NH175 is currently returning to LAX after the following tweet reports that there is a passenger on board the aircraft that shouldn't be onboard this flight

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/9 ... 8084074496

To follow the flight refer to

https://www.flightradar24.com/ANA175/ff2bfc0

Looks like someone has some explaining to do!

That's ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just continue to the destination and send that person back on the next flight to LAX?

I think someone is gonna be at the un-employment line. Things do happen, but when when there is an alert for not matching up the right passenger and boarding pass and its ignored...

If the flight was airborne for 4 hours before returning I would guess the flight is not going to Tokyo tonight.

According to Flight Aware the flight was airborne for 7 Hours and 56 Minutes. It just landed at 7:35 PM Lax time.

Edit to add flight time

Chrissy Teigen's twitter has quite a bit on info:

https://twitter.com/chrissyteigen

They keep saying the person had a United ticket. We are on ANA. So basically the boarding pass scanner is just a beedoop machine that makes beedoop noises that register to nowhere

That twitter account makes this sound even more insane. WTF?

If the ticket was from UA why wouldn't they treat them as a code share and sort it out in Tokyo assuming the Ticket was to NRT?
It doesnt seem to be some sort of Security problem or they would have diverted to nearest Airport like SEA or ANC etc

UA32 (LAX-NRT) departs at the same time NH175 does, both at 10:45AM. Seems the pax got on the wrong flight to NRT, though I dont know how he/she got away with it as UA departs out of T7 and NH out of TBIT. Maybe the pax was booked on the UA flight with NH code share flight numbers, and thus thought it was an ANA flight.

Anyway, if the pax had a UA ticket to NRT, why then return 4 hours into the flight?

I'm not sure I can think of any scenario to answer that question let alone something as simple and stupid as this appears to be.

There has to be more to this story

Seems like it would be as simple as taking them off the one flight in the computer, book him on the other, and on him onto that flight. And using the passport info already stored. If it all checks out, doesn’t seem like it would have needed to divert.

One would think that a UA ticket for what looks like a UA codeshare number out of TBIT would be a red flag.

Could there be a penalty or fine for something like this that is more expensive than the return?

B747forever wrote:

UA32 (LAX-NRT) departs at the same time NH175 does, both at 10:45AM. Seems the pax got on the wrong flight to NRT, though I dont know how he/she got away with it as UA departs out of T7 and NH out of TBIT. Maybe the pax was booked on the UA flight with NH code share flight numbers, and thus thought it was an ANA flight.

Anyway, if the pax had a UA ticket to NRT, why then return 4 hours into the flight?

If Japan's policies are anything like some other countries, having a flight manifest that doesn't match the actual people on board is a big no-no and can cause lots of fines on both sides of the borders as well as lots of snafus with the flight, crew, plane, etc. There obviously has to be more to the story though because we've had flights come through before into the US with no flight manifest at all and no APIS data in the system for pax and the flight still operated correctly.

ericm2031 wrote:

Seems like it would be as simple as taking them off the one flight in the computer, book him on the other, and on him onto that flight. And using the passport info already stored. If it all checks out, doesn’t seem like it would have needed to divert.

Cross-carrier booking, much less on INTL flights after departure is never that simple.

This is definitely not just some cross booking. Again from Chrissy's feed:

they put our plane in a secure area. We can’t be near the common folk

Police were interviewing all the people seated around the mystery person once we got off the plane. Why would they do this! I MUST KNOW MORE

There was an episode of Full House (American Sit-com) Where Stephanie and Michelle accidentally boarded a flight to Auckland (out of SFO) and had to go all the way and back. not at all related to this incident, but made me think of it immediately.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0584117/

The passenger probably booked through ANA and selected the UA flight under the NH codeshare. I saw this alot at LH, customers would come to the counter saying they are on LH to FRA or MUC. Further review of their printed itenerary would say LH8xxx operated by United #46. If they were on UA's MUC flight, that is easier to catch as LH didn't fly to MUC from IAH at the time on their own metal. Some pax got very upset when us agents would break that news to them.

The agent scanning boarding passes in LAX must have not been paying attention to the beeps.

vpat48 wrote:

Police were interviewing all the people seated around the mystery person once we got off the plane. Why would they do this! I MUST KNOW MORE

Because madam Tiegen is entitled to everything.

DBun wrote:

There was an episode of Full House (American Sit-com) Where Stephanie and Michelle accidentally boarded a flight to Auckland (out of SFO) and had to go all the way and back. not at all related to this incident, but made me think of it immediately.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0584117/

Thinking they were going to Oakland!

Way back when AR operated EZE-Rio Gallegos-AKL, the 747 was parked next to a 737 going from Rio Gallegos to AEP. And old lady on her way to AEP was none the wiser and got on the 747. It was 4 hrs until anybody realized the mistake and the flight went on to AKL. They brought her back on the return.

DBun wrote:

There was an episode of Full House (American Sit-com) Where Stephanie and Michelle accidentally boarded a flight to Auckland (out of SFO) and had to go all the way and back. not at all related to this incident, but made me think of it immediately.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0584117/

Which was based on an actual incident where a man meaning to book OAK was sent to AKL. Happened in 1985, remember reading the story when I was A teen.

As a passenger service agent, I seriously can't comprehend how these things happen! I have not read the story. However, I can probably guess a few things that happened.

1. Agents made a mistake by scanning the boarding pass, but did not see that it was not accepted and the pax proceeded onto the aircraft. Or, it could be the agent forgot to scan the boarding pass (it happens!!)

2. Regardless, whether it is a code-share flight, if the boarding pass is not for that flight, the system will pick it up.

3. The pax concerned must have been manually boarded. This is done by entering the sequence number or seat number into the system.

4. If sequence number had been entered manually, the system would tell you that either that pax had already boarded if the correct pax had arrived after or before the pax concerned.

5. It could be the legit pax shared the same sequence number as the pax concerned, however, could have still been at home or whatever and therefore there was no indication from system that the particular sequence number had already boarded. It is not uncommon for web-check pax not to show up and we do seat checks just to be sure whether they are onboard or not.

So, it could be the agents were not awake or they made a genuine mistake! I'm just trying to figure out how they found out 4 hours later?! Did the crew find the pax figure did not correspond to the manifest? Did the pax say something? Or did sequence X show up and they found in the system that he had already boarded?

flydiude380, but aren´t FA´s supposed to do a manual count just before doors are closed?

AR385 wrote:

flydiude380, but aren´t FA´s supposed to do a manual count just before doors are closed?

I only see that on regional jets as they need it for weight and balance, I've never seen counting being done on mainline flights

Often asked myself while walking on the tarmac how easy/difficult it would be to sneak into another Ryanair plane ready for departure without the flight crew noticing.

ericm2031 wrote:

AR385 wrote:

flydiude380, but aren´t FA´s supposed to do a manual count just before doors are closed?

I only see that on regional jets as they need it for weight and balance, I've never seen counting being done on mainline flights

Really? It's happened on the vast majority of flights I've ever taken.

The person had a ticket on the same route on another airline and posed no security risk. They should've let them stay and not delay a flight by several hours. Instead, just sort things out in Tokyo

scbriml wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

AR385 wrote:

flydiude380, but aren´t FA´s supposed to do a manual count just before doors are closed?

I only see that on regional jets as they need it for weight and balance, I've never seen counting being done on mainline flights

Really? It's happened on the vast majority of flights I've ever taken.

It comes down to airline policy. Some do, some don't.

ericm2031 wrote:

AR385 wrote:

flydiude380, but aren´t FA´s supposed to do a manual count just before doors are closed?

I only see that on regional jets as they need it for weight and balance, I've never seen counting being done on mainline flights

I have never been on a flight, wether mainline or regional when a manual count is not done. Wether it be an A380 or a Metro III.

Manual count is still sop on almost every regulated airline.

It is?

I fly 6-8 flights a week and I never see FAs counting pax unless the number boarded doesnt equal the number on paperwork.

Thats just my airline tho

Counting passengers??? I sure would like to know what flights your all on, every flight I’ve taken in the last ten years is either 100% full or nearly that and they just count the one or two empty seats.

crownvic wrote:

Counting passengers??? I sure would like to know what flights your all on, every flight I’ve taken in the last ten years is either 100% full or nearly that and they just count the one or two empty seats.

It's still counting pax, whether heads or empty seats. Yes?

Counting heads a regular occurrence on easyJet until about 2 or so years ago when it suddenly stopped. About the same time the need to show the boarding card as you entered the plane was stopped.

Unlucky that their seat wasnt occupied else surely it would have been noticed whilst boarding??

Years ago I was involved in the recovery of a circumstance when CO rebooked a pax flying BHM EWR MHT to US and the agent re protected BHM PHL MAN.


Of course the tkt was valid and US had no idea. Clearly showing the general public knows NOTHING about air travel the lady found nothing odd about flying a 333 to "MHT" and by a random twist of fate happened to be traveling with her passport.


I hope she enjoyed her brief but free stay in the United Kingdom!

flydude380 wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out how they found out 4 hours later?! Did the crew find the pax figure did not correspond to the manifest? Did the pax say something? Or did sequence X show up and they found in the system that he had already boarded?

Perhaps the pax complained when the wrong food was served....

The thing I don't get about this story is why it took four hours to figure out that this person shouldn't be there. At that point the logical course of action would be to continue on to the destination and sort things out upon arrival. Even if there are fines to be levied it surely could not come close to matching the cost 8 hours of wasted fuel and crew time, not to mention re-accommodating up to 350 pax.

That's why I suspect there is something more to this story that we aren't hearing yet. Perhaps this person is a massive security risk. But then I come back to the "why did it take four hours to figure it out" question.

There's a lot that doesn't make sense here.

I had a similar case in 2015 on a HKG-ICN flight on OZ.

Over Taipei, about an 1h30 on route, the plane, a 74E, turned back to HKG. We landed, went to a remote parking, the PAX as well as the Captain disembarked. We got a new Captain (not sure where he was coming from) and left back to ICN an hour later.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/arti ... -hong-kong

Could be that unaccompanied bag came into play? But then UA flight should be diverting as well.

Having read this entire thread, no one, unless I missed it, mentioned a passport. The person involved could have been without a passport and that is why the decision was made to return to LAX. I can tell you, the crew didn't make the decision and ANA Ops would have made the call. I can assure you senior management would have been consulted. If the flight was a very light load, which it appears to be the case, it could have been more cost effective to return.

kalvado wrote:

Could be that unaccompanied bag came into play? But then UA flight should be diverting as well.

If the guy was on ANA, he would show as not being in the UA flight and his bag would be offloaded because they have to do a positive bag match for international flights. When I worked for TK we had a lady just decide she wasn't going to fly just before the door was shut. I was in the bag room that day and we had to find her bag. The ramp pulled the wrong bag because it was improperly documented in the wrong can. My boss said we were going to go through each can by hand front to back, but thankfully we found it in the first one in the forward hold. I would've hated to be the ramp lead that day.

AR385 wrote:

flydiude380, but aren´t FA´s supposed to do a manual count just before doors are closed?

It depends on the carrier. The carriers who do conduct a seat count, either use a clicker or manually count the number of pax.

Many dispatchers, however, don't take any notice of this as they see it as unreliable. It is up to us at the gate to confirm the final TOB.

Sometimes, when the load is light, it can be difficult to conduct seat checks, as, many pax move themselves grrrr and then on some carriers, such as Wizz and Blue Air, the pax don't seem to sit in their seats that correspond to their boarding passes!! Grrrr

A couple of points to make:

1. It's always interesting to figure out how something like this happened. A lot of factors need to line up before an aircraft takes off with someone onboard who shouldn't be. As others have noticed, the Gate Agents have to slip up somehow, but once onboard the plane, the seat assigned to the rogue passenger needs to be free. It is isn't, then the mistake should be picked up there and then when two passengers are somehow assigned to the same seat. Then someone has to make a mistake with the headcount, etc. etc. A great many stars which must align before something like this happens!

2. This Teigen person sounds unpleasant. I can't say I've heard of her before today, but apparently she is quite well-known. Her Tweets come across as over-entitled and narcissistic. It's all about her, which is pretty ridiculous. I noticed that the BBC described her experience as "an ordeal" in their article. I mean, come on - an aircraft diversion due to an administrative error is not an ordeal. An inconvenience? Yes. But an ordeal? No. Let's have some perspective.

I was on a flight out of ATL going to PHX and the lady next to me started small talk about Houston, where I was grew up, so that was kind of confusing. Finally I asked her where she was going she said Houston I said this flight is going to PHX. She showed me her boarding pass it was on Continental and the gate was right next door, I looked out the window at the plane next to us and said "that's your plane" as it was being pushed...I had no idea how the gate agent missed that?
Not exactly the same, but another time I was on a early morning flight from EWR to PHX in a mostly empty F class seat. About 2 hrs in a young 20ish lady was moved into the seat next to me by a FA. We got to chatting and it turns out she was going to Portland Maine but got ticketed to Portland Oregon via PHX. She said she started to think something was wrong when they served breakfast on such a short flight..

KLDC10 wrote:

A couple of points to make:

1. It's always interesting to figure out how something like this happened. A lot of factors need to line up before an aircraft takes off with someone onboard who shouldn't be. As others have noticed, the Gate Agents have to slip up somehow, but once onboard the plane, the seat assigned to the rogue passenger needs to be free. It is isn't, then the mistake should be picked up there and then when two passengers are somehow assigned to the same seat. Then someone has to make a mistake with the headcount, etc. etc. A great many stars which must align before something like this happens!

2. This Teigen person sounds unpleasant. I can't say I've heard of her before today, but apparently she is quite well-known. Her Tweets come across as over-entitled and narcissistic. It's all about her, which is pretty ridiculous. I noticed that the BBC described her experience as "an ordeal" in their article. I mean, come on - an aircraft diversion due to an administrative error is not an ordeal. An inconvenience? Yes. But an ordeal? No. Let's have some perspective.

She's a model / tv personality. Wonder at which points during the flight she was tweeting.

RL777 wrote:

Manual count is still sop on almost every regulated airline.

201.....202......203.....204 Next they will start playing duck-duck-goose as SOP?

KLDC10 wrote:

A couple of points to make:

1. It's always interesting to figure out how something like this happened. A lot of factors need to line up before an aircraft takes off with someone onboard who shouldn't be. As others have noticed, the Gate Agents have to slip up somehow, but once onboard the plane, the seat assigned to the rogue passenger needs to be free. It is isn't, then the mistake should be picked up there and then when two passengers are somehow assigned to the same seat. Then someone has to make a mistake with the headcount, etc. etc. A great many stars which must align before something like this happens!

2. This Teigen person sounds unpleasant. I can't say I've heard of her before today, but apparently she is quite well-known. Her Tweets come across as over-entitled and narcissistic. It's all about her, which is pretty ridiculous. I noticed that the BBC described her experience as "an ordeal" in their article. I mean, come on - an aircraft diversion due to an administrative error is not an ordeal. An inconvenience? Yes. But an ordeal? No. Let's have some perspective.

Please, she was a lot more entertaining and fun-hearted about it than a number of us would have been, myself included. She turned it into a rather entertaining story.

RL777 wrote:

Manual count is still sop on almost every regulated airline.

Interesting comment. In the US under FAA jurisdiction it might be mandatory, but then your quote should be "on every regulated". However, I know it is not mandatory as if the carrier can show their check in system is accurate enough, IIRC 99.99% of the time, then no crosscheck is necessary. The issue is not for passengers but for weight and balance.

I have flown for many foreign (non-US) carriers and it is not mandatory there.

So much is unknown, and here we are relying on twitter for our entire news feed. I guess that's the modern world.

So, the star couple Chrissy Teigen and John Legend (who, and er...who?) were travelling from Los Angeles to Tokyo when the discovery of an ‘unauthorised person’ on board forced the flight to turn back. Apparently the event is not a twitter hoax as LAX Airport Police told news channel ABC7 the flight had to turn back “due to a mix-up” and officers would be on hand when the plane landed. I don't have a link for that, but it sounds reasonable.

I'm trying to imagine the various scenarios that created this situation. If it was a simple mistake, by the passenger (getting on the wrong flight), the gate agent(s) not spotting this, and the FA's (also not spotting this), then fair enough. Continue the flight to Tokyo, and deal with it there. If the passenger was perceived as a security risk, separate them from their hand luggage, subject them to a thorough body search (or ask them to justify why they wouldn't agree to such a search under the circumstances), and put them in a seat where the FAs can keep a close eye on them, preferably next to a 6ft6in 220lb ex-NFL player who isn't going to take any xxxx from anyone.
Sorted!
At the end of the day, if this unauthorised passenger was a genuine threat, they still had four hours opportunity for mischief whilst the flight turned back, so seven hours continuing to NRT isn't much difference.

The only scenario where turning back made sense was if this passenger was already known to US authorities and was seeking asylum in Japan. I could add something here involving the words "President", "Trump" and "rats leaving sinking ship", but let's keep this on topic. Even so, if this was an escaped con or similar, I suspect arrangements could be made at NRT whereby they were detained, denied entry to Japan, and flown straight back to the US, in handcuffs.

Instead, we have 300+ passengers, plus crew, all seriously inconvenienced because of one person. Have we lost all sense of proportion here?

ps. regarding the poster who asked if a lack of passport was a possible issue; there are standard procedures for all those people who lose their passport, have it stolen, or maybe arrive at their destination and find that their passport is a forgery (which they already knew in most cases). Most airports deal with this situation every day, and that in itself doesn't require an aircraft to turn around.

pps regarding various comments on counting heads; whenever I have flown on European airlines, the FAs count everyone on board. In that respect, more experienced FAs on Ryanair 737s know their 6x tables off by heart, and as somebody else pointed out, it's even easier just to count the empty seats.

Kevin Mcallister. Slippery as ever.