British Airways impaled a Boeing 787-10 on its own engineering steps because the aircraft got heavier and lower after fueling. The plane had to be inspected, but passengers were left packed in buses on the tarmac while BA figured out what the effect of gravity had been.
Flight 299 from London Heathrow to Chicago O’Hare on Saturday was canceled after the aircraft was damaged on a remote stand. The plane, registered G-ZBLJ, is less than two years old.
- Engineering steps were positioned beside a hatch on the underside of the front fuselage.
- That hatch reportedly contained oxygen cylinders, which were being replaced.
- The aircraft was not yet fueled when the steps were placed.
- The aircraft was then fueled and loaded, increasing weight and compressing the landing gear struts.
- As the 787 settled lower, the steps/platform became wedged into the fuselage.
Posts from the britishairways
community on Reddit
The captain told passengers there were minor internal dents requiring inspection before the aircraft could be released. The flight was eventually cancelled and the aircraft remains on the ground as of this writing. This could be very expensive for British Airways! In addition to repair cost, they owe passengers for the inconvenience.
- UL261 passenger delay compensation (1) for flights over 2,175 miles (2) where the delay is 4 hours or more is $704.31 per passenger.
- A BA 787-10 holds 256 passengers. The plane was reportedly full. The return from Chicago couldn’t operate as-scheduled because this aircraft couldn’t be sent. That’s 500 inconvenienced customers.
- That’s total owed compensation to customers of $352,000 plus ‘duty of care’ which would involve hotels and meals. Of course, many customers won’t know to submit a claim (BA does not pay this automatically).
Passengers had already been bussed to the remote stand, then stood in crowded buses for around 90 minutes with little information while “15-20 people” came to inspect, photograph, stare at, and discuss the stuck steps. Law enforcement also showed up because as a matter of course aircraft damage was checked for intentional acts though this was clearly just a foul up.
(HT: Paddle Your Own Kanoo)
This. Is. Why. We. Need. EU/UK 261. Equivalent. In. The. U.S.A.
British Airways (and their agents) messed up here. Affected passengers were significantly delayed. Time is money. Those customers paid a premium for those specific routes, dates, times, service. This isn’t hard. They should be owed compensation for the inconvenience, in addition to refund or rebookings. No, private insurance isn’t enough. No, it doesn’t raise costs on passengers (see Ryanair which has operated the ULCC model profitably for years in-compliance with such rules.) Is the airline lobby that powerful? Are their lies and propaganda (and couple thousand dollars in bribes to your Congress person) that compelling? When are we going to finally wake up in America and stop leaving money on the table. At the very least, bring back Rule 240 in the US. (Airlines get you on the next available flight, even if its with another carrier, etc.)
@1990
I agree 100% but we will not see it until sanity returns to the Congress and White House. So, we are at least 2.5 years away unless the Commander-in-Thief refuses to vacate the Capitol.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but the EU/UK 261 regulations are not a silver bullet. For sure, pax will celebrate getting compensation, but in the end, the airlines are not just going to absorb these costs. When operating expenses increase for whatever reason — food/catering, fuel, passenger compensation, the airlines are going to pass this on. And yes, even Ryan Air added surcharges per ticket. If an airline has to pay out several billion per year, they’re going to cover that cost. If they just did simple math — say $5billion divided by the number of passengers they carry, then the amount would be relatively small. But this on top of other growing expenses has a multiplied effect.
@WileyDog — Yes, this may take a while, but it is worth remembering that we can and should do better. I agree, this should be a permanent fix via legislation, not a DOT rule that could be struck down, depending on the administration. (As for the other matter, plain language of 22nd Amendment is clear. Then again, plain language of the 14th Amendment was also supposed to be clear. And, that Presidents aren’t above the law. And… yeah, we’ve got a real corruption problem.)
@Carey Gregory — Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. Something is better than nothing here. And yes, the existing regulations can and should be improved and streamlined. For instance, sometimes the claims process is tedious, so passengers may use third parties for assistance (they take a 25% cut, usually). In other cases, the airlines attempt defenses to claims (‘extraordinary circumstances’ like ‘weather’ when in reality it was a maintenance or staffing issue), but the burden of proving that is supposed to fall on the airlines, not the passengers. Yes, there can be costs for the airlines if they do not comply; that’s a good incentive for them to operate reliably. If an ULCC like Ryanair can be one of the most profitable airlines in Europe, much less the world, it can be done, here, there, anywhere. Passengers deserve better.
@ Carey: 100%, spot on. 1990’s never ending support for similar legislation in the US is just like many other ideas from politicians (from either side of the aisle), where there seems to be this belief that a proposed change can be made with no unintended consequences. Of course, this isn’t what happens, and the result is often things get worse, not better. And then we hear more calls for more rules that repeat the process.
Companies always pass on costs to consumers. Seen what is happening due to higher fuel costs? Fares go up. Raise airline taxes, fares go up. Add higher expenses in the form of better union contracts, fares go up. And – add costs by layering on “261-type” legislation, and fares go up. The alternative is for a company to be unable to cover their costs and they go out of business.
Besides, 1990: Despite your “midterms countdown” and your apparent belief that seeing the House and/or Senate switch to Democratic control will make things better, why wasn’t this fixed when Democrats had full control of the House, Senate, AND Presidency? The “My party good! Your party bad!” narrative is playing right into their hands. Having the public fight back and forth over politics is just like parents fighting in a divorce, where only the lawyers win. But in this case, when WE do it, only the politicians win. Have you considered that BOTH parties are the bad guys?
@Pilot Paul — This isn’t a left or right issue; at least it shouldn’t be. Conservatives travel by air, too. In fact, more of them may even be affected. Are you suggesting they wouldn’t want to be compensated for the inconveniences caused by airlines that can’t keep schedules within reason?
Not to mention, US carriers already do comply regularly with UK and EU 261, and Canada’s APPR, etc. as they operate from those jurisdictions as well. I’m advocating for similar consumer protections in the US, so that we can see more reliable service here, and/or get paid when they break their commitments.
As far as partisan politics, there is real value in oversight currently; you know that all branches are lead by one party, and that party is beholden to their leader, who doesn’t believe in the rule of law, separation of powers, or any other norms of the country and its ideals. If the opposing party gains leadership in either chamber of Congress, it will not solve everything, nor does anyone expect it to; but, it would at least create greater opportunities for accountability.
We do need more courage and better leaders, regardless of party. I personally would like to see less corporate/donor beholden Democrats. You may not prefer economic progressives; however, their policies would help a lot more people than the current policies and approach. A lot of people are hurting to afford energy, housing, food, healthcare, and more; it’s a bleak time. Can’t blame that all on the last guy; gotta actually do something that makes things better for all, not just those at the top.
@Carey Gregory: Yes, the costs get passed on. Statistically, this will be approximately neutral, the average passenger pays as much more in tickets as they get in such compensation. But this isn’t really about money. Rather, it’s a case of putting the public thumb on the scale of balancing costs vs reliability. It raises the quality of service more than it increases costs. (If it didn’t the airline would choose the path that sometimes caused a payout, thus all changes will be expected to benefit passengers.)
Government regulation of quality very often ends up being a game of whack-a-mole, but if instead of trying to regulate quality they simply make a lack of quality more expensive the incentives shift away from whack-a-mole. This is one of many cases where I think we would be better off “regulating” via mandated payouts rather than trying to detail exactly what constitutes “wrong” and the difficulty of punishing the wrong.