BA 737 25,000 ft Cruise - 'Technical Reasons'
Discussion
Just off tonight's 1650 LGW to EDI, courtesy of a BA 737.
Prior to take off the Captain gives the usual announcements about the safety demo, route, weather etc, but finishes off by saying that the cruise will be at 25,000 feet, due to technical reasons.
The usual cruise altitude on the Scotland to London route on a 737 is 35,000 feet or thereabouts, so what technical reasons could apply to reduced this by 10,000 feet, and any consequences from this (apart from a bit more tubuance)?
Prior to take off the Captain gives the usual announcements about the safety demo, route, weather etc, but finishes off by saying that the cruise will be at 25,000 feet, due to technical reasons.
The usual cruise altitude on the Scotland to London route on a 737 is 35,000 feet or thereabouts, so what technical reasons could apply to reduced this by 10,000 feet, and any consequences from this (apart from a bit more tubuance)?
The 737 pneumatic system can be supplied by engines, APU or a ground source.
If there is a problem with the engine supply of pneumatic air (engine bleed air) e.g high temperature or pressure the bleed valve will close. This will lead to a limit of 25,000' on some 737s.
Basically, it's a problem with one of the engine bleed air valves.
If there is a problem with the engine supply of pneumatic air (engine bleed air) e.g high temperature or pressure the bleed valve will close. This will lead to a limit of 25,000' on some 737s.
Basically, it's a problem with one of the engine bleed air valves.
It has nothing to do with the cost of fixing it. Aviation doesn't work like that, when something breaks, it gets fixed no matter what he cost. (Within reason of course, if the a/c is just scrap, then things change!)
The fix would simply have not been possible in the time, so a decision would have to have been made between cancelling the flight if no standby was available, or operating it perfectly safely, but with an operational restriction.
Given that on a flight of that length, the additional fuel burnt would have been somewhere in the region of 50-100kgs, then it's not worth stuffing passengers about and cancelling flights. Just fly it and then get it fixed on an overnight (if possible) or swap the schedule around to take it out of service for a day or two, but keep a full flying programme.
The fix would simply have not been possible in the time, so a decision would have to have been made between cancelling the flight if no standby was available, or operating it perfectly safely, but with an operational restriction.
Given that on a flight of that length, the additional fuel burnt would have been somewhere in the region of 50-100kgs, then it's not worth stuffing passengers about and cancelling flights. Just fly it and then get it fixed on an overnight (if possible) or swap the schedule around to take it out of service for a day or two, but keep a full flying programme.
The BA 737s out of Gatwick are all looking very tatty these days, inside and out. Probably because they're all well over twenty years old now. It's a disgrace for a national carrier. I fly EZ by preference from LGW if I can.
I put it to BA that there isn't a single crappy charter carrier flying out of Gatwick with older, crappier, more worn out aircraft than the LGW 737 fleet.
I put it to BA that there isn't a single crappy charter carrier flying out of Gatwick with older, crappier, more worn out aircraft than the LGW 737 fleet.
Andy Zarse said:
The BA 737s out of Gatwick are all looking very tatty these days, inside and out. Probably because they're all well over twenty years old now. It's a disgrace for a national carrier. I fly EZ by preference from LGW if I can.
I put it to BA that there isn't a single crappy charter carrier flying out of Gatwick with older, crappier, more worn out aircraft than the LGW 737 fleet.
You should pick up the inflight magazine and look at BAs route map. It is a shock when you realise how _few_ places they fly to. I put it to BA that there isn't a single crappy charter carrier flying out of Gatwick with older, crappier, more worn out aircraft than the LGW 737 fleet.
The market capitalisation of even Ryanair is higher than BA.
Thanks guys - very interesting to understand how some of the techical aspects function, and what operators can work around when a failure occurs.
Also good to hear that the old 737s are being moved on. It's not great hoping that the seat in front doesn't have a broken recline function, and you have the backrest in front a couple of inches from your nose for the whole flight.
I seems I'm jinxed this week though, with an Easyjet Airbus out of Bristol needing a tyre change before departure, leaving a full aircraft sitting in the heat for an hour as a replacement wheel was fitted.
Also good to hear that the old 737s are being moved on. It's not great hoping that the seat in front doesn't have a broken recline function, and you have the backrest in front a couple of inches from your nose for the whole flight.
I seems I'm jinxed this week though, with an Easyjet Airbus out of Bristol needing a tyre change before departure, leaving a full aircraft sitting in the heat for an hour as a replacement wheel was fitted.
markmullen said:
Perfect for a private jet conversion.
Hardly any private ones are conversions, most people buy BBJ's.Flying at 25,000 it could of been any number of problems that have a knock on effect on the RVSM certification meaning you have to fly below 28,000.
Pack could certainly be a reason though
creampuff said:
You should pick up the inflight magazine and look at BAs route map. It is a shock when you realise how _few_ places they fly to.
umm. not sure what you count as few... but in the last 12 months I've flown to:- Lisbon
- Dusseldorf
- Frankfurt
- Belfast
- Brussels
- Geneva
- New York
- Boston
- Washington DC
- Seattle
- San Francisco
- Dallas
- Chicago
- Vancouver
- Budapest
- Marseille
all with BA...
And that's only 10% of the destinations you can get to from London, and not including Iberia, or code shares with other airlines.
what else do you expect? to be able to reach the moon?
creampuff said:
The market capitalisation of even Ryanair is higher than BA.
And that is almost entirely due to Ryanair being perceived to have lower overheads, lower risks of strikes, less risks to future business (e.g. effect of Iberia on IAG..) etccpufreak said:
And that's only 10% of the destinations you can get to from London, and not including Iberia, or code shares with other airlines.
what else do you expect? to be able to reach the moon?
But the clue should be in the name - 'British' Airways (and yes, I am a BA Gold Card holder). From Edinburgh I can fly direct to...London. That's it!what else do you expect? to be able to reach the moon?
OK, a choice of 3 airports at London but still a single direct destination none the less. Excluding even the loss of international routes there was a time when I could (and regularly did) fly BA from Edinburgh to Manchester, Birmingham and Southampton. Plus they've cut the real early red-eye flight to Heathrow which was real useful, and by running 767s on some of the flights, 9 times out of 10 they come in on an International stand and so it buses to the terminal, as if transferring through T5 wasn't painful enough.
But if you're flying direct out of LHR or LGW you really have to get your head round the lack of BA service out of Edinburgh now, and as I understand it it's the same at the other UK airports bar LHR and LGW. Of a morning I can watch the departure boards for all the UK regional airports, European destinations such as Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc. Istanbul is up there plus New York (EWR); Toronto in the summer now. Plus the Costas etc. But the ONLY direct BA destination (including code shares) is London. End of.
I'm sure as 'London Airways' they do a great job, but it ain't what it used to be. And lets not get started on the demise of the excellent Super Shuttle service some years back.... Rant over.
cpufreak said:
creampuff said:
You should pick up the inflight magazine and look at BAs route map. It is a shock when you realise how _few_ places they fly to.
umm. not sure what you count as few... but in the last 12 months I've flown to:- Lisbon
- Dusseldorf
- Frankfurt
- Belfast
- Brussels
- Geneva
- New York
- Boston
- Washington DC
- Seattle
- San Francisco
- Dallas
- Chicago
- Vancouver
- Budapest
- Marseille
all with BA...
And that's only 10% of the destinations you can get to from London, and not including Iberia, or code shares with other airlines.
what else do you expect? to be able to reach the moon?
South/Central America looks like the great lost continent. About 1/2 of south east Asia doesn't exist....
creampuff said:
So all in Europe and North America then..........
South/Central America looks like the great lost continent. About 1/2 of south east Asia doesn't exist....
umm, they're not a charity.South/Central America looks like the great lost continent. About 1/2 of south east Asia doesn't exist....
If the demand for a route is there, the route will exist.
The majority of destinations in both South america and SE Asia are reachable with just 1 connection from london... I fail to see how that's a problem.
e.g. when I went to Guyana in south america, I flew BA across the big wet bit, and then had a connection with a local carrier from Trinidad&Tobago on the way out, and then through Barbados on the way back.
in South America, the majority of destinations can be reached via Iberia, therefore it makes little sense for BA to duplicate that, except for the highly travelled segments.
Similarly in Asia, you can take Singapore and HK as hubs, and reach the majority of destinations from there.
tvrolet's post about it being different if your not in london is a valid point though, I guess I'm lucky to be in London
creampuff said:
So all in Europe and North America then..........
South/Central America looks like the great lost continent. About 1/2 of south east Asia doesn't exist....
BA are part of IAG, as is Iberia who have a large number of service to central and South America. South/Central America looks like the great lost continent. About 1/2 of south east Asia doesn't exist....
There's no point competing directly with a sister airline.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff