Reduced cruising speed by BA

[pvdmeij]

Flying from the Far East to Europe it happens quite often lately that we are flying behind a BA-747 at about stalling speed in an airway for highspeed airliners.
Does this has to do with slots or salary? (As the rumour sais.. :)

[PaulDeGearup]

Came back from SFO on a BA 744 and noticed odd deck angle, very nose up attitude. Was in galley getting drink when F/O appeared, so asked him what the deal was. Told me that because LHR is so short of space they have to arrive within a window around their scheduled arrival, hence if you get huge tailwinds, the 744 will slow down.

[pvdmeij]

So the slot problem at LHR affects lots of other airlines to other destinations. I think it would be much cheaper in operating costs (cycles etc) to wait on ground before departure if you can make your (slotted) arrival time at destination, wouldn't it?
Also than you wouldn't involve someby else with your problems.. :(

[Human Factor]

There is also the night jet ban at LHR to remember!

[Sink Rate]

It is true there is a window of arrival that is typically 20-30 mins before scheduled arrival time. This is so as the ground facilities can handle us as they are all planned and cut back to only work if aircraft arrive and depart at their scheduled times (Stands, Tugs, loaders etc). Not ideal but the only financially viable option.

We do sometimes wait on the ground to absorb some of the excess time however it is not quite so simple as that.

Arriving late is a no no for obvious reasons.

As an example try arriving from the states to LHR.

The upper wind might be stronger or weaker than forecast. You'll find out when you get up there.

You have to guess how long you might be holding before you can make an approach. This depends on time of day, WX conditions etc. If it's a quiet time you might guess 10 - 15 mins. It might be anything up to an hour though in fog or at a busy time of day. It's not an exact science.

If you are a BA B747 or B777 then you'll be going to terminal 4. That's only a short taxi if you are landing on 27L or 09R. So budget 10 mins for that. But if they are landing you on 27R or 09L then to taxi all the way accross the airport might take 45 mins. You often cannot tell whether your landing runway will be the Left or Right before you leave (rememebr you won't arrive at LHR for another 13 hours!).

And which stand will you be on once you get to terminal 4? You won't find out until well into the cruise, perhaps in the descent. You might be able to taxi staright on - no worries there. OR because of the way some of the stands have been designed (due to local noise resrtictions) you may have to shut down your engines and wait to be towed onto stand. Add another 10 - 20 mins.

Now try arriving in your scheduled arrival time window.

We try our hardest to get you there on time, everytime, but now you can see what we are up against. Sorry if we hold you back in the airways. Other days you might be holding us back.

It's all a game and if you can't take a joke then you shouldn't have joined! ;-)


Edited due typo

[ 06 November 2001: Message edited by: Sink Rate ]

[411A]

....which proves once again that BA has their head up their collective backsides...and the view MUST be great! :eek:

[G.Khan]

Sink Rate - Everything you have said falls into the category of a BA "Personal Problem", in other words not something that you can expect to foist upon all the other operators.
I know for a fact that BA almost never delay out of Singapore but frequently reduce speed as soon as airborne, despite their ATC clearence to, 'maintain .85 or greater', it is just as an important part of the clearance as the allocated flight level, you don't ignore that do you?
Time for BA to get with the programme methinks.

[WeeWillyWinky]

411A

Sink Rate goes to some length to explain the many and real problems of operating out of LHR and you respond with a comment that serves very little in furthering constructive discussion.

G. Khan

I have yet to meet a BA crew member that does not do what ATC ask and if they say fly a speed we do.

Vee-one

Do you complain about other airlines that block your level? Or when you get stuck behind a 737, Airbus or 757/767 or is it just you wish to have a go at BA? I have been held down at FL260 all the way as far as Delhi from BK due no available higher levels. I guess I should have made a negative posting on PPRuNe but instead I took the rough with the smooth.

I can't believe I even bothered responding to this, I guess it was 411A's ignorance that did it.

[pvdmeij]

--It's all a game and if you can't take a joke then you shouldn't have joined! ;-)--

Ok, but the last time I came from HKG with a BA in front of me the joke went on for 10 hours.After one hour I stopped laughing because my flightplan said M.86 ...
I see the reasonening and the origin of your problem but not the solution. :(

[411A]

Well then Acid_Regulator, please explain WHY BA cannot remain on the ground (delay departure), rather than reduce speed (consistantly) as they seem to do now? Apparently for BA crews.....stuff everyone else, they'll do as they like. I have noticed this many times, and it would appear from the comments here, so have others. Most computer flight plans today are quite accurate (winds aloft), unless BA crews ....don't believe in actually looking at them. If it is BA company policy to depart anyway, then they SHOULD be held down at turbo-prop levels so that others can operate properly at their designed mach numbers.

[Dick Deadeye]

Okay G.Khan, how about providing us with some facts (dates, times, flight numbers etc) to back up your claim that:

I know for a fact that BA...frequently reduce speed as soon as airborne, despite their ATC clearence to, 'maintain .85 or greater'

Deliberately ignoring an ATC clearance is a serious matter, so do let us have some facts that will enable us to take you seriously.

If on the other hand you are just another loud mouthed self opinionated w*nker, like 411A, with nothing sensible to contribute, then kindly F*ck Off, and leave this forum to the grown ups.

[G.Khan]

Dick Deadeye, (or should that be ******** perhaps?), I spent over ten years on the B744, operating out of SIN and frequently to Europe, that would, on average, at the very least, be 150 trips out of SIN Westbound and on many, many of those trips BA would aim to depart on schedule from SIN with a clearance to maintain a mach No. of .85 or greater but reduce that speed as soon as they were out of SIN airspace, (Acid_Regulator please note).
Doesn't sound to me as though you have done that route, (or any route), too much so I would lay off the invective if I were you until you have a bit more time under your belt. You are displaying all the arrogance of youth at the moment. Defence of your colleagues, (if, indeed BA crew are), is laudable but the vitriol is out of place.

[Dick Deadeye]

G.Khan, trying to back out of what you said first aren't you?

You've gone from saying:

I know for a fact that BA...frequently reduce speed as soon as airborne, despite their ATC clearence

None of us would accept anyone ignoring an ATC clearance, but instead of giving us facts, you now say:

but reduce that speed as soon as they were out of SIN airspace

notice the allegation of ignoring an ATC clearance has now gone.

Many of us have been on these routes a lot longer than you, so take your ten years of cruise only co-pilot and shove them where the sun don't shine. BA aren't my airline, although I'm worried that we might have been in the same one. Are you one of the ones who left because you couldn't satisfy the command criteria?

We know BA slow down, for the reasons given by Sink Rate, we know it's a pain in the a***, like Vee-one says,
but that's a long way from saying they routinely ignore an ATC clearance.

Accusing someone of deliberately violating an ATC clearance is a big deal, even in your brief time in aviation you should have learnt that, so put up the facts or shut up!

If you are/were a pilot on those routes, and if you had seen what you describe, I'm sure you would have reported them - your sort always report everything!

Please action the last paragraph in my previous post as soon as possible.

[Budgie69]

The reason for sticking to the planned arrival time is terminal facilities at LHR.

Arriving early risks there being no gate, or waiting with engines running for an extended period for a gate to become available - nothing upsets passengers more. The cabin crew can have worked their butts off for 14 hours but all their good work can be wasted by poor handling on arrival.

During the morning "rush hour" the LHR terminal is at full stretch - there is no margin for error. If half a dozen 400s (2000+ pax) show up early all facilities are overwhelmed, from customs/immigration to baggage handling etc. etc.
The name of the game is to keep the pax happy. They want to arrive on time, pick up their bags and go.

[G.Khan]

Dick Deadeye - Determined to be a nasty offensive little person aren't you? No I am not backing down at all, I have read what Sink Rate and Budgie69 have said, as well as discussed the question with several friends who are operating the B744 for BA, my point is, that for whatever reasons, the procedure of slowing down once airborne, having been cleared at a given mach no. is unacceptable to everyone else who is effected, with me so far?
The clearance given is to destination, not to the FIR boundry. Of course I didn't record and report each event, we are all trying to do a job, but when possible we did talk on 123.45hz.
Never been a "cruise" capt. but have been a real one on long-haul for over twenty five years, never applied to BA, never failed a Command Course either.
Now, be a good boy, give your daddy back his logbook and licence, finish your home work and go to bed. Oh, best of luck with your 'O' levels when you sit them.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Why is it that people lapse into childish ramps? Insults and abuse is about as low as some can go here on PPRuNe and we are looking to stamp it out.

Sink Rate, gave a good cue and then it became open house on stupidity and vitriol. Why?

Just get a grip on yourselves. After all you are supposed to be aviators. In my book aviators do not behave like one or two of you are. If your vocabulary doesn't extend beyond that being demonstrated, take it with you to another site where it will be welcomed. It isn't here!

Got it? If not I will close the thread, which would be a pity because it actually has something to discuss - INTELLIGENTLY!


PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected]

[411A]

Nothing really new for BA (on the SIN westbound route), they were doing this with the 747-200 way back in 1979...not only that but can recall one occasion in 1980 when a BA flight refused to leave a cruising level, when told to do so, at the request of Medan control...and believe it or not, were not heard on the frequency (HF) for more than 1.5 hours....surely not the best of professional ethics...as I mentioned before, BA's attitude seems to be ....stuff the rest of them.
And not likely to change anytime soon. :mad:

[pvdmeij]

Hey guys,

keep it cool :cool:. I wanted to find out if there was any thruth behind the rumour.. And you all sort of delivered the proof. Also it is clear that the issue irritates some people because it hampers them in performing there work in the way they want to do. Ok if it happens incidentally only, but that doesn't seem the case.
So I would like to suggest that if you are slowing down somewhere over Siberia for whatever good reason and you become aware that you are in the way for somebody wo wants to make his slot too, why don't you go down for a lower level for the time it takes the other guy to pass you. He can put some more coal on the fire and you can reduce a little bit more. Most probably you can go up after him and than accelerate a bit more..It is'nt that busy on those routes. And we all will be happy sitting sipping our coffee and go back to talking about mortgages, women etc. Or is it women and mortgages?
kind regards to yuo all. ;)

[Captain Airclues]

I assume that you are talking about the Tokyo-Europe route V1. BA plan via the northern route, which has a minimum speed of M.84. If any aircraft is doing less than this then you are perfectly entitled to ask them to speed up, if ATC have not already done so.

As far as Singapore is concerned, the early arrival at LHR is not a major factor, particularly now that we fly the longer route, avoiding Kabul. We generally carry very heavy loads out of Singapore and are often up to max take-off weight. Operating on a max payload flight plan obviously makes fuel efficiency a priority. On my last couple of flights out of Singapore we were not given a Mach number restriction, but then I am not a regular there, so was probably just lucky. However, is it reasonable for an ATC unit to place such a restriction on an aircraft for an entire 7000 mile flight, and can all aircraft types achieve this?
On my last flight SIN-LHR, I delayed for 20 minutes so as to obtain FL310, but as soon as we were airbourne we were recleared to FL260, where we stayed until Delhi. We are operating at the limit of out range, and so a M.85 restriction at FL260 would have such an effect on our fuel flow that we would be unable to reach LHR.
From my experience, most aircraft on this route liaise on the air-to-air frequency. We all have our different problems and requirements depending on our weight and destination, and from my experience the crews sort out these problems amicably and wih professionalism.. Thankfully the animosity seems to be restricted to PPRuNe.

Airclues

[G.Khan]

Capt. Airclues, I agree, it is unreasonable to expect a speed restriction to be in force for an entire 7000 mile flight but it is my opinion that it should be changed at ATC's discretion rather that the individual pilots.
If you are being followed all the way to Europe from SIN by several other B744 then it is possible that anything less than .84 will cause multiple problems for the followers, and yes, sometimes it could be sorted out on 123.45hz.
If you are lucky enough to leave SIN between, say, a couple of A340 or B767 then any speed restriction imposed is likely to be in BA's favour, (assuming they want to slow down).
It is also my personal opinion that one companies internal policy, (see Fuel Wastage thread), should not be arbitrarily imposed on other carriers.
As I am now retired I haven't flown the SIN/LHR route since Sept. 2001 but obviously a longer flight time will help everyone.

[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]