BA177 LHR - JFK 5/7/19 Delay
Jul 5, 2019, 8:05 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 131
BA177 LHR - JFK 5/7/19 Delay
Currently sitting on this at 15:00. Supposed to depart at 13:10. Delayed 45 mins originally because the plane was “too hot to board passengers.”
Got on to the taxiway and had to go back to the stand due to a crew member taking ill. Presumably due to the heat on board. Its probably 40 degrees plus.
Now waiting on a standby crew member and refuelling. Hope the crew member who has taken ill is safe and well.
Anybody know what the crew duty max out at? I assume we will be fine tor JFK and a short flying time ot 6.45.
Update: looks like we are about to push back (again) exactly 3 hours late and arrive at JFK just under the 3 hours late.
Got on to the taxiway and had to go back to the stand due to a crew member taking ill. Presumably due to the heat on board. Its probably 40 degrees plus.
Now waiting on a standby crew member and refuelling. Hope the crew member who has taken ill is safe and well.
Anybody know what the crew duty max out at? I assume we will be fine tor JFK and a short flying time ot 6.45.
Update: looks like we are about to push back (again) exactly 3 hours late and arrive at JFK just under the 3 hours late.
Last edited by everGLAdes; Jul 5, 2019 at 9:10 am
Jul 5, 2019, 11:36 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Significantly less than 3 hours late if this estimate holds up:-
Code:
DOBA177/05JUL * OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * BA 177 0 FR 05JUL19 CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL) LHR ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 1610 DELAY ZO LEFT THE GATE 1618 TOOK OFF 1646 ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 1830 JFK *1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO* BA 177 0 FR 05JUL19 APT ARR DY DEP DY CLASS/MEAL EQP GRND EFT TTL LHR 1310 FR FAJCDRIWETY/M 744 7:50 BHKMLVSNQOG/M JFK 1600 FR 7:50 . . . .
Jul 5, 2019, 4:50 pm
#5
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: Mucci, BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Stena Gold
Posts: 1,092
Jul 5, 2019, 4:52 pm
#6
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midwest USA
Programs: BA SIL, WN A, UA SIL, Marriott TIT (LT), Hilton DIA
Posts: 1,969
Jul 6, 2019, 1:51 am
#8
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,953
Jul 6, 2019, 4:27 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
ATA 1838.
In other words, a 3:18 departure delay and a 2:38 arrival delay.
No doubt whatever efforts were made by BA to try to minimise the disruption to passengers will be interpreted as some dastardly trick to deny them of their rightful lottery win.
In other words, a 3:18 departure delay and a 2:38 arrival delay.
No doubt whatever efforts were made by BA to try to minimise the disruption to passengers will be interpreted as some dastardly trick to deny them of their rightful lottery win.
Jul 6, 2019, 4:39 am
#10
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,110
Well, there are air start carts which you could try to use to run the packs but as you say they're insufficient - they provide enough air power to run the air turbine starter and that's it. A low volume of higher pressure air at ambient temperature.
There are also air conditioning carts, and in hot countries you see similar equipment mounted on the airbridge, which provide a high volume of air at low pressure and chilled below ambient, fed directly into the cabin ventilation manifold. That is what you need to cool down the aircraft if the APU is not working.
Anecdote: a few years ago flying on CX from HKG we were called to board but when we arrived at the aircraft it was extremely hot. It turned out later that the Captain had asked the gate not to send the first bus but they had failed to act on his message and returning us (the First and upper tier Business passengers....) to the gate would be administratively difficult. Not only was the APU unserviceable, but the air con cart had also failed, so the Captain was summoning an air start cart so he could start one engine and finally cool the aircraft down. He did not sound like he was having a good day. I watched the proceedings with interest, because I'm a nerd, and because the cabin was far too hot to sit in - all the passengers stood by the open doors.
Jul 8, 2019, 9:07 am
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 131
To be fair they did take on extra fuel and manage to cut the flight time down to around 6:30 which is good for a Westbound TATL. I am not bothered about the compensation factor. I am mostly bothered by how the whole situation was handled that day. We're lucky that we didn't have a medical divert mid flight as some passengers were taking ill on board due. to the earlier heat when on the ground and then the cabin being overly warm for large portion of the flight.
Jul 8, 2019, 4:23 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
However, it seems to be becoming a depressingly common approach around here that if the airline succeeds in doing what the legislation intends, namely to reduce the length of the delay, that is now regarded as misconduct on the airline's part.
Jul 9, 2019, 8:57 am
#13
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: BA Gold, AA PLT PRO, AGR, Strawberry (Nordic Choice), Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 4,248
And so BA should. The object of the regulation is to give an incentive to the airline to reduce delays and consequent inconvenience to the customer. If it keeps the delay down below the compensation threshold, that should be regarded as success for the legislation.
However, it seems to be becoming a depressingly common approach around here that if the airline succeeds in doing what the legislation intends, namely to reduce the length of the delay, that is now regarded as misconduct on the airline's part.
However, it seems to be becoming a depressingly common approach around here that if the airline succeeds in doing what the legislation intends, namely to reduce the length of the delay, that is now regarded as misconduct on the airline's part.
Of course there has to be a cutoff for compensation but from the passengers’ perspective there’s little difference between a 3hr delay on the ground which results in a 3hr late arrival and the same delay after which they arrive 2.5hrs late: the first gets compensation, the second doesn’t but the pain of waiting on the ground was just the same even if the result is slightly better in the second case.
Jul 9, 2019, 9:24 am
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Of course there has to be a cutoff for compensation but from the passengers’ perspective there’s little difference between a 3hr delay on the ground which results in a 3hr late arrival and the same delay after which they arrive 2.5hrs late: the first gets compensation, the second doesn’t but the pain of waiting on the ground was just the same even if the result is slightly better in the second case.