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/)
-   -   Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK] (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1938888-flight-hell-ba2036-mco-lgw-delayed-then-diverted-jfk.html)

lavajava Nov 2, 18 11:37 am

Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK]
 
Hi helpful FTers, happy Friday.
Would anyone be able to provide the EF information for BA2036 (MCO-LGW) for Thurs 1 Nov? Google seems to state a 1 hour delay but believe the reality is the plane didn't leave MCO due to a technical issue. Thanks in advance!

Globaliser Nov 2, 18 11:41 am


Originally Posted by lavajava (Post 30385727)
Would anyone be able to provide the EF information for BA2036 (MCO-LGW) for Thurs 1 Nov? Google seems to state a 1 hour delay but believe the reality is the plane didn't leave MCO due to a technical issue.

It looks like it might be more like 25 hours:-
Code:

Flight Status Search:
Departing on 01/11/18
Flying BA flight 2036

Comments:
DOBA2036/01NOV
* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO *            BA2036  -1 TH 01NOV18 
CITY INFO                                      HOUR (LOCAL) 
 
MCO  NEXT INFO WILL BE AT                      2200           
    DELAY ZO                                                 
    ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE                2100           
    ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL                  0830    LGW   
.
.
.


lavajava Nov 2, 18 11:49 am


Originally Posted by Globaliser (Post 30385746)
It looks like it might be more like 25 hours:-
Code:

Flight Status Search:
Departing on 01/11/18
Flying BA flight 2036

Comments:
DOBA2036/01NOV
* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * BA2036 -1 TH 01NOV18
CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL)

MCO NEXT INFO WILL BE AT 2200
DELAY ZO
ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 2100
ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 0830 LGW
.
.
.


Thank you! Seems some family members will get a contribution to their US shopping bill.

Globaliser Nov 3, 18 2:41 am


Originally Posted by lavajava (Post 30385782)
Seems some family members will get a contribution to their US shopping bill.

I was curious enough to have a look this morning.

BA2037 LGW-MCO on 1 November was operated by G-VIIR. The aircraft should have operated BA2036 MCO-LGW on 1 November, but that flight was delayed (see above).

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. EF says "aircraft forced to return" and also seems to say for this flight that the diversion to JFK was for "aircraft defects". I can't tell whether the aircraft had paying passengers on board.

The aircraft had been planned to operate BA2273 LGW-JFK today, but that has been cancelled "tech". We will have to see whether the aircraft is seriously sick, or whether it can be repaired in time so that the aircraft can pick up the schedule again by operating tonight's BA2272 JFK-LGW on time.

I suppose that one possible benefit of the diversion to JFK, if there are passengers on board, is that it could be relatively easy to transfer them to other aircraft to get back to London.

Possibly a bit of a nightmare, though, for any people who had planned to be back in London on the morning of 2 November and might not now get back until after an overnight flight tonight.

lavajava Nov 3, 18 5:59 am


Originally Posted by Globaliser (Post 30387654)
I was curious enough to have a look this morning.

BA2037 LGW-MCO on 1 November was operated by G-VIIR. The aircraft should have operated BA2036 MCO-LGW on 1 November, but that flight was delayed (see above).

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. EF says "aircraft forced to return" and also seems to say for this flight that the diversion to JFK was for "aircraft defects". I can't tell whether the aircraft had paying passengers on board.

The aircraft had been planned to operate BA2273 LGW-JFK today, but that has been cancelled "tech". We will have to see whether the aircraft is seriously sick, or whether it can be repaired in time so that the aircraft can pick up the schedule again by operating tonight's BA2272 JFK-LGW on time.

I suppose that one possible benefit of the diversion to JFK, if there are passengers on board, is that it could be relatively easy to transfer them to other aircraft to get back to London.

Possibly a bit of a nightmare, though, for any people who had planned to be back in London on the morning of 2 November and might not now get back until after an overnight flight tonight.

@Globaliser - Thanks for this, and yes having had messages this morning from the family members they were stuck in New York and there were no hotels due to the Marathon. Seems they got the standard piece of paper to say up to £200 on hotel, 2 calls etc. The main issue is one family member has run out of medication, meaning any further delay may result in admission to hospital - not ideal.

In anycase, I phoned BA holidays on their behalf this morning and got through to a very helpful person, with the plan to conference them in if needed. They advised they have at least one rescue flight that should have left LON for JFK at 11 but stated they would look into all options. They were able to get them rebooked on BA184 from EWR however looking at the seatmap on BA184 seems like there is no room for three in WTP (but there is in other classes).

I'll have to drive them to Gatwick to get their car in the morning. Fingers crossed.

ScienceTeacher Nov 3, 18 2:23 pm


Originally Posted by lavajava (Post 30387989)
@Globaliser Seems they got the standard piece of paper to say up to £200 on hotel...

Iím curious about this. Why £200.00?
I was in Switzerland a few months ago and my flight was cancelled. I looked at hotels and the cheapest was over £400. Thankfully I was rebooked onto a same day flight, but, surely BA have a duty of care and this canít be capped at £200? If the cheapest hotel is above this (and you can prove it); will BA simply not pay?

simons1 Nov 3, 18 2:46 pm


Originally Posted by ScienceTeacher (Post 30389326)
Iím curious about this. Why £200.00?
I was in Switzerland a few months ago and my flight was cancelled. I looked at hotels and the cheapest was over £400. Thankfully I was rebooked onto a same day flight, but, surely BA have a duty of care and this canít be capped at £200? If the cheapest hotel is above this (and you can prove it); will BA simply not pay?

This is correct....if the going rate was £400 (and you could take screen shots to support/strengthen your case) then that is what the airline is on the hook for. BA has no legal basis to cap the cost, their alternative is to arrange the accommodation themselves.

Globaliser Nov 4, 18 1:08 am


Originally Posted by lavajava (Post 30387989)
The main issue is one family member has run out of medication, meaning any further delay may result in admission to hospital - not ideal.

I hope that everything turned out OK on this and every other front. Next time, I'm sure that they'll plan medication on the basis that delays can happen - as they always can!

Originally Posted by ScienceTeacher (Post 30389326)

Originally Posted by lavajava (Post 30387989)
Seems they got the standard piece of paper to say up to £200 on hotel ...

Iím curious about this. Why £200.00?

I think that this is on the basis that it would be unusual for it to cost more than £200 to get a hotel room for a night, and so it would be unreasonable for the passenger to spend more than that if organising their own hotel accommodation.

You only need to read FT for a short while to see some of the self-entitlement and/or mickey-taking around: There are plenty of people who would see nothing wrong in booking the most expensive hotel room they could immediately find and trying to make BA pay for it. Whether it's just on the basis of "I want to have this at someone else's expense", or because "I am too special to have to stay in a Holiday Inn Express", it's not hard to imagine this kind of behaviour.

On a common sense basis, stating a maximum up front would tend to curb that without normally damaging anyone's ability to get accommodation of a reasonable standard. In addition, we should remember that to many passengers, something like (say) £175 is an eye-wateringly huge amount to spend on a hotel room for a night and something that they could not afford to pay out of their own pockets; stating a maximum figure up front gives such passengers the comfort of knowing in advance that if they do have to spend that, there won't be any issues over getting reimbursement from BA.

If there is genuinely nothing available for less than £200, which will only be in rare situations, you are right that BA would be liable for the full cost. But you'd want to be able to evidence that situation to BA - and, in due course, to a judge if necessary.

Tim_T Nov 4, 18 2:18 am

It appears the MCO-LGW flight diverted to JFK has made it into the Sunday mail. Lots of pictures of people sleeping on the floor and the complete lack of information or support from BA.

Globaliser Nov 4, 18 2:26 am


Originally Posted by Tim_T (Post 30390778)
It appears the MCO-LGW flight diverted to JFK has made it into the Sunday mail. Lots of pictures of people sleeping on the floor and the complete lack of information or support from BA.

Of course, we have a more direct account from lavajava about what did happen at JFK and why.

Anyway, the aircraft is not seriously sick. She has just landed at LGW having operated 3 November's BA2272 JFK-LGW as scheduled. It looks like sending the aircraft to JFK worked well from the point of view of picking up the operation again.

And BA did send out an aircraft on a rescue mission, as lavajava was told. G-STBF positioned from LHR to JFK, and then took the delayed MCO-LGW passengers to LGW overnight.

lavajava Nov 4, 18 3:40 am


Originally Posted by Globaliser (Post 30390686)
I hope that everything turned out OK on this and every other front. Next time, I'm sure that they'll plan medication on the basis that delays can happen - as they always can!...

Thanks for the extra info! Yes, all ok and they are now back in the UK. Agreed on the medication aspect, especially with flights from the east coast during the Winter months. Press coverage on NBC New York and of course as mentioned The Daily Mail.

RyanLHR Nov 4, 18 8:46 am

Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK]
 
BA passengers in three-day Orlando to Gatwick journey 'hell' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46088636

I canít understand with so many flights between Miami/New York and London on both BA/AA metal why was it not possible to transfer them onto other flights?

krispy84 Nov 4, 18 9:00 am

I just spotted this on the BBC app. It sounds a very unpleasant journey but Iím really fed up with all the OTT hyperbole these stories generate. People crying and blaiming BA because they donít have any baby formula etc etc.

UKTraveller4Fun Nov 4, 18 9:07 am


Originally Posted by krispy84 (Post 30391725)
I just spotted this on the BBC app. It sounds a very unpleasant journey but Iím really fed up with all the OTT hyperbole these stories generate. People crying and blaiming BA because they donít have any baby formula etc etc.

Well actually if u get dumped off a plane and your bags not returned to you in this scenario they may have a point. I actually think being fed up and complaining is probably perfectly reasonably in this case. Not everyone who travels is as adapt and prepared for delays and cancellations as most FT members. For many this maybe the only long haul flight they do this year / couple of years and never been to America before etc!

It maybe some milk it but I feel BA poor service very much opens the door for the 'OTT reaction'

bisonrav Nov 4, 18 9:08 am

Hopefully there was some proactive explanation of EC261, which may dull the pain a bit.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:12 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.