6 ms·

Ghana has a particularly sensitive outlook on these things. They threatened to ban BA from flying there for having the temerity to place Accra flights out of Ga

Ghana has a particularly sensitive outlook on these things. They threatened to ban BA from flying there for having the temerity to place Accra flights out of Gatwick rather than Heathrow. (https://viewfromthewing.com/ghana-threatens-to-effectively-ban-british-airways-because-they-dont-like-london-gatwick-airport/ https://viewfromthewing.com/ghana-threatens-to-effectively-b...) It is worth noting that the airframe in question has flown perfectly fine subsequent to the ban.

paganel 4y ago
I stand with Ghana on this, the least the Brits could do is own up to their colonial past and not push former colonies aside as long as they’re not bringing in the money anymore (because I guess that’s the main reason behind that airport move).
- drumhead 4y ago
  Heathrow and Gatwick are private, British Airways is private, so its got nothing to do with the Government. The decision by BA was probably made for economic reasons, the Heathrow slots could probably have been used for more profitable flights. If the demand was there another airline could have used their slots for flights to Ghana from Heathrow. Problem solved for people wanting to fly to Ghana from Heathrow. Sounds like a fit of pique from the Ghanaian government to me.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    it sounds like you're agreeing: the move was made by the brits because the former colony wasn't bringing in enough money anymore
    - ogogmad 4y ago
      It wasn't made by "the brits". It was made by a private company called BA. Do you understand that people are individuals? Is this going to be said whenever a British company has a dispute in another country?
      - paganel 4y ago
        As long as Russian companies cannot fly into EU (and I guess British) aerial space, never mind landing on the airports located there, any such discussion of “you see, this is a private matter only, there’s nothing the Government could have done about it even if it so wished” is besides the point. They could have just instructed the Heathrow operators “assign X slots for companies A, B, C and that is that”, the same way they’re telling aviation companies “you cannot fly to Moscow, and that is that”, it is all about political will at the top.
        ogogmad 4y ago
        Russian companies are being sanctioned because their tax money pays for the war in Ukraine.
    - mateo1 4y ago
      What an idiotic way of approaching aviation economics.
    - drumhead 4y ago
      Heathrow's owned by a Spanish company called Ferovial....
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  Could you explain just how you are standing 'with Ghana on this'? As an aside: I'm pretty damn sure that if something wasn't 'bringing in the money anymore', that Ghana would immediately fuck it off right out the window. As would anyone/anything else. And just how should the Brits own up to their colonial past? A fucking parade? Or, perhaps fix roads that ambulances STILL can't get down?
andrewflnr 4y ago
Wow. I kinda have to respect their position in OP but I don't understand this at all. How can the originating airport matter that much?
- lisper 4y ago
  Gatwick is considered less prestigious than Heathrow in certain circles.
  - noncoml 4y ago
    Getting to Heathrow from London is faster, easier and cheaper.
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      Depends what part of London you’re in. For me Gatwick is the faster, cheaper, easier airport. It’s also the airport with the fastest security and passport control I’ve ever been through. I also challenge the idea that Heathrow is ever cheaper to get to than Gatwick. The Thames Link service to Gatwick is far cheaper than the Heathrow express, much faster and more pleasant than the Piccadilly line, only the Lizzie line makes Heathrow as cheap and easy to get to by train as Gatwick.
      - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
        I can definitely say that Gatwick is the 100% better airport for international transfers. From that angle, the only thing Heathrow has going for it is that there are many more options. From every other aspect, Gatwick is way better and Heathrow is horrific.
    - chatmasta 4y ago
      Doesn’t it depend where in London? For example I’d rather ride the Gatwick Express from Victoria for 30 minutes than sit on the tube from Kings Cross to Heathrow for an hour. And outside of London, from Cambridge for example, there is non-stop train service available to Gatwick but not to Heathrow. It’s too bad Norwegian shuttered their long haul service between Gatwick and NYC/BOS. It was affordable, comfortable and convenient, so of course it went bankrupt. Now the best options are out of Heathrow (my favorite is now British Air, as long as AA isn’t operating the flight…).
mannykannot 4y ago
The unreasonableness of that particular politically-motivated action does not alter the fact that there is an objective concern here. The decision to allow the use of twin-engined airliners on trans-oceanic routes (ETOPS) was predicated on strict reliability rules which dictate rigorous maintenance practices (for example, it once was, if it is not still, mandated that the same maintenance crew could not work on both engines of a given airliner, to minimize the risk of a misunderstanding or mistake compromising both engines.) This is a case of paying attention to details at the granularity of individual airplanes, and in that spirit, an unusual frequency of problems with one particular airplane warrants investigation. The history of aviation is littered with the crashes of airplanes brought down by problems that seemed to have gone away - see the De Haviland Comet, for example.
- jhugo 4y ago
  There is no evidence for an objective concern though. Ghana is not in a better position to know anything about the safety of this airframe than the FAA or Delta themselves, and Ghana has a long history of politically-motivated actions in aviation. Before you start talking about ETOPS approval, maintenance practices and crashes, it would make sense to have some shred of evidence for a safety concern on this particular airframe rather than just a couple of air returns due to minor issues — the kinds of returns that happen daily all over the world, to new and old frames. Two air returns in a week on the same frame is rare but not unheard-of, and it's notable that one of the air returns was following maintenance action in Ghana that apparently didn't solve the issue.
  - jkulubya 4y ago
    I feel it needs to be pointed out that almost all, if not all, countries have a long history of using access to their aviation industries/airspace/airports/etc as a political tool - so Ghana is far from being alone in that sense and I don’t think it adds much to either argument
  - MattRix 4y ago
    It doesn’t have to be about a safety concern, just about their citizens being inconvenienced over and over.
raverbashing 4y ago
> It is worth noting that the airframe in question has flown perfectly fine subsequent to the ban. Yeah, but at the same time these indicate a more serious issue with the SN Sounds like "AA syndrome", where they dispatch these old planes on tight routes then wonder why the reliability is crap If these were other times I'd be sure the airline and Boeing would come up with a mitigation plan for those things but now I'm not so sure
yunohn 4y ago
I always find it hilarious how HNers think governments are stupid. It’s entirely reasonable to prefer Heathrow over Gatwick, nobody wants to switch airports, apply for transfer visas, worry about connections, etc. A specific airplane that has had multiple issues is definitely less reliable than one that hasn’t. Sounds like common sense to me.

paganel 4y ago

I stand with Ghana on this, the least the Brits could do is own up to their colonial past and not push former colonies aside as long as they’re not bringing in the money anymore (because I guess that’s the main reason behind that airport move).

drumhead 4y ago
Heathrow and Gatwick are private, British Airways is private, so its got nothing to do with the Government. The decision by BA was probably made for economic reasons, the Heathrow slots could probably have been used for more profitable flights. If the demand was there another airline could have used their slots for flights to Ghana from Heathrow. Problem solved for people wanting to fly to Ghana from Heathrow. Sounds like a fit of pique from the Ghanaian government to me.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  it sounds like you're agreeing: the move was made by the brits because the former colony wasn't bringing in enough money anymore
  - ogogmad 4y ago
    It wasn't made by "the brits". It was made by a private company called BA. Do you understand that people are individuals? Is this going to be said whenever a British company has a dispute in another country?
    - paganel 4y ago
      As long as Russian companies cannot fly into EU (and I guess British) aerial space, never mind landing on the airports located there, any such discussion of “you see, this is a private matter only, there’s nothing the Government could have done about it even if it so wished” is besides the point. They could have just instructed the Heathrow operators “assign X slots for companies A, B, C and that is that”, the same way they’re telling aviation companies “you cannot fly to Moscow, and that is that”, it is all about political will at the top.
      - ogogmad 4y ago
        Russian companies are being sanctioned because their tax money pays for the war in Ukraine.
  - mateo1 4y ago
    What an idiotic way of approaching aviation economics.
  - drumhead 4y ago
    Heathrow's owned by a Spanish company called Ferovial....
InCityDreams 4y ago
Could you explain just how you are standing 'with Ghana on this'? As an aside: I'm pretty damn sure that if something wasn't 'bringing in the money anymore', that Ghana would immediately fuck it off right out the window. As would anyone/anything else. And just how should the Brits own up to their colonial past? A fucking parade? Or, perhaps fix roads that ambulances STILL can't get down?

andrewflnr 4y ago

Wow. I kinda have to respect their position in OP but I don't understand this at all. How can the originating airport matter that much?

lisper 4y ago
Gatwick is considered less prestigious than Heathrow in certain circles.
- noncoml 4y ago
  Getting to Heathrow from London is faster, easier and cheaper.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Depends what part of London you’re in. For me Gatwick is the faster, cheaper, easier airport. It’s also the airport with the fastest security and passport control I’ve ever been through. I also challenge the idea that Heathrow is ever cheaper to get to than Gatwick. The Thames Link service to Gatwick is far cheaper than the Heathrow express, much faster and more pleasant than the Piccadilly line, only the Lizzie line makes Heathrow as cheap and easy to get to by train as Gatwick.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
      I can definitely say that Gatwick is the 100% better airport for international transfers. From that angle, the only thing Heathrow has going for it is that there are many more options. From every other aspect, Gatwick is way better and Heathrow is horrific.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    Doesn’t it depend where in London? For example I’d rather ride the Gatwick Express from Victoria for 30 minutes than sit on the tube from Kings Cross to Heathrow for an hour. And outside of London, from Cambridge for example, there is non-stop train service available to Gatwick but not to Heathrow. It’s too bad Norwegian shuttered their long haul service between Gatwick and NYC/BOS. It was affordable, comfortable and convenient, so of course it went bankrupt. Now the best options are out of Heathrow (my favorite is now British Air, as long as AA isn’t operating the flight…).

mannykannot 4y ago

The unreasonableness of that particular politically-motivated action does not alter the fact that there is an objective concern here. The decision to allow the use of twin-engined airliners on trans-oceanic routes (ETOPS) was predicated on strict reliability rules which dictate rigorous maintenance practices (for example, it once was, if it is not still, mandated that the same maintenance crew could not work on both engines of a given airliner, to minimize the risk of a misunderstanding or mistake compromising both engines.) This is a case of paying attention to details at the granularity of individual airplanes, and in that spirit, an unusual frequency of problems with one particular airplane warrants investigation. The history of aviation is littered with the crashes of airplanes brought down by problems that seemed to have gone away - see the De Haviland Comet, for example.

jhugo 4y ago
There is no evidence for an objective concern though. Ghana is not in a better position to know anything about the safety of this airframe than the FAA or Delta themselves, and Ghana has a long history of politically-motivated actions in aviation. Before you start talking about ETOPS approval, maintenance practices and crashes, it would make sense to have some shred of evidence for a safety concern on this particular airframe rather than just a couple of air returns due to minor issues — the kinds of returns that happen daily all over the world, to new and old frames. Two air returns in a week on the same frame is rare but not unheard-of, and it's notable that one of the air returns was following maintenance action in Ghana that apparently didn't solve the issue.
- jkulubya 4y ago
  I feel it needs to be pointed out that almost all, if not all, countries have a long history of using access to their aviation industries/airspace/airports/etc as a political tool - so Ghana is far from being alone in that sense and I don’t think it adds much to either argument
- MattRix 4y ago
  It doesn’t have to be about a safety concern, just about their citizens being inconvenienced over and over.

raverbashing 4y ago

> It is worth noting that the airframe in question has flown perfectly fine subsequent to the ban. Yeah, but at the same time these indicate a more serious issue with the SN Sounds like "AA syndrome", where they dispatch these old planes on tight routes then wonder why the reliability is crap If these were other times I'd be sure the airline and Boeing would come up with a mitigation plan for those things but now I'm not so sure

yunohn 4y ago

I always find it hilarious how HNers think governments are stupid. It’s entirely reasonable to prefer Heathrow over Gatwick, nobody wants to switch airports, apply for transfer visas, worry about connections, etc. A specific airplane that has had multiple issues is definitely less reliable than one that hasn’t. Sounds like common sense to me.