BA to become 'Airline of Choice'!? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[jacko 8,814]

A quick look on seat guru shows BA have the same number of emergency exits on their 777 200s as China southern, KLM, Cathay, Emirates, New Zealand and a number of random airlines I looked up.

Their 777 300s appear to have a over wing emergency exit.

And Singapore, I did that check too for the 777-200.

All seemed to have exits that were not really over the wings, but a little behind them.

The 777-300 has over wing exits and Seat Guru shows them as available on BA.

Edited November 30, 2017 by jacko

[Chester007 175]

I've only flown B.O.A.C. When they ceased to exist I flew Freddie Laker. 5555

[Rawhide2 1,343]

You rabidly claimed.

"Blocked the overwing exit.....?? Completely ?? There is not an airline in the world who would risk the monstrous compensation bill to families if it caused fatalities in an emergency. Boeing would go ballistic. You show me a photo of having no exit access and I will happily concede the point"

 

I totally dissproved your rabidly scribbled claim as you didnt even bother checking your facts before slagging me off, If you had checked your facts before posting you wouldnt have made yourself look such a dick, but you didnt, preferring to attack me with a ridiculous unresearched statement to try and claim some brownie points.

 

I doubt you have the capacity to check properly, or even check the trade and daily papers for references to BA installing seats in the overwing exit gap on some of their their aircraft including their 777's.

Maybe you also missed the complaints that the overwing, or near overwing exits themselves were far too small?

Maybe you werent born in the late 90's when it was mentioned in many newspapers that BA were installing seats in some overwing exit gaps? At the World Travel Trade exhibition sometime in the late 90's a couple of reporters from some daily rags were thrown out when claiming that BA were risking peoples lives by fitting seats in exit spaces. It was quite amusing watching BA reps squirming.

Next time you attempt to attack someone, DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST.

 

Provide proof of your claims.....you have provided the sum of jack so far instead referring to 747's and 787's. Photo of the blocked overwing exit on the existing 777 are using on the London Bangkok route. If you cant wind your neck in......out until you do

[Rawhide2 1,343]

Just to refresh your mind before you go off on another rant this is what you clearly stated in the thread

 

"You wouldnt want to be on one of Bloody Awfull's 777's as they have blocked the overwing exit so they could put extra seats in.

Scumbags".

 

Over to you. This time dont move the goalposts or swerve what was asked.

[Goldpanner 399]

And Singapore, I did that check too for the 777-200.

All seemed to have exits that were not really over the wings, but a little behind them.

The 777-300 has over wing exits and Seat Guru shows them as available on BA.

 

 

The original big row with BA was about their 777-200's which they wanted to put more seats in.On the original 777's there was a gap where the near overwing exit was. They decided to put a row of seats in on some of the planes to see what would happen. After this they then did the same thing with some of their 747's. Then there was the catastrophic fire at Manchester airport. This effectively stopped BA from fitting more seats in the over wing and near overwing exits. However those planes that had the seats fitted in the overwing spaces are still flying. I believe that the 'Overwing Exits' are now reclassified as 'Near wing exits'

Though the CAA accepted that it was safe they werent happy,

What I find most curious is that, at the time practically every newspaper carried the story about BA fitting 'Dangerous' seats in effectively blocking the over wing exits. A few years back when I did a deep Google search I found copies of those newspaper articles, yet curiously none seem to exist now?? Wonder if BA got them removed ?? HMMM

[Goldpanner 399]

 

Provide proof of your claims.....you have provided the sum of jack so far instead referring to 747's and 787's. Photo of the blocked overwing exit on the existing 777 are using on the London Bangkok route. If you cant wind your neck in......out until you do

 

Look sweetcheeks, you posted:

"There is not an airline in the world who would risk the monstrous compensation bill to families if it caused fatalities in an emergency. Boeing would go ballistic. You show me a photo of having no exit access and I will happily concede the point"

 

BA Put seats into the space that Boeing originally left open for the overwing exit. Thats a fact. Its also dangerous and those planes with DIRECT overwing exits that have seat installed are dangerous. Manchester Proved that.

Im not chasing around the internet to satisfy your or your other sockpuppet's rabid dribblings any further but do you see an overwing exit here???

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Airways_Boeing_777-200B_2.php

 

I dissproved your claim.

I think the statement relevant to you is. "When youre in a hole, stop digging"

Edited November 30, 2017 by Goldpanner

[Goldpanner 399]

 

 

The original big row with BA was about their 777-200'sthen later the 747's which they wanted to put more seats in. On the original 777's there was a gap where the near overwing exit was . They decided to put a row of seats in on some of the planes to see what would happen. After this they then did the same thing with some of their 747's. Then there was the catastrophic fire at Manchester airport. This effectively slowed BA from fitting more seats in the over wing and near overwing exits at the time. Many in the Airplane industry though that fitting a row of seats, effectively blocking what was already a dangerous exit made the whole thing even more dangerous.

I believe that the 'Overwing Exits' are now reclassified as 'Near wing exits', and I also see many new planes dont even have an overwing exit as they moved the smaller exit either further back or further forwards. An overwing exit was always a dangerous thing due to the fact of firstly the wing being a huge fuel tank and also because of the proximity of the engines.

I will not fly on any 777 of any airline due to the spaces between exit doors now, one fat bastard and were all dead.

What I find most curious is that, at the time practically every newspaper carried the story about BA fitting 'Dangerous' seats in, effectively blocking the over wing exits. A few years back when I did a deep Google search for a post on Flyertalk I found copies of those newspaper articles, yet curiously none seem to exist now?? Wonder if BA got them removed ?? HMMM

 

Singapore airlines still have overwing exits on their 777 300 with NO seats blocking them but on the V3 versions there are no overwing exits shown, But SIA has 6 versions of their 777-200

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singapore_Air/Singapore_Air_Boeing_777-200_1.php

 

Whilst the BA 777-300 does show unblocked overwing exits their 777-200 both 4 class and 3 class does not.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Airways_Boeing_777-200.php

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Goldpanner

[jacko 8,814]

 

What I find most curious is that, at the time practically every newspaper carried the story about BA fitting 'Dangerous' seats in effectively blocking the over wing exits. A few years back when I did a deep Google search I found copies of those newspaper articles, yet curiously none seem to exist now?? Wonder if BA got them removed ?? HMMM

I must admit I too did a Google search to get an idea of what you were talking about and came up blank. Very surprising and possibly sinister. I have been having negative thoughts about Google searches for a while, the top of the page seems to come up with useless links to other search engines or blogs, like click bait, and the real topic often absent.

[Rawhide2 1,343]

 

Look sweetcheeks, you posted:

"There is not an airline in the world who would risk the monstrous compensation bill to families if it caused fatalities in an emergency. Boeing would go ballistic. You show me a photo of having no exit access and I will happily concede the point"

 

BA Put seats into the space that Boeing originally left open for the overwing exit. Thats a fact. Its also dangerous and those planes with DIRECT overwing exits that have seat installed are dangerous. Manchester Proved that.

Im not chasing around the internet to satisfy your or your other sockpuppet's rabid dribblings any further but do you see an overwing exit here???

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/British_Airways/British_Airways_Boeing_777-200B_2.php

 

I dissproved your claim.

I think the statement relevant to you is. "When youre in a hole, stop digging"

 

lol an absolutely gorgeous swerve. You openly admitted slagging BA at every opportunity god gives and then make the statement about the 777. You then proceed to provide spurious links to other Boeing aircraft for reasons only you know.

You have completely failed to provide the photo to back up your ludicrous claims so quite simply am calling bullshit on you. Talking outa yer arse pal.

 

No further input. Point proved. Have a nice day.

[jacko 8,814]

 

No further input. Point proved. Have a nice day.

I hope not....

[Rawhide2 1,343]

I hope not....

 

Well I wouldn't have but why on earth bait me like that ?? The fella clearly has a downer on BA. All I asked for was for a simple photo but instead was accused of being Rabid. End of as far as I'm concerned.

[Goldpanner 399]

I must admit I too did a Google search to get an idea of what you were talking about and came up blank. Very surprising and possibly sinister. I have been having negative thoughts about Google searches for a while, the top of the page seems to come up with useless links to other search engines or blogs, like click bait, and the real topic often absent.

Its pretty similar to BA's Facebook pages. Any slightly detrimental posts are removed within minutes and the only posts are seemingly from highly excitable BA supporters.

 

Maybe they wont be so happy when flying BA's 777 Longhaul from next year when they are squeezing in an extra seat in every row. BA's 777's are one of the most uncomfortable planes in the air in any class, their lack of sufficient choice and supply of decent food along with their amazing aloof waitresses (mostly gay males) but its only going to get worse.

http://www.cetusnews.com/life/British-Airways--long-haul-passenger-squeeze-from-Gatwick-starts-in-May.BJ7gG82FKb.html

 

I'm still waiting 3 years on for the CAA to properly take up my complaint about BA totally ignoring all the rules about delayed and cancelled long haul flights.

[Butch 3,456]

To be honest I don't think any of us are BA fanboys.

 

Whether or not the issue concerning the wing exit doors are there or not is moot. I think that jumping down Rawhides throat for asking a question or clarification on a point is a bit out of order, especially when it offered a chance to look at the subject in question across the different airlines.

 

We have to also assume that it might be a case of "corporate risk" strategy.

Let's say it gains the airlines an extra (hypothetical here) £2 billion a year revenue. They then weigh up how many crashes or incidents they have in a year and the amount of compensation they might have to pay after the lawayers have done their bit, to the families. If it works out that the expected incident leading to a claim will be one in 10 years and the claim will be £5 billion, then they're quids in, a £20 billion gain versus a £5 billion loss. I seem to recall this actually being applied by one of the big USA carriers years ago when a modification was going to be prohibitively expensive but not actually enforced by the CAA.

 

I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

 

Anyway GP, you need to relax a bit, bloody hell mate chill out and I hope you like the BA towel and Mug gift set I'm sending you for Xmas :D

 

I thought we were all mates here (except Jacko - he drinks Lipton).

Edited December 1, 2017 by Butch

[Chester007 175]

I've done search with Google,Bing,Cortina and FlightAware. I couldn't find one article about this.

[jacko 8,814]

I can imagine GP is in quite a large group of those who dislike BA.

During my working years I flew a great deal with them. They had a comprehensive network, went via UK which suited my plans, and actually, years ago again, had a good product in Club World. I looked forward to the port and Stilton and a UK newspaper after a stint in some 3rd world shithole.

But then aggravation, from being messed about at LHR, trapped in planes that couldn't get to the gate, as time dripped away for the pain in the arse transfer from T1-T4 with rude slow security, being forced landside, so I had to repeat security there too, to dishonest treatment by them, lies lies and more over the years. Attempts to gouge me when changing routes/tickets and being treated less than decently where delays or missed connections occurred. They were on a downward slide then that they seemed oblivious to, with their arrogance and captive market in London.

 

Yes I hold a grudge, as does GP. Despite my last trip with them being fine, the shuttle from Manchester to LHR and back.

 

Although I flew to Thailand to start my retirement here on an air-miles ticket with BA, First Class, non-stop LHR to BKK one way, it was a flight I enjoyed. Of course it left late, BA 009 was consistent in that.

Edited December 1, 2017 by jacko

[Brown1950 67]

 

 

The original big row with BA was about their 777-200's which they wanted to put more seats in.On the original 777's there was a gap where the near overwing exit was. They decided to put a row of seats in on some of the planes to see what would happen. After this they then did the same thing with some of their 747's. Then there was the catastrophic fire at Manchester airport. This effectively stopped BA from fitting more seats in the over wing and near overwing exits. However those planes that had the seats fitted in the overwing spaces are still flying. I believe that the 'Overwing Exits' are now reclassified as 'Near wing exits'

Though the CAA accepted that it was safe they werent happy,

What I find most curious is that, at the time practically every newspaper carried the story about BA fitting 'Dangerous' seats in effectively blocking the over wing exits. A few years back when I did a deep Google search I found copies of those newspaper articles, yet curiously none seem to exist now?? Wonder if BA got them removed ?? HMMM You quotedThe original big row with BA was about their 777-200's which they wanted to put more seats in.On the original 777's there was a gap where the near overwing exit was. They decided to put a row of seats in on some of the planes to see what would happen. After this they then did the same thing with some of their 747's. Then there was the catastrophic fire at Manchester airport.

 

 

The Manchester BA Airtours accident was 10 years BEFORE BA started flying B777-200 ????

[Goldpanner 399]

 

 

The Manchester BA Airtours accident was 10 years BEFORE BA started flying B777-200 ????

Oh god I fucking give up There were over wing exit seats in the 737 which caused horrendous problems. It was because of the Manchester fire that the CAA caused such a rucus about BA putting seats into their 747 and 777 overwing exits. If there had not have been the Manchetster fire no one would have know how dangerous Overwing exits with seats blocking them were.

Then BA says theyre going to put Overwing and near overwing exits seats in.

Overwing evacuation

Photograph showing seats relative to the right overwing emergency exit after the accident. Note the position of the arm rest. The seat back for the seat closest to the window, seat 10F, was returned to its upright position before this photo was taken.

More difficulties were encountered at the overwing exits. The left overwing exit could not be used because it was blocked by smoke and flames. The passenger seated at the right overwing exit had difficulty understanding how to operate the hatch. At that time, there was no requirement that exit-row passengers receive a briefing on how and when to open the hatch.^[1](p135) Once the 48 lb hatch was released, it fell inward onto the passenger seated next to it, trapping her. Two passengers lifted the hatch and put it on a seat in the next row back, making the exit available for use 45 seconds after the aircraft had stopped.^[1](p136)

Edited December 2, 2017 by Goldpanner

[Goldpanner 399]

I can imagine GP is in quite a large group of those who dislike BA.

Although I flew to Thailand to start my retirement here on an air-miles ticket with BA, First Class, non-stop LHR to BKK one way, it was a flight I enjoyed. Of course it left late, BA 009 was consistent in that.

 

My disgust at BA is their total ignoring of the Air rules, especially for Economy passengers. When they dumped me and loads of others in Thailand 3 years or so back they made no effort to cross book us onto another flight despite there being 5 flight within the following 4 hours running back to the UK. Their UK customer service failed to answer their phones. Their Check in staff at Swampy when we demanded we be cross shipped onto the next available flight as is the rule simply said "Cannot sir" handed us a hastily printed piece of paper then turned their back on us when, at the same time, Business and first passengers were immediatley put onto the next Thai flights. We economy punters were just dumped onto a coach and shipped off to a Hotel. They even specified that the hotel lock their mini bars to stop us drinking then not paying for it.(Thats what the hotel told us)

 

Back in the UK BA denied the flight had been cancelled and said it was delayed, 22 hours delayed?? No, thats a cancellation. Then when we started demanding the 600 Euros compensation they started on the old breakdown spiel. It was pretty simple to find out that the plane which was due to fly out to Bangkok was just put onto another route so there was no technical breakdown. We also said how could BA who's home airport is Heathrow not have a spare plane available which technically is a requirement. We were fobbed off, abused and lied to by BA untill we had had enough and issued County Court proceedings against them. They paid up the day the summons hit them, with no apology for their lies cheats and deceits. 600 Euros which was more than we paid for the flight.

BA had an obligation to post the full cancelled or delayed rules up at Swampy when the flight was cancelled.....they didnt. They were legally obligated to at least attempt to reship us onto the next available flight, they didnt and made no effort to do so yet reshipped Business and first. CAA were informed off all of BA lies cheats and rule breaking but after 3 complaints I and other still have heard nothing

Its not just the Thailand flights either they are well known for dumping passengers all over the world. Its cheaper to dump them into a hotel then try and fob them off when claiming compensation that to ship them onto other carriers. BA are a disgrace to the UK

[Goldpanner 399]

I must admit I too did a Google search to get an idea of what you were talking about and came up blank. Very surprising and possibly sinister. I have been having negative thoughts about Google searches for a while, the top of the page seems to come up with useless links to other search engines or blogs, like click bait, and the real topic often absent.

 

Friend of mine in the Travel biz sent me this below but he surmises that BA have many employees who review websites etc and even private forums and will get any seriously derogatory remarks about BA removed or face legal action.

 

This article is from 1987

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1987/1987%20-%202206.PDF

 

Though not directly related to BA its more towards Boeing from 1986

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-23/news/mn-23699_1_engen

Edited December 2, 2017 by Goldpanner

[ttk 236]

Just saw on the news that BA is eliminating seats that recline for shorter flights to lower ticket prices....(by adding more seats??.)

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/01/09/british-airways-to-remove-reclining-seats.html

Edited January 10, 2018 by ttk

[Rawhide2 1,343]

Goldpanner i have always been treated well on British Airways. I dont choose my vehicle by the quality of the trolley dollies its fair to say I just want to get from A to B safely obviously but at the same time knowing that if a mid air crisis arose we couldnt be in better hands at the pointy end. I really dont want to be 35,000 up and somchai at the wheel.

Read your post of December 2nd 2017 but I can just see from reading that its clear you went at it like bull in a china shop over the compensation. Is it only since that incident you have been slagging BA ?? If not why were you flying them in 2014 ??

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

Not good.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-airways-flight-infested-bed-bugs-1546318

 

A British Airways Boeing 747 reportedly suffered a 'severe' infestation of bed bugs, yet the aircraft continued in service. The airline staff was eventually forced to report the issue after spotting several insects and passengers complained of being bitten.

The aircraft was heading to Heathrow from the US after an entire row, 47, was closed down in the economy class due to the issue. Similar reports of infestation then emerged a few days later on the same plane during a flight from Cape Town to Heathrow.

[Rawhide2 1,343]

lol "spotted bed bugs"

Another attempted smear

Edited January 16, 2018 by Rawhide2

[Rawhide2 1,343]

going 10 abreast on the 777's

 

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/03/05/british-airways-releases-images-ten-across-b777s/?utm_source=Business+Traveller+International+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1ff8f504f3-Your_weekly_business_travel_briefing+Mar+8+17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0f9ce7ba66-1ff8f504f3-162953081

[jacko 8,814]

going 10 abreast on the 777's

 

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2018/03/05/british-airways-releases-images-ten-across-b777s/?utm_source=Business+Traveller+International+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1ff8f504f3-Your_weekly_business_travel_briefing+Mar+8+17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0f9ce7ba66-1ff8f504f3-162953081

The pics showed 8 abreast I see.

So are we going to 3-4-3?