Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Varche on 07 August 2019, 13:16:06

Title: British airways
Post by: Varche on 07 August 2019, 13:16:06
Not going well for them.

The other day they had a plane full of smoke due to a “technical issue” as it came in to land at Valencia. Is a fire a technical issue?

Now it is a failure of two computer systems . 100 flights cancelled. Whatever happened to having “ back up systems”?

Imagine when we are all stationary in our autonomous cars because of failure of a computer system.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: aaronjb on 07 August 2019, 14:02:23
Is a fire a technical issue?

I imagine it counts as one ..

Quote
Whatever happened to having “ back up systems”?

They outsourced them to India, I imagine, along with everything else. This is what you get.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: STEMO on 07 August 2019, 15:43:35
There's nothing British about British airways.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: zirk on 07 August 2019, 15:46:35
Plus side is theve good some cheap Flights on Offer at the mo with BA if you know where to find them.  ;)

im currently looking at BA Flights to Hong Kong £399 Return in December, wouldnt mind going back there again for a few Days then use HK as a Hub for cheap Local Filghts, ie Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia etc few days in each before returning back to HK for a couple of Nights then returning Home.

Did this a few years back with Lufthansa to HK, think I paid £360 Return then, cheap way to have an Alternative Christmas and New Years.  :)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: aaronjb on 07 August 2019, 15:48:32
Did this a few years back with Lufthansa to HK, think I paid £360 Return then, cheap way to have an Alternative Christmas and New Years.  :)

With some of those destinations, you just have to be careful you don't come back with a dose of the "gift that keeps on giving" .. ;D
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: zirk on 07 August 2019, 15:50:22
Did this a few years back with Lufthansa to HK, think I paid £360 Return then, cheap way to have an Alternative Christmas and New Years.  :)

With some of those destinations, you just have to be careful you don't come back with a dose of the "gift that keeps on giving" .. ;D
You mean like the one my Mate caught a few years back when visited London for a while for work.  ::) ;D
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Yodel-Odel-a-Eboy.com on 07 August 2019, 18:51:30
They outsourced them to India, I imagine, along with everything else. This is what you get.
Indeed, they had virtually no IT issues when their IT was in house, based near Heathrow.

Since outsourcing it to more "cost effective" countries, they have had a major hack (for which they are looking at a £180m fine), and now 2 separate systems failing.


As those that work in this sector of the industry, whilst some individuals may be good, on the whole, these outsourcing to low cost countries (ex soviet bloc parts of Europe, India and the far East) will categorically, definitely, guaranteed end up as a complete fuster cluck.  But it is cheap...   ...until you consider the impacts of each balls up.

Now go and do the needful.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Jimmy944 on 07 August 2019, 18:52:55
There's nothing British about British airways.
This.

They're run by a bloke who used to run a budget Spanish airline. And it shows. I find Lufthansa to be superior in almost every respect. And I don't often praise ze Germans!
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Sir Tigger QC on 07 August 2019, 19:18:10
Emirates!  :y
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 07 August 2019, 20:24:14
Not going well for them.

The other day they had a plane full of smoke due to a “technical issue” as it came in to land at Valencia. Is a fire a technical issue?

Now it is a failure of two computer systems . 100 flights cancelled. Whatever happened to having “ back up systems”?

Imagine when we are all stationary in our autonomous cars because of failure of a computer system.
Big difference between smoke and fumes. All though the fumes in question aren't great as they're bled air, so potentially quite oily.  ;)
 
The results can be quite spectacular given the scope of the ducting and vents throughout the cabin ;D
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Rods2 on 07 August 2019, 20:26:33
With these low cost countries you do get optional extras from your data being there, like they can 'fix' your PC, Mobile or tablet with these simple steps over the phone, send you lots of malware in our emails etc. If you are paid a few dollars a day it would be 'criminal' not to use the data for 'profitable' activities. :o ::) :-X
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Nick W on 07 August 2019, 21:43:47
Not going well for them.

The other day they had a plane full of smoke due to a “technical issue” as it came in to land at Valencia. Is a fire a technical issue?

Now it is a failure of two computer systems . 100 flights cancelled. Whatever happened to having “ back up systems”?

Imagine when we are all stationary in our autonomous cars because of failure of a computer system.


You have to be very careful to ensure that your 'back up system' doesn't complicate the ordinary system so badly that neither work properly. That requires proper engineers who can tell the management/regulators to opps off at the right time. When this is done badly, we end up with the 737Max.....
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Raeturbo on 07 August 2019, 22:33:44
With these low cost countries you do get optional extras from your data being there, like they can 'fix' your PC, Mobile or tablet with these simple steps over the phone, send you lots of malware in our emails etc. If you are paid a few dollars a day it would be 'criminal' not to use the data for 'profitable' activities. :o ::) :-X
.       

 Very true.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Jimmy944 on 07 August 2019, 22:49:27
Emirates!  :y
Damn strait.

Best airline I've flown with by a country mile and my only choice when going long haul east of the meridian.  :y
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Jimmy944 on 07 August 2019, 22:56:39


You have to be very careful to ensure that your 'back up system' doesn't complicate the ordinary system so badly that neither work properly. That requires proper engineers who can tell the management/regulators to opps off at the right time. When this is done badly, we end up with the 737Max.....

I suspect there is significantly more to this story than just the interaction of the backup flight computer with the two active ones... and it goes all the way back to the design of the aircraft. Which is why the whole fleet is still grounded. If I had to lay a modest wager, I'd say that Boeing are trying to find a way out of changing the engine parameters on the entire fleet. Tricky, given that they made complete mugs of the FAA when they put the design into service.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: zirk on 07 August 2019, 22:57:24
Qatar Airways are also very good, plus its a nice Half way break at there change over Hub when flying Far East.  :y
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 August 2019, 00:21:13
Emirates!  :y
Damn strait.

Best airline I've flown with by a country mile and my only choice when going long haul east of the meridian.  :y
Two things wrong with Emirates...

Firstly, you can't go anywhere without flying through Dubai.

Secondly, they run the highest passenger capacity configuration of any A380 operator.

Also it has been suggested that they pay various groups not to attack their operations.

I like Lufthansa, if only for the fact that they operate the B747-8  8)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: aaronjb on 08 August 2019, 08:14:24
With these low cost countries you do get optional extras from your data being there, like they can 'fix' your PC, Mobile or tablet with these simple steps over the phone, send you lots of malware in our emails etc. If you are paid a few dollars a day it would be 'criminal' not to use the data for 'profitable' activities. :o ::) :-X

Speaking of mobiles.. this is a fascinating read regarding the 'softest' target of all if you are going to infiltrate a corporation - the pink fleshy ones: https://www.wired.com/story/att-insiders-bribed-unlock-phones/

tl;dr: Two guys paid over a million dollars in bribes to insiders to unlock phones from the carrier, and later to install malware and install hardware devices inside AT&Ts network to facilitate their 'unlocking' business.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Jimmy944 on 08 August 2019, 10:54:59
Emirates!  :y
Damn strait.

Best airline I've flown with by a country mile and my only choice when going long haul east of the meridian.  :y
Two things wrong with Emirates...

Firstly, you can't go anywhere without flying through Dubai.

Secondly, they run the highest passenger capacity configuration of any A380 operator.

Also it has been suggested that they pay various groups not to attack their operations.

I like Lufthansa, if only for the fact that they operate the B747-8  8)

From the perspective of a passenger. Onboard one of their aircraft, I would not necessarily see this as a problem  :D
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Sir Tigger QC on 08 August 2019, 13:16:53
Emirates!  :y
Damn strait.

Best airline I've flown with by a country mile and my only choice when going long haul east of the meridian.  :y
Two things wrong with Emirates...

Firstly, you can't go anywhere without flying through Dubai.

Secondly, they run the highest passenger capacity configuration of any A380 operator.

Also it has been suggested that they pay various groups not to attack their operations.

I like Lufthansa, if only for the fact that they operate the B747-8  8)

From the perspective of a passenger. Onboard one of their aircraft, I would not necessarily see this as a problem, as long as they keep paying the protection money! :D

FTFY Jimmy!  :)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: tunnie on 08 August 2019, 13:18:50
People should read Richard Brandon's first autobiography, after I read it I promised myself I'd avoid flying BA as much as possible. What they did to try and screw over Virgin Atlantic was staggering and shameful.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 August 2019, 14:54:33
People should read Richard Brandon's first autobiography, after I read it I promised myself I'd avoid flying BA as much as possible. What they did to try and screw over Virgin Atlantic was staggering and shameful.
Of course Branson would never screw someone over for profit ::)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: aaronjb on 08 August 2019, 15:32:08
People should read Richard Brandon's first autobiography, after I read it I promised myself I'd avoid flying BA as much as possible. What they did to try and screw over Virgin Atlantic was staggering and shameful.
Of course Bransonevery CEO in the world would never screw someone over for profit ::)

Fixed that for you ;D Definition of being screwed over probably depends on how far down (or up) the food-chain you are..
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Sir Tigger QC on 08 August 2019, 16:24:55
People should read Richard Brandon's first autobiography, after I read it I promised myself I'd avoid flying BA as much as possible. What they did to try and screw over Virgin Atlantic was staggering and shameful.
Of course St Richard would never screw someone over for profit ::)

FTFY Al.  :)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Yodel-Odel-a-Eboy.com on 08 August 2019, 17:12:11
When this is done badly, we end up with the 737Max.....
Turns out that the 737MAX didn't have (working) backup systems.  And now they have tried to implement one, they are getting strange system crashes (that would ultimately lead to a plane crash).

I also see Boeing and the "orthodox hackers" are in a spat over the potentially vulnerabilities in the 787 as well, found because Boeing published the code on the Internet.  They really are having a bad year, which is how it happens when the dice tumble the wrong way for companies that have biased too much on max profit rather than quality.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Jimmy944 on 08 August 2019, 22:06:20
When this is done badly, we end up with the 737Max.....
Turns out that the 737MAX didn't have (working) backup systems.  And now they have tried to implement one, they are getting strange system crashes (that would ultimately lead to a plane crash).

It's truly bizarre that the MAX's flight computers only look at one angle of attack sensor, when there are clearly two fitted to the aircraft...unless the other one only talks to the MCAS system...

In any event, it's clear to anyone with eyes and an engaged brain that the problem with the MAX isn't a software issue. The problem is with MCAS itself, or rather the reason it was put in in the first place. It's a hack job, pure and simple, because the alternative was to significantly modify the airframe (an FAA major mod), far better to develop some software (MCAS), sell it to the FAA as a minor mod that marginally improves flight characteristics and save a boatload of cash upfront.

Then blame the pilots when your flawed plane hits the deck.  ::)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 08 August 2019, 23:21:54
When this is done badly, we end up with the 737Max.....
Turns out that the 737MAX didn't have (working) backup systems.  And now they have tried to implement one, they are getting strange system crashes (that would ultimately lead to a plane crash).

It's truly bizarre that the MAX's flight computers only look at one angle of attack sensor, when there are clearly two fitted to the aircraft...unless the other one only talks to the MCAS system...

In any event, it's clear to anyone with eyes and an engaged brain that the problem with the MAX isn't a software issue. The problem is with MCAS itself, or rather the reason it was put in in the first place. It's a hack job, pure and simple, because the alternative was to significantly modify the airframe (an FAA major mod), far better to develop some software (MCAS), sell it to the FAA as a minor mod that marginally improves flight characteristics and save a boatload of cash upfront.

Then blame the pilots when your flawed plane hits the deck.  ::)
An aircraft designer once suggested that all commercial flights should only be crewed by one pilot and an angry dog...

The pilot's sole purpose was to appease the noisy luggage passengers. The dog's only job was to bite the pilot every time they tried to touch any controls.

The point being, that automatic systems generally perform better if they are allowed to operate uninterrupted.

That said, they are only as good as the person who designed/programmed them... ::)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Shackeng on 09 August 2019, 15:18:00
People should read Richard Brandon's first autobiography, after I read it I promised myself I'd avoid flying BA as much as possible. What they did to try and screw over Virgin Atlantic was staggering and shameful.

I agree. I was flying for BA at the time, and wrote to Colin Marshall expressing my disgust. Needless to say, the response was anodyne garbage. >:(
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Migv6 le Frog Fan on 09 August 2019, 17:26:06
I read the book many years ago, and was also disgusted at their treatment of Branson. What Ive seen of him since has altered my view. I think its a great pity they didn't put him out of business permanently. I detest the grinning t wat.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Kevin Wood on 09 August 2019, 18:26:25
When this is done badly, we end up with the 737Max.....
Turns out that the 737MAX didn't have (working) backup systems.  And now they have tried to implement one, they are getting strange system crashes (that would ultimately lead to a plane crash).

It's truly bizarre that the MAX's flight computers only look at one angle of attack sensor, when there are clearly two fitted to the aircraft...unless the other one only talks to the MCAS system...

In any event, it's clear to anyone with eyes and an engaged brain that the problem with the MAX isn't a software issue. The problem is with MCAS itself, or rather the reason it was put in in the first place. It's a hack job, pure and simple, because the alternative was to significantly modify the airframe (an FAA major mod), far better to develop some software (MCAS), sell it to the FAA as a minor mod that marginally improves flight characteristics and save a boatload of cash upfront.

Then blame the pilots when your flawed plane hits the deck.  ::)

The reason they didn't connect it to both AOA sensors is that there would then have to be a procedure for handling the scenario where the sensors disagree, meaning pilot retraining for the type, and $$$.

Best to just pummel a few hundred passengers into the ground instead.  :(
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Yodel-Odel-a-Eboy.com on 09 August 2019, 18:30:56
Maybe Boeing agree with my mass cull idea...
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Nick W on 09 August 2019, 18:55:39

The reason they didn't connect it to both AOA sensors is that there would then have to be a procedure for handling the scenario where the sensors disagree, meaning pilot retraining for the type, and $$$.

Best to just pummel a few hundred passengers into the ground instead.  :(


They did get away with it for some time. And blaming the dead pilots, whilst slipping in 'updates'  a little later is industry SOP. Which makes it even more moronic to let them self-certify.
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Kevin Wood on 09 August 2019, 19:09:16

The reason they didn't connect it to both AOA sensors is that there would then have to be a procedure for handling the scenario where the sensors disagree, meaning pilot retraining for the type, and $$$.

Best to just pummel a few hundred passengers into the ground instead.  :(


They did get away with it for some time. And blaming the dead pilots, whilst slipping in 'updates'  a little later is industry SOP. Which makes it even more moronic to let them self-certify.

Same practice in every industry where the cheapest option these days is to have the Fox looking after the Chicken coop. What could possibly go wrong with that? ::)
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Shackeng on 09 August 2019, 19:23:35
I read the book many years ago, and was also disgusted at their treatment of Branson. What Ive seen of him since has altered my view. I think its a great pity they didn't put him out of business permanently. I detest the grinning t wat.

I was just pissed off at the way BA acted. Under Lord King we were a great airline, once Marshall took over we started downhill. >:(
Title: Re: British airways
Post by: Doctor Gollum on 09 August 2019, 19:34:45

The reason they didn't connect it to both AOA sensors is that there would then have to be a procedure for handling the scenario where the sensors disagree, meaning pilot retraining for the type, and $$$.

Best to just pummel a few hundred passengers into the ground instead.  :(


They did get away with it for some time. And blaming the dead pilots, whilst slipping in 'updates'  a little later is industry SOP. Which makes it even more moronic to let them self-certify.

Same practice in every industry where the cheapest option these days is to have the Fox looking after the Chicken coop. What could possibly go wrong with that? ::)
Depends, a decent fox will carefully manage the chickens to ensure ongoing growth and profitability...