BA 38 Cancelled today

[Lower Hangar]

Could be nothing but BA 38 cancelled out of Beijing about 2 hours ago. I know because a couple of my guys ( due to depart today) are back at our hotel. Any news - what was the cause ????:confused::confused:

[Arfur Dent]

BA cancel flights all the time and at a moment's notice. Not normally inbound to LHR but certainly outbound. It's B:mad:dy annoying and inconvenient.
Not sure of BA 38.

[Swedish Steve]

Lack of cabin crew. It will operate with freight only.

[Lower Hangar]

Well there will be some very p*****ed off Chinese as today (according to China Daily News) is the big travel back day after Spring Festival ( aka Chinese New Year )

[monkeybusiness2]

Lack of Cabin Crew? Don't think so somehow? The outbound flight must have also been cancelled then.

[oliversarmy]

Outbound would have been a different set.:ugh:

[MrBunker]

No crew outbound on the same jet hence a freighter home.

[Lower Hangar]

I don't understand -surely the crew for BA 38 today to LHR (ie Monday) would have arrived on an Inbound (BA 37) Friday or Saturday morning- ie if there's no cabin crew to go home today then BA have known that for over 48 hours ???

[superjet777]

Sudden crew illness? Cabin crew needed to cover flight from other Far East airport due illness? Whole host of reasons.

SJ777

[Porrohman]

Maybe some additional monitoring equipment had been installed to assess the effects of extreme low temperatures on fuel in order to assist the investigation into the recent BA38 incidentat LHR? I expect that when uncertified equipment is installed and switched on, it probably would not be permissable to carry passengers. Or maybe I speculate too much...

[Taildragger67]

If crew go sick and there are none in the same port with sufficient rest to be turned round, then it would be illegal to operate with passengers.

It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened, it won't be the last, and it happens to other airlines, not just BA. It's not good for PR but (given teh recent incident) if it had not been BA38 ex-PEK then we'd not hear a thing about it. It is literally an every-day event.

So you can put the conspiracy-theory books away, people.

[ATIS]

Yes they could.

As this would be the same BA that flew in an empty 747 to LGW just to taxy under the new bridge. Not sure if it flew straight out again. Nice piccies though

[Porrohman]

Costly? Yes, very. But nowhere near the cost of a repeat of what happened to BA38 a few weeks earlier. How else could AAIB and BA replicate that flight and monitor the fuel inside the tanks with additional monitoring equipment without arousing the suspicions of the Chinese? And with less payload on board, they would have more chance of replicating the cooling effects on the fuel by flying at a higher altitude/latitude if that proved to be necessary for an accurate re-enactment.

[tablelover]

Too much spring sunshine gone to your head mate!!

Simple canx, no need to demonstrate such a detachment from reality and suggest BA would deliberately canx a service to replicate an accident.

jeez, u people do crack me up. There is a difference between hollywood and real life!

[Porrohman]

Agreed, I probably speculate too much. Time will tell though...

[Taildragger67]

If the AAIB want to replicate the incident flight by getting someone to run a 777 from ZBAA to EGLL, they will order it done and it will be done. There is no shortage of interested parties - especially the operator and manufacturers of airframe, engines and related avionics/systems. All have an interest in ensuring that the risks of a 777 losing all power when not on short-finals to a major airport, are as small as possible.

And if there was a problem with the fuel loaded at ZBAA, the authorities there might want to know about it as the loss-of-face if aircraft started dropping from the sky due fuel contamination might be pretty high. Hence it would be in their interest to co-operate (ie. no need to keep a test from them).

This is the same AAIB which required a production Comet to be pressure-cycled to destruction. Now yes, that was 50-odd years ago, but I suggest it demonstrates a history of making the calls it deems necessary.

Let's not forget that, costly as it may seem, all airframe and engine manufacturers have test aircraft so the costs of a test flight would not, in incremental terms, be that great.

Then there are the AirNZ and VS tests of biofuels involving (gasp!) empty 747s flying around (or which soon will be).

'Secret' tests... :rolleyes:

[Porrohman]

MrBunker said - "No crew outbound on the same jet hence a freighter home."


If this is true, it doesn't explain a lack of cabin crew for today's BA38 but it would explain why a subsequent return flight will need to fly back as a freighter - unless of course another team of cabin crew can be found. Out and back as a freighter is an unusual situation.

[747-436]

What normally happens if there is a cabin crew shortage and a flight operates as a freighter only is that say on the Monday the outbound flight from LHR will be empty. Then when the aircraft is at the destination there will be a crew there already after having arrived a day or so earlier.
This flight will depart back to LHR.
Then for the next flight, say on a Wednesday, the aircraft will leave Heathrow with passengers. Then once it gets down route it is the turn of the pilots to bring the aircraft back with just cargo.

This means that even though there may be a crew shortage the airline can still gain revenue from the cargo on the freighter and also passengers on the other leg.

[OAB11D]

SLF Here,

would just like to ask, would they have to cancel the flight for one sick CC member?

I assume tha BA carry more than the legal minimum anyway.
If not couldn't they just have bumped a few pax to make the flight legal?

regards
OAB11D

[AircraftOperations]

Don't minimum CC numbers depend on the original seating design of the aircraft, and not of how many pax are on board that day?

Comes down to things like manning emergency exits, as well as "x number of pax per member of staff" I thought.