BA Aircraft Trouble At ORD? — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

BA Aircraft Trouble At ORD?

Jetdoctor From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 257 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7238 times:

Got a call from my co-worker that there is a BA (he thinks 777) surrounded by emergency equipment on 14R/32L.
Anyone have any info? It has not made the news here yet.

Regards

Jetdoctor

Break ground, and head into the wind. Don't break wind and head into the ground.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last

Josh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7175 times:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ays-flight-evacuated-at-ohare.html

Jetdoctor From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7045 times:

Thanks Josh32121

Regards,
Jetdoctor

Break ground, and head into the wind. Don't break wind and head into the ground.

Enginebird From United States of America, joined May 2007, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6779 times:

89 passengers on a 777, that's a terrible load!!!

That is probably why BA is offering extremely cheap seats between Europe and the US at the moment.

BFS From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 734 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6665 times:

When they say evacuated, do they mean down the slides or a precautionary disembarkation off steps or a jetty? 89 is a pretty poor load - are they still on for upgrading one of the daily 777s to a 747?

Amax1977 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6140 times:

Quoting Enginebird (Reply 3):
89 passengers on a 777

Good for the crew... Not much work to do during the duty!

Swiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

G-VIIS

Must have been initially thought as quite serious to get HAZMAT called out

TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3689 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5233 times:

Quoting Swiftski (Reply 6):
Must have been initially thought as quite serious to get HAZMAT called out

Probably automatic because of some cargo.
Anyway a pax IFE screen overheated. All is well now.

HeeBeeGB From Finland, joined Sep 2007, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5158 times:

Quoting Enginebird (Reply 3):
89 passengers on a 777, that's a terrible load!!!

It was IAH bound which (when it was at LGW, don't know LHR loads) often had 90/100 pax but F and J were normally pretty full which is where the money is and also a characteristic of the IAH route, it doesn't attract high numbers of passengers but a lower number of high yielding pax.

BA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 277 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

Quoting HeeBeeGB (Reply 8):
It was IAH bound which (when it was at LGW, don't know LHR loads) often had 90/100 pax but F and J were normally pretty full which is where the money is and also a characteristic of the IAH route, it doesn't attract high numbers of passengers but a lower number of high yielding pax.

Yes, it was IAH bound and diverted into ORD.

As HeeBeeGB says, the pax load on this is very variable, but often very high yield. There is also often a high amount of freight weight/revenue on this route.

Cheers
Smile

Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground

BAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1006 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

It was a seat IFE fire. There was not an evacuation, passengers were dis-embarked at a remote stand, down steps and onto buses to the terminal. The same aircraft continued onto IAH a few hours later.

BALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting BFS (Reply 4):
89 is a pretty poor load

It might sound like it but BA's loads on the IAH are mostly made up of F and J pax.

I have done flights recently to IAH full in F and J and with only 10 pax in M.

The aircraft config would have been

14F/48J/40W/124M.

Also up until recently in the aftermath of the recent Hurricane the foreign office in the UK advised against all non essential travel to IAH. This has only just recently been removed

[Edited 2008-10-06 10:11:52]

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: