El Al Plane Has Engine Failure, Flies Another Five Hours To Save Money

In terms of stories which can’t help but make you scratch your head, an El Al flight from Tel Aviv to New York on Wednesday returned to Tel Aviv over an engine failure.

El-Al-747

Engine failures happens every so often, and aren’t at all unusual or even noteworthy. What is unusual, however, is that the plane was already halfway through the flight when it had that engine failure, and made the decision to return to Tel Aviv, rather than diverting. Via Haaretz:

The Boeing 747-400 airliner, carrying 340 passengers, took off at 11:30 A.M. from Ben Gurion International Airport. Shortly after reaching the Atlantic Ocean, the pilot turned off one of the plane’s four engines due to a technical malfunction.  But instead of making an emergency landing, the pilot turned the airplane back.

Here was the flight’s path, via FlightAware:

Flightaware

As you can see, the flight’s duration was 10hr52min. Meanwhile the flight time from Tel Aviv to New York is usually 11 hours. So the flight was quite literally at the halfway point, just leaving continental Europe and beginning the Atlantic crossing

So what prompted El Al to return to Tel Aviv, rather than either continuing the flight or diverting somewhere closer?

Sources in the aviation industry believe that the decision to turn the airliner back instead of landing it in Europe was not prompted by safety reasons alone, but by financial reasons as well. An emergency landing in Europe would have required El Al to send a replacement engine to Europe and to pay for the passengers’ stay in hotels until the plane is repaired.

El Al said in response: “Due to a malfunction in one of the four engines, it was decided to return the airliner to land in Ben Gurion International Airport. The plane is currently over Europe and is expected for a normal landing in the evening.”

El Al added that after the airliner lands, “the passengers would be transferred to alternative flights. El-Al considers flight safety a top priority and doesn’t compromise on the issue.”

My initial thoughts here are:

  • No one was in danger. A 747 can easily fly with three engines, and I even remember the story about a decade ago about a British Airways 747 which flew all the way from Los Angeles to London on three engines.
  • Did the pilots feel safe flying with three engines over land, but not over water? After all, they were halfway to New York, so otherwise they could have just continued.
  • It sure seems like El Al was just being cheap here, and wanted to rebook passengers on their own flights, do maintenance at their own hub, etc., even if it was significantly more inconvenient for passengers.

Bottom line

This is a bit of a crazy story. Based on my read of it, I wouldn’t accuse El Al of endangering passengers’ lives to save a few bucks, but rather just inconveniencing them substantially for some cost savings.

What do you make of El Al returning to Tel Aviv halfway through their flight to New York? 

Conversations (94)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

luca Guest

What he did it was the right procedure and pretty much correct. He was not over the Atlantic Ocean, he did not reach the Point of No Return where he was forced to carry on until destination or alternate airport so what was the last option ? To divert to nearest landing field or to return to base and fix the airplane. If they can, this is the option they like to choose because they can replace the engine and the cost is reduced. Imagine to have to ship a new engine to your alternate airport together with a team of engineers, to have to take all the passengers relocate in an hotel and to charter a plane to move passengers to their final destination or to be forced to pay a penalty to those who do not want to carry on the flight. A huge lost! So when they are in the air and they have a 4 engine aircrafts if one engine is out, flight can be done properly, they can declare a pan pan and request to fly back to departure airport. It is a standard procedure they teach you even in a flight school...

0
‼ 0
Captbilly Guest

As a long time pilot myself (USAF and civilian) I do have a somewhat difficult time understanding the decision to continue flying for 5 hours with an engine failure. I am quite sure that the 747 was entirely capable of flying on 3 engines. In fact, as the weight decreased I suspect they could even fly on 2 but, with each lost engine the margins of performance degrades. I have practiced landing a B-52 with 4 engines shut down on one wing (B-52 has 8 engines) but the airplane was extremely light and it definitely would have been tricky to deal with an aborted landing attempt. The normal rule for an engine failure is to land at the closest airport with enough runway. El Al had a somewhat more complex decision to make because they have unique security issues, they have passengers with unique needs, and they were facing some serious logistical issues if they landed somewhere other than Tel Aviv or JFK. On the other hand, it would be likely that many nearby airports would have had the facilities to repair a 747. A real concern for me would have been that the same issue that caused the low oil pressure on one engine, could have existed on all of the engines that were being serviced by the same mechanics. What if every engine was low on oil, or had the wrong oil, or .... If those engines started failing over the Mediterranean and they had to ditch, there would have been hell to pay.

0
‼ 0
Callum Guest

As a non-American, the way the US government fawns over Israel now makes perfect sense... I always found it bizarre how close they were given the rest of the developed world is friendly while keeping a safe distance from legitimising an outlaw state (not terrorist state, that's just hyperbole) but if this is how you act over this blatantly non antisemitic story...

0
‼ 0
Moshe Guest

As an Israeli and a Jew, I am shocked at the comments here. There was nothing "anti-semitic" or "anti-israel" written here. Live and let live, there was no reason for this.

0
‼ 0
Karen Guest

First of all it is very scary to hear we will be making an emergency landing. In an hour. It's horrible to know that something is wrong with the plane. It's even worse that an hour later you are told a different decision is made and we are going back. The only thing you want to do is get off the broken plane safe I was on the plane. Being safe is first and everyone wanted off. Second el al was rude and didn't handling the rebooking process well and third they lost the luggage and don't seem to care. They really did not worry about the. Passenger and if told emergency landing needed than do it. London is safe

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published