Houston-bound British Airways 787 returns to London after nine hours

Yesterday, passengers on a British Airways flight to the United States had quite an adventure, as they made it all the way to North America, before the plane turned around and flew back in London.

Nine-hour British Airways flight to “nowhere”

This incident occurred on Monday June 10, 2024 and concerns British Airways flight BA195 from London (LHR) to Houston (IAH). The flight was operated by an eight-year-old Boeing 787-9 with registration code G-ZBKN.

The plane was scheduled to leave London at 9:25 a.m. and land in Houston at 1:45 p.m., with the 4,834-mile journey blocked at 10:20 a.m.

The Dreamliner departed more or less as planned and took off from London at 9:57 a.m. local time. The plane flew west for just under five hours, first over Ireland, then across the Atlantic, before landing in the northeastern part of Canada.

At this point the plane was almost halfway through the trip, both in terms of distance and time remaining. However, a problem was discovered with one of the engines (more on that later), and the decision was made to cross the Atlantic again and return to London.

So the plane began flying east over the Atlantic. The plane landed in London at 6:53 p.m. local time, just under nine hours after takeoff. The flight was ultimately canceled (and the passengers were likely reassigned to other flights) and the plane involved in the incident is still on the ground at Heathrow.

How can we make sense of this diversion?

Naturally, I think people have a hard time understanding a scenario like this. The plane was almost halfway to its destination, so why does it make sense to return to the origin rather than just end the flight? Also, in the event of a mechanical problem, wouldn’t it be safer to divert to the nearest airport or stay over land (with closer diversion points), rather than flying over the ocean, with no real diversion point nearby. ?

Well, as you probably suspect, there is an explanation. According to a British Airways pilot on FlyerTalk, the engine problem in question here was a power surge on the number two engine, and it was self-recovering. This would apparently not be a problem for the current flight, but would be a problem for later sectors.

Additionally, due to British Airways’ contract with Rolls Royce (the engine manufacturer), it would have been beneficial for the aircraft to return to Heathrow, and Rolls Royce probably had a say here as well.

While I can’t personally guarantee any of this, it all adds up. It is clear that the plane returned to Heathrow not because of any imminent risk, but rather because it was the most practical option in terms of logistics and cost. Presumably, the return flight from Houston to London would have been canceled no matter what, and on top of that, British Airways would have had a harder time performing maintenance on the plane, or even getting it back to London.

This diversion undoubtedly cost British Airways hundreds of thousands of dollars, when you take into account fuel, passenger compensation, replacement flights, etc. But I imagine the savings from being able to carry out maintenance on the plane at Heathrow and return it to service. As soon as possible prevail over this.

Conclusion

A British Airways Boeing 787 scheduled to operate from London to Houston returned to its point of origin after about nine hours, having already crossed the Atlantic. The plane apparently had an engine problem which did not present a risk for the current flight, but a risk for all subsequent flights.

Even if the plane could have continued to Houston, it would have been logistically difficult and expensive in terms of the maintenance required to return the plane to service. The decision was therefore made to return the plane to its base, even though this inconvenienced many passengers.

What do you think of this British Airways flight to “nowhere”?