Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Happened With AA 435 / 1520 Today?  
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4469 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2870 times:

Just checked and saw that the usual 8:30am departure of flight 435 MIA-LAX was delayed to 4:00pm, which of course caused the turnaround flight 1520 to be horrendously late as well (scheduled departure of LAX back to MIA at 12:15pm Pacific time, actual departure 8:06pm Pacific time).

Didn't they have a spare 772 at MIA to substitute (or at least a 763)?

Also, gasp, did the passengers at MIA have to sit on the plane from 8am all the way up until the 4pm departure?

Anyone at AA have some info please?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quote:
Didn't they have a spare 772 at MIA to substitute (or at least a 763)?

Nope. Acft had right engine generator fail on the inbound flight. Took that long to remove/replace the IDG. The daily flight (sked arrival 10:35PDT) is flown to provide a backup plane for the LAX-NRT flight (sked depart 12:40PDT). All other 777 flights departing MIA are more valuable than a repositioning flight. And trading to a different type (767 or 757) would not serve the primary purpose of providing a backup 777 at LAX. Once the IDG was replace the AA ETOPS Maint. program requires a flight (or at least minimum flight time) operating the new IDG prior to allowing the plane to leave benign (domestic USA) airspace --at least that's how I remember how things worked. So flying the flight late -even very late- provided the necessary In-Flight Evaluation period to allow the plane to return to international ETOPS routings.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Funny you mentioned AA flights sitting on the tarmac. I was going to post this as a separate article but this should suffice. What's interesting, is that AA apparently doesn't rate as the worst for sitting around (according to the stats in the article itself!).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel....story?coll=chi-homepagetravel-hed


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4469 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Thanks AAR90, that's the kind of detailed information I was looking for. Plus, I learned a bit about airline operations in the process!

I do have one other question. Yes, I understand why they didn't swap in a smaller aircraft because:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 1):
And trading to a different type (767 or 757) would not serve the primary purpose of providing a backup 777 at LAX.

And, from an operations point of view (having to do a flight in benign airspace), that makes sense. But does that mean that they flew a pretty much empty 777 MIA-LAX and then back to MIA? Or did they make most of the passengers wait the 8+ hours?

[Edited 2007-06-15 18:25:43]

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
But does that mean that they flew a pretty much empty 777 MIA-LAX and then back to MIA? Or did they make most of the passengers wait the 8+ hours?

147 pax listed MIA-LAX; 200 pax listed LAX-MIA. No idea how many were "original" pax, how many were re-routed, etc. Only one other morning non-stop flight so alternatives might have been limited. All MIA-DFW/ORD/LAX and FLL-LAX flights operated full (only one empty seat on the last MIA-DFW flight) on 14th so I'd guess Passenger Service tried to accomodate everybody on other flights. Didn't bother looking at the LAX-MIA stuff.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4469 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Thanks again for the follow up AAR90.

Much appreciated!


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...
What Happened With NW19 MSP-NRT Yesterday? posted Thu Dec 21 2006 00:16:42 by Airplanetire
What Happened With AV's Fleet Orders? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:18:09 by 777jaah
What Happened To AA's F100's? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 21:59:52 by KELPkid
What Happened To AA 521 On 5/27? posted Sun May 28 2006 16:58:55 by Contrails
What's Up With AA @ TPA - Warn Letters posted Thu Apr 6 2006 02:35:56 by Moman
What Happened With The Slats On This 737? posted Fri Feb 24 2006 07:39:21 by LTU932
What's Up With AA Cancelling Flights To CCS? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 17:37:14 by Poh2
What Happened With Transmeridian Planes? posted Thu Dec 29 2005 07:11:24 by Luisde8cd
What's Up With AA 123? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 20:05:41 by Contrails
What´s Happening With AA? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 13:10:11 by Erikwilliam