SiouxATC From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 387 posts, RR: 1 Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3486 times:
I was surfing flightaware.com and found something a bit odd. AWE 128 en route to MKE from PHX appears to have made a 180 and is returning to PHX. It has a scheduled arrival back into PHX at 10:08pm and looks as if it'll depart back to MKE at 10:40pm. If it was a medical or MX issue I would have thought it would divert to a closer airport as it was over Nebraska. Might it be a crew issue?
I just found this to be a bit odd and interesting. Any thoughts?
What's odd about this is not just that it went back all the way to PHX instead of landing somewhere nearby, but also that with the distance required to go back to PHX from the turnaround point, it would have been pretty much the same distance to just go to MKE!
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5824 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3337 times:
The crew got an Engine Overtemp warning just before the 180 back to PHX. Since there's no US MX base in MKE, the return flight in the AM would have cancelled. So to prevent that, they brought the airplane back to PHX and swapped it out.
A similar incident happened the day before with a 737 on the way to OMA. Same story, plane turned around and came back to prevent the return from cancelling.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6893 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3060 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 4): Since there's no US MX base in MKE, the return flight in the AM would have cancelled. So to prevent that, they brought the airplane back to PHX and swapped it out.
Not so great for the customers on the flight, though, considering that they ended up getting in at 4 AM (and probably spent close to six hours on airplanes) rather than around midnight. Seems like more of a cost-driven move since the morning passengers could have been rebooked on later flights or other carriers.
So, it's just a matter who is inconvienced. The rebooks on the next day flight have their own issues. No guarantee they could be accomodated to meet their travel schedules, or even arrive at their destinations the same day. The way they did it at least keeps the screwed-over level to that one flight instead of transferring it to those on the morning flight.
ABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 870 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
On tues BTA2809 IAH-CRP did an air-return to IAH due to battery issues. Had they landed in CRP the flt would have incurred and significant delay going back since we have no spares here in CRP. Therefore on the return to IAH they took approx 30-45 mins to swap out the battery and run the flight again. It did inconvenience customers in both directions, however doing so did not cause equipment issues further down the road for COex. We only had to rebook a hand-full of customers to later connections or the following day, since the bulk of pax was IAH lcl traffic. Its funny how customers will think they are the only ones being inconvenienced, without looking around to see they are with others in the same boat. I can page up customers to specific connection destinations and still others come up in a panic about their connection. Quick maint. issues are always easy to deal with, its the rolling delays that will drive the customer and the employees up the wall. What US did was perfect in my view as a field station agent. Had I been in MKE I would have been relieved that they ran the flight 4 hrs late as opposed to canceling it all together.