On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?