Japan Airlines B777-300ER Business Class London to Tokyo (technical problem!)

Japan Airlines B777-300ER Business Class London to Tokyo (technical problem!)



Read my review of this flight here: https://theluxurytravelexpert.com/2016/06/29/review-japan-airlines-b777-business-class/

If you like this clip, be sure to follow me on Youtube (200,000+ followers so far!). Each week, I upload one new clip about my (luxury) travels around the world.

You can watch more of my flight clips in my playlists ‘trip reports: Business Class flights’ and ‘trip reports: First Class flights’. These playlist includes flights with Finnair, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways, American Airlines, Swiss, Austrian Airlines, Emirates, and Cathay Pacific to name a few.

Travel your dreams in style & follow my website for luxury travel inspiration: top 10 lists, news, reviews, trends, tips, offers, and competitions. You can subscribe to my newsletter (3x/week) here: https://theluxurytravelexpert.com/follow-me/

FOLLOW ME:
Website/blog: http://theluxurytravelexpert.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LuxTravelExpert
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LuxuryTravelert
Instagram: https://instagram.com/luxurytravelexpert
Tumblr: http://luxurytravelexpert.tumblr.com/

Production music by http://www.epidemicsound.com

source

[instagram-feed]

38 thoughts on “Japan Airlines B777-300ER Business Class London to Tokyo (technical problem!)

  1. Daily Planes says:

    They will have taken the correct amount of fuel with 90 minutes spare and it will probably be their company policy that they need to take off with this amount of fuel even though by law they only need 60 mins reserve. You would be surprised by how much fuel Planes burn taxing

  2. jer quake says:

    I would't mind if The Captain decides to go back if there was a 'technical problem'. Better 100 times go back rather than 1 plane crash.

  3. Greg Derrick says:

    The aircraft was refuled mostly for safety reasons. Had it been say in the European, American, or even in just Russia or China over land.
    No fuling would be really necessary. The problem is over water. Delays or weather over water can really burn fuel. Not that they
    really would have been in any danger. But, trips over water is a safety challenge all carriers face. And are governed under stricter rules than land travel.

  4. wakeupscreaming says:

    real rich people don't take commercial flights.
    And it looks like these wannabes just want to be as anti-social as possible. the more you spend, the more walls and space you get to have between others.

  5. Adhokshaj Karhade says:

    I've experienced same situation with Lufthansa flight a380-800 back in 2017 when is was traveling from San Francisco to Frankfurt.
    We left the gate at departure time but due to some technical issues we got back to gate. Then the Crew told us that they are refueling the aircraft as they had wasted the fuel in taxiing to runway and again get back to gate. And after almost 2 hours of delay we took off. But I missed my connecting flight to Mumbai. But Lufthansa staff was very cooperative. They booked a different flight for me and I got back to my destination.

  6. Paulshizzle says:

    Aviation expert here. Refueling is necessary even when the plane engine was running for a short period because there are no gas stations in the sky.

  7. RCT3Crashes100 says:

    The Concorde at 6:05 has a bit of an interesting history; G-BOAB, or ‘Alpha Bravo’, as she is nicknamed, never returned to service with the rest of BA’s Concorde fleet after the Air France disaster, and so was never modified with the protective measures that the other planes received. After landing at Heathrow in 2000, Alpha Bravo has been there ever since. The plane was going to be a gate guardian for T5, but that idea was scrapped when Emirates got permission to slap a big A380 model in the space the Concorde was going to have. After being periodically moved around Heathrow over the last few years, she’s recently received a well-deserved refurb, and is apparently being used as a cabin trainer for BA’s staff!

  8. mafenza says:

    as soon as their planned reserves for safe flight came below minimums, they were bound to refuel; taxing is expensive (except for flybe since they taxi with one engine on their Q400s)

  9. xetalq says:

    The refuelling was required because of: –

    1). the taxi out and taxi back to the gate would likely have been closer to half an hour all told (rather than just 5 minutes)

    2). then the Auxiliary Power Unit ('APU') would have been running for the hour you were at the gate (this would burn more fuel)

    3). after the mechanical issue was fixed, the next taxy out to the runway would have burned further fuel, prior to take off

    Add all these together, and the crew would likely have been looking at the loss of 3,000+ kg before finally getting off the ground in London.

    Now, the heavier an aircraft is, the more fuel it burns, on any given route.

    The fuel load adds to the total aircraft weight at take off.

    Thus, you can see that: "… it costs fuel to carry fuel …". Ie the more fuel that's loaded before take off, the more will be burnt en route from London to Tokyo.

    Fuel is expensive (it can be 30% of all operating costs), so airlines operate profitably only if they minimise fuel loads (and, thus, fuel burns), as far as possible.

    This means loading only as much fuel before push back as is absolutely necessary to ensure a safe flight.

    At the flight briefing unit ('FBU'), where the crew first meets up about an hour and a half prior to departure, they are presented with a computer flight plan ('CFP'), which states a computed fuel load.

    The CFP fuel load (referred to as: 'flight plan fuel') takes into account the weight of the expected payload (pax + cargo), the filed route, the winds aloft and weather en route, and the distance to the filed alternate airport (in case the weather at the intended destination deteriorates unexpectedly, and a diversion becomes necessary), and any holding which might be needed.

    This CFP fuel load must, at minimum, be enough to allow the aircraft to: –

    1). to operate from point of departure to destination, plus;

    2). make an approach to landing, plus;

    3). make a missed approach, and divert to the filed alternate, plus;

    4). make an approach to landing at the alternate, plus a missed approach there, too, plus;

    5). hold for 30 minutes at 1,500' AAL ('Above Aerodrome Elevation')

    …. plus 5% of the total of all the above.

    If the Captain of the flight, after discussing the matter with his crew, thinks – in his professional opinion – that more fuel should be loaded over and above flight plan fuel (ie the 'CFP fuel load'), then he has the discretion and authority to do so.

    But once that fuel load is decided, it becomes – in the opinion of the Pilot in Command – the minimum fuel to be aboard before the aircraft pushes back from the gate. Once you've pushed back, there's no way to add more fuel before you land at the destination.

    As you can see, this minimum fuel is carefully calculated, and is loaded to the nearest litre/kg, even in a huge aircraft like a 777-300ER.

    But if you taxy out to the runway, then taxy back to the gate and hold at the gate for an hour, and you're facing another taxy back out to the runway, then you're still looking at being 3,000 kg BELOW what the Captain has decided is the absolute minimum fuel he considers safe for the flight.

    The career goal of every professional pilot is simply to retire at the end of a 40 year career. This, in turn, is best achieved, by never ever running out of fuel prior to landing. 🙂

    Besides which, as every pilot will tell you, the three most useless things in the world are: –

    a). runway behind you

    b). altitude above you

    c). fuel in the bowser (instead of the aircraft)

    We are incredibly cautious by nature, and just do not take any risks that can be avoided: you may have 400 pax, 21 other crew members (plus yourself!) aboard, and they all deserve your very best professional efforts, and the full benefit of your judgement and experience.

    So, you take very very good care of them all.

    Plus, one of the tried and true nostrums of aviation is this: there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are NO old bold pilots.

    So, if you're 3,000 kg down on minimum fuel for the flight, you take no chances: you refuel before pushing back from the gate, again.

    I'd have done exactly the same thing.

  10. Gooster X says:

    I wonder why the last flight attendant spoke Japanese to you lol

    Anyways, thanks for the upload! Took me back to the memory when I last used Japan Airlines back in 2007 on B747-400 when the business class used to be JAL Shell Flat seat

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *