA will send a tow bar up from Heathrow with another flight crew.

bacardi walla

9th Mar 2006, 18:56

Is a 747-400 tow bar different from other 747's. .:uhoh:

I'm not sure but if a handling agent says they have a 744 tow bar, they should actually have one.

Which hold was the a/c in prior to diverting to STN (sorry LTN) :confused:

Monumental and upward pointing springs to mind :ooh:

voyager65

9th Mar 2006, 19:03

Thanks Jippo - just got a call from my brother who was on the same flight as a business-class passenger. He will also miss his connection as the whole situation is turning into a circus - they were stuck on the plane for more than 3 hours as the tow-truck could not get to the plane. As yet there is no talk of compensation for missing connections. He is hoping to change his return flight to a more competent airline. Any suggestions?

jetsetwilly

9th Mar 2006, 19:08

I wonder if the 747 will be hooked up and ready to go by 2345 or it might have to stay here tonight. It's taking up 2 parking spaces!!!:)
JSW.

OLNEY 1 BRAVO

9th Mar 2006, 19:24

I believe this isn't the first time Servisair have claimed to have had a tow bar ... and have not! Buster's mates Boggy Pete and EGGW Relic have many stories they can tell in that department! A few years ago Fokker 100's used to be readily accepted on diversion .. but no towbar.

Other 747 arrivals have been planned well in advance so arrangements have been made for a 747 towbar to be at Luton.

LTNman

9th Mar 2006, 19:28

This flight must hold the record for the longest non stop passenger flight into Luton and the largest passenger plane ever to visit Luton. Talking about large aircraft I also hear that a Varig MD11F is due in on Friday morning

Buster the Bear

9th Mar 2006, 19:32

Have Servisair taken the plane and its passengers hostage in lieu of payment in advance? I have had some training in negotiating, can I be of use?

Is this part of Mr Walsh's £450m cost savings announced today? Use Luton rather than Heathrow for BA long haul operations?

jetsetwilly

9th Mar 2006, 19:36

If I can remember correctly the last time the VARIG freighter was here, it was taking the British Olympic Equestrian Team's horses to Athens for the Games.

JSW.

Fried_Chicken

9th Mar 2006, 19:37

BAW268D was flightplanned Luton to Heathrow at 1910z but appears not to have left yet.

I'm sure next time, they'll (BA) will divert somewhere else (Stansted, Brum or Manchester I s'pose depending on fuel status)

Fried Chicken

vintage ATCO

9th Mar 2006, 19:45

It's only the second BA 747 to visit. The first one was also on a weather diversion and had an angry Prince Andrew on board.

He wasn't that angry, we lent him a motor! :)

vintage ATCO

9th Mar 2006, 19:47

King Pong

9th Mar 2006, 19:54

Who says lightning doesn’t strike twice. 12 years ago BA bring in a diverted 747 onto the newly built south stands and the aircraft was marooned due to a lack of a tow bar. Now in the year 2006 with Luton handling 9.2 million passengers and pretending to be one of the big boys BA bring in a second 747 and guess what, it is marooned due to a lack of a tow bar.

I know it has nothing to do with the airport authority but it doesn’t do the airports credibility any good.

Buster the Bear

9th Mar 2006, 20:59

I would suggest that if Luton is a nominated diversion airport for BA and their -400 fleet, then they, BA really are to blame and not the poor handling agents? For goodness sake, Luton is only 40 miles from Heathrow, could they not have sent someone to help? Yes I realise that the M25 and M1 are awful after 16:00!

If the passengers were disgruntled (and I bet that they were?), it is hardly the fault of the handling agent or the airport. Someone, somewhere within BA made the decision to land at Luton, sadly their decision seems not to have been backed up in assistance for their customers?

Sad to think that Buster knew that a -400 was a first visit to Luton!

OLNEY 1 BRAVO

9th Mar 2006, 23:08

The aircraft departed Luton for Heathrow at 23.55 ... just beating the runway closure by 5 minutes.

CAP493

10th Mar 2006, 05:44

I would suggest that if Luton is a nominated diversion airport for BA and their -400 fleet, then they, BA really are to blame and not the poor handling agents? For goodness sake, Luton is only 40 miles from Heathrow, could they not have sent someone to help?...If the passengers were disgruntled (and I bet that they were?), it is hardly the fault of the handling agent or the airport. Someone, somewhere within BA made the decision to land at Luton, sadly their decision seems not to have been backed up in assistance for their customers?
Quite right! The aircraft diverted into Luton due to being close to fuel minimums caused by extended holding at LHR. The fact that the handling agents at Luton don't regularly deal with 747s means that they don't hold such things as tow bars for these aircraft. If the flight crew elected to divert to LTN to avoid an emergency situation developing, then any disruption to the pax was inevitable - but rather less than if the BA aircraft had turned into a glider somewhere near Bovingdon.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with Luton or LLAO and whilst Servisair aren't the best of the bunch (well, they're the cheapest and you gets what you paid for...) you can't expect such an unexpected unplanned movement to be catered for at any airport where such aircraft are not regular visitors.

Bet if an Airbus A380 suddenly made an unexpected diversion into LGW or STN, the same 'difficulties' would arise...

Stop this LTN bashing!!!

:hmm:

bacardi walla

10th Mar 2006, 06:15

Maybe someone should look at why this flight diverted to LTN and not STN. I suspect it wasn't ultimately the Captain's fault here.........dig a bit deeper and maybe we'll see why :confused:

jerrystinger

10th Mar 2006, 08:01

Having read my posts on here about how restrictive (BA) crew hours can be, can someone explain how the flight and cabin crews operated a service from LAX (overnight) to then divert and to then depart LTN at 23:55??? Or did a "new" crew take over?

Human Factor

10th Mar 2006, 08:09

It was a fresh crew.

shamrock7seal

10th Mar 2006, 08:53

MOR

10th Mar 2006, 09:09

Not necessarily ridiculous. All those pax would have to go through customs and immigration, both of which are usually pretty busy, and they may have said "no" to the extra work until they were in a position to cope. There may have been issues with unloading the bags (ie the correct equipment to unload the cargons being available, and staff to drive it). There may have been difficulties getting buses and/or airstairs. It may have been that BA expected to get the flight out of Luton quickly and didn't want to lose their pax in the terminal. Lots and lots of good reasons, when you think about it.

It is a difficult call - once the pax are off, you are committed to the time and expense of bussing them to LHR. That decision shouldn't be made until there is no chance of getting the aircraft to LHR in less time than it would take to deplane the pax, re-unite them with their bags, get them through customs etc, and have a fleet of buses waiting to take them to LHR (and then of course there is the state of the M25 to consider).

In this case, they probably thought that the delay caused by re-fuelling and re-crewing was less than all the above, but events eventually conspired to prove them wrong. It's a bit of a lottery. Either way, your pax are going to be annoyed.

You think this is bad - try diverting into MAN. You can wait for hours before ANYBODY turns up to the aircraft. I once sat there with the APU running for three hours before a GPU turned up.

My only question would be why they didn't lob into STN, the two are about the same distance from LHR. Maybe the approach sequence was too long at STN... and BHX is only 15 mins away...

CargoOne

10th Mar 2006, 09:16

Why diversion to LGW wasn't an option, considering it is BA base and 744 handling facilities are in place?

ebenezer

10th Mar 2006, 09:21

can i just ask, what has not having a tow-bar got to do with off-loading passengers! Surely the tow-bar problem is just for pushing the empty aircraft back later when ready to depart for LHR!
How ridiculous! Or did they not have the correct air-stairs???
Firstly, the crew were probably unwilling to complete the parking of the aircraft until they knew whether or not the aircraft would be able to push back when necessary. If as one other post suggests, Servisair failed to respond to the crew's radio calls, then this information wouldn't have been instantly available to the crew, hence the delay in parking. Secondly, it is possible that Servisair didn't have the necessary stairs available or if they did, perhaps the staff on duty were not checked out to use them with a 747 as this type of aircraft is a comparative rarity at Luton and on this occasion was completely unexpected. Thirdly, it is not inconceivable that BA instructed the crew initially, to keep the passengers on board because it might have been possible to position the aircraft back into Heathrow within an hour or-so and to offload that many passengers, process them and their baggage through the Terminal and to then bus them over to Heathrow would have taken well over an hour to complete.

No doubt if BA intends to routinely divert its 747s into Luton, appropriate ground handling facilities will be positioned there by BA and its ground handling agent will be required - in return for payment - to have the necessary staff always available or on standby.

When BA diverts any of its narrow-body fleet into Luton - which it does not infrequently - there's never any difficulty and generally speaking, the process is completed smoothly and without causing additional problems for the pax.

Ditto when its 777s operate through on pre-planned charter flights.

BTW, Boeing 747s don't have 'air-stairs'.

:ok:

ManofMan

10th Mar 2006, 12:03

I think we sould forget bashing Servisair, Luton Airport or Customs etc etc, the question has to be asked......Why on earth did the worlds favourite airline choose to divert a 747-400 into a regional/low-cost hub/General Aviation airport that has no normal run of the mill handling facilities for a 747 ???

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

Worlds favourite airline my hairy :mad: !!!

angels

10th Mar 2006, 12:46

Fascinating thread. While reading it I had the same thoughts as ManofMan.

I also had a thought. Let's say there was a pax on board (with hand baggage only) who lived in St.Albans. Once the passengers got off the plane, would he/she be allowed to leave the airport and jump in a cab home?

I've done this in Asia, getting off a plane stranded in Batam, Indonesia and cabbing/ferrying it to Singapore. This was pre-9/11 though and I have no idea if it would be allowed now.

AlphaWhiskyRomeo

10th Mar 2006, 14:53

Can't understand why they didn't throw a towbar into a truck and drive it over from STN or LHR?????

bacardi walla

10th Mar 2006, 14:55

Can't understand why they didn't throw a towbar into a truck and drive it over from STN or LHR?????

That would have been far too easy :eek:

Bet Varig don't have the same problem at LTN :cool:

King Pong

10th Mar 2006, 15:14

The aircraft sat on the centre line of the east apron for at least 15 minutes while the tower consulted with the handling agent as to whether there was a tow bar available. ATC then confirmed there was and the aircraft was instructed to park noise in. The aircraft had stairs brought to it in minutes and a high loader was taken onto stand when I went home. The aircraft must have been on the ground at least an hour and a half before the crew asked for servisair’s frequency as they wanted to know what was going on. This was a waste of time as they didn’t respond.

Also why were fire trucks following it.

Doors to Automatic

10th Mar 2006, 15:21

747 into Luton - that must have been bloody tight!!! Did anyone see it land? Did it make the turning or go to the end?

kazzie

10th Mar 2006, 15:22

God that was a shock!

Im training with Servisair.. Left training and walked out of the terminal and saw that sitting there.. I even missed my coach by running over to see the 747 instead of going to grab my coach... haha

There was also a few celebs on board returning from some awards.. I was gutted I didnt have my Camera..

King Pong

10th Mar 2006, 15:28

There was also a few celebs on board returning from some awards.. I was gutted I didnt have my Camera..

It was called the Oscas which might explain why these sort of people don’t like to wait for anything

CAP493

10th Mar 2006, 15:35

There was also a few celebs on board returning from some awards.. I was gutted I didnt have my Camera..Perhaps you and your company should have been more focussed on answering the radio calls from the aircraft's flight crew...
747 into Luton - that must have been bloody tight!!! Did anyone see it land? Did it make the turning or go to the end?Why should landing a 747 on a 2160 metre dry runway be 'tight'...??

PaperTiger

10th Mar 2006, 15:44

Why should landing a 747 on a 2160 metre dry runway be 'tight'...??Quite. Not much weight in the tanks, after all :E

Doors to Automatic

10th Mar 2006, 15:47

Why should landing a 747 on a 2160 metre dry runway be 'tight'...??

Because a) they normally take around 600 metres more to stop at LHR and other places and b) the runway wasn't dry yesterday

GeeseRunner

10th Mar 2006, 16:08

I have no doubt that they would have welcomed another 600 metres :ooh:

LGS6753

10th Mar 2006, 21:38

Unfortunately BA have now shelved their plans to base a small fleet of 744s at Luton to operate low-cost services to LAX, NYC, SYD, HKG and TYO.:}

Buster the Bear

10th Mar 2006, 21:58

Taken by a friend yesterday:

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7044/civb0gu.jpg

Eddy

11th Mar 2006, 07:57

He is hoping to change his return flight to a more competent airline. Any suggestions?

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.

I would suggest that if Luton is a nominated diversion airport for BA and their -400 fleet, then they, BA really are to blame and not the poor handling agents? For goodness sake, Luton is only 40 miles from Heathrow, could they not have sent someone to help? Yes I realise that the M25 and M1 are awful after 16:00!
If the passengers were disgruntled (and I bet that they were?), it is hardly the fault of the handling agent or the airport. Someone, somewhere within BA made the decision to land at Luton, sadly their decision seems not to have been backed up in assistance for their customers?
Sad to think that Buster knew that a -400 was a first visit to Luton!

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.

HZ123

11th Mar 2006, 09:25

This is by no means the first lash up of this magnitude. I recall a BA 747 into St Mawgan = steps not long enough to reach doors; Gander = no equipment to offload the containers. It seems incredible to me today that with all the IT equipment at our finger tips incidents like this occur.

CAP493

11th Mar 2006, 09:33

Taken by a friend yesterday: Thanks Buster! Servisair's steps do actually appear to be able to reach the foward door, so that's one theory blown out already...

:ok:

LTNman

11th Mar 2006, 09:44

And here is the highloader waiting as the 747 goes on to the stand so their goes another theory http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7475/reexposureofdsc001874ry.jpg

So what happens when a 747 arrivals pre arrange at LTN. Does someone go to another airport and borrow a tow bar for the day? Maybe it is about time that a handling agent bought a tow bar for a 747. They have everything else like steps and high loaders.

bacardi walla

11th Mar 2006, 10:06

Any truth in the fact that ATC vectored them to LTN instead of STN by mistake ??

King Pong

11th Mar 2006, 10:16

So a high loader was waiting, as were the steps. With the passengers trapped on board for at least 3 hours it must have been apparent at an early stage that there was no tow bar so why were the passengers kept on board?

easyprison

11th Mar 2006, 10:26

All in all, this proves Luton is a cr@p airport.
The 744 could have diverted to STN, fuelled and gone to LHR before LTN even had a plan in place!
Back to the orange tent.............. :sad:

vintage ATCO

11th Mar 2006, 10:27

From today's Sun. Priceless! :eek:

Air terror for Keira's jet

HOLLYWOOD beauty Keira Knightley was caught in a mid-air drama after her flight from the Oscars was hit by a violent storm.
The Heathrow-bound Jumbo bringing the actress back from Los Angeles was forced to divert to Luton.
Keira, 20, then had to be driven to London after a blunder at Luton scuppered the captain’s plan for a swift take-off back to Heathrow.
BA last night apologised for the saga of flight BA268, which had 350 on board, including Kylie Minogue’s fiancé Olivier Martinez.
A severe thunderstorm had forced the 747 to miss its Heathrow landing slot.
The jet didn’t have enough fuel to continue circling the airport so it was decided the plane should land at Luton.
It fuelled up away from the main runway, but ground-staff at the Bedfordshire airport then realised they didn’t have a special towbar to pull the plane back out.
A BA spokesman said: “A special Jumbo towbar had to be sent from Heathrow by road.
“As time was dragging we ferried passengers there by coach.” It is understood Keira, 20, was chauffeur-driven to London after Thursday’s scare, while BA arranged to fly Olivier, 40, to Paris from Luton.

AIRWAY

11th Mar 2006, 10:29

And regarding this diversion, one of the papers said today:
Keira Knightley was caught in a mid-air drama after her flight from the Oscars was hit by a violent storm.
The heathrow bound jumbo bringing the actress back from Los Angels was forced to divert to Luton.
Keira 20 then had to be chauffeur driven to London after a blunder scuppered the captain's plan for a swift take off back to heathrow.
:rolleyes: :hmm:

Edited:
PS - Vintage beat me to it :ok:

King Pong

11th Mar 2006, 10:40

From today's Sun. Priceless! :eek: .

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

HZ123

11th Mar 2006, 12:51

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

11th Mar 2006, 13:47

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

11th Mar 2006, 13:57

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

11th Mar 2006, 15:27

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

11th Mar 2006, 15:44

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

11th Mar 2006, 16:22

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

11th Mar 2006, 16:33

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. :rolleyes:

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

11th Mar 2006, 16:51

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

11th Mar 2006, 19:31

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

:mad:

Buster the Bear

11th Mar 2006, 20:30

"ATC vectored it to the wrong airport".

I haven't laughed so much in ages!

CAP493

11th Mar 2006, 21:09

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 c:mad:p 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.

:hmm:

ManofMan

11th Mar 2006, 23:08

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

12th Mar 2006, 00:30

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

12th Mar 2006, 05:39

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

12th Mar 2006, 07:04

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

12th Mar 2006, 11:10

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

12th Mar 2006, 13:52

"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

12th Mar 2006, 14:13

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

12th Mar 2006, 14:44

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

antilla

12th Mar 2006, 17:05

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.:*
If it's not ill-equipped, it must be disorganised! The airport wants the kudos of another 747 arrival and happily accepts a diversion - then blames one of the sub-contractors for the c0ck-up that ensued.
Surely it is the responsibility of any competent airport management group to ensure that its ground services can cope with the traffic it accepts - aren't there any red faces in the boardroom over this incident?
:confused:

Fried_Chicken

12th Mar 2006, 17:53

Luton accepted the divert on the basis of the Aircrafts crew having declared a PAN due to a low fuel state. I don't think the Airport would be in much of a position to refuse the aircraft under the circumstances?

FC

Pain in the R's

12th Mar 2006, 18:32

If it's not ill-equipped, it must be disorganised! The airport wants the kudos of another 747 arrival and happily accepts a diversion - then blames one of the sub-contractors for the c0ck-up that ensued.
:confused:

I have been following this thread from its start and I haven’t read any comments from the airport owners regarding this movement, what is your source of information to make this accusation?

antilla

12th Mar 2006, 18:53

It seems that you haven't read the earlier part of this thread either.

My "accusation" is just a comment on a situation that appears to have been something of a shambles - and on various subsequent attempts to blame it all on the ground handling agents.

My comment, which I still consider to be reasonable, is that the airport management is surely responsible for the efficient operation of the airport, and that it must accept some degree of blame for what happened. That was why I asked about red faces in the boardroom.

BWBriscoe

12th Mar 2006, 19:24

The aircraft in question declared a pan. The thought of a tow bar would not have even entered the flight crew's mind. They may have thought about fire cover and other important facilities, but the idea of how they would push back would not have been an issue.

Imagine the outcry on here if the aircraft had declared the pan, requested a landing at Luton, only for Luton to turn round and say 'sorry you can't come here...we don't have a compatible towbar'!

Come on guys, get a grip!

Seloco

12th Mar 2006, 22:13

I guess that there has to be a good reason why large aircraft like a 744 could not simply carry a spare towbar in an appropriate part of the hold to cater for such embarrassments? Too long? Too heavy to load/unload manually? Presumably LTN hasn't invested in one of the new gizmos that lift up the nosewheel and are therefore relatively type-independent....

WHBM

13th Mar 2006, 07:00

I guess that there has to be a good reason why large aircraft like a 744 could not simply carry a spare towbar in an appropriate part of the hold to cater for such embarrassments?
If you carried spares for every eventuality (and there are plenty more likely than this one-off situation) there would be nothing left for any payload.

King Pong

13th Mar 2006, 07:02

So who normally sets the agenda as to what can land at Luton, is it the airport or the handling agents? So how much would a tow bar for a 747 actually cost? No doubt when one is required for pre- arranged movements it is just not handed over by say Servisair Gatwick but some sort of daily hire charge is applied. Would servisair Gatwick actually miss one if it were accidentally left at Luton? How much income has been lost over the years because Luton can’t handle a 747 without prior notice just for a lack of a tow bar? Maybe the airport should buy one and rent it out to the handling agents when required?

CargoOne

13th Mar 2006, 11:32

747 towbar costs a couple of thousand dollars, you can also get a second-hand one. Not a big investment but still expensive if you need it once a year.
However the idea to invest into towbarless tractor for a widebody aircraft is probably better, because you can use for any heavy aircraft.

ALLDAYDELI

13th Mar 2006, 12:10

By all accounts, interesting and rare event. Wx was pretty bad in LON area last Thursday, having getting a soaking myself... still a hosepipe ban.

Re the VARIG MD11F, what was that doing - inbound or outbound load or both? Was it horses per chance?

The B747F incident a couple of years ago was bad planning & a lack of suitable highloader device to lift the said engine into the aircraft. Least said about that incident the better..!!

HZ123

13th Mar 2006, 12:10

Better still how come LTN handling companies do not have the services of a towbarless, which is the trend that is taking over. The cost of a towbar and the potential of damage justifies the extra cost of these new units?

OLNEY 1 BRAVO

13th Mar 2006, 12:20

Seloco wrote:
Presumably LTN hasn't invested in one of the new gizmos that lift up the nosewheel and are therefore relatively type-independent....
The airport do not provide tugs, regardless of which variety are used .. these are the responsibility of the handling agents.
I last looked at this thread on Friday since which it has grown out of all proportions. Totally agree with everything said by Ebenezer, CAP 493, vintage etc. The aircraft declared a PAN and requested a landing at Luton. In those circumstances, you don't argue you just get it down.
Just one further small point ... ATC quite rightly don't have a list of towbars on the airport but the "old" Apron Control did have a list of which towbars were held by the handling agents.

Buster the Bear

13th Mar 2006, 18:59

A daft question:

Did this flight land with full and appropriate fire cover? I was of the assumption that 747's could be accepted with advance notification and as this was a 'PAN', those arrangements necessary, would not have been in place in good time?

I am probably out of touch, but worth asking?

King Pong

13th Mar 2006, 19:07

A daft question:
Did this flight land with full and appropriate fire cover? I was of the assumption that 747's could be accepted with advance notification and as this was a 'PAN', those arrangements necessary, would not have been in place in good time?
I am probably out of touch, but worth asking?

Why did the fire service follow the aircraft on to stand?