Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London

Mike Rapoport wrote:

You seem to assume that the reason for contiued flight was cost even though
there is no evidence of this.


I do wonder how the Captain phrased the cabin announcement?

Perhaps:

'Good evening everyone, this is your Captain speaking. You may have
noticed that right after rotation "there was an engine surge, like a
backfire" and I should inform you that the control tower reported
"sparks flying from the crippled engine and heard popping noises."

Not to worry! We have shut down the affected engine and finished a
lengthy conference call with management that absolutely did not include
any discussion of the recently effective EU passenger compensation law
nor other costs of landing to inspect the damage.

You will be happy to know that based *only* on consideration for your
safety and convenience that rather than landing somewhere in the US to
inspect the damage and repair the aircraft that we have decided to press
on to London! Stiff Upper Lip and all that!

Of course we will be a little lower and slower but we estimate we have
probably have enough fuel to reach London, or at least Manchester.


Now I know that you paid close attention to the safety briefing and if
we should developer a bit of fire from the engine damage in the next
eight or ten hours, well, heck, we will be at most an hour from land and
I know that each of you knows where your personal flotation device is
located!

Remember, your safety is always our first concern! Thank you for
choosing British Airways'


(Foolish caveat: quoted remarks abstracted from the LA Times)

--
Doug
PP ASEL IA Fool

Doug Carter wrote:

Remember, your safety is always our first concern!

This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not be their
primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground. Their primary
concern had better be to deliver me to my destination. Safety runs a close
second, of course, since I'd like to get there intact.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

George Patterson wrote
This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not
be their primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground.
Their primary concern had better be to deliver me to my destination.
Safety runs a close second, of course, since I'd like to get there
intact.

None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.
The aircraft came second. If I and the aircraft both survived,
chances were, the passengers made out OK.

Bob Moore

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
George Patterson wrote
This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not
be their primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground.
Their primary concern had better be to deliver me to my destination.
Safety runs a close second, of course, since I'd like to get there
intact.

None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.
The aircraft came second. If I and the aircraft both survived,
chances were, the passengers made out OK.

Bob Moore

You betcha, I want two people up front that think they are the most
important people in the world.

Bob Moore wrote:

None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.

Good point. As Gann says in "Fate is the Hunter", the pilots are always first to
arrive at the scene of an accident.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.