User avatar
AI126
Topic Author
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:03 am

Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 1:31 am

Hi, I was just on FR24 and saw that UA 49 doing the BOM-EWR run was diverted all the way back to BOM after it had reached Kazakhstan? It seems an unnecessarily wrong diversion when both Astana and Almaty can receive the 77E.

Anyone know why such a long diversion? Thanks!
 
x1234
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 1:38 am

Russian-speaking Central Asia have fully modern airports in Kazakhstan so its weird that they diverted back to Mumbai. Must not have been that much of a emergency. Of course they probably didn't want to divert to Russia maybe due to the geo-political climate...
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1691
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 1:42 am

AI126 wrote:
Hi, I was just on FR24 and saw that UA 49 doing the BOM-EWR run was diverted all the way back to BOM after it had reached Kazakhstan? It seems an unnecessarily wrong diversion when both Astana and Almaty can receive the 77E.

Anyone know why such a long diversion? Thanks!


Initially, I would imagine it's because BOM is obviously a line station for UA whereas Astana and Almaty are not. Therefore they have handling contracts, possibly hotels, in place, they have AI who can help them out with any Mx requirements (at the very least some hangar space), and they have their own flights coming and going on which they can transport parts and/or engineering teams as necessary.
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 1:45 am

Even then, why BOM and not DEL? It's 1300 KM closer to Kazakhstan.

Anyways, its displacement in 8 hours comes to 0!
 
User avatar
AI126
Topic Author
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:03 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 1:59 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
AI126 wrote:
Hi, I was just on FR24 and saw that UA 49 doing the BOM-EWR run was diverted all the way back to BOM after it had reached Kazakhstan? It seems an unnecessarily wrong diversion when both Astana and Almaty can receive the 77E.

Anyone know why such a long diversion? Thanks!


Initially, I would imagine it's because BOM is obviously a line station for UA whereas Astana and Almaty are not. Therefore they have handling contracts, possibly hotels, in place, they have AI who can help them out with any Mx requirements (at the very least some hangar space), and they have their own flights coming and going on which they can transport parts and/or engineering teams as necessary.


See, I thought that, too, but then, there's this:

anshabhi wrote:
Even then, why BOM and not DEL? It's 1300 KM closer to Kazakhstan.

Anyways, its displacement in 8 hours comes to 0!


Why would they divert all the way back to BOM if it was a tech issue and they needed to be at a UA/Star partner station. DEL has all the AI maintenance infrastructure that BOM has, and it's much closer to their final position prior to diversion. Hell, it might have been been just as equidistant to head to PEK. I was just curious as to why they would go all the way back to BOM; just doesn't seem to make much sense, even if's a non-emergency tech issue.
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 2:07 am

 
User avatar
AI126
Topic Author
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:03 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 2:13 am

anshabhi wrote:


Well that makes even less sense then... What sort of medical emergency could have possibly waited for 4 hours to be treated instead of diverting to one of the Kazakh cities for medical help? Wonder if it was an issue of medical quality and English speakers... Still, makes one wonder. Anyway, thanks! Anyone know if this is standard to divert all the way back to the origination point four hours into a flight for a medical emergency?
 
filejw
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 2:58 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 2:25 am

AI126 wrote:
anshabhi wrote:


Well that makes even less sense then... What sort of medical emergency could have possibly waited for 4 hours to be treated instead of diverting to one of the Kazakh cities for medical help? Wonder if it was an issue of medical quality and English speakers... Still, makes one wonder. Anyway, thanks! Anyone know if this is standard to divert all the way back to the origination point four hours into a flight for a medical emergency?

Having flown in that area for years I can tell you deviating into one of the "Stans" for any reason would be a last resort .
 
filejw
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 2:58 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:00 am

Can't speak for UAL but the outfit I worked for considered most of those places to have poor medical facility's. UAL probably uses the same consultant.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:19 am

You only go into any of the -Stans as an absolute LAST resort, pretty much if a passenger is on an AED, the airplane is on fire, you lose an engine or a total depressurization.

Diverting a UA 777 into any one of those airports for any other reason becomes a logistical nightmare for UA and thier passengers. Yeah, a runway is there and sure they can land, but once it lands and the flight cancels it becomes a nightmare for 300 passengers. Too much political and simply unfamiliarity that far away from a line station. Not to mention passenger recovery if the aircraft went maintenance.

There is always more that goes into a diversion than most think. There are levels of distress (both regulatory and company policy) that dictates what aircraft goes where internationally.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:23 am

AI126 wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:
AI126 wrote:
Hi, I was just on FR24 and saw that UA 49 doing the BOM-EWR run was diverted all the way back to BOM after it had reached Kazakhstan? It seems an unnecessarily wrong diversion when both Astana and Almaty can receive the 77E.

Anyone know why such a long diversion? Thanks!


Initially, I would imagine it's because BOM is obviously a line station for UA whereas Astana and Almaty are not. Therefore they have handling contracts, possibly hotels, in place, they have AI who can help them out with any Mx requirements (at the very least some hangar space), and they have their own flights coming and going on which they can transport parts and/or engineering teams as necessary.


See, I thought that, too, but then, there's this:

anshabhi wrote:
Even then, why BOM and not DEL? It's 1300 KM closer to Kazakhstan.

Anyways, its displacement in 8 hours comes to 0!


Why would they divert all the way back to BOM if it was a tech issue and they needed to be at a UA/Star partner station. DEL has all the AI maintenance infrastructure that BOM has, and it's much closer to their final position prior to diversion. Hell, it might have been been just as equidistant to head to PEK. I was just curious as to why they would go all the way back to BOM; just doesn't seem to make much sense, even if's a non-emergency tech issue.


What doesn't make sense about going back to the departure station that way both the passengers AND the aircraft can be protected from which the city it departed from? If you can within a resonaable amount of time and its deemed safe, then its just smarter to do so.
Last edited by OneSexyL1011 on Fri May 12, 2017 3:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:28 am

I think crew duty hours could have been a reason for choosing BOM instead of DEL. They might have a seperate crew stationed at BOM.

Also, from passengers perspective, it's better to be stuck at your home city instead of any other city.

3rd possibility: AI has BOM-EWR flight available. Passengers can be transferred there, if required.
Last edited by anshabhi on Fri May 12, 2017 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
manny
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:59 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:32 am

But why go back to to BOM and not back to DEL or Bucharest or Munich or even Frankfurt.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:37 am

manny wrote:
But why go back to to BOM and not back to DEL or Bucharest or Munich or even Frankfurt.

Several reasons.

Passenger protection. Its safe to assume that most of these passengers are from BOM or have a closer reltation to BOM than anywhere else so it makes more sense to bring them back as the flight will cancel and have to be rescheduled the next day. UA 49 tomorrow may have extra seats to move people around, as with other BOM flights.

Also to add, this aircraft would have had to dump 100+K lbs in fuel anyway just to get under weight. This flight daily takes off a MTOW and nearly 300K lbs of fuel. No way it was burned off enough to get under max landing. Either way, he'd have to hold and burn it off anyway so why not just go back? Even then I am sure he'd have to dump some fuel on top of the flight back.
 
manny
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:59 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 4:05 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
manny wrote:
But why go back to to BOM and not back to DEL or Bucharest or Munich or even Frankfurt.

Several reasons.

Passenger protection. Its safe to assume that most of these passengers are from BOM or have a closer reltation to BOM than anywhere else so it makes more sense to bring them back as the flight will cancel and have to be rescheduled the next day. UA 49 tomorrow may have extra seats to move people around, as with other BOM flights.

Also to add, this aircraft would have had to dump 100+K lbs in fuel anyway just to get under weight. This flight daily takes off a MTOW and nearly 300K lbs of fuel. No way it was burned off enough to get under max landing. Either way, he'd have to hold and burn it off anyway so why not just go back? Even then I am sure he'd have to dump some fuel on top of the flight back.


Valid points. But with landing in MUC or FRA you have an A/C that closer to home base than BOM.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14399
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 4:16 am

On a 14 hr flight, even after flying for 4 hrs you are probably still overweight for landing. If the passenger was stable to fly for another 4 hrs I would have looked at other normal company port in the direction of travel like ARN. After getting the medical attention to the passenger there is a good chance they could have still made EWR with minimum delay.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1189
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 4:31 am

Interesting: on May 13, there's an extra section – UA 2765 3:30am to 9:40am – that's presumably the affected aircraft with a new crew scheduled for the first legal opportunity. It's showing 226 people booked right now.
146 319 320 321 332 333 343 717 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 763 764 772 77E 77L 77W 788 789 AR1 AT4 CNA CR2 CR7 DC9 ER3 ERD ER4 E70 E75 E90
 
Balaguru
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 4:56 am

1st. Time to hold burn off fuel to achieve max landing weight could still be four hours. 2nd. The passenger could have been stabilized enough by cabin crew or an available medical professional on board, sufficiently for him / her to be able to fly 4 or 5 hours. 3rd. A few years ago, a flight from North America to India (don't remember the origin or destination or airline) was diverted to CDG. Most passengers were of Indian Origin. American Passport Holders and Indian Passport Holders with Schengen Visa were given hotel rooms, but Indian passport holders without Schengen Visa were asked to remain in the transit area, which did not go well with them, considering the wait was 16+ hours. There were complaints of indifference and very bad customer service by these passengers. By flying back to BOM, the Captain (intentionally or unintentionally )at least made sure those issues would be avoided, probably why he/ she avoided MUC / FRA.
 
Adipocere
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:35 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 6:57 am

Visas and medical insurance come to mind. European countries may have been reluctant to accept a passenger from a third world country with no visa and/ or medical insurance valid in the EU. EU Schengen visas are very retentive about having proper medical insurance.
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 7:22 am

Adipocere wrote:
Visas and medical insurance come to mind. European countries may have been reluctant to accept a passenger from a third world country with no visa and/ or medical insurance valid in the EU. EU Schengen visas are very retentive about having proper medical insurance.


which also happens to be a reason why European airlines will never be able to make a singnificant cut in world's third largest market.
 
rta
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 7:43 am

manny wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
manny wrote:
But why go back to to BOM and not back to DEL or Bucharest or Munich or even Frankfurt.

Several reasons.

Passenger protection. Its safe to assume that most of these passengers are from BOM or have a closer reltation to BOM than anywhere else so it makes more sense to bring them back as the flight will cancel and have to be rescheduled the next day. UA 49 tomorrow may have extra seats to move people around, as with other BOM flights.

Also to add, this aircraft would have had to dump 100+K lbs in fuel anyway just to get under weight. This flight daily takes off a MTOW and nearly 300K lbs of fuel. No way it was burned off enough to get under max landing. Either way, he'd have to hold and burn it off anyway so why not just go back? Even then I am sure he'd have to dump some fuel on top of the flight back.


Valid points. But with landing in MUC or FRA you have an A/C that closer to home base than BOM.


Not sure what UA's rationale was, but it may have been better for the passenger to seek medical care in their own country. No doubt Germany has excellent facilities, but dropping a passenger off in a country (that is neither their origin or destination) may have been bad (depending on the situation, of course)
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 7:55 am

with all the bad press that UA has been getting recently, this might be a good incident for UA to advertise. It took all the pain for convenience of passengers.
8 hours fuel wasted+ flight cancelled+ possible hotel and re-arrangement costs, everything for passengers only. A real example of "friendly skies".
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7489
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 2:00 pm

rta wrote:
Not sure what UA's rationale was, but it may have been better for the passenger to seek medical care in their own country. No doubt Germany has excellent facilities, but dropping a passenger off in a country (that is neither their origin or destination) may have been bad (depending on the situation, of course)


Or it could be a worst case scenario. If passenger passed away, it would be worst to leave in some unknown country or carry all the way to EWR. Going back to BOM is the best UA can do for the passenger and family.
 
ILUVDC10S
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 3:21 pm

They could have landed in Tehran like NW did with a DC-10-30 . In a emergency I think politics is tossed out the window is it ? The NW Dc-10 was serviced and went onward to AMS without further incident . UA could have done that no ?
As you know Iran is not very friendly to the US so anything with a US flag would not be very welcomed in this case politics were set aside.
Plane crew and passengers came and went without incident thankfully .
By the way this is the second flight from same airport that had issues on same flight couple weeks ago same flight had issues ...
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 5:37 pm

In this case very smart of UA to return to BOM. No way in hell I'd want to divert to ALA or anywhere else if I was stable enough to return to BOM. Haven't heard much about this incident so I trust UA took good care of the pax w/r/t hotel rooms, rebookings.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1765
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 6:11 pm

Some of those places payment is only accepted in USD cash for fuel and landing fees..
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 6:25 pm

ILUVDC10S wrote:
They could have landed in Tehran like NW did with a DC-10-30 . In a emergency I think politics is tossed out the window is it ? The NW Dc-10 was serviced and went onward to AMS without further incident . UA could have done that no ?
As you know Iran is not very friendly to the US so anything with a US flag would not be very welcomed in this case politics were set aside.
Plane crew and passengers came and went without incident thankfully .
By the way this is the second flight from same airport that had issues on same flight couple weeks ago same flight had issues ...

Pre- FAR117. Today that flight would have canceled. UA 49 itself is already squeezed about as tightly on duty time as one can be. Literally, its within minutes of flexibility just by block time itself up to the absolute maximum allowable legal time with a full crew. That flight diverts anywhere the crew is no longer legal and thus, the flight cancels.

Also, the NWA DC10 was for what was then discovered as a false fire indication, however the crew needed to treat it as an onboard fire because at the time it wasn't known to the crew whether it was an indication error or actual fire. Thats an immediate land at the nearest suitable airport scenario. Once landed and no fire had been discovered, then the flight was able to turn faster as it was clearly an indication issue. Do a write up, hang a placard and get the heck outta town.

Today? No way the flight leaves without the crew going illegal.
 
CHI787ORD
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:27 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Fri May 12, 2017 9:36 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
rta wrote:
Not sure what UA's rationale was, but it may have been better for the passenger to seek medical care in their own country. No doubt Germany has excellent facilities, but dropping a passenger off in a country (that is neither their origin or destination) may have been bad (depending on the situation, of course)


Or it could be a worst case scenario. If passenger passed away, it would be worst to leave in some unknown country or carry all the way to EWR. Going back to BOM is the best UA can do for the passenger and family.


This seems like a logical explanation
 
ILUVDC10S
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 12:24 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
They could have landed in Tehran like NW did with a DC-10-30 . In a emergency I think politics is tossed out the window is it ? The NW Dc-10 was serviced and went onward to AMS without further incident . UA could have done that no ?
As you know Iran is not very friendly to the US so anything with a US flag would not be very welcomed in this case politics were set aside.
Plane crew and passengers came and went without incident thankfully .
By the way this is the second flight from same airport that had issues on same flight couple weeks ago same flight had issues ...

Pre- FAR117. Today that flight would have canceled. UA 49 itself is already squeezed about as tightly on duty time as one can be. Literally, its within minutes of flexibility just by block time itself up to the absolute maximum allowable legal time with a full crew. That flight diverts anywhere the crew is no longer legal and thus, the flight cancels.

Also, the NWA DC10 was for what was then discovered as a false fire indication, however the crew needed to treat it as an onboard fire because at the time it wasn't known to the crew whether it was an indication error or actual fire. Thats an immediate land at the nearest suitable airport scenario. Once landed and no fire had been discovered, then the flight was able to turn faster as it was clearly an indication issue. Do a write up, hang a placard and get the heck outta town.

Today? No way the flight leaves without the crew going illegal.


Gotcha thanks for the information
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 1:09 am

9w748capt wrote:
In this case very smart of UA to return to BOM. No way in hell I'd want to divert to ALA or anywhere else if I was stable enough to return to BOM. Haven't heard much about this incident so I trust UA took good care of the pax w/r/t hotel rooms, rebookings.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are horror stories about the lack of UA good care from previous BOM cancellations. Total disasters in fact. There are lots first hand accounts on flyertalk of the vast problems with UA 49 over the years and the lack of adequate customer service presence at BOM
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 1:49 am

jumbojet wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
In this case very smart of UA to return to BOM. No way in hell I'd want to divert to ALA or anywhere else if I was stable enough to return to BOM. Haven't heard much about this incident so I trust UA took good care of the pax w/r/t hotel rooms, rebookings.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are horror stories about the lack of UA good care from previous BOM cancellations. Total disasters in fact. There are lots first hand accounts on flyertalk of the vast problems with UA 49 over the years and the lack of adequate customer service presence at BOM


Really???? You have an example you can post? Or did you just come in here to land another punch on a Untied thread?

80K bro just go to your happy place.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 2:03 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
In this case very smart of UA to return to BOM. No way in hell I'd want to divert to ALA or anywhere else if I was stable enough to return to BOM. Haven't heard much about this incident so I trust UA took good care of the pax w/r/t hotel rooms, rebookings.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are horror stories about the lack of UA good care from previous BOM cancellations. Total disasters in fact. There are lots first hand accounts on flyertalk of the vast problems with UA 49 over the years and the lack of adequate customer service presence at BOM


Really???? You have an example you can post? Or did you just come in here to land another punch on a Untied thread?

80K bro just go to your happy place.


sure ive got examples, bro. Give me a minute or two.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 2:04 am

here, took less than 1 minute. Here is one. You might have to read through some of the posts to find the right ones. There's more, one more minute please.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-a ... rrops.html
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 2:09 am

one more for you. These threads are a bit more lengthy. There are 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 versions. However, finding the BOM cancellations with absolutely no assistance from United for hour after hour after hour are pretty easy to find.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-a ... 017-a.html
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1397
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 2:28 am

Couldnt they have diverted to one of the European stations instead of back to BOM? Equal in Flying time no?
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 2:52 am

And these passengers have more misfortune. I don't know why, but this plane (presumably with these passengers) seems to have been diverted to Gander, and very early in.

As mentioned above, it's UA 2765
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
United1
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 3:19 am

ASQ400 wrote:
And these passengers have more misfortune. I don't know why, but this plane (presumably with these passengers) seems to have been diverted to Gander, and very early in.

As mentioned above, it's UA 2765


Bangor at this point....if they are doing that this early on they are probably stopping to get a new crew to finish the flight (ie crew rest limitations) or there is something en route causing them to burn more fuel than normal. Would assume they will also clear customs at BGR before heading to EWR.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
United1
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 3:28 am

BawliBooch wrote:
Couldnt they have diverted to one of the European stations instead of back to BOM? Equal in Flying time no?


A bit further depending on where in Europe but you also run into issues with passengers not having visas ect and as it was a medical divert they will take into account the sick passengers nationality when choosing a diversion point...ie if an immediate diversion is not required and the passenger was from BOM sometimes the best thing is to divert back to BOM so they can see their own Drs ect. There are a million factors that go into a diversion including hotel space to overnight passengers, availability of customs if they need to allow people back into a country, spare crews ect.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 3:30 am

United1 wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
And these passengers have more misfortune. I don't know why, but this plane (presumably with these passengers) seems to have been diverted to Gander, and very early in.

As mentioned above, it's UA 2765


Bangor at this point....if they are doing that this early on they are probably stopping to get a new crew to finish the flight (ie crew rest limitations) or there is something en route causing them to burn more fuel than normal. Would assume they will also clear customs at BGR before heading to EWR.

If they actually end up at Bangor, that would make sense.

Given their luck, anything could happen
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
United1
Posts: 3904
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 3:38 am

ASQ400 wrote:
United1 wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
And these passengers have more misfortune. I don't know why, but this plane (presumably with these passengers) seems to have been diverted to Gander, and very early in.

As mentioned above, it's UA 2765


Bangor at this point....if they are doing that this early on they are probably stopping to get a new crew to finish the flight (ie crew rest limitations) or there is something en route causing them to burn more fuel than normal. Would assume they will also clear customs at BGR before heading to EWR.

If they actually end up at Bangor, that would make sense.

Given their luck, anything could happen


Everything I can find is showing BGR at this point...Gander may have been the initial file.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
ILUVDC10S
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 3:45 am

United1 wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
United1 wrote:

Bangor at this point....if they are doing that this early on they are probably stopping to get a new crew to finish the flight (ie crew rest limitations) or there is something en route causing them to burn more fuel than normal. Would assume they will also clear customs at BGR before heading to EWR.

If they actually end up at Bangor, that would make sense.

Given their luck, anything could happen


Everything I can find is showing BGR at this point...Gander may have been the initial file.


At least in BGR they do not have to walk far outside the terminal for good food down the road a piece is Captain nicks with awesome fried or broiled Haddock and you get portions that overflow the plate ! And that dining in the train car is a unique addition too .
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 4:19 am

United1 wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
United1 wrote:

Bangor at this point....if they are doing that this early on they are probably stopping to get a new crew to finish the flight (ie crew rest limitations) or there is something en route causing them to burn more fuel than normal. Would assume they will also clear customs at BGR before heading to EWR.

If they actually end up at Bangor, that would make sense.

Given their luck, anything could happen


Everything I can find is showing BGR at this point...Gander may have been the initial file.

First time I checked (both Google and FR24), it was supposed to go to Gander. They did change it to Bangor since (maybe they found more fuel LOL)
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sat May 13, 2017 4:21 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
United1 wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
If they actually end up at Bangor, that would make sense.

Given their luck, anything could happen


Everything I can find is showing BGR at this point...Gander may have been the initial file.


At least in BGR they do not have to walk far outside the terminal for good food down the road a piece is Captain nicks with awesome fried or broiled Haddock and you get portions that overflow the plate ! And that dining in the train car is a unique addition too .

Yes, because that's totally relevant.
Chances are, this is a fuel/crew stop, and they'll be at the terminal for as little as possible. Since they're only trying to hop BGR-EWR, and therefore need very little extra fuel, I think as little as 30-45 minutes on the tarmac is possible. That's not the kind of time for passengers to deplane
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sun May 14, 2017 5:07 am

jumbojet wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
In this case very smart of UA to return to BOM. No way in hell I'd want to divert to ALA or anywhere else if I was stable enough to return to BOM. Haven't heard much about this incident so I trust UA took good care of the pax w/r/t hotel rooms, rebookings.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are horror stories about the lack of UA good care from previous BOM cancellations. Total disasters in fact. There are lots first hand accounts on flyertalk of the vast problems with UA 49 over the years and the lack of adequate customer service presence at BOM


Do you think stopping in Tehran or Samarkand would be a better option for a canceled flight?
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Sun May 14, 2017 5:46 am

jumbojet wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
In this case very smart of UA to return to BOM. No way in hell I'd want to divert to ALA or anywhere else if I was stable enough to return to BOM. Haven't heard much about this incident so I trust UA took good care of the pax w/r/t hotel rooms, rebookings.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are horror stories about the lack of UA good care from previous BOM cancellations. Total disasters in fact. There are lots first hand accounts on flyertalk of the vast problems with UA 49 over the years and the lack of adequate customer service presence at BOM


I'm guessing UA went out of their way to make sure the passengers were taken care of this time around. Last thing they need is to be dragged through the news against their will in India too.
 
User avatar
Irehdna
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Today's UA 49 diverted back to BOM?

Mon May 15, 2017 1:37 am

On another note, UA 49 for both today and tomorrow (15 and 16 May) is scheduled to depart at 17:30. Does anybody know the reason why? I know that the May 13 EWR-BOM was cancelled and moved to a noon flight on May 14, but what's the deal with the 16 May flight being delayed? (Was there an issue on the May 14 EWR-BOM that caused the delay?)

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos