Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - Dec 9 CX889

anyone know why it's cancelled?

I saw the plane today (12-10) at 9am at T7. By 11am it was gone. I have no idea what the deal is/was.

The flight went mechanical. Was due to be 2days late out of JFK so CX just cancelled the flight altogether.

Chances are that the plane was empty when you saw it at T7 today and was ferried back to HKG without any passengers.

Most likely CX transferred their passengers to YYZ or via other carriers.

[This message has been edited by Guy Betsy (edited 12-11-2002).]

Aircraft is B-HUE

She had an engine failure inbound YVR-JFK and has to have a replacement fitted in JFK. BA is loaning an RB211 and the aircraft will probably be ferried home, but may also be repositioned to either YVR/LHR.

[This message has been edited by B747-437B (edited 12-11-2002).]

how is an aircraft "ferried home"?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jakob:
how is an aircraft "ferried home"?</font>

3-engine ferry flights without passengers are permissible. They're just flown regularly (with an engine out) otherwise.

Thanks for the detailed info.

I saw what i believe to be the plane near building 12 at 9am this morning? Any idea when it is going to leave?

I was supposed to be on this cancelled flight. I heard from other passengers that there were fire trucks escorting the plane when it landed.
We(the passengers) were sent to Radission at JKF for the night. CX rebooked me to fly to YYZ and took CX 829 to HK. I know many passengers were scheduled to take a BA flight to LHR and onward to HK.
The CX aiport manger told me that this kind of large scale mechanical problem had never happened before in his 7 years tenure.
I was generally impressed by the way CX handled with this incident. The only complain I have was the inefficency and lack of communication of the BA ground staff.
I will write a detail trip report of this incident after I come back from my vacation.

[This message has been edited by David Kung (edited 12-12-2002).]

Well, CX 889 has arrived in Hong Kong on Friday evening at about 7pm.

Yes, I agree that BA ground staffs at JFK is the weakest link of CX operations. I am fine with BA agents almost around the world, except the JFK base.

Look forward to your trip report!

Carfield

Does anyone have an updateon what happened and if it was as serious as some reports here indicate? I wonder if it was an uncontained failure as a NZ 767 experienced lately.

FWIW, a QF 747 headed for JFK apparently suffered an engine failure (like CX and BA, it was R-R powered). Ironically, it was the last flight for the QF captain and the first time he's ever flown a plane which lost an engine.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
...Ironically, it was the last flight for the QF captain and the first time he's ever flown a plane which lost an engine.</font>

However, after a brief search, it was found under the left wing.

Does CX keep a spare 744 at JFK?
I saw one at outside of building 17 at 11AM today. Is that a spare or has the damaged plane not left yet?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
I wonder if it was an uncontained failure as a NZ 767 experienced lately.</font>

I'm not familiar with the NZ 767 incident, but the CX incident was a fully contained failure. Uncontained failures are EXTREMELY rare occurances and usually warrant an immediate diversion and grounding of the aircraft.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by audio-nut:
Does CX keep a spare 744 at JFK?
I saw one at outside of building 17 at 11AM today. Is that a spare or has the damaged plane not left yet?</font>

The a/c is question was reported as having returned to HKG last week. I doubt if CX does keep a spare in JFK. Perhaps it was a freighter (it would have the small bubble of a 747-100/200).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by B747-437B:
I'm not familiar with the NZ 767 incident, but the CX incident was a fully contained failure. Uncontained failures are EXTREMELY rare occurances and usually warrant an immediate diversion and grounding of the aircraft.
</font>

The CX incident seems to have been blown out of proportion more than it was if the failure was contained? The NZ 767 indicent was rather severe with engine, wing and engine mount perforations. Very closeup pictures were pubished on a webpage that has since been pulled.

Was this the same type of incident (and engine) that resulted in the US 762 being written off?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
The CX incident seems to have been blown out of proportion more than it was if the failure was contained? The NZ 767 indicent was rather severe with engine, wing and engine mount perforations. Was this the same type of incident (and engine) that resulted in the US 762 being written off? </font>

The CX incident was blown way out of proportion. The flight suffered a simple inflight shutdown and didn't even divert, but rather continued on to its destination of JFK where it was fixed and returned home within 2 days.

Yes, the NZ and US incidents were with the same type of engine and aircraft.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
The a/c is question was reported as having returned to HKG last week. I doubt if CX does keep a spare in JFK. Perhaps it was a freighter (it would have the small bubble of a 747-100/200).</font>

That is probaly it except for i thought i saw winglets.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by audio-nut:
That is probaly it except for i thought i saw winglets.</font>

747-400Fs have the small bubble but have the -400 wing (so they have winglets).