Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Continental Airways Responsible For 2000 Concorde Crash!

garybUK

garybUK

Guest
Original poster
Jun 3, 2002
1,466
3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11923556

A Paris court has said Continental Airlines was "criminally responsible" for the crash of a Concorde supersonic jet 10 years ago, and fined it 200,000 euros (£170,000).

The court ruled the crash was caused by a piece of metal left on the runway after falling from a Continental jet.

The Concorde caught fire shortly after take off from Charles de Gaulle airport in July 2000, killing 113 people.
Click to expand...

I hope air france takes them to the cleaners, I've flown with Continental on a few occasions and they have to be one of the worst.
 
garybUK said:
I hope air france takes them to the cleaners, I've flown with Continental on a few occasions and they have to be one of the worst.
Click to expand...

Any airline that thinks it's OK to fly narrowbody 757s on transatlantic flights should be boycotted and tried for torture.
 
yg17 said:
Any airline that thinks it's OK to fly narrowbody 757s on transatlantic flights should be boycotted and tried for torture.
Click to expand...

Is that in a 3x3 configuration? ooooh yes i've been on the Continental flights between Manchester & Newark NJ... those old Boeings are death traps, planes from the 80's and the horrible 'Welcome video' from their president... ugh...

After the 'incident' of one landing on the taxi way at Newark whilst I was there (in NJ), i quickly changed to KLM with a short change in Schiphol.
 
garybUK said:
Is that in a 3x3 configuration? ooooh yes i've been on the Continental flights between Manchester & Newark NJ... those old Boeings are death traps, planes from the 80's and the horrible 'Welcome video' from their president... ugh...

After the 'incident' of one landing on the taxi way at Newark whilst I was there (in NJ), i quickly changed to KLM with a short change in Schiphol.
Click to expand...

The 757 is not a bad aircraft. But, I agree with yg in that it is not an aircraft suitable for trans-atlantic flight. I like the 777 myself.
 
quagmire said:
The 757 is not a bad aircraft. But, I agree with yg in that it is not an aircraft suitable for trans-atlantic flight. I like the 777 myself.
Click to expand...

It's a fine aircraft, just too small for TATL flight. Even if it's comfortable, I think a narrowbody feels too claustrophobic on a long flight like that. Having that extra aisle on a widebody just makes the plane feel much larger and doesn't make you feel like you're closed in.

Plus, from what I've heard, the 757s don't always have enough fuel to make the westbound trip, depending on headwinds, and sometimes have to make an unscheduled stop in Gander or somewhere up there for fuel. Unacceptable IMO...What if all of those northern Canadian airports were closed because of a blizzard. Then what?

Don't like Continental (or any airline that does that) for that reason. Heck, I bet if they could figure out how to cross the pond with a regional jet they would.
 
Last edited:
yg17 said:
It's a fine aircraft, just too small for TATL flight. Even if it's comfortable, I think a narrowbody feels too claustrophobic on a long flight like that. Having that extra aisle on a widebody just makes the plane feel much larger and doesn't make you feel like you're closed in.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I like the 777 so much. I went to Hawaii a few years ago and 3 out of my 4 flights were on 777's. So much space in that wide body aircraft. Plus, the overhead bins were endless and coach legroom wasn't bad. Plus those GE-90 Turbine engines producing 110,000 lb. of thrust each is awesome too( just one can power a 747). :D

Plus, from what I've heard, the 757s don't always have enough fuel to make the westbound trip, depending on headwinds, and sometimes have to make an unscheduled stop in Gander or somewhere up there for fuel. Unacceptable IMO...What if all of those northern Canadian airports were closed because of a blizzard. Then what?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am surprised passengers haven't figured this out. I would not feel comfortable flying in an aircraft that doesn't have the range to get across the atlantic. If enough passengers start avoiding 757 flights, the airlines would most likely abandon flying the 757 trans-atlantic. The 757 is strictly a domestic flying aircraft.
 
yg17 said:
Plus, from what I've heard, the 757s don't always have enough fuel to make the westbound trip, depending on headwinds, and sometimes have to make an unscheduled stop in Gander or somewhere up there for fuel. Unacceptable IMO...What if all of those northern Canadian airports were closed because of a blizzard. Then what?
d.
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet if that was the case or a threat of that being a case the flight would be canceled or delayed until they could confirm they would be able to land their if they needed too.
 
I don't know why you're bashing the B757 on this, since it was a DC10 that was the aircraft in question that caused the Concorde to go down.

Anywho, apparently a lot of you haven't flown on any of the B752s nowadays, that are retrofitted with winglets, or even the B753, which all have the range to make a run across the pond. granted, it would have to be from the east coast only, but they can make it.

If narrowbodies shouldn't make the trip, then someone please explain BAW1. It was BAW's Concorde flight, but now it is an A319, flying EGLC (London City) to KJFK; an aircraft equivalent to the B737-700 (yes, I know it stops in Shannon).

yg17 said:
Plus, from what I've heard, the 757s don't always have enough fuel to make the westbound trip, depending on headwinds, and sometimes have to make an unscheduled stop in Gander or somewhere up there for fuel. Unacceptable IMO...What if all of those northern Canadian airports were closed because of a blizzard. Then what?
Click to expand...

This is where the NAT tracks come in. Those are the best routes for the day with the least headwinds. If they don't make that, they go the Great Circle route. Great Circle leaves BIKF (Keflavik/Reykjavic) as an option; NATs leave Shannon as an option.

This is where the B787 comes in.. oh wait.. it's delayed and people are cancelling their orders...

BL.
 
Last edited:
yg17 said:
Any airline that thinks it's OK to fly narrowbody 757s on transatlantic flights should be boycotted and tried for torture.
Click to expand...

Lol, they are truly hideous for long haul flying, even 3 hrs or a full one is painful.

Regarding the court's perspective, I'll point out that it is the airport's responsibility to keep the runways clear. Just because something falls off an airplane does not mean that 1) the operator is aware of it, at least right away and 2) where it might have fallen off which could be anywhere.
 
quagmire said:
Yeah, I am surprised passengers haven't figured this out. I would not feel comfortable flying in an aircraft that doesn't have the range to get across the atlantic. If enough passengers start avoiding 757 flights, the airlines would most likely abandon flying the 757 trans-atlantic. The 757 is strictly a domestic flying aircraft.
Click to expand...

I just can't believe it actually saves them money over flying a 767 that can make it without the pit stop. I'm sure they have to pay fees to the airport they land at for fuel, plus, when the flight is late into the hellhole that is Newark, now they have 100 passengers with missed connections that they have to re-book on new flights.

When I flew back from Berlin, I had the option of CO TXL-EWR-STL on a 757, then a regional jet (2 hour flight back to STL on a RJ would not be fun either), or Lufthansa TXL-FRA-ORD-STL, with the TATL portion being on an A340...there was of course no question of which one I chose. I took the Lufthansa flight despite the extra stopover in FRA since there was no way in hell I was sitting for 9 hours in a 757...plus then the RJ portion, ORD-STL was only 45 minutes.

Rodimus Prime said:
I am willing to bet if that was the case or a threat of that being a case the flight would be canceled or delayed until they could confirm they would be able to land their if they needed too.
Click to expand...

If a storm suddenly forms, they might not have known that when they took off 6 hours earlier from Europe. Luckily, the situation hasn't come up, but it's certainly possible. The unscheduled fuel stops happen more often in the winter due to the winds.

It seems like Continental has no problem putting passenger safety on the line to save a buck....we all saw that with the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo a couple years ago. You can't tell me that Continental can't take some of the blame, that's what happens when you go to the lowest bidder.

bradl said:
I don't know why you're bashing the B757 on this, since it was a DC10 that was the aircraft in question that caused the Concorde to go down.
Click to expand...

We're just bashing Continental. The 757 is a fine aircraft when used properly ;)

Anywho, apparently a lot of you haven't flown on any of the B752s nowadays, that are retrofitted with winglets, or even the B753, which all have the range to make a run across the pond. granted, it would have to be from the east coast only, but they can make it.
Click to expand...

Range is one half of the equation, the other half is comfort.

If narrowbodies shouldn't make the trip, then someone please explain BAW1. It was BAW's Concorde flight, but now it is an A319, flying EGLC (London City) to KJFK; an aircraft equivalent to the B737-700 (yes, I know it stops in Shannon).
Click to expand...

The Concorde flight was what, 2, 3 hours? We're talking about 8 hour TATL flights here. Big difference. I'm fine on a narrowbody for a few hours and would be fine on a Concorde. But I couldn't do 8 hours on a Concorde or any narrowbody. I think my narrowbody limit was reached when I did STL-LAX (and back a week later) on a Southwest 737 last summer. I don't think I would've been able to stand it much longer than the 3.5 hours the flight took.

Also, I think the 318 that crosses the pond is all business class? I think I could do a TATL flight on a narrowbody if I had the luxury of business or first, but I don't. I'm not rich. I fly coach.

This is where the B787 comes in.. oh wait.. it's delayed and people are cancelling their orders...
Click to expand...

Boeing's f'ed that one up. No argument there.
 
Last edited:
The question to ask.. is that when the payments have to be made, will it be COA that pays it.. or UAL? keep in mind that there's a merger going on..

BL.
 
Huntn said:
Regarding the court's perspective, I'll point out that it is the airport's responsibility to keep the runways clear. Just because something falls off an airplane does not mean that 1) the operator is aware of it, at least right away and 2) where it might have fallen off which could be anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems like the French are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that some FOD blew out a tire, which took down the entire aircraft.
 
Huntn said:
Regarding the court's perspective, I'll point out that it is the airport's responsibility to keep the runways clear. Just because something falls off an airplane does not mean that 1) the operator is aware of it, at least right away and 2) where it might have fallen off which could be anywhere.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of that can put Continental at fault is if the piece broke off because of negligent maintenance. Other then that, I can't see why they should be responsible for it. I just think it is just more America bashing by those Europeans. :p

yg17 said:
It seems like Continental has no problem putting passenger safety on the line to save a buck....we all saw that with the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo a couple years ago. You can't tell me that Continental can't take some of the blame, that's what happens when you go to the lowest bidder.
Click to expand...

All the majors go to the lowest bidder. So not looking forward to making $20K a year if that when I start flying for the regionals..... Ugh.....


Boeing's f'ed that one up. No argument there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Boeing has screwed up the 787 a bit with all their outsourcing. But, I don't blame them entirely. The aircraft has so much new technology in it, I expected for it to be delayed. The A350 has also seen countless delays. Hell, I think it is still in the drawing board stage..... I find it funny though. A lot of the airlines canceling their 787 orders are ordering the A350 and that isn't even close to entering the prototype stage let alone service( I think the latest estimates are around 2015 for the A350 if not later).

We also know the delays of the A380 as well. It will be a long time before Airbus breaks even on that investment.
 
yg17 said:
If a storm suddenly forms, they might not have known that when they took off 6 hours earlier from Europe. Luckily, the situation hasn't come up, but it's certainly possible. The unscheduled fuel stops happen more often in the winter due to the winds.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but the situation isn't as dire as you think. It won't take the crew six hours to realize they don't have fuel for the mission, and like bradl mentioned, there are options. The various options are spread out enough that unexpected weather won't make all of them unavailable at the same time.

yg17 said:
It seems like Continental has no problem putting passenger safety on the line to save a buck....we all saw that with the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo a couple years ago. You can't tell me that Continental can't take some of the blame, that's what happens when you go to the lowest bidder.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but all of the airlines are guilty of this. Cost drives everything. If an airline determines that crashing an airplane costs less than what it takes to implement safety measures to prevent it from crashing to begin with - you better believe they'll accept the possibility of a crash. Fortunately for the flying public, crashing an airliner is very expensive!

That said, overall the system is very safe.
 
dmr727 said:
I hate to say it, but all of the airlines are guilty of this. Cost drives everything. If an airline determines that crashing an airplane costs less than what it takes to implement safety measures to prevent it from crashing to begin with - you better believe they'll accept the possibility of a crash. Fortunately for the flying public, crashing an airliner is very expensive!
Click to expand...

And we see this is proven by events in the past. We saw that with GM with the Corvair. They determined it would be cheaper to deal with the lawsuits then to recall the vehicle and fix the problem. Possibly something similar with Toyota with the SUA issues.
 
quagmire said:
And we see this is proven by events in the past. We saw that with GM with the Corvair. They determined it would be cheaper to deal with the lawsuits then to recall the vehicle and fix the problem. Possibly something similar with Toyota with the SUA issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's certainly not an attitude limited to the airlines!
 
yg17 said:
...
Plus, from what I've heard, the 757s don't always have enough fuel to make the westbound trip, depending on headwinds, and sometimes have to make an unscheduled stop in Gander or somewhere up there for fuel. Unacceptable IMO...What if all of those northern Canadian airports were closed because of a blizzard. Then what?
...
Click to expand...

Typically Gander.

Um, you do know that Canada has seasons too.... Blizzards don't usually happen in the months outside of winter. Plus, we have a fairly modern and professional weather service. I'm sure that they'd be happy to tell the airlines, should they call, if there was blizzard or weather hazard forecast - in the next 5 hours. And no, I don't think they'd just stick their head out the window and check the Husky*. Sheesh.


* If the Husky is wet, it's raining. If the Husky is panting is hot. If the Husky is white, it's snowing. If the Husky's fur is ruffled it's windy. If you can't see the Husky it's either very windy, or very snowy - check previous observation. :)
 
snberk103 said:
* If the Husky is wet, it's raining. If the Husky is panting is hot. If the Husky is white, it's snowing. If the Husky's fur is ruffled it's windy. If you can't see the Husky it's either very windy, or very snowy - check previous observation. :)
Click to expand...

You forgot, it the Husky is casting a shadow, it's sunny. :p

I know, unlikely, but it could happen. :)
 
snberk103 said:
Typically Gander.

Um, you do know that Canada has seasons too.... Blizzards don't usually happen in the months outside of winter. Plus, we have a fairly modern and professional weather service. I'm sure that they'd be happy to tell the airlines, should they call, if there was blizzard or weather hazard forecast - in the next 5 hours. And no, I don't think they'd just stick their head out the window and check the Husky*. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

The chances of the unexpected diversion to Gander or anywhere else in that region are greater in winter due to the winds. Obviously I know they can predict storms, but why would CO fly planes with the increased risk of a diversion when it's possible all of their diversion airports would be hammered by snow? It seems to me like the best thing to do would be fly a 767 on the route that can safely make it to Newark nonstop. They can go back to 757s in the summer when the chances of a diversion are smaller, and if they do need to divert, snow won't be a factor.
 
The worst plane I ever had luckily was not trans-atlantic but it was either Jordan-Air or Iraqi airways (not sure which) and it was 4 x 4! The isle between the two was super thin too and even though I am only 6' 1" I could hardly fit in the seat. I had to sit with my knees up high scrunched up : /
 
Pilots know well in advance ahead of time (by several hours) whether they will make it to the destination on their fuel allotment.

FAA Rules (http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03 Tech Admin/Chapter 25/03_025_004.htm) currently state that aircraft must carry the following:

Sec. 121.647

Factors for computing fuel required.

Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.
For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.


1) En Route Fuel. That fuel necessary for a flight to reach the airport to which it is released and then to conduct one instrument approach and a possible missed approach.

2) Alternate Fuel. That fuel necessary for a flight to fly from the point of completion of the missed approach at the destination airport to the most distant alternate airport, make an IFR approach (if the forecast indicates such conditions will exist), and then complete a landing.

3) 3) En Route Reserve. That fuel necessary for the flight to fly for a period of time equal to 10 percent of the en route time, which includes and approach and landing. This fuel requirement is computed at the weight at which the flight is expected to arrive over the destination airport.

4) International Reserve Fuel. That fuel necessary thereafter, for the flight to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet above the alternate airport, or the destination airport if no alternate is required under § 121.621(a)(1). International fuel reserves are computed under standard temperature conditions.

5) Contingency Fuel: Pilot's discretion.

Let's calculate how much fuel that 757 will be carrying in order to be allowed to take off.

1) 5 hours
2) Let's just call this one a conservative 30 minutes.
3) Since it is a 5 hour flight (300 minutes), 10% is 30 minutes.
4) 30 minutes. (This one is actually closer to an hour or more, holding patterns generally involve a lot of turns and also a non-optimum altitude)

Your aircraft is carrying 6.5 - 7 hours of fuel at cruise altitude.

Don't kid yourself. Your aircraft is not in any danger.
 
yg17 said:
The chances of the unexpected diversion to Gander or anywhere else in that region are greater in winter due to the winds.
Click to expand...
It's a 5 to 7 hour forecast. There won't be any "unexpected winds".
yg17 said:
Obviously I know they can predict storms, but why would CO fly planes with the increased risk of a diversion when it's possible all of their diversion airports would be hammered by snow?
Click to expand...
They won't. If the forecast looks bad they take on extra fuel, or they leave people/freight behind to make the plane lighter. When was the last time you heard of a plane ditching because they didn't have enough fuel. I can only think of two. One was because of a conversion error (metric to 'Merican gallons) and the other because of a slow fuel leak. In both cases the pilots learned (real quick) how to make a plane that was never supposed to glide - glide. In both cases the pilots were Canadian. There are no manuals or training for gliding a modern jet airliner.
yg17 said:
It seems to me like the best thing to do would be fly a 767 on the route that can safely make it to Newark nonstop. They can go back to 757s in the summer when the chances of a diversion are smaller, and if they do need to divert, snow won't be a factor.
Click to expand...

It's the money. They've calculated that they can make more money doing it this way. Comfort be darned, and safety is within specified limits. At least according to the letter, if not the spirit, of the regs.
 
snberk103 said:
They won't. If the forecast looks bad they take on extra fuel, or they leave people/freight behind to make the plane lighter. When was the last time you heard of a plane ditching because they didn't have enough fuel. I can only think of two. One was because of a conversion error (metric to 'Merican gallons) and the other because of a slow fuel leak. In both cases the pilots learned (real quick) how to make a plane that was never supposed to glide - glide. In both cases the pilots were Canadian. There are no manuals or training for gliding a modern jet airliner.
Click to expand...

If filling the tanks with more fuel was the solution to the 757's fuel problem in trans atlantic flight with a nasty headwind( giggity :p ), I think the airlines would have done that already. The problem exists because the tanks are filled to capacity and the 757's range is still pushed to the edge of the regs if the headwinds are bad.

With the airlines now only bringing the fuel they need to meet regs to save money, you do not know of the battle between dispatch and pilots that have been going on. How many times emergencies have been declared due to low fuel and if plane needed to go around on a landing, they may not have enough fuel to come back around. So far nothing bad has happened, but I feel one day come that dispatch put too little fuel in the plane and something happens that delays the planes landing and they will run out of fuel even if they declare emergency fuel to get priority landing.
 
Last edited:
quagmire said:
If filling the tanks with more fuel was the solution to the 757's fuel problem in trans atlantic flight with a nasty headwind( giggity :p ), I think the airlines would have done that already. ... .
Click to expand...

I don't know what a 757's capacity is... but assuming that the tanks are full is a bad assumption. Carrying extra weight costs them money. The US budget airlines made a science of shaving every extra ounce. Have you noticed that on planes many magazines no longer have the heavy card-stock, glossy cover? They were removed to save weight. Or that many planes are only partially painted (when they used to be entirely painted)? Paint has a weight they wanted to do without. Extra blankets, and pillows, for the cattle-car class. Gone to save weight.

So, yeah .... I think airlines often leave as much of the fuel tank empty as possible. And the more fuel you leave behind, the more paid freight you can put into a plane. Plus, an airline may have calculated that a particular airport sells fuel at a cheap enough price it pays to "fill up" there (making it especially desirable to arrive with empty tanks).

I don't think any airline decides to do anything just because it's safer. They only make flying safer to sell more tickets, or to avoid the costs of not taking that action. But I'm a cynic.
 
snberk103 said:
I don't know what a 757's capacity is... but assuming that the tanks are full is a bad assumption. Carrying extra weight costs them money. The US budget airlines made a science of shaving every extra ounce. Have you noticed that on planes many magazines no longer have the heavy card-stock, glossy cover? They were removed to save weight. Or that many planes are only partially painted (when they used to be entirely painted)? Paint has a weight they wanted to do without. Extra blankets, and pillows, for the cattle-car class. Gone to save weight.
Click to expand...

The 757-200's range is 3,900 miles( other models the range goes down). My mom is planning a trip to Barcelona, Spain so I was helping her out looking up flights. When looking at Continental, a direct flight using the 757-200 is 3,848 miles. You can freaking bet that plane is leaving with full tanks. And if there is a headwind, you can also bet they would be making a unscheduled stop to refuel. The 757 is not the proper aircraft to be used for trans-atlantic flights and would not be comfortable stepping on board that aircraft knowing that I am that close to the aircrafts range limit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back