British Airways Action Attracts FAA Questions

Washington Post ^ | March 1, 2005 | Sara Kehaulani Goo

[ConservativeStatement]

The Federal Aviation Administration said it is questioning British officials about a British Airways jet that headed for London's Heathrow airport from Los Angeles with only three of its four engines in operation. After an engine failed shortly after takeoff, the flight crew decided to continue to London but had to make an emergency landing in Manchester, England.

[Wingy]

Well, they (BA) saved over $100,000 in late fees that recent EU regs mandate. Also, be aware that this flight originated and the engine failed shortly after they left LAX, (Los Angeles) so there was plenty of opportunity to set down before they ventured out over the Atlantic. Because they didn't do that, they had to use much more fuel for the remaining 3 engines, keeping them from making their intended destination.

[ConservativeStatement]

After posting this, I saw a report on NBC's Nightly News. They interviewed various flight aviation experts and opinions ranged from "the passengers were never in danger" to "it was a financial decision that put the pilot in an awkward spot."

[Kirkwood]

I fly over 175,000 miles a year to all parts of the world and have never been on any passenger jet aircraft where an engine was shut down in a non-emergency situation just to save money on fuel. Please give an example, because I don't beleive it.