Printable View
nice find matt. i'm kinda shocked that they actually popped a slide to unload, though there probably was no other way.
Yea, those things cost beaucoup bucks to put back in (well over $10,000 IIRC)...Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
Heh G-BYGD. That bird hasnt even been at JFK (as far as I know). Thats good of BA to help out. Will be nice to catch this bird. "Feed Haiti Express" as i'm going to call it now.
That is totally awesome! Even though the plane is not carrying any pax, would it be legal for the plane to return the UK with one chute down? (no pun intended!) Or are all chutes required on the MEL?
I'm guessing it's fine, especially given the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISP Pilot
Agreed. Though most likely I think they will head to FL and get a chute there before returning to the UK. If i'm not mistakin BA does fly down there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
It would be legal to MEL as long as there is no one sitting in the section that woukd evac out that door. Although I don't know how many chutes a 747 would have to be missing before it becomes a no-go item.
2 if the other door on the back of the a/c was pulled. If not I would say 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Looks like an extremely inefficient way of transporting cargo.
In a cargo operation that is def inefficient. In terms if what they did thats really generous of BA. There was no revenu from that flight. Only expenses. BA did not have to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by darlyn
Of course, old Speedbird did a very noble thing by donating their aircraft in a zero-revenue situation. All-around kudos to them for doing so. I'm just saying that one box per passenger seat seems to be wasting space. There probably is a good load balancing or flying object reason for not adding extra supplies in the aisles, but I would love to hear more from whoever coordinated this as to why that specific arrangement was chosen.