Passengers on an Asia-bound British Airways flight on Saturday were in for quite an adventure, as the plane flew for 11 hours, only to end up exactly where it started.
In this post:
British Airways’ 11-hour flight to “nowhere”
This incident happened on Saturday, June 29, 2024, and involves British Airways flight BA31 from London (LHR) to Hong Kong (HKG). The flight was operated by a 23-year-old Boeing 777-200ER with the registration code G-YMMI.
The jet was scheduled to depart London at 7:05PM, and land in Hong Kong at 3:20PM the following afternoon, with the 5,994-mile journey being blocked at 13hr15min.
The aircraft departed London Heathrow a bit behind schedule, taking off at 8:55PM. The aircraft traveled eastbound for around five hours, flying over much of Europe, and then over Georgia, Armenia, and Turkmenistan. Just after passing the Caspian Sea, the 777 reportedly faced a “technical issue,” and the decision was made for the aircraft to return all the way to its origin.
The journey back to London took around six hours (given headwinds in that direction of travel), and the plane touched down at 7:55AM local time on Sunday, June 30, 2024, exactly 11 hours after it first departed.
The plane has been on the ground at London Heathrow for over 24 hours now, so we’ll see when the aircraft reenters service.
How do we make sense of this diversion?
Safety is of course paramount in the airline industry, so I don’t think anyone faults an airline for diverting in the event of a technical issue. However, I think people are confused and even frustrated by these kinds of “flights to nowhere,” especially when they fly such a long distance after the issue is discovered.
The aircraft had already been flying for five hours and then had a technical fault. So what kind of a technical fault could justify flying an extra six hours rather than diverting to the nearest airport (well, maybe not in Turkmenistan!), but doesn’t allow continuing to the destination?
Interestingly this is the second such situation we’ve seen at the airline recently. A few weeks ago, a British Airways Boeing 787-9 flying to Houston (IAH) turned around at roughly the halfway point of the flight, due to a mechanical issue with the aircraft.
The logic here seems to be that these returns to the origin airport aren’t about safety, but rather are about logistics and cost. It’s easier for an airline to perform maintenance at their base, so British Airways may have prioritized getting the jet back to the base over getting passengers to their destination as soon as possible.
Admittedly this flight to Hong Kong was an even more complicated situation, since landing a 777 in a country like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, etc. (without that being the intended destination), makes for some complicated logistics.
Some passengers even had a second diversion
Many passengers on the above British Airways “flight to nowhere” ended up being rebooked on the same flight on June 30, 2024. That was operated by a 15-year-old Boeing 777-200ER with the registration code G-YMMT, and it ended up diverting as well.
In this case, the flight diverted to Budapest (BUD) due to a medical emergency. Fortunately that ended up just being a brief stop, and the plane could continue to Hong Kong. It landed in Hong Kong around two hours behind schedule.
So it wasn’t nearly as big of a deal as the initial diversion, but still, having two diversions in a row is some bad luck.
Bottom line
A British Airways Boeing 777 that was scheduled to operate from London to Hong Kong returned to its origin after around 11 hours. The jet had a technical issue that presumably didn’t pose a risk for the current flight, but the decision was still made to return to London.
This is the second long haul British Airways flight to have something like this happen in recent weeks. In the event of technical faults, it sure seems like British Airways is prioritizing getting the plane back to base, rather than getting passengers to their destination. I can’t say I necessarily blame the airline, given the complicated logistics otherwise, but it’s still a pretty bad situation for passengers.
What do you make of this British Airways flight to “nowhere?”
Seems to me that diverting to IST would have made a lot more sense
I was on this flight and turned back midway. It was a huge psychological blow to me. I didn’t have any arrangements for any subsequent itinerary and no one cared about you. I was really disappointed.
It could have also been a problem with entry into China due to a misfiling of flight plan or slots.
If it was a real emergency they would go to the nearest airport assuming not a real problem (political is different). BA could divert in China actually because China Southern is part of Oneworld.
"The logic here seems to be that these returns to the origin airport aren’t about safety, but rather are about logistics and cost. It’s easier for an airline to perform maintenance at their base, so British Airways may have prioritized getting the jet back to the base over getting passengers to their destination as soon as possible."
BA does love to treat it's customers like an inconvenience, so this isn't really surprising. I'm amazed anyone...
"The logic here seems to be that these returns to the origin airport aren’t about safety, but rather are about logistics and cost. It’s easier for an airline to perform maintenance at their base, so British Airways may have prioritized getting the jet back to the base over getting passengers to their destination as soon as possible."
BA does love to treat it's customers like an inconvenience, so this isn't really surprising. I'm amazed anyone still uses them when there are so many better options.
I guess there are issues sufficiently serious to fail pre-take-off checklist but not so serious to require landing quickly.
Is the apparent uptick in these due to more advanced monitoring of the engines (or airframe?) in flight?
As it's a choice by the airline to return rather than continue, I would say this justifies EU/UK261 compensation for both the flight in question, and the return flight that was cancelled - has there been any experience on that yet?
I guess there are issues sufficiently serious to fail pre-take-off checklist but not so serious to require landing quickly.
Is the apparent uptick in these due to more advanced monitoring of the engines (or airframe?) in flight?
As it's a choice by the airline to return rather than continue, I would say this justifies EU/UK261 compensation for both the flight in question, and the return flight that was cancelled - has there been any experience on that yet?
Worse would be if it was simply not doing calculations in advance, and realising only after departure that some part will go beyond allowable usage on landing at the other end (or something has happened to crew scheduled to do the return).
Are we sure it's not something like that?
Correction: the plane flew over Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan and didn't in fact fly over Armenia
BA really sucks with these diversions.
They could have easily gotten the jet fixed at HKG.
It's an engine warranty issue x2
A delay of 1 hour 50 minutes is "a bit behind schedule"? Come on!
Interesting but much less inflight time than a KLM flight I had from Amsterdam to Almaty that flew all the way to Almaty but due to heavy fog, and few options for nearby diversion with potential crew, we returned to Amsterdam - a flight of over 16 hours, landing from where we had departed. An interesting adventure. Fortunately in Business and a fantastic crew.
Remindes me of an AF to Shangai diverting to Russia 6 years ago (also a 777) and the passengers being to retrieve their luggage, couldnt leave the hotel, no spare parts, a remote airport in Irkutsk. AF promptly sent another 777 to rescue but it got stranded with a technical problem too. Only a third 777 rescued the passengers from the subzero Siberian tempetatures and toom them to their final destination.
"" Admittedly this flight to Hong Kong was an even more complicated situation, since landing a 777 in a country like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, etc. (without that being the intended destination), makes for some complicated logistics. ""
Such nonsense...... British Airways, saying it was a horrible technical issue, didn't have to divert to some other, inconvenient airport, where they had no ability to deal with the passengers.... At the halfway point, they went all the...
"" Admittedly this flight to Hong Kong was an even more complicated situation, since landing a 777 in a country like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, etc. (without that being the intended destination), makes for some complicated logistics. ""
Such nonsense...... British Airways, saying it was a horrible technical issue, didn't have to divert to some other, inconvenient airport, where they had no ability to deal with the passengers.... At the halfway point, they went all the way back to London. Clearly, it wasn't the end of the world... They could have continued on to Hong Kong. Hong Kong airport is no out of the way airport, with absolutely zero capabilities to service a Boeing 777.
The fact that BA did this before, just shows how "out of abundance of caution" and "safety" is over used --- its just a way for airlines to save some money at the passenger's expense.
Clearly --- there was no safety or over riding technical issue - They flew for another 6 hours back to London. Had it really been something THAT critical, they would have landed the plane somewhere....
You clearly have facts and information that no one else has, that gives you reason to be confident that there was no doubt that the aircraft would absolutely definitively make it all the way to London without issue. Or to Hong Kong as you are suggesting.
I think a lot of this comes down to the location of the mechanical/technical issue as they were approaching the hornets nest of restricted airspace (Level 1 threat). Couldn't be a worse place in the world to experience such. To the south they had Iran so diversion to UAE wasn't reasonable. Also keep in mind, they were likely set up to skirt the Afghanistan boundary so any escalation of the technical issue in this region...
I think a lot of this comes down to the location of the mechanical/technical issue as they were approaching the hornets nest of restricted airspace (Level 1 threat). Couldn't be a worse place in the world to experience such. To the south they had Iran so diversion to UAE wasn't reasonable. Also keep in mind, they were likely set up to skirt the Afghanistan boundary so any escalation of the technical issue in this region would be very dangerous. The only diversion that would make sense to me was Turkey but IST is to the west of their landmass and any escalation of issues would put them in the neighborhood of Syria, Iraq and Iran. While I wouldn't be happy if I was on this flight, I can see the logistical conflicts of diverting. They are looking at +3 hours from Turkey so logistical issues would outweigh a diversion.
British Airways is not known for giving a crap about it’s customers. They don’t really care about PR as their management have been a joke in the industry for years.
You have no idea of the complexities involved. Typical armchair reader from a basement who doesn’t understand.
I make no apologies for butting into this thread; I am really interested to learn how Icarus is any less of a “Typical armchair reader from a basement” than the claimed Marko?
THANK YOU
This decision makes more sense than the diversion back to LHR after almost being over Canada.
Diverting to Central Asia creates a mountain of logistical issues not the least of which is fixing the plane.
Diverting to a country where an airline already flies widebodies such as Canada or the US is quite different.
All of this is the byproduct of Russia airspace closures.
When you see the amount of traffic that is...
This decision makes more sense than the diversion back to LHR after almost being over Canada.
Diverting to Central Asia creates a mountain of logistical issues not the least of which is fixing the plane.
Diverting to a country where an airline already flies widebodies such as Canada or the US is quite different.
All of this is the byproduct of Russia airspace closures.
When you see the amount of traffic that is funneled through the same tiny space over the Caspian Sea, it is incredible how well those little countries have managed the influx in overflight demand.
The diversion to BUD was a little bit more complex. Actually the plane landed above the maximum landind weight (due to being still too full with fuel). The pilot’s did not dump fuel, and the brakes overheated, the fire brigade was called to cool down the brakes. So passengers had to deplane, and authorities had to investigate wether the plane can continue its’ journey, which finally did happen.
More info on airportal.hu site.
When there is a medical emergency onboard a flight and the captain has to land somewhere for treatment of the passenger, who pays for the treatment? Does that fall on the passenger, or the airline's insurance policy?
Entirely the passenger responsibility. If necessary they need to refer to the embassy. The airline could even bill them for the diversion however it’s unlikely they would.
The medical treatment itself would be on the passenger. Costs for the diversion would be on the airline. It'd be extraordinarily bad PR for an airline to send a bill for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to some poor passenger that had a heart attack or something.
Same with cruise lines, for anyone wondering. Medical airlifting while out at sea or shipping bodies of deceased passengers home (Pretty much every cruise) is paid by passenger or their family.
This must be beyond frustrating for the passengers. The flight was literally almost halfway to the destination (it's a 12 or 13 hour flight), so clearly it wasn't a safety issue that was serious enough to merit either diverting or returning. Would it really have been more expensive for BA to get the plane repaired in HKG than to pay for all the passengers' hotels and rebooked flights? And if there is no system for...
This must be beyond frustrating for the passengers. The flight was literally almost halfway to the destination (it's a 12 or 13 hour flight), so clearly it wasn't a safety issue that was serious enough to merit either diverting or returning. Would it really have been more expensive for BA to get the plane repaired in HKG than to pay for all the passengers' hotels and rebooked flights? And if there is no system for airlines to get their planes fixed by contractors in outstations in a timely fashion, there should be. This is just wasteful and silly.
Yes more expensive in HKG.
Very few palatable diversion options when you are over Turkmenistan so I'd probably fault them less here than in the prior LHR-IAH incident when they could have gone to Canada or Boston