The smell of smoke was reported in the cabin so the Captain returned to SEA. A thorough examination determined no fire so I believe the re-loaded her and sent her on her way.
Socalatc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 506 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12882 times:
Funny, If this would have been Alaska Airlines everyone would be all over this. This thread would have 30+ replys by now and people would be saying how unsafe Alaska is. But now that its not, its no big deal. Funny how that works..
Gunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3380 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12844 times:
Quoting Socalatc (Reply 4): Funny, If this would have been Alaska Airlines everyone would be all over this.
Note also that this isn't at the forefront of local news in Seattle, whereas the same incident involving Alaska would probably get a special report.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1945 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12816 times:
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6): Note also that this isn't at the forefront of local news in Seattle, whereas the same incident involving Alaska would probably get a special report.
Yeah, channel 5 stuck a short mention of it about halfway through the 6:30 broadcast - just said there was a smell of burning rubber before takeoff and that it got worse after take off so pilot returned to SEA. They never said anything about if the flight ever left again, cancelled, if a cause was ever foiund etc. I agree that if it was AS, they'd have had a team of reporters all over the story.
Jumbo747 From New Zealand, joined Apr 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12776 times:
Quoting Socalatc (Reply 4): Funny, If this would have been Alaska Airlines everyone would be all over this. This thread would have 30+ replys by now and people would be saying how unsafe Alaska is. But now that its not, its no big deal. Funny how that works..
Alaska has been in headlines for wrong reasons too many times. Not to mention just a recent incident as well. It may be minor incidents but to me it is just wrong perception regarding their maintanence team.
And as you mentioned "by now and people would be saying how unsafe Alaska is" quite rightfully so. Alaska Airlines is just providing wrong reasons for people specially overseas are having a complete wromg perception about them.
N174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 979 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12635 times:
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6): Note also that this isn't at the forefront of local news in Seattle, whereas the same incident involving Alaska would probably get a special report.
I'll agree with you that there's definitely a double standard here in SEA regarding Alaska. However, I'm sure the same could be said for the media in Chicago about UA, Dallas for DFW, Atlanta for DL, etc.
Sounds like #875 is on her way. Some stupid pax probably freaked out and delayed everyone by a few hours. That sucks.
Socalatc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 506 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12613 times:
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 6): Note also that this isn't at the forefront of local news in Seattle, whereas the same incident involving Alaska would probably get a special report.
Im talking more about a.netters.. Some of you tear apart Alaska when they are in the news. For example LGB incident, YVR-SFO incident.. Not the media.
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12315 times:
Quoting Socalatc (Reply 4): Funny, If this would have been Alaska Airlines everyone would be all over this. T
More likely, it was because "Aircraft loses cabin pressure!" is way more dramatic than "Passenger smells smoke."
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
HBJZA From Switzerland, joined Jan 2006, 374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10087 times:
I'm not sure the words "emergency landing" are appropriate. Did they brief passengers for evacuation procedures, did they adopt the brace position for landing, etc. Probably not for smelling something. So it should be called a precautionnary landing. It also makes a huge difference for ATC if pilot announces return for emergency landing or just for precautionnary landing. For one the fire brigade and paramedics get to the side of the runway, for the other just a warning is sent to fire brigade to be aware but they don't move from their station......in fact that's what they would do in Europe.
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8030 times:
Quoting HBJZA (Reply 12): I'm not sure the words "emergency landing" are appropriate
Standard media hype.
On the radio, they also stated that the pilots dumped out the fuel before landing as a "precaution" instead of because at that point the plane was too heavy to land within its limitations.
Some days they just make stuff up and if you ever try to help educate the Seattle media, you'll quickly find that accuracy is not an issue for the vast majority of them.
707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 502 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6357 times:
This story perked up my interest mainly because I'm right here and knew nothing about it. Did it even happen? Well, finally, morning paper confirms that it did: "an odor was reported," and the plane returned to SEA. Whether or not the aircraft was consumed on the ground by the odor, if the pax evacuated, if the flight resumed, what the odor was .. sorry, we'll never know.
ASAFA From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 166 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5149 times:
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 11): More likely, it was because "Aircraft loses cabin pressure!" is way more dramatic than "Passenger smells smoke."
First off the YVR-SFO flight that landed in Seattle didn't lose cabin pressure, it failed to pressurize. Cabin altitude never climbed above 11,000 ft and the masks never dropped. Get your facts right before you decide which is more "dramatic".
Also I guarantee you that if they had seen smoke in the UA cabin (and not just smelled it) they would have popped the slides just as fast as they did in LGB.
TUSflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2740 times:
I happen to be in SEA today. There was a very small blurb in the local paper discussing two different flights that returned to SEA yesterday. An AA MD80 bound for ORD. Had a compressor stall. And the UA777, due to a "strange odor".
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1646 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 5 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1945 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Apr 2006, 57 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2006, 374 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1597 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
