Passengers revolt after being told to fly on jet with its wing tip missing

Subscribe
1  2  3 
Page 2 of 3
Go to
Quote: another reason passengers should'nt be allowed windows
You're so right! We don't allow our passengers to have windows. Oh yeah, they're boxes. Seriously though, wasn't there just an A-380, maybe in Bangkok, which while taxiing hit a hanger and damaged it's winglet. They took the winglet off and flew the jet. I'm not an aerodynamics expert, but don't they just provide fuel economy, not lift?
Reply
typical. Its amazing how many pilots and aero experts you'll find in every passenger flight.
Reply
What everyone seems to forget is that the passengers were sent to a hotel because the airplane was 'not airworthy' . They show up the next day and they are put on the same airplane that was not airworthy hours earlier, and it shows no signs of repair. Be careful what you tell passengers, because they do remember, and it can come back on you as it did in this case.
Reply
Quote: What everyone seems to forget is that the passengers were sent to a hotel because the airplane was 'not airworthy' . They show up the next day and they are put on the same airplane that was not airworthy hours earlier, and it shows no signs of repair. Be careful what you tell passengers, because they do remember, and it can come back on you as it did in this case.
This is the point, and it shows poor service on the part of the airline. But Im wondering if the facts are straight. There are no shots of the A340 with its winglet ripped off, just the BA744. I even saw it on the local news last night, for whatever thats worth and it was the same picture.
Reply
Too bad they didn't post the comments I sent into the daily UK, whatchamacallit. The only thing interesting about the paper was Jane Seymour's implants.

The 747-400 has relief to allow it to fly with missing winglets. Presumably, the BA mechanics would either remove it or speed tape it into something a little more aerodynamic. The weight penalty is pretty substantial, but if 7 knuckleheaded passengers get off the plane, then no need to worry about the weight penalty...they(the penalty) just got off the plane.

FF
Reply
Quote: You're so right! We don't allow our passengers to have windows. Oh yeah, they're boxes. Seriously though, wasn't there just an A-380, maybe in Bangkok, which while taxiing hit a hanger and damaged it's winglet. They took the winglet off and flew the jet. I'm not an aerodynamics expert, but don't they just provide fuel economy, not lift?
Depending on the airplane, etc, winglets can as much as double the effective length of the wing.
Reply
Quote: Depending on the airplane, etc, winglets can as much as double the effective length of the wing.
B.S.



(filler)
Reply
Quote:
There are no shots of the A340 with its winglet ripped off, just the BA744.
But if the A340 winglet damaged the 747 one, even if it wasn't ripped off it would probably be safer to remove it and fly back, than risk it falling off in flight.
Reply
I only have 2 type ratings so I'm no expert, but both airplanes have winglets, and both were CDL items. Take em off, add a fuel burn penalty and go. Another vote for no pax windows.
Reply
Quote: But if the A340 winglet damaged the 747 one, even if it wasn't ripped off it would probably be safer to remove it and fly back, than risk it falling off in flight.
Agreed. My point is that it appears the news may be misrepresenting the facts.
Reply
1  2  3 
Page 2 of 3
Go to