There's a great parallel here with a BA flight from California to London a few years back. I don't remember the detail 100% but I think they shut down one engine after takeoff and kept going for the UK.

http://www.airlinecrew.net/vbulletin.../t-178631.html

Thing is the calculations were a bit off and the lower altitude flight meant they didn't have enough fuel to complete the flight. They landed in Manchester, a few hundred miles short of London.

Cue the raft of complaints over how BA diced with peoples' lives etc. This example shows that the airlines simply cannot win when it comes to passenger safety. :td:

What I have learned during my course of studies in aeronautical engineering is the following: On the A330/340 the Flight Management and Guidance Computer (FMGC) calculates the estimated fuel burn based on flight plan data for each flight segment. Pilots use the so called 'Howgozit' method (also done by FMGC these days) to check regularly if the estimated remaining fuel exceeds the minimum required fuel to safely complete the flight (plus alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel [30 min. holding]). Depending on which functions of the FMGC were inoperational the pilots may have been unable to perform these functions. They do know how much fuel they used, but there is always a chance of a leak. Fuel calculations include the following parts: Taxi Fuel, Trip Fuel, Contingency Fuel (5% of Trip Fuel), Alternate Fuel, Final Reserve Fuel. Should they decide not to take any extra fuel they will only have a small margin of 5% of the Trip Fuel for unplanned events. With such a tight calculation I would not continue a flight across the Atlantic when I am not sure how much fuel I have left in my tank. Better safe than sorry. I am always glad to hear that safety is still prioritized over economy. [at least this is my best knowledge :)]

Btw: I have also successfully claimed compensation from Lufthansa on two occasions, both times due to technical failure. On both occasions I had to struggle at the airport to get a hotel room free of charge, let alone food vouchers or a phone card. Had they helped me out immediately with accommodation, food and drinks I might not have filed a claim in the first place, as there was no real damage. The rude treatment by the local LH agents in MXP made my decision quite easy :td:

With respect, the OP merely asked:
"Was I supposed to be offered compensation because of the mechanical failure? I was not offered anything at the airport by the agent who re-ticketed me. "

These seem fair questions to me and neither of the points you mention come into it. A simple "yes" or "no" could be helpful, attacks on the poster for real or imagined motives are not fair, IMHO.

Media hype aside ... isn't BA's safety record much superior do LH's?

http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/europe.htm suggests there's not much in it on data going back to 1970. I wouldn't consider one more or less safe than the other to be honest.

My point was simply that when the airlines don't 'play it safe' they get pilloried. Now when they do play it safe, people start asking for compensation. FWIW, I'd have probably preferred the BA flight (and this LH example) turn back or divert - I don't want to be mid-Atlantic on a plane that's running out of fuel.

I think there's been a similar event with LH. I don't remember the geographic details, but I believe it was a flight from South East Europe where the landing gear wouldn't retract. They kept on going but the additional drag meant increased fuel use and the plane had to land a few 100 km short of the final destination.

HTB.

I have no LH flights scheduled, but I just read on facebook that there is to be a strike on Feb 20 in FRA (!). Flights to and from FRA will be affected (i.e. cancelled).

I'm thinking about booking a flight for that day, check in online, and then complain, just for the heck of it.

Or maybe I won't do that, because that would be douchy. Decisions, decisions.

This is going off-topic now, anyhow: I believe what you are referring to might be Hapag Lloyd Flight 3378 from Athens to Hanover. The landing gear did not retract and the cockpit crew decided to divert to Munich. On the way there fuel ran out and an automated warning appeared, so they eventually had to divert to Vienna where the plane crashed some 500 meters before the runway with empty tanks. Thankfully there were no fatalities. As a wrote earlier: The flight management system does not use the actual fuel flow, but 'default' values stored in the FMS database which are based on the aircraft mass and the cruising altitude. It is therefore crucial to always know (and be aware of, which obviously the Hapag pilots were not) the remaining fuel onboard and if the remaining fuel is sufficient to reach the destination.

IMO in case of a technical failure passengers should generally be eligible for some sort of compensation, so that airlines cannot always play the technical trump card in order to avoid compensation even when the cancellation has different reasons. But there should also be a differentiation between technical and operational cancellations.

The 1985 accident was not a BA accident but a KT one. While a company indirectly owned by BA, it was not operated as BA.

The would be like blaming LH for the SR111 accident.

While I remotely agree with your sentiment, the solution is of course to keep the planes in working order which then avoids the "playing safe once things fail" ritual.

Not really. British Airtours was the charter division of British Airways. It flew in essentially BA livery, maintained by BA etc etc. Not even sure it had its own operator certificate. The relationship as I understand it was more BA Citiflyer (out of LCY) to BA. As I understand it, SR111 happened years before LH had any involvement.

But this is impossible. I don't really want to get a flat tyre in my car but even if I change them before every journey, I cant guard against that. The reality is components will fail - sometimes you can predict the failure and replace, but other times the predictions are wrong or you're just out of luck.

I agree on that half: and nonetheless if you tyre pops and you get stuck on the way to the airport, LH will show no mercy for you missing the deadline.

So I don't quite see why you want cut them so much slack here.

Because customers would quite frankly take the piss. It would be impossible to prove otherwise, so all of a sudden there would be no such thing as an inflexible ticket.

As I said, the fact the plane took off makes this a no contest decision for me. Had they made excused before departure then it's markedly different in my book.

Quick reminder to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff about individual members where it belongs, (hint: definitely not here). Just deleted two OT posts.

Regards Oliver2002
Mod M&M forum

simply yes !
them have to pay 400 Euro ! compensation.
Had a similar case some month ago. First them not want to pay ( normal for LH ), but after I brought it to court them finally payed bevore the court made a decision.

Our case was only litle bit different. We also already try to take off from DUS to CDG ( connecting there a F class TG to BKK ), but them had a problem with the engine. The reason why we asked for compensation was, that LH was not willing to put us on a possible connection with SQ F on the same night, ( them claimed SQ had no award seats available ) and only wanted to put us on a LH flight next day or TG flight 2 days later !
And the law says it doesn't matter if someone is on an award or revenue ticket, them have to reaccomodate you on the next available flight of your choice. But LH will always do the same, because in the end it's still cheaper for them to pay the 400 Euro p.p. + court etc. , than to accomodate us on a SQ suite.

I would not mind that.

Some countries in Asia (say Taiwan) enforce all tickets to be flexible and it not hurt consumers. Au contraire.

1. you can take off with a non-airworthy airframe, most of the time at least
2. the airworthiness is a criterion you like but it is not part of the regulation

I'd insist on compensation and if LH declines it, I'd demand that they provide sufficient documentation. Can't be wrong to try it.