. . . please, pay no attention to the things you see out your windows.”
An airline crew faced a rebellion when they told passengers they were going to fly on a jet that had lost its wing tip in a runway crash.
The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours.
So they were amazed to be boarding the same plane next day for the ten-hour flight to Colombo.
When cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5ft wing tip missing, there was “a minor revolt” as seven passengers demanded to be let off the aircraft.
A further two-hour delay followed as their baggage was removed before the aircraft could take off.
Club-class passenger Ian McKie, 54, from Loughton, Essex, said: “We were put up in hotels the night of the crash and next morning we were told we would be on a different plane that day. We only realised that we were actually going on the same aircraft when we got to the Club lounge and saw the plane but without its wing tip.”
SriLankan Airlines insisted there was no danger in flying without a wing tip. It added: “They are purely for aerodynamics and to keep fuel costs to a minimum. There is no impact on safety at all. Safety is our absolute priority.”
LMAO… Parts is parts and we likely had more than we really needed…
And look at the bright side, if the Sri Lanka jets crashes, the families of the passengers will have more money than they ever knew existed, probably 5 or 6 hundred U.S. dollars, at least…
Hmmm, good point TF. Though I didn’t originally want to go here, what does one predominantly find in Sri Lanka anyway? Perhaps one should ask ARTHUR C. CLARKE.
But that would be judgmental of me, wouldn’t it?
BZ
Come on BZ, you know as well as anyone that those winglets do nothing to impair the flight of the aitcraft they are primarily a gas saving feature. Altho if the company cant be bothered to fix it I do wonder what else that cant be seen they dont fix.
Yeah, so um.. I think I’d pass on that one. I would like my plane to at least start the trip looking whole.
WMD: yeah, and perhaps we might want to consider that odd word coined by the airline itself: “aerodynamics.” Perhaps the plane was actually designed to fly with the winglets intact; perhaps it had its wing modified slightly to accommodate wind tunnel testing results from the winglets; perhaps the entire aircraft, wings and winglets included, were designed for something called symmetry and perhaps, further, to have “drag” on both wings not only symmetrical but unspoiled with sharp appurtanances, the result of the crash, creating additionally disturbed airflow over the pieces exposed to the air at speed — on one side of the aircraft and not the other. Perhaps YOU sir might wish to climb aboard that craft. I myself would not wish to do so. I am not interested in becoming a unpaid commercial experiment.
BZ
Sri Lankan Airlines……Hassle-Free Flying With Half The Parts!
Loon: ooooh, I LIKE that!
BZ
Unbelievable! I’m surprised all the passengers didn’t get off. I would never be so desperate to get somewhere that I would fly on a plane with that sort of damage. Are they nuts?
I know the real scene, cause I was on the Sri Lankan Airlines flight, The Sri Lankan airlines did not crash the BA, but as the airport authority said, it was the BA fault, but it’s not a real fault ( they just break too suddenly, and Sri Lankan Airbus has a longer wing span then the BA 747.