Rerouting because of faulty airconditioning

Back to Forum
Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)

  • philsquares
    Participant

    ETOPS means Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is a certification that permits twin engine aircraft to fly routes which may, at the time, be 60 minutes flying time from the nearest airport that is suitable for an emergency landing. The other meaning of ETOPS is also the more informally known: Engines Turn or Passengers Swim

    Hmmm, ETOPS hasn’t been around for a little while now. It is now, EROPS (Extended Range Operations). Unlike the applicability to two-engine aircraft with ETOPS, EROPS applies to two, three and four-engine aircraft. Same criteria but it applies to all aircraft.

    DavidSmith2….
    There is no conspiracy to keep anyone in the dark at all. One could argue, the re-route was to ensure passenger safety! The flight didn’t contain additional risks as a result of a new route. Had the flight remained on the same route, one could argue it was increasing the risks. The reroute clearly will not result in any compensation at all. What is the upside to your allegations of “keeping people in the dark”? Given the timing of the flight


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    Something similar once happened with Swiss a few years back when i flew JNB-ZRH on a A-330. One of the 5 flight management systems could not be reset. After many attempts at hard and soft resets the captain got permission to fly with 4, but had to take the east coast route as they had bases in Dar es Salaam, Nairobi and Cairo. After a few hours delay, including offloading some freight and taking on more fuel we left for an uneventful journey.

    Throughout the Captain explained the reasons for the delay, what they were doing and promising to update us with information every 20 minutes, which he did and explaining why they were re-routing over the east coast. This seems in contrast to the way BA handled it.


    AMcWhirter
    Participant

    Yes I too was surprised that passengers were not told the reason.

    This would be a long-haul route for BA and so one would expect better service.


    DavidSmith2
    Participant

    Well, well well…. that was easy. Just received the following from BA Customer relations:

    “I’ve checked the details of your journey and I’m pleased to advise you’re entitled to compensation for the delay to your flight, BA0078 on 2 December 2021. The distance of your disrupted journey was over 3,500km and this has been calculated in accordance with EU legislation. This means you’re entitled to €600.00 in compensation.

    The total amount of compensation you’re due is €1,200.00 as there are two passengers included in your claim. I’ve raised a bank transfer for £1,024.22, which will be paid directly to you within 21 days.”

    So I reckon that has just about covered my total Amazon and Tesco bills for Xmas shopping this year. Happy days!!

    5 users thanked author for this post.

    DavidSmith2
    Participant

    What is the upside to your allegations of “keeping people in the dark”? Given the timing of the flight

    I can of course now respond in the knowledge that BA has accepted liability with no quibble whatsoever. But I would have said that the rationale for keeping people in the dark was that, had the pilot explained we would be re-routing, because of additional flying risks, then some people would have opted to de-plane. This would of course have further delayed departure, while bags etc were offloaded. As it was, taking off without informing us of the change, avoided this scenario.

    That is purely a theory however and there may be other equally good theories.

Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller UK cover May 2022
Business Traveller UK cover May 2022
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls