FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   British Airways | Executive Club (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club-446/)
-   -   A380 G-XLEB SFO-LHR diverted to YVR due to staff sickness [25 Oct 2016] (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1798378-a380-g-xleb-sfo-lhr-diverted-yvr-due-staff-sickness-25-oct-2016-a.html)

Jagboi Oct 27, 2016 11:28 pm


Originally Posted by BingBongBoy (Post 27401187)
more ability to have someone look at the aircraft if there was a technical fault as YYC is a Boeing station which probably would not have had appropriate engineering support.

YYC is a major hub for Air Canada who fly a lot of Airbus out of YYC. There is no BA engineering at YYC anyway, so it would be staff from some other airline who would have looked at the plane, but they would have been familiar with Airbus aircraft ( but not likely the 380).

JAXBA Oct 27, 2016 11:38 pm


Originally Posted by omaralt (Post 27402738)
...suspicious

Nonsense.

Silver Fox Oct 28, 2016 1:07 am

As it was a fume event that affected the crew then BA has a responsibility to other passengers, and indeed the crew, on the flight to reassure them that their health is not at risk now or in the future. If that has happened then all well and good.

Tiger_lily Oct 28, 2016 1:57 am


Originally Posted by Jagboi (Post 27402963)
YYC is a major hub for Air Canada who fly a lot of Airbus out of YYC. There is no BA engineering at YYC anyway, so it would be staff from some other airline who would have looked at the plane, but they would have been familiar with Airbus aircraft ( but not likely the 380).

YYC doesn't get any A380 service. The decision to go to YVR was the most sensible even though it meant turning around.

Waterhorse Oct 28, 2016 2:06 am


Originally Posted by omaralt (Post 27402738)
lol I love how defensive and upset people are getting. You guys do realize this is a public forum right? This is where we speculate and discuss crazy ideas. We aren't reporters. We simply say what we think. It just seems suspicious to me, and many others, and the fact that they haven't publicly said anything is adding further fuel to the flames. Had I been on that flight I would be very upset about being delayed for days without knowing the reason. Then owe it to those people at least to let them know why their entire journey was messed up. Imagine if you were going to spend a few days in London on vacation. You took the time off of work. Made hotel and other arrangements. Now all of a sudden you are arriving in London 2-3 days after you were supposed to. Your entire vacation has now been ruined. I would be extremely upset if I didn't at least know why. And there is no way BA doesn't already know. Why they're hiding it is suspicious

Im guessing from your use of English that it is not your first language, so I will try to explain in simple terms what happens in a case like this.

There is an incident. It is dealt with by the crew. After this is investigated by the engineers and if required by the appropriate authority. Often the results are routine and not reported by the press as they are boring and mundane. Also many journalists do not understand what they are reading as they do not have the technical background. Any faults found are fixed, the aircraft is returned to service.

vibguy Oct 28, 2016 2:08 am

I think investigators should look at why the toxic fumes did only or mainly affect the crew and not the passengers. This is the real mystery. Did the crew spray the aircraft before the passengers boarded and were they feeling sick afterwards from inhaling too much spray? (insects?, bed bugs?). Or something of that kind? Passengers deserve to know what happened and if they have been exposed to any dangerous substance. Just guessing from my side but something is not right here. A full explanation is due.

Can I help you Oct 28, 2016 2:14 am

The explanation I heard was that because the crew were standing up and moving around the aircraft and the majority of customer were seated, I also believe it was only in a specific area of the aircraft.

corporate-wage-slave Oct 28, 2016 2:43 am


Originally Posted by omaralt (Post 27402738)
lol I love how defensive and upset people are getting.

Let me try and explain this. I'm just a passenger, and a regular in this forum, I haven't much of a clue how aircraft work. But I've a good grasp about how BA works in these circumstances, and it's on the tape really, some fumes in a limited area - not unusual in flying terms unfortunately - caused concern and temporarily took out some crew, the captain therefore decided to land as soon as reasonably possible. It wasn't such an emergency that a landing at Calgary was absolutely required, they went to a BA A380 location not so far off, a much larger airport with better technical facilities. It's actually not that unusual, we've had more details in this post than normal, if an A319 had this sort of problem it would get a few lines in avherald - and by all means check that website to confirm my comments.

In this thread you have a large number of staff members, of various backgrounds, quite annoyed at the trolling. Why is that? Well it's not out of protecting the company, at least one of the staff members is so fed up with BA he is leaving. Another has left less willingly. Many of them have a track record here of criticising BA's management. But that all that stops on an event like this, the professionalism of the company and its entire staff is what you are seeing here, all trivialities are discarded. All involved here worked or would work to keep passengers safe. So they get understandably totally narked when people who probably never stepped on a BA A380 throw out silly comments, just for the fun of it. It's juvenile and doesn't reflect well on the uninformed and lazy commentator.

Incidentally BA staff have in the distant past taken industrial action, it follows a defined procedure which is now well respected, it protects everyone. There is just no way that some wildcat action would arise here, it's pointless, illegal, and unnecessary since there is an easier and more effective alternative.

madfish Oct 28, 2016 2:48 am

Well said, as usual, CWS.

Can I help you Oct 28, 2016 3:47 am

Can I just throw something in here, sometimes I wonder what age some of the posters are?

Waterhorse Oct 28, 2016 3:48 am


Originally Posted by Can I help you (Post 27403404)
Can I just throw something in here, sometimes I wonder what age some of the posters are?

Mental age or physical age?:eek:

stevie Oct 28, 2016 4:06 am


Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave (Post 27403313)
Let me try and explain this. I'm just a passenger, and a regular in this forum, I haven't much of a clue how aircraft work. But I've a good grasp about how BA works in these circumstances, and it's on the tape really, some fumes in a limited area - not unusual in flying terms unfortunately - caused concern and temporarily took out some crew, the captain therefore decided to land as soon as reasonably possible. It wasn't such an emergency that a landing at Calgary was absolutely required, they went to a BA A380 location not so far off, a much larger airport with better technical facilities. It's actually not that unusual, we've had more details in this post than normal, if an A319 had this sort of problem it would get a few lines in avherald - and by all means check that website to confirm my comments.

In this thread you have a large number of staff members, of various backgrounds, quite annoyed at the trolling. Why is that? Well it's not out of protecting the company, at least one of the staff members is so fed up with BA he is leaving. Another has left less willingly. Many of them have a track record here of criticising BA's management. But that all that stops on an event like this, the professionalism of the company and its entire staff is what you are seeing here, all trivialities are discarded. All involved here worked or would work to keep passengers safe. So they get understandably totally narked when people who probably never stepped on a BA A380 throw out silly comments, just for the fun of it. It's juvenile and doesn't reflect well on the uninformed and lazy commentator.

Incidentally BA staff have in the distant past taken industrial action, it follows a defined procedure which is now well respected, it protects everyone. There is just no way that some wildcat action would arise here, it's pointless, illegal, and unnecessary since there is an easier and more effective alternative.

Well said. I think there is a lot of frustration on both 'sides', customers and staff.

Can I help you Oct 28, 2016 4:09 am

Well there's a question we will never know the answer too.
It seems to me that some people treat these sorts of incidents like a soap opera and are desperate to get the next episode and forget that answers only come after the investigation has been completed.

Tiger_lily Oct 28, 2016 4:14 am


Originally Posted by Can I help you (Post 27403451)
Well there's a question we will never know the answer too.
It seems to me that some people treat these sorts of incidents like a soap opera and are desperate to get the next episode and forget that answers only come after the investigation has been completed.

It's not even a soap opera. It's more like everyone wants their own episode of "Keeping up with the Kardashians" after reading some of the posts on here.

Saltire74 Oct 28, 2016 4:20 am

Flyertalk. NOT Conspiracy Theory Talk.............

S


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:27 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.