Nov 6, 2018, 5:24 am
Last edit by: lavajava
Key Information (thanks @corporate-wage-slave):
Original schedule
Thursday 1 November BA2036 (Operated by G-VIIR)
MCO dep 2120
LGW arr 1025 - Friday 2 November
Delay Reason: Aircraft Defects/Technical
Actual schedule
Saturday 3 November BA2036
MCO dep 0032 (was at some point intended to depart at 19.25 on Friday)
Diverted: JFK arr 0345 Saturday 3 November
----------
JFK dep 2038 Saturday 3 November
LGW arr 0645 Sunday 4 November
Delay: 45 hours 40 minutes late for those who were not re-routed on to other services.
The rescue aircraft G-STBF left LHR at 12:52 and landed in JFK 15:27
Diversion Information (thanks @Globaliser):
The aircraft left MCO just before 0100 on 3 November as BA9601. It got to about Charleston, made a U-turn, and then another one when it was back near Savannah, before continuing northbound and diverting to JFK. ExpertFlyer.com says "aircraft forced to return" and also seems to say for this flight that the diversion to JFK was for "aircraft defects".
Compensation Information:
This delay should be in scope for 600 Euro delay compensation plus applicable/reasonable expenses. Please follow the link to the EU261 Compensation thread that contains a useful Wiki section.
Original schedule
Thursday 1 November BA2036 (Operated by G-VIIR)
MCO dep 2120
LGW arr 1025 - Friday 2 November
Delay Reason: Aircraft Defects/Technical
Actual schedule
Saturday 3 November BA2036
MCO dep 0032 (was at some point intended to depart at 19.25 on Friday)
Diverted: JFK arr 0345 Saturday 3 November
----------
JFK dep 2038 Saturday 3 November
LGW arr 0645 Sunday 4 November
Delay: 45 hours 40 minutes late for those who were not re-routed on to other services.
The rescue aircraft G-STBF left LHR at 12:52 and landed in JFK 15:27
Diversion Information (thanks @Globaliser):
The aircraft left MCO just before 0100 on 3 November as BA9601. It got to about Charleston, made a U-turn, and then another one when it was back near Savannah, before continuing northbound and diverting to JFK. ExpertFlyer.com says "aircraft forced to return" and also seems to say for this flight that the diversion to JFK was for "aircraft defects".
Compensation Information:
This delay should be in scope for 600 Euro delay compensation plus applicable/reasonable expenses. Please follow the link to the EU261 Compensation thread that contains a useful Wiki section.
Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK]
Nov 4, 2018, 1:35 pm
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 18,398
"Customers were rebooked where possible and while there were limited hotel rooms available, our teams on the ground cared for customers in our first class lounge providing bedding, food and drinks to ensure they were comfortable during their stay."
It appears BA are telling porkies yet again...
It appears BA are telling porkies yet again...
"Customers were rebooked where possible and while there were limited hotel rooms available, our teams on the ground cared for customers in our first class lounge providing bedding, food and drinks to ensure they were comfortable during their stay."
What was omitted was the next part:
“Those customers who were not in our first class lounge, they were screwed”
Nov 4, 2018, 1:42 pm
#47
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 4,510
No, you just need to read this correctly and you’ll see it’s completely accurate.
"Customers were rebooked where possible and while there were limited hotel rooms available, our teams on the ground cared for customers in our first class lounge providing bedding, food and drinks to ensure they were comfortable during their stay."
What was omitted was the next part:
“Those customers who were not in our first class lounge, they were screwed”
"Customers were rebooked where possible and while there were limited hotel rooms available, our teams on the ground cared for customers in our first class lounge providing bedding, food and drinks to ensure they were comfortable during their stay."
What was omitted was the next part:
“Those customers who were not in our first class lounge, they were screwed”
Nov 4, 2018, 1:46 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 18,398
Yet only those in the know seemed to know about it.
Nov 4, 2018, 2:02 pm
#49
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Programs: BA GGLfL, WoH Lifetime Globalist, HH Diamond, SPG Gold
Posts: 711
Doc Copper
Nov 4, 2018, 2:13 pm
#50
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: BAEC Silver, IHG Diamond
Posts: 7,757
Not sure if F passengers and CCR were turned away during it's normal hours of operation or what.
Would be interesting to hear who actually was in there, assuming it was the CCR and not some other lounge that was given a more upmarket name to, rather than us conjecturing.
Nov 4, 2018, 2:17 pm
#51
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,655
I know some people were rebooked on available BA flights early morning out of JFK, there are only a very limited number of flights leaving JFK in the morning for LHR, I do not know if there were other morning flights to LHR with other carriers and if indeed they had any spare seats to be filled. Any delay for whatever reason it is and very often turns to be a very draining, complicate and tiring experience sometime because of different and varied factors all the best intentions are not perceived as such.
But by the time the aircraft went tech the first time, people should have been rebooked on JBA services via DFW/CLT/PHL/MIA/NYC/ORD before it even got stranded the second time in JFK.
Even sticking to BA/AA/IB/AY I'm sure this could have been done.
Nov 4, 2018, 2:28 pm
#52
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,655
But far more importantly, why is there the capability to automatically rebook passengers on the next available flight as the US carriers do?
Rather than some poor outsourced sap on the ground having to manually wade through hundreds of bookings?
Ah, I know, because it would cost Capex to do that, and thus some Waterside manager wouldn't get their bonus for that year for continuing to slash costs.
Rather than some poor outsourced sap on the ground having to manually wade through hundreds of bookings?
Ah, I know, because it would cost Capex to do that, and thus some Waterside manager wouldn't get their bonus for that year for continuing to slash costs.
Nov 4, 2018, 2:35 pm
#53
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 125
I do not think they planned the second tech problem the plan was to fly the delayed service to LGW and as planned they would have landed to the original final destination far earlier than any rescheduled alternative routing, sadly and exceptionally the plan did not materialise and all best intentions and wishful thinking did not materialise and what could have been a simple tech delay turned out to develop into an unwanted or needed pr problem.
Nov 4, 2018, 2:44 pm
#54
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, België
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,512
I do not think they planned the second tech problem the plan was to fly the delayed service to LGW and as planned they would have landed to the original final destination far earlier than any rescheduled alternative routing, sadly and exceptionally the plan did not materialise and all best intentions and wishful thinking did not materialise and what could have been a simple tech delay turned out to develop into an unwanted or needed pr problem.
As someone said upthread, an organisation can be judged by how it responds to these exceptional situations. On this occasion, BA fell woefully short.
Nov 4, 2018, 2:59 pm
#56
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 125
It might be an unwanted or unneeded (by BA) PR problem, but if they're relying on "best intentions" and "wishful thinking" then by God it's a PR problem that they deserve.
As someone said upthread, an organisation can be judged by how it responds to these exceptional situations. On this occasion, BA fell woefully short.
As someone said upthread, an organisation can be judged by how it responds to these exceptional situations. On this occasion, BA fell woefully short.
Let's hope they all get a proper compensation package
Nov 4, 2018, 3:13 pm
#57
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 4,510
Now I sympathise with those delayed but would be livid to be denied access to the lounge that I had, in effect, paid to visit. Will BA also compensate these passengers’s as well as those traveling from MCO?
And to be clear, MCO is one of my most frequently visited airports so this could just as easily have been me.
Nov 4, 2018, 3:27 pm
#58
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 4,510
Nobody was saving that this was an ideal situation, but you can see how and why certain decisions were made along the way. Could BA have communicated this better? Probably, but let’s not forget there are a lot of passengers out there who are unable or unwilling to listen to advice and assistance. Who is to say that those complaining the most now are not the ones who didn’t listen?
Nov 4, 2018, 3:33 pm
#59
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,655
The first time the aircraft went tech would have meant there was very little opportunity to reroute people given that it would have been late on the evening. There are only a handful of TATL flights during the day. The best option would have been to to simply delay 24 hours and go again. Although inconvenient, this was probably better than sending people off all over the US on indirect flights. Clearly they got away later than planned on day two. Not sure why. They then encountered a second technical problem. Hindsight says they should have sent people on the indirect flights. Again they were faced with only a few TATL flights so were left to wait until the evening.
Nobody was saving that this was an ideal situation, but you can see how and why certain decisions were made along the way. Could BA have communicated this better? Probably, but let’s not forget there are a lot of passengers out there who are unable or unwilling to listen to advice and assistance. Who is to say that those complaining the most now are not the ones who didn’t listen?
I’ve been in the air on US carriers before on itineraries where I’m going to miss a connection. I’ve been automatically rebooked whilst in the air on alternative routings.
Quite simply this should have been done the first time, with the guarantee that people would have got home soonest, as opposed to what was the most convenient (and cheapest option) for BA.
Nov 4, 2018, 3:43 pm
#60
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 4,510
Fundamentally disagree.
I’ve been in the air on US carriers before on itineraries where I’m going to miss a connection. I’ve been automatically rebooked whilst in the air on alternative routings.
Quite simply this should have been done the first time, with the guarantee that people would have got home soonest, as opposed to what was the most convenient (and cheapest option) for BA.
I’ve been in the air on US carriers before on itineraries where I’m going to miss a connection. I’ve been automatically rebooked whilst in the air on alternative routings.
Quite simply this should have been done the first time, with the guarantee that people would have got home soonest, as opposed to what was the most convenient (and cheapest option) for BA.
For the example you give, are you referring to late evening TATL flights or routes where options are possible. And the idea of rerouting before arriving is good, hence why BA appear to be adopting it.