BA202 (BOS-LHR) diverted to Shannon as 'running out of fuel'
Aug 13, 23, 2:51 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: BA Exec Club
Posts: 556
BA202 (BOS-LHR) diverted to Shannon as 'running out of fuel'
A friend of mine is onboard the 202, which has had to divert to Shannon. Apparently, according to explanation offered to passengers, they were forced to fly a much more southerly routing than normal by ATC and at 10k lower too, so has had to divert.to refuel as didnt have enough fuel to reach Heathrow. This is all the passengers have been told.
Appreciate that there is likely to be a good reason for what is going on, and this may be more complex than passengers told. Does anyone happen to know, and is it EU261 claimable?
Appreciate that there is likely to be a good reason for what is going on, and this may be more complex than passengers told. Does anyone happen to know, and is it EU261 claimable?
Last edited by jimlad48; Aug 13, 23 at 3:00 am
Aug 13, 23, 4:09 am
#4
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: London (ne Melbourne)
Programs: Qantas Platinum (Oneworld Emerald)
Posts: 812
A quick look on Flight Radar 24, many of the overnight eastbound Trans Atlantic flights have flown this southerly route, so would be interested why this caused issues for BA's BOS departure but not other flights?
I'm not sure if that could influence compensation, if over 3 hours late, to argue that other flights did not need to be diverted.
I'm not sure if that could influence compensation, if over 3 hours late, to argue that other flights did not need to be diverted.
Aug 13, 23, 4:15 am
#6
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 674
Looking at FR24, for much of the journey over the Atlantic it was flying at 29,000ft which is lower than usual and it was on a very southerly route. I have no idea where the jet stream is at the moment.
It managed to climb to 40,000ft when north of the Azores so definitely not something under BA's control.
*edit* Flightaware shows the filed altitude was 37,000ft.
It managed to climb to 40,000ft when north of the Azores so definitely not something under BA's control.
*edit* Flightaware shows the filed altitude was 37,000ft.
Aug 13, 23, 4:54 am
#8
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,969
A quick look on Flight Radar 24, many of the overnight eastbound Trans Atlantic flights have flown this southerly route, so would be interested why this caused issues for BA's BOS departure but not other flights?
I'm not sure if that could influence compensation, if over 3 hours late, to argue that other flights did not need to be diverted.
I'm not sure if that could influence compensation, if over 3 hours late, to argue that other flights did not need to be diverted.
Aug 13, 23, 4:57 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,634
Filed route was CELTK6 CELTK FRILL DOVEY 4200N/06000W 4400N/05000W 4400N/04000W 4400N/03000W 4700N/02000W 4800N/01500W OMOKO GUNSO GAPLI SIDDI DAWLY ELRIP OTMET OTMET1H
at FL370 initially and normally for a 78X thatll go up to around 380-390 for the oceanic entry.
At looks like FL290 was given which will make a good dent in the fuel burn. Even with mitigations just as using long range cruise speed (LRC) which will again be subject to ATC, there may well not be enough to legally comply with the fuel requirements and ensure a landing with final reserve intact, so the short fall in fuel will get to a point where a diversion for a splash and a dash is required, subject again to flight time limitations and the ability to get airborn and land back at LHR in time to meet flight time limitations.
From the plots Im allowed to post, it seems they got the desired track as filed, just not the level, hence the shortfall.
Filled routing.
Actually flown.
So in short no, as this is all ATC inspired due to demand vs capacity, it wont be claimable. It is rather rare to have such a significant difference in filled vs cleared flight level over the NAT system.
at FL370 initially and normally for a 78X thatll go up to around 380-390 for the oceanic entry.
At looks like FL290 was given which will make a good dent in the fuel burn. Even with mitigations just as using long range cruise speed (LRC) which will again be subject to ATC, there may well not be enough to legally comply with the fuel requirements and ensure a landing with final reserve intact, so the short fall in fuel will get to a point where a diversion for a splash and a dash is required, subject again to flight time limitations and the ability to get airborn and land back at LHR in time to meet flight time limitations.
From the plots Im allowed to post, it seems they got the desired track as filed, just not the level, hence the shortfall.
Filled routing.
Actually flown.
So in short no, as this is all ATC inspired due to demand vs capacity, it wont be claimable. It is rather rare to have such a significant difference in filled vs cleared flight level over the NAT system.
Aug 13, 23, 5:03 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: BA Exec Club
Posts: 556
Aug 13, 23, 5:04 am
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: BA Exec Club
Posts: 556
Filed route was CELTK6 CELTK FRILL DOVEY 4200N/06000W 4400N/05000W 4400N/04000W 4400N/03000W 4700N/02000W 4800N/01500W OMOKO GUNSO GAPLI SIDDI DAWLY ELRIP OTMET OTMET1H
at FL370 initially and normally for a 78X thatll go up to around 380-390 for the oceanic entry.
At looks like FL290 was given which will make a good dent in the fuel burn. Even with mitigations just as using long range cruise speed (LRC) which will again be subject to ATC, there may well not be enough to legally comply with the fuel requirements and ensure a landing with final reserve intact, so the short fall in fuel will get to a point where a diversion for a splash and a dash is required, subject again to flight time limitations and the ability to get airborn and land back at LHR in time to meet flight time limitations.
From the plots Im allowed to post, it seems they got the desired track as filed, just not the level, hence the shortfall.
Filled routing.
Actually flown.
So in short no, as this is all ATC inspired due to demand vs capacity, it wont be claimable. It is rather rare to have such a significant difference in filled vs cleared flight level over the NAT system.
at FL370 initially and normally for a 78X thatll go up to around 380-390 for the oceanic entry.
At looks like FL290 was given which will make a good dent in the fuel burn. Even with mitigations just as using long range cruise speed (LRC) which will again be subject to ATC, there may well not be enough to legally comply with the fuel requirements and ensure a landing with final reserve intact, so the short fall in fuel will get to a point where a diversion for a splash and a dash is required, subject again to flight time limitations and the ability to get airborn and land back at LHR in time to meet flight time limitations.
From the plots Im allowed to post, it seems they got the desired track as filed, just not the level, hence the shortfall.
Filled routing.
Actually flown.
So in short no, as this is all ATC inspired due to demand vs capacity, it wont be claimable. It is rather rare to have such a significant difference in filled vs cleared flight level over the NAT system.
Thanks - thats incredibly helpful and also very interesting!
Aug 13, 23, 5:48 am
#12
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 674
It was stuck below and just behind a QR flight at 31,000ft from BOS to DOH for much of the way. That combined with other traffic in the area meant it had no way out!
Aug 13, 23, 6:07 am
#13
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,166
Ultimately, BA took the bare minimum fuel and got found out here. Much like not having sufficient spare crew in the case of one falling ill, its a commercial decision.
Aug 13, 23, 6:32 am
#14
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 202
On the other hand, the airline should have uplifted sufficient fuel to account for limited air traffic capacity over the Atlantic. The planning cant be based solely on the requested / best case altitude.
Ultimately, BA took the bare minimum fuel and got found out here. Much like not having sufficient spare crew in the case of one falling ill, its a commercial decision.
Ultimately, BA took the bare minimum fuel and got found out here. Much like not having sufficient spare crew in the case of one falling ill, its a commercial decision.
Aug 13, 23, 6:34 am
#15
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 41,800
On the other hand, the airline should have uplifted sufficient fuel to account for limited air traffic capacity over the Atlantic. The planning cant be based solely on the requested / best case altitude.
Ultimately, BA took the bare minimum fuel and got found out here. Much like not having sufficient spare crew in the case of one falling ill, its a commercial decision.
Ultimately, BA took the bare minimum fuel and got found out here. Much like not having sufficient spare crew in the case of one falling ill, its a commercial decision.
do you know how much extra would have been required in order not to divert?
