BA 747-400 at Luton?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CAP493
ManofMan - at the risk of repetition, LTN is not an "ill-equipped airport", the provision of ground handling equipment is down to the ground handling agents at the airport.
Surely it is the responsibility of any competent airport management group to ensure that its ground services can cope with the traffic it accepts - aren't there any red faces in the boardroom over this incident?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton accepted the divert on the basis of the Aircrafts crew having declared a PAN due to a low fuel state. I don't think the Airport would be in much of a position to refuse the aircraft under the circumstances?
FC
FC
Originally Posted by antilla
If it's not ill-equipped, it must be disorganised! The airport wants the kudos of another 747 arrival and happily accepts a diversion - then blames one of the sub-contractors for the c0ck-up that ensued.
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 12th Mar 2006 at 18:54.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that you haven't read the earlier part of this thread either.
My "accusation" is just a comment on a situation that appears to have been something of a shambles - and on various subsequent attempts to blame it all on the ground handling agents.
My comment, which I still consider to be reasonable, is that the airport management is surely responsible for the efficient operation of the airport, and that it must accept some degree of blame for what happened. That was why I asked about red faces in the boardroom.
My "accusation" is just a comment on a situation that appears to have been something of a shambles - and on various subsequent attempts to blame it all on the ground handling agents.
My comment, which I still consider to be reasonable, is that the airport management is surely responsible for the efficient operation of the airport, and that it must accept some degree of blame for what happened. That was why I asked about red faces in the boardroom.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft in question declared a pan. The thought of a tow bar would not have even entered the flight crew's mind. They may have thought about fire cover and other important facilities, but the idea of how they would push back would not have been an issue.
Imagine the outcry on here if the aircraft had declared the pan, requested a landing at Luton, only for Luton to turn round and say 'sorry you can't come here...we don't have a compatible towbar'!
Come on guys, get a grip!
Imagine the outcry on here if the aircraft had declared the pan, requested a landing at Luton, only for Luton to turn round and say 'sorry you can't come here...we don't have a compatible towbar'!
Come on guys, get a grip!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that there has to be a good reason why large aircraft like a 744 could not simply carry a spare towbar in an appropriate part of the hold to cater for such embarrassments? Too long? Too heavy to load/unload manually? Presumably LTN hasn't invested in one of the new gizmos that lift up the nosewheel and are therefore relatively type-independent....
Originally Posted by Seloco
I guess that there has to be a good reason why large aircraft like a 744 could not simply carry a spare towbar in an appropriate part of the hold to cater for such embarrassments?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who normally sets the agenda as to what can land at Luton, is it the airport or the handling agents? So how much would a tow bar for a 747 actually cost? No doubt when one is required for pre- arranged movements it is just not handed over by say Servisair Gatwick but some sort of daily hire charge is applied. Would servisair Gatwick actually miss one if it were accidentally left at Luton? How much income has been lost over the years because Luton can’t handle a 747 without prior notice just for a lack of a tow bar? Maybe the airport should buy one and rent it out to the handling agents when required?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 towbar costs a couple of thousand dollars, you can also get a second-hand one. Not a big investment but still expensive if you need it once a year.
However the idea to invest into towbarless tractor for a widebody aircraft is probably better, because you can use for any heavy aircraft.
However the idea to invest into towbarless tractor for a widebody aircraft is probably better, because you can use for any heavy aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: bedlam
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all accounts, interesting and rare event. Wx was pretty bad in LON area last Thursday, having getting a soaking myself... still a hosepipe ban.
Re the VARIG MD11F, what was that doing - inbound or outbound load or both? Was it horses per chance?
The B747F incident a couple of years ago was bad planning & a lack of suitable highloader device to lift the said engine into the aircraft. Least said about that incident the better..!!
Re the VARIG MD11F, what was that doing - inbound or outbound load or both? Was it horses per chance?
The B747F incident a couple of years ago was bad planning & a lack of suitable highloader device to lift the said engine into the aircraft. Least said about that incident the better..!!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better still how come LTN handling companies do not have the services of a towbarless, which is the trend that is taking over. The cost of a towbar and the potential of damage justifies the extra cost of these new units?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A Virtual World!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seloco wrote:
The airport do not provide tugs, regardless of which variety are used .. these are the responsibility of the handling agents.
I last looked at this thread on Friday since which it has grown out of all proportions. Totally agree with everything said by Ebenezer, CAP 493, vintage etc. The aircraft declared a PAN and requested a landing at Luton. In those circumstances, you don't argue you just get it down.
Just one further small point ... ATC quite rightly don't have a list of towbars on the airport but the "old" Apron Control did have a list of which towbars were held by the handling agents.
Presumably LTN hasn't invested in one of the new gizmos that lift up the nosewheel and are therefore relatively type-independent....
I last looked at this thread on Friday since which it has grown out of all proportions. Totally agree with everything said by Ebenezer, CAP 493, vintage etc. The aircraft declared a PAN and requested a landing at Luton. In those circumstances, you don't argue you just get it down.
Just one further small point ... ATC quite rightly don't have a list of towbars on the airport but the "old" Apron Control did have a list of which towbars were held by the handling agents.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A daft question:
Did this flight land with full and appropriate fire cover? I was of the assumption that 747's could be accepted with advance notification and as this was a 'PAN', those arrangements necessary, would not have been in place in good time?
I am probably out of touch, but worth asking?
Did this flight land with full and appropriate fire cover? I was of the assumption that 747's could be accepted with advance notification and as this was a 'PAN', those arrangements necessary, would not have been in place in good time?
I am probably out of touch, but worth asking?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
A daft question:
Did this flight land with full and appropriate fire cover? I was of the assumption that 747's could be accepted with advance notification and as this was a 'PAN', those arrangements necessary, would not have been in place in good time?
I am probably out of touch, but worth asking?
Did this flight land with full and appropriate fire cover? I was of the assumption that 747's could be accepted with advance notification and as this was a 'PAN', those arrangements necessary, would not have been in place in good time?
I am probably out of touch, but worth asking?
