starlight

I took my first ever flight with BA and have tolerated all the ups and downs for more than 30 years but above all things I have stuck by them because I believed they were one of the safest airlines in the world with whom to travel. I think I still believe that and the actions of the Captain and crew on the LAS flight endorse that BUT given the very early indications of the initial investigation suggests metal fatigue and given everything we have all seen in recent years on this board, is there a possibility that cost cutting has now impacted on areas I presumed to be sacrosanct and actually affected safety rather than customer service?

I know nothing about this and I seek not to be dramatic but simply wonder about the views of others on the board who know much more.

passy777

It would probably be wise to discuss this after a full investigation has been undertaken and the immediate, underlying and root causes have been determined.

agehall

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: Time will tell. The only question is how and how much. Those questions are much harder to answer.

destere

I have seen no real evidence that engineering has been 'enhanced', to use the word favoured on here. There have been genuine efficiencies; fleet commonality through IAG, outsourcing of IT etc.

It's one thing cut back the product, another to mess with maintenance. BA know they can get away with cutting the product, and they know they won't with maintainence.

Still one of the best.

passy777

Short answers are meaningless in respect of incidents such as what occurred at LAS and can only be based on assumptions, speculation and hearsay.

It may transpire that cost cutting was a contributory factor to the incident, however, until the accident report has been completed, speculating that profits prioritised over safety as a possible cause is unwise at best.

Concealing menus in the Flounge to reduce costs is one thing, skimping on maintenance is in another league.

agehall

Given any question that includes the wording "any possibility of", the answer is always "yes". Very few things have a 0 probability....

My point was certainly not that safety will plummet or anything like that - I was just making a point of the fact that the question is not really relevant as stated.

lorcancoyle

Workload was cited in the engine cowlings investigation I believe. Whether that was due to cost cutting, lack of investment or an unanticipated peak in workload I have no clue. But with an unlimited supply of money I'm sure things could be better (but BA could be bust shortly thereafter)

HIDDY

Where did you get that information?

EsherFlyer

BBC reporting it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34213996:

Not sure if that is in the initial NTSB assessment as it won't load for me at the moment .

chucko

The NTSB simply said that it looked like there was a lot of damage to the high-pressure compressor, and that chunks of the compressor were strewn down the runway. Nothing further as to what caused it.

ObscuredByClouds

If you're trying on a mobile go into your browser settings and click on "request desktop site". The NTSB mobile site has issues.

scillyisles

Given that BA examines everything for cost savings - it would not be a surprise to find that the accountants have been through the engineering budget ( do not know what percentage this is of their fixed costs but i assume significant)
I also know through a close friend who works with the BA engineering dept that they have a reputation for going for the cheapest option.

Scillybear

Whilst not disputing that at all, am I wrong in thinking (I read somewhere) that BA contract out the maintenance of the GE engines on the 777's (including the one involved at LAS) to GE ?

Obviously that doesn't mean that cost cutting is not impacting safety.

scillyisles

BA had their own engine maintenance facility in South Wales which did all their maintenance on their engines. They sold this facility to GE as part of the maintenance deal on the GE90 engines fitted to the 777s. GE then did all BAs engine maintenance but I seem to recall there were quality control problems with their maintenance of RR RB211 engines and they stopped maintaining them. So BA maintains these engines.

Scillybear

Thanks for confirming. That seems to be what I had heard too.

So that means that GE still maintains all the GE90 and the Trents ?


(BTW - a special "intra-scilly" hello to you from LAS where G-VIIO is now parked up at the cargo centre not far from my office)