Come Fly the EU's Socialist Skies

A "passenger's rights" regulation enacted by the socialist European Union that went into effect on February 17 contributed to a life-threatening mid-air crisis three days later.

During the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna, which was convened to rebuild Europe after the Napoleonic wars, European rulers contemplated grand schemes for continent-spanning security, regulatory, and tax systems. One observer at the conclave sarcastically complained: "The Congress is working on a law that will lay down how high birds may fly and how fast hares may run."

While those ill-advised designs fell apart by the 1820s, the socialist European Union aspires to create a regulatory regime that is at one more pervasive and more permanent. While the Eurocrats haven’t yet sought to impose altitude limits on birds, they have spread their regulatory net over the commercial aviation industry – with potentially disastrous results.

On February 20, British Airways flight 268 took off from Los Angeles International Airport, carrying 351 passengers on a planned 5,300-mile, 11-hour journey to Heathrow. Shortly after takeoff, reported the Washington Post, "the Boeing 747 experienced a power surge in its No. 2 engine, causing a loud noise. Los Angeles area residents called the airport to report seeing sparkes from the plane and hearing loud pops…."

The cockpit crew shut down the engine, and then circled over the Pacific for about twenty minutes while weighing their options. An immediate return to LAX was considered, but doing so would have required the crew to dump most of its fuel over the ocean – an expensive course of action – since the plane was too heavy to land. Another possibility was to divert to Chicago’s O’Hare airport, or New York’s JFK, where British Airways maintenance crews could examine the plane.

After consulting with airline officials in London, the crew decided to make the trek on three engines. The 747 is built to make long voyages on three engines – although loss of another over the Atlantic would have been a crisis.

As it happens, an emergency did develop during the Atlantic passage. Because of what the Los Angeles Times describes as "unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the engine loss," the 747 burned up more fuel than had been anticipated. Reported the BBC: "The aircraft had enough fuel to reach Heathrow but … there was not enough to keep flying if it was forced to queue before landing." Accordingly, the captain declared an in-flight emergency, sent out a mayday, and made an emergency landing in Manchester – a safe arrival, but an incomplete trip, since the plane didn’t make its destination.

"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," insisted British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung in the wake of the incident. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."

Two former U.S. jumbo-jet pilots who now serve as air safety consultants expressed astonishment that the captain made the choice he did.

"It’s not impossible for him to make it, but he’d be a fool to try," commented former TWA pilot Barry Schiff to the Los Angeles Times. "That decision just doesn’t make any sense." "I think he really stretched his luck to try to make the whole trip on three engines," agreed Mel Heflinger, who flew 747s for United Airlines.

Airline pilots are commendably disinclined to stretch their luck, much less that of the passengers entrusted to their care. Why then would the British Airways captain have made a decision considered irrational by professional peers? The answer might be found in a recently enacted EU regulation.

Three days before flight 268’s nerve-racking but blessedly successful trip, an EU "passenger’s rights" regulation went into effect, requiring airlines to provide "up to hundreds of dollars in compensation when things go wrong with their flights," reported the February 27 New York Times. "The compensation also includes free hotel rooms, phone calls, meals and refunds."

Under the EU decree, passengers of any nationality who fly into or out of airports in the 25 European Union member nations "must be compensated by the airlines if their flights are delayed more than two hours or canceled for reasons that the airlines could have anticipated and resolved," continued the Times.

Predictably, the new rule was condemned by embattled U.S. airline industry, since the EU decree will be used against U.S. carriers that depart from European airports. And as the airlines’ financial woes deepen, the temptation will grow to sacrifice safety in exchange for EU-mandated punctuality. David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, told the Times that some airlines might take risks they otherwise wouldn’t run in order to avoid penalties for delayed flights: "You don’t want to dispatch an airplane under a situation that is less than perfect."

British Airways flight 268 seems to illustrate Stempler’s point perfectly. The Washington Post notes that the decision to continue that flight across the Atlantic prompted concern about the EU regulation. Robin Hayes, British Airways’ executive vice president for U.S. operations, insists that the pilot and airline officials in London "wouldn’t even have discussed that…. The procedure [proceeding on three engines] is within our normal operating protocols."

Pilot Peter Garrison, a contributing editor to Flying magazine, isn’t so sure. "The basic rule is that the captain has final authority over what the flight does," he told the Los Angeles Times. "But I don’t think most pilots would have undertaken such a bizarre-sounding flight, partly because it sounds kind of dangerous. Sooner or later, someone is going to find out, and that’s just bad PR."

Whether flight 268’s pilot made a dubious call on his own authority, or was pressured into that call for economic reasons, the incident compellingly illustrates the foolishness of the EU’s bureaucratic micro-management of the airline industry. Aggravating though delays and diverted flights may be, nearly all air passengers are understandably willing to defer to the professional judgment of pilots, who in critical situations certainly don’t need the added burden of bureaucratic distractions.

The socialist Eurocrats who enacted that "passenger rights" regulation may have sincerely believed that they could make air travel more efficient by decree. But the contingencies associated with flying do not take dictation from well-fed, self-intoxicated bureaucrats in Brussels. Neither should Europe’s civilian aviation professionals. Nor should ours.

I think the writer of this article is trying to hang much too large a hat on this incident. Claiming this decision is the result of socialist regulations is stretching his point just a little too far.

The quotes from the US pilots here express astonishment at this decision because our FAA rules specifically state that the aircraft should be landed at the nearest suitable destination if an engine failure is experienced. There's some leeway in that requirement as it's allowed to continue to a dstination where maintenance can be performed.

The EU and or the Brit regulations aren't so confining and the 747 flies fine on three engines so, while this decision looks absurd to Americans, it isn't prohibited by regulations for BA.

Having said that I personally find this decision to continue a transatlantic flight to be wrong considering that the failure occurred immediately after takeoff especially since the failure was apparent to the passengers.

I don't thnk you can say this decision was related to the newly installed regulations without proof. Until the authorities obtain the communications from BA dispatch to the crew this is ridiculous speculation. Besides, these new rules are based on US regulations which give passengers some protection in the event of delays caused by maintenace. If the criticism applies to Socialist Europe it applies to us also.

"The Congress is working on a law that will lay down how high birds may fly and how fast hares may run."

One could assume therefore, that the European Union is working on a successful vaccine to prevent the avian flu pandemic.

Nah - they will expect the USA to come up with a solution.

CAFTA will make sure airline passengers "must be compensated by the airlines if their flights are delayed more than two hours or canceled for reasons that the airlines could have anticipated and resolved . . . ?" I cannot learn enough from the Birchers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.