Passengers on a US-bound British Airways flight yesterday were in for quite an adventure, as they made it all the way to North America, before the plane made a u-turn, and returned to London.
In this post:
British Airways’ nine hour flight to “nowhere”
This incident happened on Monday, June 10, 2024, and involves British Airways flight BA195 from London (LHR) to Houston (IAH). The flight was operated by an eight-year-old Boeing 787-9 with the registration code G-ZBKN.
The jet was scheduled to depart London at 9:25AM, and land in Houston at 1:45PM, with the 4,834-mile journey being blocked at 10hr20min.
The Dreamliner departed more or less as planned, and took off from London at 9:57AM local time. The aircraft flew west for just under five hours, first flying over Ireland, and then over the Atlantic, before making landfall in the northeastern portion of Canada.
At this point, the aircraft was basically right at the halfway point of the journey, both in terms of distance and time remaining. However, an issue was discovered with one of the engines (more on that later), and the decision was made to cross the Atlantic again, and return all the way to London.
So the jet started flying eastbound over the open Atlantic. The aircraft touched down in London at 6:53PM local time, just a little under nine hours after it took off. The flight ended up being canceled (and presumably passengers were rebooked on other flights), and the aircraft involved in the incident is still on the ground at Heathrow.
How do we make sense of this diversion?
Understandably, I think people struggle with understanding a scenario like this. The jet was basically half way to its destination, so how does it make sense to return to the origin rather than just completing the flight? Furthermore, if there was any sort of a mechanical issue, wouldn’t it be safer to divert to the closest airport or stay over land (with closer diversion points), rather than flying out over the open ocean, with no real diversion points nearby?
Well, as you’d probably expect, there’s an explanation. According to a British Airways pilot on FlyerTalk, the engine issue in question here was a surge on the number two engine, and it was self recovering. This reportedly doesn’t pose a concern for the current flight, but does pose a concern for any subsequent sectors.
Furthermore, due to British Airways’ contract with Rolls Royce (the engine manufacturer), it was reportedly advantageous for the jet to return to Heathrow, and Rolls Royce also probably had input here.
While I can’t personally vouch for any of this, it all adds up. It’s clear that the jet returned to Heathrow not due to any imminent risk, but rather because it was the most practical option in terms of logistics and cost. Presumably the return flight from Houston to London would have been canceled no matter what, and on top of that, British Airways would have had a more challenging time performing maintenance on the jet, or even getting it back to London.
This diversion no doubt cost British Airways hundreds of thousands of dollars, when you factor in fuel, compensation for passengers, replacement flights, etc. But I imagine the savings from being able to perform maintenance on the jet at Heathrow and get it back into service ASAP outweigh that.
Bottom line
A British Airways Boeing 787 that was scheduled to operate from London to Houston returned to its origin after around nine hours, having already crossed the Atlantic. The jet reportedly had an engine issue that didn’t pose a risk for the current flight, but did for any subsequent flights.
While the aircraft could have continued to Houston, that would have been logistically challenging and costly in terms of performing the necessary maintenance to get the plane back into service. So the decision was instead made to fly the aircraft back to its base, even though it inconvenienced a lot of passengers.
What do you make of this British Airways flight to “nowhere?”
Incredibly high risk action.
Dr. Güntürk Üstün
I am wondering now, what did they tell the passengers at the time? We have an engine malfunction so we are going to fly back over the Atlantic. No way! What did they tell the passengers?
I was on that flight, I have to say there was a lot of extremely concerned passengers as the engine problem was heard and felt in the aircraft and the thought of a return journey over the Atlantic with less than a perfect engine does seem very strange.
It is hard to understand this decision. What is the cost of passenger inconvenience?
It seems that British Air put their company's convenience over the needs and wishes of their customers. That does not speak well for the airline which is a SERVICE provider, or is supposed to be. Bad choice BA.
Why not go to JFK, their largest USA station where they hv an excellent maintenance crew and facility???
This is ridiculous! It sounds like British Airways only had their bottom dollar as the top concern here! Again greed wins!
Big Air Force base at Ganders NF, St-John NL also not far. But ok for repairs that’s another story.
This is utter madness , if you have an engine surge ,self correcting or not you don’t elect to fly over the Atlantic in preference to continuing to the nearest suitable airport . They could have landed in NY , Boston or any number of other suitable airports that have suitable maintenance facilities . BA has a large presence in NY so this is nonsense .
I hope the CAD investigates this incident ....
This is utter madness , if you have an engine surge ,self correcting or not you don’t elect to fly over the Atlantic in preference to continuing to the nearest suitable airport . They could have landed in NY , Boston or any number of other suitable airports that have suitable maintenance facilities . BA has a large presence in NY so this is nonsense .
I hope the CAD investigates this incident . Had o been the captain I would not have accepted an instruction to return over the Atlantic
I think AA's 787's are GE power do JFK not an option.
This is not the first RR Trent 1000 surge, or even with BA, so there will be defined strategies in place for managing it. This is how aviation safety works - using experience and technical understanding to determine what is safe appropriate. And all agreed with relevant authorities.
Once they'd confirmed the extent of the problem, they can confirm the options available - in this case including continuing to operate the aircraft with both...
This is not the first RR Trent 1000 surge, or even with BA, so there will be defined strategies in place for managing it. This is how aviation safety works - using experience and technical understanding to determine what is safe appropriate. And all agreed with relevant authorities.
Once they'd confirmed the extent of the problem, they can confirm the options available - in this case including continuing to operate the aircraft with both functioning engines to normal ETOPS rules.
Whilst it is an inconvenience to the passengers on that flight, if they don't have the maintenance support or spares at the destination or diversion point, the aircraft could be grounded for multiple days resulting in many more cancelled flights and disrupted travellers.
There will no doubt be a cost consideration too - and this includes for any out of service time - which will all ultimately end up being passed back to customers in future fares.
Waiting for the maga imbeciles to side with the corporation's own interests against the passengers' (and their own) self interests.
If the engine state posed a problem for the next flight, then it posed a problem for this flight.
Thank God I don't fly BA any more....
The header of this news is incorrect. The flight did not return to London after 9 hours, the flight returned to London after 4 or 5 hours more likely. The total journey took 9 hrs from taking off to landing.
Oh picky picky
BA would keep spare engines in the USA, somewhere. I suspect at an AA facility.
Remember, this BA metal is 50% AA 50% BA.
Risking a second North Atlantic crossing on an engine that has already malfunctioned (self correcting or not) should not have happened.
All AA 787 have GE or P&W engines . None have RR ..
We were on trip to UK from JFK AA 777, was 4.5hrs into flight, had some pressure issue, turned around came back to JFK .. we were more than 1/2 way .. cheaper to return to JFK for repairs.. that was the only reason we came back .
I don't get all the people complaining about safety.
You seem to all agree that the decision to return to LHR is financially driven.
Well in case you missed it, writing off a 787 cost BA way more. So if they are financially driven like you believe, then believe that BA wouldn't risk losing a 787 if they don't have to.
Inconvenience but never a safety issue. Backed by ETOPS.
I was a software architect for IBM and worked on the 787 at Everett to get it to launch. I had a 787 assigned to me for testing which eventually went to ANA. I have a simple question- if the engine issue did not cause any concern to turn around and fly across the pond again, then why not just proceed to Houston? Yes, the aviation business is a complex one, but humour me.
That's why you work in software and not engines.
Same reason you're in Everett and not Armonk working on the 787.
Can't fix it Houston.
Also factor in nice tailwind on return which will help.
What a ridiculous decision. BA did not consider passenger well-being. Even if the return flight were cancelled, deadhead this flight home if absolutely necessary (you'd think a major engine company would have the ability to service engines in the US) and send another one for the return trip. If the plane had landed in JFK or EWR or similar, so many passengers could have very easily connected on through with AA as a BA partner. This is insane.
BA has no concern for its customers, anymore. The only concern is the IAG shareholders. The customer service has been nonexistent for years now. I’ve solved my problem with this airline, I will not fly w them.
They make Spirit seem normal.
Back in 2002 my son was on a 747 from LAX to London. Five minutes after takeoff from LAX one engine caught fire. It was extinguished and the engine shut down. The plane circled for about an hour talking to ground personnel and relaying messages to London.
The upshot was they continued nonstop to London on three engines (easy with the 747) because servicing the engine in the UK was cheaper than LA.
Those pilots got reprimanded for that. It had to land at Manchester as it was low on fuel.
I agree, this appears to be BA putting its own interests ahead of customers. It makes no sense that the engine issue posed no threat to the current flight but would the next one. It reminds of the BA 747 that lost an engine on takeoff from LAX and attempted to continue all the way to Heathrow on three engines. They were forced to land short in Manchester due to low fuel. Worse than questionable.
There's lots of hate here for BA, suggesting they should have diverted to some place like JFK.
Look, BA sucks a lot of the time for a lot of reasons. But if the technical explanation is true (and there's no reason it isn't since lying about the reason and making an unsafe decision could get them in a lot of hot water and, also, the pilots don't want to die and generally make the safe...
There's lots of hate here for BA, suggesting they should have diverted to some place like JFK.
Look, BA sucks a lot of the time for a lot of reasons. But if the technical explanation is true (and there's no reason it isn't since lying about the reason and making an unsafe decision could get them in a lot of hot water and, also, the pilots don't want to die and generally make the safe choice out of self interest), I don't blame them.
Even partner airlines can be super stingy with helping each other. I had a weird experience of two years in a row having the windshield crack on my inbound aircraft, resulting in a delay while it was fixed. Event #1, flying Virgin and at LHR. The delay was four hours which is basically the time to repair - most of which is the cure time for the adhesive. Event #2 was Alaska at DCA when they were partnering with Delta. They asked Delta for a windshield which Delta certainly had in Atlanta if not in DC. Delta told them to pound sand. They had to fly one in from Seattle. Thankfully the morning flight hadn't left Seattle. Wait for the SEA flight to depart, five hours plus to get the windshield to DCA, another four plus to fix the windshield, total delay nearly twelve hours.
So, imagine if they need a bunch of parts, a major assembly or even an engine. Their partner, AA, at JFK might be unwilling or unable to provide those parts. There might not be the experienced mechanic or the tools at JFK. Yes, it sucks for everyone to be diverted. But it costs all customers if that plane sits on the ground at JFlK for a week while BA and American organize the resources to do the repair there.
Wonder what kind of announcement the pilot made to the passengers as to why they were turning around. Would they have said it’s a maintenance issue? That couldn’t have gone over well.
Something doesn't add up??
They probably cant say - might have been a person ( of security issue??) they had to take back
As if its an engine issue makes No sense to fly over the Atlantic again?? Very scary
Thats the whole buisness of planes and alliances carriers and airports - to land safely
BA has demonstrated poor operations over and over. Inexplicable. Wasn’t DFW an option with AA as support???
No it wasn't.
One more reason to never fly BA unless there is no alternative.
On the surface but as a layman, and as a potential passenger, this decision was careless, outrageous, and frightening. YIKES.!!!
As a frequent flyer, this decision was unacceptable. To put the airlines finances first, NEVER. You put the passengers first. People who have paid for this trip. I will not fly BA again.
Hi Ben,
Well perhaps BA does not have good recipricals and relations with other airlines and would have had to pay alot for repairs from others.
So they decided the cost would be less to go back home for repairs
Back across the pond with a sketchy engine? Not on your life. Either this crew was not trained or basically hadn't the onions to demand a stateside landing. Period.
I recently took a trip, driving from Southern California heading to Salt Lake City, Utah. About 5 hours into my journey, as I passed Las Vegas, Nevada, my check engine light came on.
I did the prudent thing and immediately turned around, and drove back to CA
Your comparison is almost correct.
You just forgot the part that, with the check engine light on you car also let you know the engine wouldn't die until you drive back from Utah and offroad in Death Valley. Nor did any shop in Las Vegas was able to fix your rare British car.
So you made the smart move of going back to CA to your specific mechanic who have been working on your car regularly.
And UA diverts a Washington-Paris 777 to Gander without hesitation. BA focused on minimizing costs and getting aircraft back to its hub in LHR. BA customers be damned…
I am sorry but in which convoluted world does this make sense? It is an inconvenience to passengers flying in premium cabin. But spare a thought for the folks flying in economy. And that does not even account for additional inconvenience passengers and potentially their loved ones would have had.
This explanation (if true) is BS. Screw our customers, we only care about us.
Wow, this article could have been three sentences. Was it written by AI?
I would hope that passengers get miles awarded for the distance flown, plus some bonus miles for the inconvenience.
Last time this happened to me (we didn't get quite as far - only to Dublin) I received miles for the flight that diverted as if it had completed, EU compensation, a night in an adequate hotel at Heathrow and miles for the flight I actually flew. It's possible that more could have been available if I'd been greedy, but I was happy with that. In that case there was an odd smell on the...
Last time this happened to me (we didn't get quite as far - only to Dublin) I received miles for the flight that diverted as if it had completed, EU compensation, a night in an adequate hotel at Heathrow and miles for the flight I actually flew. It's possible that more could have been available if I'd been greedy, but I was happy with that. In that case there was an odd smell on the plane and a bunch of the crew felt ill. I was happy with the diversion because with the crew ill, they turned the cabin into a meat locker. Emergency services were waiting at the plane asking if anyone else was sick. No one except crew were, so I suspect the crew got some bad food on the layover (they were not LHR based).
Without fully understanding the dynamics of this particular decision, British Airways has shown over the past several years, they will take whatever action improves their bottom line. Massive fines by the DOT for deceptive consumer practices and failure to refund flights is common practice for them. The notion of doing the right thing for the customer is not a big priority.
Hi Benyamin, your old buddy Miguel here. Just because the fangled tooth bastards (the Brits) gave yo homies someone else’s land, you don’t need to gurgle their balls in your mouth. like mouth wash! Decision to return was wrong Mijo, completamente wrong! Now go rinse your mouth with listerine.
Dude what was that rubbish you wrote?
It is clear that British Airlines did not want the plane on U.S soil for an type of investigation or be involved in any service performed externally that might expose other issues.
They were in Canadian Airspace so could have landed in NF
I suppose to hop over the pond in couple months. Not using BA.
Safer for the reasons outlined (the aircraft need not take-off until after it's repaired in-house).
I always turn toward my mechanic when I'm in need of repair.
This is a *very* interesting AV phenomenon.
Thanks to OMAAT, this diversion makes perfect sense.
they literally took the passengers as hostages and risked an inflight disaster with them on board because isiraeli shekelz rule their minds
I'd have to think JFK or Boston would have been good compromises for British Airways and end up with much happier passengers.
I wonder how many of those passengers on this flight may skip British Airways in the future after this experience.
Thats horrible for the passengers also that aircraft does not have wifi, literally a trip to nowhere.
they should think of their passengers first and their safety and needs instead of putting costs and logistics ahead of everything else. the plane should have landed somewhere in North America or Canada and passengers should have been routed to their end destinations and the aircraft at that point would have been serviced locally or flown back empty.
Perfectly rational under late stage capitalism, where the ONLY things that matter are reducing costs and maximizing profit. Screw the customer. That's essentially the mantra of every large business. And governments long ago gave up on protecting consumers in favor of cowtowing to the wealthy who fund their campaigns and fatten the wallets. Capitalism will go down in hustas another failed system.
Bureaucratic stupidity. They chose the worst available option.
Surprised that BA has the worst service after the pandemic. My wife's flight from BWI-LHR cancelled on June 5th, and they rebooked her for next day in a United flight from IAD. The United flight got delayed by 2 hrs and she has to miss the connecting flight from LHR to MAA(Chennai) and another flight to a local airport in India. Final tally- 2 days of delay. United is a banned airline in our family...
Surprised that BA has the worst service after the pandemic. My wife's flight from BWI-LHR cancelled on June 5th, and they rebooked her for next day in a United flight from IAD. The United flight got delayed by 2 hrs and she has to miss the connecting flight from LHR to MAA(Chennai) and another flight to a local airport in India. Final tally- 2 days of delay. United is a banned airline in our family and now BA joins in that list. Next time, we will go in Air India directly to New Delhi or go with Emirates. The BA customer support is also the worst with no helpful information and their India call center is absolute BS.
BA is obviously not in the customer service business.
Inconvienced passengers ?
What are you talking about !
This is a British Airways trademark.
absolutely ridiculous just land whereever Rolls services AA's 787 which is probably DFW
AA 787s have GE engines installed.
AA 787's are powered by GEnx engines, not going to help BA much. I am not in any way defending BA, this was an insanely selfish move.
Convenience for maintenance should not outweigh operational safety. If London was the only place in the world that Rolls Royce could work to fix the problem with that engine, maybe they and British Airways need to reexamine their engine program as a minimum. The right thing to have done would have been to continue to Houston flying over North America with multiple near by alternate airports or to have diverted to a suitable North American...
Convenience for maintenance should not outweigh operational safety. If London was the only place in the world that Rolls Royce could work to fix the problem with that engine, maybe they and British Airways need to reexamine their engine program as a minimum. The right thing to have done would have been to continue to Houston flying over North America with multiple near by alternate airports or to have diverted to a suitable North American alternate on the way. If British Airways and Rolls Royce can’t support an engine repair in North America something is very disturbing.
Your comment have undermine how ETOPS work and all pilot trainings.
BA can fix their RR in North America but not in JFK or IAH.
You would ship your car to Hawaii just to fix it there don't you.
This seems like a Alex Cruz move. BA should have diverted to the closest large airport hub like JFK. Then passengers can get rebooked and get where they need to go much quicker.
If it as American Airlines they would have likely dropped them off at JFK and hired a couple of busses to take passengers to IAH.
Rolls Royce also supplies engines to American Airlines, which is based in Dallas.
The 777 engine isn't the same as 787.
Just because you can fix a Ford Focus doesn't mean you can fix a F-150. Parts don't even match.
Trent has a lot of issues.
AFAIK, Timmy's premium Delta can service Trent for VS.
But United couldn't in IAH.
Better to return to LHR.
That sounds awful for passengers. As with most things BA, they will end up waiting months for compensation. I think that after flying 12 hours plus, I would need to wait a couple of days before I could fly again. What an inconvenience.
I wonder how BA would have justified if something serious happened to the flight on its return journey
This is fully understandable from BA's point of view because they don't really have to fully compensate the passengers for their time. That alone could run into hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds depending on who's on the flight. There's a built-in assymetry similar to a situation where a city or public transport operator might curtail a service to save tens of thousand pounds, whereas the true cost of such an action -...
This is fully understandable from BA's point of view because they don't really have to fully compensate the passengers for their time. That alone could run into hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds depending on who's on the flight. There's a built-in assymetry similar to a situation where a city or public transport operator might curtail a service to save tens of thousand pounds, whereas the true cost of such an action - spread among the general public affected - could be a large multiple of that.
Still better than going to Houston
Hah!
Allowing actions by airlines like this damages any trust in government.
What kind of crazy rule could a "government" make to solve this one-off issue by a private company.
CFPB is working on "Passenger Bill of right"...
Putting the customer first, instead of last?
Its BA so the overriding factor in their decision is which is cheapest for them. Thats the one and only factor.
Sorry Ben I disagree with you here. Perhaps a compromise could have been diverting to JFK so there would be options to getting the passengers to Houston quicker, but returning over the ocean is nuts.
Personally as a retired airline captain that would not have been my course of action and I think it requires more scrutiny.
An engine surge, self recovered or not is a significant issue in today’s modern engines and in my opinion would preclude a return trip across a large body of water.
What a disgrace. BA is more concerned with money over passengers. The outrageous inconvenience and discomfort experienced by the passengers was shameful. What you didn't mention was that the pilots and crew would prefer going home instead of being delayed in Houston. Hopefully compensation was multiple free future travel trips, not just rebooking
.
If Swiss can change an engine in Goose Bay in the middle of winter, BA can do it at IAH. Complete the current flight if you can to get those passengers to their destination safely to minimize limit the inconvenience to only those on the return leg.
The should have had the "5th engine" option like on a 747. Carry around a spare on a ferry flight "just in case"
Maybe RR didn't want a NTSB inquiry.
Therefore, if the plane did not touch US soil, no grounds for an inquiry and RR dodged the bullet.
Crafty Brits!!
I was wandering myself if, besides cost, this has also to do with bureaucracy avoidance.
The airline was only thinking of itself, not of the individual passengers of whom there were probably two hundred or so. They had paid BA to get them to Houston and many, most probably, also had financial considerations that were impacted by BA's decision to return to London.
Yep. This is how business works. All business. Always has. Note the Titanic only had lifeboats for the wealthy people. Irish immigrants couldn't sue.
I believe BA’s 787’s use the Trent 1000 engine, and Rolls Royce has not been able to supply spare parts. Air Tanzania has had a 787 grounded in Malaysia for more than 6 months because of Trent problems. No surprise BA would turn back to London to have the problem addressed there. Most if not all US airlines picked GE engines for their 787’s, so BA may have had a 787 stuck in Houston a long time if they’d continued to the destination.
So much for the concept of putting the customer first.
They did get free drinks and internet on the "return" eastbound leg.
No they didn’t. I was one of the poor bastards on the flight. The internet was not working properly before the flight was turned around. Executive members have the option to use messenger for free but BA Cabin Crew cannot give out free Wi-Fi as it is all operated by an outside party. We were all given free hotel accommodation for the night and food vouchers. Luckily for us, we managed to book on the...
No they didn’t. I was one of the poor bastards on the flight. The internet was not working properly before the flight was turned around. Executive members have the option to use messenger for free but BA Cabin Crew cannot give out free Wi-Fi as it is all operated by an outside party. We were all given free hotel accommodation for the night and food vouchers. Luckily for us, we managed to book on the next flight from Heathrow to Houston, which was a day later. I do have to say though, the Cabin Crew handled the situation very well..
Sounds like fun if your in a premium cabin! I would love for something like this to happen when I fly Emirates First Class ;)
Lolllll I always think the same thing when I read these articles.
Had a LH first class flight from Munich to Ord once that nearly turned back after 5hrs in. I was fingers crossed but unfort they resolved the issue and kept going.
You guys are strange. As much as flying First is fun, it is really about getting through a flight with as much style and comfort, and as little stress as possible.
So whilst the points and miles guys get a kick out of endlessly flying around in First, most of us just want to get to our destination.
And it's not like BA had a reserve set of dinners and cocktails for the return flight anyway. It would be leftovers at best.
Sounds awful. Most people are trying to get somewhere.
I'd happily hang out on Emirates first, yes, but BA business (or even first, if that flight had an F cabin), nope. Flew it last week on the "short seven hour flight to IAD in Club World. Couldn't wait to get off the plane.