To BA or not to BA...

This morning, a United Airways non-stop flight from Washington to Beijing (UA 897) had to make an emergency landing at Dulles as soon after take-off, one of the four engines was found to have failed. Fortunately, for the passengers, the pilot was rational enough to not try and make the journey, even though technically the aircraft is apparently capable of doing so with three engines as well.

Incidents like these do give a bit of jolt to the notion that air travel is the safest form of travel (even though apparently there are statistics to back this claim). What is worse is that apparently events of engine failure are not very uncommon, only that often the common public is not aware of it.

One such incident which showed the complete callousness of the airline industry was the British Airways flight from Los Angeles to London in early 2005. The flight lost one of its four engines soon after take off, but was forced to continue on its journey to London by the BA's control center in London.

The flight had to travel at a lower altitude of 29,000 feet instead of the regular 36,000 feet resulting in lower engine efficiency, unfavourable tailwinds and extra drag. As a result of all this the plane consumed much more fuel that is normal. As a result the aircraft was not left with enough fuel to go all the way to London and had to make an emergency landing at Manchester.

After the incident, the BA spokesman stated that the decision to continue with the flight was made keeping in mind the best interests of the passengers. I am wondering what these best interests would be!! Maybe it would be the adventure of flying on 3 engines instead of four for a transcontinental flight. Or maybe, it was the thrilling prospect of running out of fuel over the Atlantic. Little did the passengers know that they paid not just for the transatlantic flight ticket but also signed up for one of the most thrilling rides of their lives.

This callousness is shocking to say the least. The passengers were lucky that despite the fuel shortage they were able to make it to Manchester. Imagine a situation if they ran out of fuel sometime during the 5,000 mile Atlantic crossing!!!

The real reason for BA's decision was most likely the fact that only three days ago a new European regulation came into force which required airlines to pay compensation to passengers for delays beyond 5 hours. BA was simply trying to save this money. Its a different matter that it nearly jeopardised passenger safety and still ended up with more than a 5 hour delay!!

By the way, in case you are wondering why I am suddenly so concerned about this, well.. I am about to board a flight from San Fransisco to London and then London to Mumbai. And the carrier I am flying with is none other than BA.

God speed..