I often fly non-stop from LAX to Heathrow, and because of my huge frequent flyer account on United, I just always remained on the same flights. I know the gates, many of the gate agents, flight attendants, the short cuts at Heathrow, even which car on the Heathrow Expess train will get me closest to the UAL check in desk.
Now I even have a better reason! Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article on a LA to Heathrow British Airways flight where an engine flamed out minutes after takeoff from Los Angeles, the pilots decided to “get as far as we can” with the remaining three engines on a trans-Atlantic flight to London. They made it to Manchester,UK with an emergency landing over fears of running out of fuel.
Why? The paper suggests that an emergency landing would have required dumping $30,000 of fuel, and the airline might have owed $275,000 in compensation to passengers under European Union rules if the flight was more than five hours late. The American FAA has a different set of rules.
Summarizing the article, “The Los Angeles air-traffic-control tapes, obtained by The Wall Street Journal under the Freedom of Information Act, show that controllers who saw the fiery engine failure with the jet just 296 feet in the air were immediately concerned about the flight and ready to guide it back to the airport. But the decision to return or keep flying rested with the captain and the airline. Ever since, pilots and aviation regulators have debated the decision of the pilots and British Airways. Their questions: Even if the plane was capable of reaching its destination, and perhaps legal to fly, was it smart to try? And was it safe?
The incident also focused renewed attention on an age-old issue in aviation — safety versus economics. An emergency landing would have required dumping $30,000 of fuel, and the airline might have owed $275,000 in compensation to passengers under European Union rules if the flight was more than five hours late. The British Airways pilots’ union questioned whether the EU compensation rules, only days old at the time, pressured airlines into pushing flights into risky situations. And in online discussions, pilots wondered if the three pilots might have been pressured into a risky flight to save the airline money.
British Airways says dollars played no role whatever in the decision to keep flying. It points out that the decision was legal under British regulations. A British inquiry ultimately said “no evidence was found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risk.”
To see the entire article, go the Wall Street Journal.
Touched down in Denver’s International Airport around midnight. As I headed into downtown Denver, all the radio stations were reporting that snow was causing severe traffic backups and the potential of a substantial Snowstorm by morning. 
Departing the hotel in Melbourne around 6am, we were caught in torrential thunderstorms and a delayed flight out.
