![]() |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11515925)
OK, but allowing a plane to land and block the only runway isn't a particularly smart decision. In understand that there might not have been any alternative. My point is that there should have been.
|
Re: Planespotting
Better to block Gatwick than the arrivals runway at Heathrow - but I do see what you're seeing Pulaski. I guess the point is that if it lands at a military base, then the parts and people to fix it have to be shipped there - what is Virgin supposed to do? Keep a stockpile at every base in the UK 'just in case'?
|
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 11515936)
Better to block Gatwick than the arrivals runway at Heathrow - but I do see what you're seeing Pulaski. I guess the point is that if it lands at a military base, then the parts and people to fix it have to be shipped there - what is Virgin supposed to do? Keep a stockpile at every base in the UK 'just in case'?
My point, not clearly spelled out, is that in landing that plane at Gatwick, Virgin's problems were significantly reduced at the expense of inconvenience to, including knock-on effects, hundreds of flights and thousands of passengers of other airlines. |
Re: Planespotting
Any current/ex Boscombe Down people in here? I noticed it mentioned in this thread a couple of years ago! Happy new year to all.
Dave2726 |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11515943)
My point, not clearly spelled out, is that in landing that plane at Gatwick, Virgin's problems were significantly reduced at the expense of inconvenience to, including knock-on effects, hundreds of flights and thousands of passengers of other airlines.
We used to get on average 1 aircraft with hydraulic failure return to Heathrow a month. Normally, due to their numbers, it was BA. Hydraulic failure usually meant an aircraft unable to vacate the runway due to nose wheel steering failure. That aircraft would sit there until BA sent a team out to tow it off. We would put massive pressure on em to get a team out there so that we could hand the runway back to ATC, but despite the fact BA would inevitably suffer most from the delays, an alternative airport would never be entertained. In fact they wouldn't even rush to remove the aircraft. As for the passengers caught up in the resultant delays, would they be told the reason for the delays, or that one of the other aircraft owned by the company they were flying with had caused the problems? Of course not! It wouldbe down to ATC restrictions (which technically, it was LOL). |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by markonline1
(Post 11515959)
Yep. To which they don't care. ....
.... Isn't it time that major airports, ones with huge flight congestion issues, run their own removal operations, at least to the point that the plane is towed out of harms way? ..... Comparable to the standby breakdown trucks in major roadworks in the UK, because it is in everyone's interest to keep traffic moving. |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by markonline1
(Post 11515920)
How much Virgin engineering equipment is at your average military base? It was either going there or Heathrow and there was no way it was going to Heathrow without assurances it would be able to vacate the runway.
But with the way the runway is set up in San Diego, most pilots don't want to land there with an issue when there are better runways nearby at the military bases, but generally they just went to LAX when there was an issue. |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 11516084)
Can fly in maintenance or have them drive to another airport. I worked in San Diego which is single runway and busiest single runway in the US, and on the rare occasion an aircraft needed to return for something such as this and couldn't make it to LAX, landing at one of the 2 military bases was not unheard of, the airline just drove up maintenance to deal with it.
But with the way the runway is set up in San Diego, most pilots don't want to land there with an issue when there are better runways nearby at the military bases, but generally they just went to LAX when there was an issue. |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by Scouse Express
(Post 11516111)
I believe Chicago Midway has that honour. The Craphole that it is.
Facility Data To my knowledge San Diego still holds the title of busiest single runway commercial airport in the US. The airport still say's they are anyhow. San Diego International Airport > Education > History Personally I am amazed they can handle an average of 515 flights per day from such a small facility, but they have no other choice, so have to work with what they have. Although 777's, 747's, 787's look funny when on the ground since the airport is so small overall. Now what they are going to do with the old outdated terminal 1 and Southwest airlines in the coming years will be interesting. The terminal is old, cramped and not designed for today's level of activity. |
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 11516084)
Can fly in maintenance or have them drive to another airport. I worked in San Diego which is single runway and busiest single runway in the US, and on the rare occasion an aircraft needed to return for something such as this and couldn't make it to LAX, landing at one of the 2 military bases was not unheard of, the airline just drove up maintenance to deal with it.
|
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by markonline1
(Post 11516144)
That wouldn't happen in the UK. We had an incident in terminal 4 a couple of months before terminal 5 opened. Terminal 4 was soon full. BA wouldn't park their planes in a different terminal let alone at a different airport.
It didn't happen very often however, most of the time they just go to LAX or ONT and sometimes PHX. Every airport in the US is different as to how gates and space is allocated, some are common use and basically first come first served, and others the airlines have long term leases on the space, but generally US airlines cooperate with one another and play nice when someone needs an extra gate or space. Can't even count how many times I had to call Delta or American and ask to use one of their gates since we only had 2 and sometimes had 3 planes, worst case scenario, we stopped the the 3rd plane in the alley, and towed them in and parked them in between the other 2 gates and planes and used air stairs. Of course if one of those airlines needed a gate (which was rare as both had more gates then they actually needed at the time) we would let them use ours if it was free and would not affect our flights. When I worked at O'hare American was my savior when I had delayed or cancelled flights, I probably called them a hundred times a month for seats to somewhere.... |
Re: Planespotting
United seems to be having some issues in Denver with the change over of ground handling from Skywest to another vendor for their United Express flights.
Tipster: United's new baggage handling vendor leaving many bags on tarmac overnight at DIA - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com As far as I know the United mainline flights are still handled by United employees. |
Re: Planespotting
|
Re: Planespotting
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 11516359)
|
Re: Planespotting
Another Air Asia A320 involved in incident;
AirAsia plane overshoots Philippines runway forcing passengers to use emergency slide | Daily Mail Online |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 4:00 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.