Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA870 Diverted To HNL  
User currently offlineflyhighunited From Australia, joined Nov 2006, 18 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Hi guys - does anyone know why UA870 was diverted to HNL today?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL870

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecatdaddy63 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Doesn't look like a diversion, looks like a planned stop. Crew rest issue? Tech issue? Aircraft was two hours late leaving SYD.

User currently offlineav8ornta From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looks like a fuel stop in the notes on shares

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25381 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

HNL was intended destination.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2561 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

This may open a big can of controversy, but I'm pretty sure it's planned because that SYD-SFO route is right at the limit of the plane's range. Throw in heavier than average load, or stronger than average headwinds, and they'll have to make a tech stop in HNL.

For anyone who has read my posts in the area before, you know what I'll say next. If you are looking at an airplane's published range and saying "But the 777 can do that route no problem", the truth is that published range has exactly zero to do with real-world range. Throw in strong winds or heavy loads, and none of today's airliners will make their advertised range.

I've talked to a couple of UA pilots who were on my jumpseat about this very issue (and aircraft choice). They both just shook their heads and said something to the effect of "Yes, they are planning on doing tech stops, and no, it's not the right aircraft for the route."

But if UA wants to fly SFO-SYD, their choices are pretty limited in aircraft type if they don't want to use the 744. I guess they'll just do what they can with what they have.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25381 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 4):
This may open a big can of controversy, but I'm pretty sure it's planned because that SYD-SFO route is right at the limit of the plane's range. Throw in heavier than average load, or stronger than average headwinds, and they'll have to make a tech stop in HNL.

Stop had nothing to do with payload issues.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 975 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

A planned fuel stop that is going to take 2 hours and 40 minutes?!


My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2561 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Stop had nothing to do with payload issues.

What was the reason?

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1154 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Isn't the 777 going to be replaced with a 789 when more are delivered?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25381 posts, RR: 49
Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

FAR117

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 6):
A planned fuel stop that is going to take 2 hours and 40 minutes?!

Allow for pax FIS processing.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1757 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 4):
This may open a big can of controversy, but I'm pretty sure it's planned because that SYD-SFO route is right at the limit of the plane's range. Throw in heavier than average load, or stronger than average headwinds, and they'll have to make a tech stop in HNL.

But the winds are in favor departing SYD - the head winds become more of an issue departing the USA for SYD. Also, SFO is slightly closer than LAX IIRC. So, SYD-SFO should be the easiest routing out of: SYD-SFO, SYD-LAX, SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD...



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineFriscoHeavy From United States of America, joined May 2014, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

It really surprises me the 77E had a fuel stop East-bound from SYD-SFO.

Are these the UA or CO birds? If they are UA, would the GE powered CO 777s fare a bit better?



FriscoHeavy
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9641 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 11):

It really surprises me the 77E had a fuel stop East-bound from SYD-SFO.

Are these the UA or CO birds? If they are UA, would the GE powered CO 777s fare a bit better?


It could be that they had to place something like a hydraulic pump or brake etc on MEL. That would limit the maximum takeoff weight of the plane. There are not many 777 spare parts stored in Sydney, so a takeoff weight restriction could cause the fuel stop. It is better than a cancellation. There are many many items that can limit the range if an airplane. Even crew oxygen could cause an altitude restriction which reduces range. You never really know.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinewarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 11):
Are these the UA or CO birds? If they are UA, would the GE powered CO 777s fare a bit better?

SYD-SFO/LAX is currently operated by sUA birds. These are the lower-rated PW 777's.

The CO 777's are GE powered and have more capability. These are the birds that should be flying this route, IMHO.


User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 890 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 11):
It really surprises me the 77E had a fuel stop East-bound from SYD-SFO.

Are these the UA or CO birds? If they are UA, would the GE powered CO 777s fare a bit better?

As far as I can tell, these flights are operatred by sUA 777s. I believe the sCO birds can carry slightly more load, but I'm not sure that would solve the issue.

I doubt that UAL will spring for 777LRs, so this situation will likely continue unless UAL puts 744s back on the route.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineraggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 1001 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1286 times:

AFAIK, the pmUA 77Es were upgraded to the 656KLbs MTOW, highest available for the 77E, and same as the GE pmCO 77Es.
The GE90 might have slightly better fuel burn than the PW4090, but the pmUA birds should do the job just fine.



Stick & Rudder
User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1045 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

Quoting warreng24 (Reply 13):
SYD-SFO/LAX is currently operated by sUA birds. These are the lower-rated PW 777's.

The CO 777's are GE powered and have more capability. These are the birds that should be flying this route, IMHO.

The UA birds are the ones flying this due to first class which brings me to the point that I cannot believe the 789's don't have a first class and put on the SYD runs. It's a long time with stops with these UA birds until 2018 when the A350 arrives.


User currently offlinetkukucka From Australia, joined Apr 2013, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 11):

Theses are the PMUA 777s withe the the 3 class config. Even though being PW powered aircraft the difference in TOW is 2t I believe don't quote me on that. If UA ever decides to put F on the UA 789s then yes I'm pretty sure LAX/SFO-SYDNEY will go to the Dreamliner. But I believe the UA789s don't arrive till 2016.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4919 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Probably a stop due to crew exceeding hours considering the flight was delayed ex-SYD?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9641 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 16):
The CO 777's are GE powered and have more capability. These are the birds that should be flying this route, IMHO.

The UA birds are the ones flying this due to first class which brings me to the point that I cannot believe the 789's don't have a first class and put on the SYD runs. It's a long time with stops with these UA birds until 2018 when the A350 arrives.

There haven't been fuel stops on the LAX-SYDNEY southbound flight which is the longest flight. I suspect this flight's stop was due to crew hour limits (the flight was delayed a few hours) or more likely a payload restriction caused by a deferred maintenance item. The GE 777s have very little added range. If SYD has bad weather and requires carrying significant extra fuel for an alternate then we might get fuel stops, but otherwise I don't think this flight is representative of poor fleet planning.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUA444 From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 650 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

UA flew the 777s to AKL back in the day just fine, and the 777 did sub for the 747 a couple of times in the past. These birds have no problem making the trip. And the reason why they are using UA 777s and not the ex-CO ones is because the spares and expertise for the PW is all in SFO and LAX, where none of the ex-CO 777s are based. There's also the fact the ex-CO 777s don't have F, which SYD is a VERY profitable F route. The PW 777 is a great airplane.

[Edited 2014-06-23 01:52:46]

User currently offlineQantas744er From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 536 times:

AFAIK, the pmUA 77Es were upgraded to the 656KLbs MTOW, highest available for the 77E, and same as the GE pmCO 77Es.
The GE90 might have slightly better fuel burn than the PW4090, but the pmUA birds should do the job just fine.


Stick & Rudder

Quoting raggi (Reply 15):

They were up-rated to 648k from 640k. The PW4090 thrust would not be sufficent for 656k takeoffs under most circumstances.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlinePenguins From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 531 times:

Quoting tkukucka (Reply 17):
But I believe the UA789s don't arrive till 2016.

UA takes their first 789 this summer.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 527 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 14):
I doubt that UAL will spring for 777LRs, so this situation will likely continue unless UAL puts 744s back on the route.

The 787 might be a good choice for this route. Once the A350s are in service, they might also be a good choice.

SFO-SYD is a tough route even for the 744. There's alot of water, not a lot of diversion options that don't require hours of flight, and variable winds.

However, the 772 should not have trouble making this route. It rarely does.


User currently offlineS75752 From United States of America, joined Apr 2014, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 389 times:

The 772 sounds like it regularly handles other crazy stuff like EWR - BOM, HKG, though those are likely pmCO. How many times has a UA (pmCO or pmUA) 772 actually had to divert on any route for fuel/load reasons (Not so much looking for a straight number, mostly just wondering about any times in memory that come to anyones mind)

Quoting UA444 (Reply 20):
UA flew the 777s to AKL back in the day just fine, and the 777 did sub for the 747 a couple of times in the past. These birds have no problem making the trip.

Not sure how much of a comparison AKL is to SYD, considering that it's an almost ~900 Mile difference out of either SFO or LAX. I'm not arguing against that the 772 can do it easily, just uncertain of the AKL SYD comparison. (NZ currently does use 772ER on the AKL-SFO last I saw.)


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5579 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 395 times:

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 16):
which brings me to the point that I cannot believe the 789's don't have a first class and put on the SYD runs. It's a long time with stops with these UA birds until 2018 when the A350 arrives.

I agree, but with the 787s going to sCO it makes sense to keep them in a 2 class configuration. Those A350s can't arrive soon enough, though.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 19):
If SYD has bad weather and requires carrying significant extra fuel for an alternate then we might get fuel stops

The only real "bad weather" that SYD contends with is fog, and only on maybe three mornings over an entire winter. For those obscure occurrences that SYD is closed and they don't have sufficient reserves to circle, they can gas-and-go at BNE.

While UA could well be taking a hit on cargo payload by using the 77E, diversions due to head-winds would be so rare as to barely be a consideration in route-planning.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9641 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 396 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 25):
The only real "bad weather" that SYD contends with is fog, and only on maybe three mornings over an entire winter. For those obscure occurrences that SYD is closed and they don't have sufficient reserves to circle, they can gas-and-go at BNE.

While UA could well be taking a hit on cargo payload by using the 77E, diversions due to head-winds would be so rare as to barely be a consideration in route-planning.

If fuel for Melbourne has to be carried, then there are payload restrictions on the 777. Diversions due to fog only happen a few times per year, but the threat of it when they are doing the flight plan 18 hours before arrival causes the weight restrictions. This is true for 747s and 777s. The diversion fuel is the issue since it eats into useable payload and is needed to be carried just in case on occasion.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5579 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 389 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 26):
the threat of it when they are doing the flight plan 18 hours before arrival causes the weight restrictions

I'm aware of that

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 26):
If fuel for Melbourne has to be carried, then there are payload restrictions on the 777

But nobody in their right mind would use MEL as a diversion for SYD when coming from North America  

It is 500mi further than SYD, whereas BNE is 500mi closer.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
JBU369 (JFK-PUJ) Diverted To FLL 5/15/14 posted Thu May 15 2014 16:22:42 by MesaFlyGuy
El Al Incident TLV-VCE, Diverted To DBV posted Thu May 15 2014 06:40:13 by An225
LH440 FRA-IAH A380 Diverted To DFW posted Mon Apr 14 2014 13:28:28 by PDX88
EK A380 Diverted To PER posted Fri Apr 4 2014 19:16:32 by qf744fan
AA50 (DFW-LHR) Diverted To JFK - Why? posted Mon Mar 31 2014 17:39:01 by Independence76
US 802 CLT-GRU - Diverted To FLL posted Sat Mar 29 2014 23:10:34 by amwest2united
Delta Flight Diverted To GCM : Drunk Passenger posted Tue Mar 11 2014 05:55:29 by mastermis
EK215 Diverted To YEG .. posted Sat Mar 8 2014 11:35:05 by UAEflyer
VS301 Diverted To OTP posted Mon Mar 3 2014 09:01:18 by Pe@rson
AA 777 Diverted To Gander NL posted Mon Feb 17 2014 06:37:27 by yyz757fan