The incident to which I referred was a 747 which tthis (NB first off the google box with only a cursory glance-through so I do not associate myself with any assertions made therein.)

Certainly BA did this for commercial reasons and while not terribly difficult from an ops position (a 747 can fly with three or even two engines without major difficulty), The Smart Response would have been to land at JFK and transfer pax onto existing BA flights. As it happened the craft had to divert to MAN anyway due to fuel issues. It made, IMO (but just MO, okay), BA seem cheap and penny-pinching, seeming to want to avoid EU compensation rules, et al.

Wait there must eb a FT thread (sorry as you may be able to tell I am late and must dash): http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=404566 (edit: Globaliser in that thread, hope he's well) and I like Patrick Smith so here too: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...04/index2.html

My point was that BA's response at the time was (said in a very 1930s headmaster voice): "Well we're sure the American authorities would have had something to say to us if we dumped all that nasty jet fuel over Huntington Beach so obviously the only sensible thing to do was fly all the way to London", which sounded ludicrous and did little to improve BA's battered public image at the time (sound familiar).

Whereas an overland flight to JFK and transfer to other BA flights and engine maintenance at BA's flight centres there would have gotten the job done without any high drama and theatrics.

egads 15 min late but obviously I like this place... bye...