Myriad
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:28 am

UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:20 am

Anyone know the story on this diversion?
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 9112
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:23 am

Myriad wrote:
Anyone know the story on this diversion?


It was a medical diversion
Forum Moderator
 
Myriad
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:28 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:26 am

Thanks
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:01 am

According to flightaware, they're going to fly back to EWR: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /CYYR/KEWR

Is this just a flightaware bug? Or is there another reason for this?
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 9112
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:32 am

FA9295 wrote:
According to flightaware, they're going to fly back to EWR: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /CYYR/KEWR
Is this just a flightaware bug? Or is there another reason for this?


I would say its become a crewing issue, with EWR-HKG at around 16 hours there would only be a small window of opportunity before the crew times out. I have heard on PER-LHR if there is a delay such as a tech issue the crew only have 90 minutes before they time out, so I would expect domething similar here. It is also easier for them to return to EWR as thats home base and easier to accomodate crew and passengers if needed.
Forum Moderator
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:47 am

qf789 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
According to flightaware, they're going to fly back to EWR: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /CYYR/KEWR
Is this just a flightaware bug? Or is there another reason for this?


I would say its become a crewing issue, with EWR-HKG at around 16 hours there would only be a small window of opportunity before the crew times out. I have heard on PER-LHR if there is a delay such as a tech issue the crew only have 90 minutes before they time out, so I would expect domething similar here. It is also easier for them to return to EWR as thats home base and easier to accomodate crew and passengers if needed.


While I have no actual information, a crew duty issue makes sense. They were over 500 miles from goose bay when they diverted so that was 1:45 extra flying time. With the ground time to refuel and remove the passenger, I don’t think they would be able to continue within duty limits.

I pity the passengers going on a 12 hour journey from EWR to EWR where they arrive back at 3am in a blizzard
 
asuflyer
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:52 am

There was a pax who suffered seizures, hence the medical diversion. The crew duty time will be exceed if they continue to HKG.
 
Bradin
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:04 am

qf789 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
According to flightaware, they're going to fly back to EWR: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /CYYR/KEWR
Is this just a flightaware bug? Or is there another reason for this?


I would say its become a crewing issue, with EWR-HKG at around 16 hours there would only be a small window of opportunity before the crew times out. I have heard on PER-LHR if there is a delay such as a tech issue the crew only have 90 minutes before they time out, so I would expect domething similar here. It is also easier for them to return to EWR as thats home base and easier to accomodate crew and passengers if needed.


I wonder how much UA will be able to accommodate the passengers because there is a huge winter storm barreling down on the Midwest and East Coast.
 
MaksFly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:50 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:12 am

So question... obviously there are now major costs involved, such as the burned jet fuel, etc.
In cases of medical diversions, does United or other airlines send the customer the bill or is it just part of doing business?
 
Antarius
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:20 am

MaksFly wrote:
So question... obviously there are now major costs involved, such as the burned jet fuel, etc.
In cases of medical diversions, does United or other airlines send the customer the bill or is it just part of doing business?


Airlines eat the cost. I believe they have insurance as well for such things.
19:SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI BNA
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1104
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:20 am

Was originally medical diversion but then plane went on mechanical. Last I heard, customs is closed so they can't deplane the passengers
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:45 am

asuflyer wrote:
There was a pax who suffered seizures, hence the medical diversion. The crew duty time will be exceed if they continue to HKG.


if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.
 
Jerseyguy
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:23 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I pity the passengers going on a 12 hour journey from EWR to EWR where they arrive back at 3am in a blizzard

No blizzard here, Newark is expected to get mostly rain. The official forecast is for 2-3" of snow by no means a blizzard. Newark is 38F right now and the temp is expected to rise.
Webmaster of an unoffical TTN page see profile for details
 
scflyboy
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:10 pm

Appears a Rescue Flight has been set-up; UA 2758 Now scheduled to depart EWR at 0730 Local for YYR.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2217
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:44 pm

jumbojet wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
There was a pax who suffered seizures, hence the medical diversion. The crew duty time will be exceed if they continue to HKG.


if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.


Why would they send passengers a couple thousand miles out of their way? They do, after all, have a fairly sizeable operation at EWR (what with it being a hub and all), and returning back to EWR then going to HKG is still 1000 miles shorter than YYR-SFO-HKG.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:14 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
There was a pax who suffered seizures, hence the medical diversion. The crew duty time will be exceed if they continue to HKG.


if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.


Why would they send passengers a couple thousand miles out of their way? They do, after all, have a fairly sizeable operation at EWR (what with it being a hub and all), and returning back to EWR then going to HKG is still 1000 miles shorter than YYR-SFO-HKG.


I think the suggestion of rerouting through SFO and adding an extra thousand miles to the journey is one of the dumbest armchair airline manager suggestions.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:17 pm

scflyboy wrote:
Appears a Rescue Flight has been set-up; UA 2758 Now scheduled to depart EWR at 0730 Local for YYR.


Ouch. A mechanical on top of a medical diversion is terrible for the passengers. The rescue flight is going EWR-YYR-EWR due to duty limitations. The passengers will have gone on a day long journey to nowhere
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:40 pm

jumbojet wrote:
asuflyer wrote:
There was a pax who suffered seizures, hence the medical diversion. The crew duty time will be exceed if they continue to HKG.


if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.

Thankfully you’re not making any operational decisions
SFO
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1943
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:32 pm

jumbojet wrote:
...Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.


SFO is UA's largest base? By what metric? Number of flights or what? And would a flight from Goose Bay to SFO have even been legal?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:26 pm

so it looks like the rescue flight also ran into an operational issue?

any updates? according to flightaware, there is a UA 777 enroute from YYR to EWR now and there is also a UA 777 scheduled for tomorrow. I am guessing tomorrow's 777 is the one that went mechanical and today;s is the rescue flight?

This looks like it will clock in at a 26 hour trip to nowhere. Wonder how UA will compensate the passengers. With the flight scheduled to land around 1700 hours, it looks like these poor folks will not even be leaving for HKG until Monday at the earliest.
Last edited by jumbojet on Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:30 pm

jumbojet wrote:
so it looks like the rescue flight also ran into an operational issue?

any updates? according to flightaware, there is a UA 777 enroute from YYR to EWR now and there is also a UA 777 scheduled for tomorrow. I am guessing tomorrow's 777 is the one that went mechanical and today;s is the rescue flight?

This looks like it will clock in at a 26 hour trip to nowhere. Wonder how UA will compensate the passengers.


The rescue flight is on its way back to EWR. It was on the ground for About 4 hours.

The original plane is scheduled to return to EWR tomorrow.
 
ghYHZ
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pm

Some Info on Goose Bay YYR.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1406883
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:27 pm

taking a wild guess, the pax will get hotel accommodations for the night and will try the flight again tomorrow, on the original 777. I don't think they ever had the chance to leave the plane. I guess they probably had food delivered and bathrooms serviced? If you were lucky enough to have a business class seat, that would've been a huge blessing.
Last edited by jumbojet on Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:31 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
jumbojet wrote:
taking a wild guess, the pax will get hotel accommodations for the night and will try the flight again tomorrow, on the original 777. I don't think they ever had the chance to leave the plane until the rescue 777 arrived earlier today.

The flight was cancelled so no. They will be reaccomodated on other flights.
SFO
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:32 pm

flyguy84 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
jumbojet wrote:
taking a wild guess, the pax will get hotel accommodations for the night and will try the flight again tomorrow, on the original 777. I don't think they ever had the chance to leave the plane until the rescue 777 arrived earlier today.

The flight was cancelled so no. They will be reaccomodated on other flights.



As in having to now take a flight to another UA hub and go to HKG from there?
 
User avatar
DFWflightpath
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:33 pm

does anyone know what malfunctioned on the door to cause the mechanical delay?
 
B748eye
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:37 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
jumbojet wrote:

if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.


Why would they send passengers a couple thousand miles out of their way? They do, after all, have a fairly sizeable operation at EWR (what with it being a hub and all), and returning back to EWR then going to HKG is still 1000 miles shorter than YYR-SFO-HKG.


I think the suggestion of rerouting through SFO and adding an extra thousand miles to the journey is one of the dumbest armchair airline manager suggestions.

Easy Romeo.
Would suggest the previous poster confused YYR with YVR, hence the suggestion to divert to SFO
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1420
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:42 pm

B748eye wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:

Why would they send passengers a couple thousand miles out of their way? They do, after all, have a fairly sizeable operation at EWR (what with it being a hub and all), and returning back to EWR then going to HKG is still 1000 miles shorter than YYR-SFO-HKG.


I think the suggestion of rerouting through SFO and adding an extra thousand miles to the journey is one of the dumbest armchair airline manager suggestions.

Easy Romeo.
Would suggest the previous poster confused YYR with YVR, hence the suggestion to divert to SFO

Jumbojet has a known history of making nonsense and especially to UA so he should simply be ignored.

Back to topic, feel bad for these pax when the plane broke in a medical diversion! An awful day to be had.

Michael
 
n92r03
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:56 pm

Tough break for these pax and crew. Hope the sick pax is ok. SCMP article said the pax got coffee and donuts from Tim Horton’s. The link below has more info. Ironic but I flew N76010 to HKG many years ago and was delayed out of EWR due to a door latch malfunction.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 37591.html
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:12 pm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfound ... -1.4985858


Communication poor, passenger says
Temperatures on the plane quickly plummeted to "uncomfortable" levels, said passenger Sonjay Dutt, a professional wrestler en route to Hong Kong for a show.
Crew handed out blankets, but according to Dutt, they were able to offer little else to assuage mounting anger from passengers.


SONJAY

@sonjaydutterson
· 9h

Replying to @sonjaydutterson
Pilots giving out @united CEO email for us to voice our displeasure.

SONJAY

@sonjaydutterson

Goose Bay officials just brought on Tim Hortons snacks and water. We were running out of food. Thanks to the local officials for their help.


Other passengers on board tweeted out complaints to United, wondering why they had been told a replacement plane was in the air and were not informed of further delays. Dutt said a pilot told passengers to email United's CEO with complaints about communication practices.
A Twitter account sprang up Sunday morning poking fun at the situation.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:19 pm

Why are you taking glee?
 
jayunited
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:49 pm

jumbojet wrote:
if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.


The original plan was to fly the aircraft back to EWR which is only a few hours from YYR, re-crew, re-cater and then re-launch the flight. However while on the ground at YYR the crew had an indicator light go off on door 3R, local maintenance inspected the door but needed to open the door as well to fix the problem. I don't know what the weather condition were in Goose Bay except it was extremely cold that is all the report mentions I don't know if there precipitation but somehow during the maintenance inspection moisture was accumulating and the moment maintenance close the door it froze and they couldn't get the door to reopen only the pressure relief vent located on the door would open.
In this condition the aircraft is not considered airworthy but the situation went from bad to worst as local authorities would not allow any customers to deplane until local customs arrived at 8am this morning. So passenger were stuck on the aircraft overnight. According to the report passengers were provided food and UA did order more food and the local authorities did allow that food to be delivered to the aircraft and the airport but unfortunately passengers were trapped on board on the ground from 9:39pm to 8am this morning. A full recrew of both pilots and FA's were called in however again according to the report it took some of these crew member over 6 hours to get to the airport probably due to the conditions they were facing in the Northeast. (Where the conditions in the Northeast really that bad that it took some of these crew member over 6 hours to get to the airport?)
One thing the report is missing is a detailed timeline as to when the problem with the door started, how long the door was open, and when did it become clear this aircraft wasn't leaving Goose Bay. I think the timeline is important because UA had several 777 leaving EWR for west coast and international destinations. If the crew that was called in to operate the rescue flight hadn't showed up I think the right thing to do would have been to delay one of those 777 flights and steal that entire crew and use them to operate the rescue mission to get these people back to EWR. Instead UA chose to let those flights leave on time and wait for the entire rescue flight crew both pilots and FA's to show up at EWR. I personally have a problem with that decision. While UA can argue that they had no control over local authorities not letting passengers off and they had no control over the weather and fact the door froze shut they did have control over the rescue mission and they should had taken the first 777 pilot and first officer to show up at EWR and any available FA so they could get the rescue mission to YYR as quickly as possible. Instead UA delayed the rescue mission over 7 hours while allowing other 777 flights to leave EWR on-time. As a result the rescue flight didn't actually leave YYR till 3:23pm meaning these passenger were stuck in YYR for about 18 hours. If UA done a few things differently we could have gotten these passengers out of YYR a lot sooner than 18 hours.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:10 am

Why delay another flight?

You create more downline problems.
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:16 am

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
if that is in fact the case, seems like a bad operational decision by UA. Why not fly to SFO, surely they don't have to worry about duty times from Goose to SFO and once at SFO, UA's largest base, a new crew would certainly be at the ready to continue onto HKG.


The original plan was to fly the aircraft back to EWR which is only a few hours from YYR, re-crew, re-cater and then re-launch the flight. However while on the ground at YYR the crew had an indicator light go off on door 3R, local maintenance inspected the door but needed to open the door as well to fix the problem. I don't know what the weather condition were in Goose Bay except it was extremely cold that is all the report mentions I don't know if there precipitation but somehow during the maintenance inspection moisture was accumulating and the moment maintenance close the door it froze and they couldn't get the door to reopen only the pressure relief vent located on the door would open.
In this condition the aircraft is not considered airworthy but the situation went from bad to worst as local authorities would not allow any customers to deplane until local customs arrived at 8am this morning. So passenger were stuck on the aircraft overnight. According to the report passengers were provided food and UA did order more food and the local authorities did allow that food to be delivered to the aircraft and the airport but unfortunately passengers were trapped on board on the ground from 9:39pm to 8am this morning. A full recrew of both pilots and FA's were called in however again according to the report it took some of these crew member over 6 hours to get to the airport probably due to the conditions they were facing in the Northeast. (Where the conditions in the Northeast really that bad that it took some of these crew member over 6 hours to get to the airport?)
One thing the report is missing is a detailed timeline as to when the problem with the door started, how long the door was open, and when did it become clear this aircraft wasn't leaving Goose Bay. I think the timeline is important because UA had several 777 leaving EWR for west coast and international destinations. If the crew that was called in to operate the rescue flight hadn't showed up I think the right thing to do would have been to delay one of those 777 flights and steal that entire crew and use them to operate the rescue mission to get these people back to EWR. Instead UA chose to let those flights leave on time and wait for the entire rescue flight crew both pilots and FA's to show up at EWR. I personally have a problem with that decision. While UA can argue that they had no control over local authorities not letting passengers off and they had no control over the weather and fact the door froze shut they did have control over the rescue mission and they should had taken the first 777 pilot and first officer to show up at EWR and any available FA so they could get the rescue mission to YYR as quickly as possible. Instead UA delayed the rescue mission over 7 hours while allowing other 777 flights to leave EWR on-time. As a result the rescue flight didn't actually leave YYR till 3:23pm meaning these passenger were stuck in YYR for about 18 hours. If UA done a few things differently we could have gotten these passengers out of YYR a lot sooner than 18 hours.

A lot of the “decision makers” in the NOC have been around way too long and don’t think outside of the box very often.

Hell, they could have sent two 737 up there to pick up the people a lot faster.
SFO
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:50 am

all over the news now. Just a bunch of some bad luck for UA. I believe the rescue plane had some sort of a delay leaving Newark. I wonder how many 777 spares are available at that time of the night or, as someone else had mentioned, why couldn't they have sent up two of another plane to rescue pax?

Feel bad for the folks that at this point have decided to go back home but are facing further delays either trying to get a seat or with the weather.
 
kt9392
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:12 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:58 am

here is the compensation from UA that I heard from my friend on flight: full refund on airfare, 500 e-certifacte, 100 mastercard, hotel and food voucher until next day.
 
iahcsr
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:43 am

kt9392 wrote:
here is the compensation from UA that I heard from my friend on flight: full refund on airfare, 500 e-certifacte, 100 mastercard, hotel and food voucher until next day.

This is likely not all they will get when all is said and done.
As for what UA NOC ‘should’ have done... the phrases Monday morning quarterbacking and hindsight is 20/20 clearly apply here.
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21587
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:36 am

I'm usually pretty critical of airlines in cases like this but in this case, given the unfolding nature of events, there's not a lot UA could have done. Maybe sent in a couple of smaller planes sooner from SFO to rescue the pax and bring them back to SFO where they could overnight and then proceed to HKG if they still wanted to. But the pax still would have had to sit on the aircraft for a good 6-8 hours before the rescue planes would arrive.

It was just a perfect storm.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1104
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:49 am

This was just a perfect storm of issues. The FBO in YYR was handling the diversion and only had room for about 30-40 people so they couldn't deplane everyone and with customs not open until 8am this morning, that already created a lengthy delay onboard (not to mention there were no hotels either). Even once customs was to open and process the flight, they estimated it would be about a 6-7 hour process due to staffing.

I'm not sure what exactly delayed the rescue flight so long, but apparently it caused the crew to not be legal for the roundtrip back to EWR...I doubt they have many 777 reserve crews in the middle of the night in EWR so they probably exhausted their only available crew and had to wait until the morning to get another.

AS gave out $1000 vouchers, full refunds, and covered expenses for their incident in BUF so I'd expect UA will increase what they've offered considering this was quite a bit worse for the passengers than AS's BUF incident.
 
tj1230
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:48 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:07 am

Here is an article from the cbc explaining what happened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfound ... -1.4985858

Looks like it was a frosty -29 C (-20 F) air temperature, not sure what the wind chill was but probably in the -40 C/F range. (interesting Fahrenheit and Celcius are the same at -40). Anyways for people who have never experienced -29C its pretty cold even for people who are used to cold weather.

It looks like the door froze when it was open to drop off the passenger at the hospital. For those of you who have had frozen car locks you know the feeling.

Anyways its a harsh climate but this airport (military base) is at a strategic location in that it is one of the places that you have to fly over if you are coming from Europe to North America that was originally setup during World War II by the Canadians, Americans and British for transatlantic flights.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 666
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:34 am

ericm2031 wrote:
Was originally medical diversion but then plane went on mechanical. Last I heard, customs is closed so they can't deplane the passengers


Doubtful on a 777. Any 15-20 year old 757 or 767 I could certainly see.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
MSJYOP28Apilot
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:09 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:40 am

YYR is no stranger to transatlantic diversions late at night. I am surprised they were not prepared to handle a 777 diversion from a customs point of view or even having a plan to allow passengers to deplane. It isnt like this is a new or rare thing for YYR.
 
ryanov
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:13 am

I'd be interested to know, from an insider standpoint, is if there some valid reason these things routinely seem to take so long? I know a possible answer is simply economic, but I'm curious if there's more. I was scheduled to be on a Delta flight in 2006 out of GCM to ATL when the airplane broke -- something on the wing that allegedly had to dry for hours after it was repaired. It was early evening. We weren't notified until it was too late to get on other flights -- that much I understand. However, they tried to fly us out (standby without telling us) on another carrier, and ultimately did on multiple American flights (except for passengers bound for Atlanta, who were kept with the original aircraft -- I believe it was N987DL). I was probably delayed almost 24 hours, and we were under 3 hours away from Atlanta. Apparently the parts and possibly a mechanic flew commercial. I assume there must be a reason they didn't just send a new airplane down, but I don't know what it could be. It seems all carriers occasionally do this.

1989worstyear wrote:
ericm2031 wrote:
Was originally medical diversion but then plane went on mechanical. Last I heard, customs is closed so they can't deplane the passengers


Doubtful on a 777. Any 15-20 year old 757 or 767 I could certainly see.

Yeah, never on a 19 year old 777. Everyone knows that a plane doesn't break for the first decade or more.
 
dc10co
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:41 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:29 am

What I don’t understand is how this is even news. DL had a similar issue on Christmas Eve where passengers were forced to remain onboard for 12 hours in frigid temps (and that plane diverted due to a MX issue not a medical emergency), yet I don’t recall seeing the news raking DL over the coals over an issue that was also largely out of their control.

I understand that there very well could have been better choices made by NOC but it is also easy to play armchair quarterback after the fact.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... _title_1.1
Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.
 
777Mech
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:15 am

dc10co wrote:
What I don’t understand is how this is even news. DL had a similar issue on Christmas Eve where passengers were forced to remain onboard for 12 hours in frigid temps (and that plane diverted due to a MX issue not a medical emergency), yet I don’t recall seeing the news raking DL over the coals over an issue that was also largely out of their control.

I understand that there very well could have been better choices made by NOC but it is also easy to play armchair quarterback after the fact.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... _title_1.1


Those pax were allowed to deplane into the hangar in SYA, so you can go ahead and get your facts straight on that.

Also, DL clearly communicated their intentions to the pax and had the passengers off a remote island quicker than UA could get pax out of a major Canadian airport.

This is why DL wasnt ranked over the coals. It's simply piss poor planning on UA's part.
 
fraT
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:32 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:35 am

777Mech wrote:

Those pax were allowed to deplane into the hangar in SYA, so you can go ahead and get your facts straight on that.

Also, DL clearly communicated their intentions to the pax and had the passengers off a remote island quicker than UA could get pax out of a major Canadian airport.

This is why DL wasnt ranked over the coals. It's simply piss poor planning on UA's part.


Goose Bay is a major Canadian airport? You must be kidding. While it is not as remote as the DL diversion airport, calling it a major airport is ridiculous.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:54 pm

Some more information. I'll let others decide whether UA made the right call or not.

Maybe UA could've avoided this whole incident had they decided to divert right away? If someone is having seizures, why would you even consider trying to continue on for 16 hours?

The passenger in question started having seizures 45 minutes into the flight. An appeal was made for medical assistance on board. The pilots initially decided to continue but while the aircraft was off the coast of Greenland, the travelers condition worsened and at that point they opted to divert.


So, 45 minutes after leaving EWR, initial seizure started. If they decided to divert right away, that would put them pretty close to BOS or at least in a position for a speedy return to EWR. I think its a valid point to at least question the reasoning behind trying to continue on with a 16 hour flight when a passenger, within 45 minutes of takeoff, suffered a seizure.
 
User avatar
Amwest2United
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:36 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:16 pm

fraT wrote:
777Mech wrote:

Those pax were allowed to deplane into the hangar in SYA, so you can go ahead and get your facts straight on that.

Also, DL clearly communicated their intentions to the pax and had the passengers off a remote island quicker than UA could get pax out of a major Canadian airport.

This is why DL wasnt ranked over the coals. It's simply piss poor planning on UA's part.


Goose Bay is a major Canadian airport? You must be kidding. While it is not as remote as the DL diversion airport, calling it a major airport is ridiculous.


Also, SYA is an American Airport,, Canadian Officials would not allow UA to deplane anyone without Customs and Border being available at the airport.

Also seems to me many are still confusing YYR and YVR - YYR is North Eastern Canada, not Western Canada, so any flights to/from SFO would be 5 hours plus one way. EWR is the closet HUB, then IAD or ORD..

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Happy ... 60.3260842
Life is what happens to you while you making plans to live it!
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:24 pm

This is in direct reply to JayUnited, post #32. (and I am not saying this to slam United, as all airlines react diffferently and have different policies in place for diversions)

It was very apparernt from the beginning that the problem involved a door. Instead of waiting to put mechanics on the rescue flight, which didnt leave until quite some time later, why not fly mechanics up there ASAP, via some other means, private jet, a spare UA plane, to try and solve the issue.

I know of another airline that will send mechanics out on a private jet or an available spare way ahead of any possible rescue flight. Does UA do the same but for whatever reason, couldn't do that this time around?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14371
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:31 pm

The airport that this flight was diverted to was likely the closest one they could choose for the need of the sick pax, after determining what their condition was, that this was a 12 hour, long haul flight, possibly quite full of pax so burning off some fuel was necessary to be able to land under max landing weight. This flight is also tight for duty times for crews, then add in the door issue and all bets are off. While EWR is a major UA base, especially for 777's, I doubt US had a spare 777 around and could get a qualified crew set up in a timely fashion from EWR. Then you had the limited Customs and Immigration staff and facilities available. There were some issues with weather in the EWR/NYC area Saturday and Sunday, but more about rain and wind instead originally expected snow but that could have held up crewing.

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