PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:48 pm

jumbojet wrote:
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.


If the folks in the know did not advise diverting then they likely kept going thinking it was under control. When the condition worsened, the advice changed and they landed.

Often when this happens the argument breaks out on whether the decision was the right one or the wrong one. It’s a hindsight argument and I’m not sure what we expect to come of it? Honestly, if it weren’t for the frozen door we wouldn’t even be discussing it so I think it’s ultimately irrelevant.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:07 pm

This thread is an example of what has gone wrong with a.net. An airplane doesn't divert for a medical reason unless it's serious...i.e. life threatening. And out of 50 posts, not one expression of concern about the prognosis or even survival of the passenger? Instead we have dozens of posts wondering if the other passengers got free pizza mixed in with a few posts about a door handle and one gleeful poster celebrating the inconvenience a medical diversion causes. Some people should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, what is the obsession with SFO in this thread? The original flight was EWR-HKG, a routing that goes nowhere near SFO. The diversion was to YYR; sending a plane to get the pax and take them to SFO is a 16+ hour round trip, on what planet does that make sense?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:19 pm

IPFreely wrote:
This thread is an example of what has gone wrong with a.net. An airplane doesn't divert for a medical reason unless it's serious...i.e. life threatening. And out of 50 posts, not one expression of concern about the prognosis or even survival of the passenger? Instead we have dozens of posts wondering if the other passengers got free pizza mixed in with a few posts about a door handle and one gleeful poster celebrating the inconvenience a medical diversion causes. Some people should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, what is the obsession with SFO in this thread? The original flight was EWR-HKG, a routing that goes nowhere near SFO. The diversion was to YYR; sending a plane to get the pax and take them to SFO is a 16+ hour round trip, on what planet does that make sense?


1. It’s not a mourning forum - I don’t think it’s required to read through a list of well-wishes. That doesn’t mean people don’t care.

2. You know why people brought up SFO as it’s been discussed in the thread - YYR v YVR.

3. At the end of the day, the medical part of it was a non-issue that we wouldn’t even be discussing were it not for the frozen door handle and subsequent chain of events.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2897
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:47 pm

IPFreely wrote:
This thread is an example of what has gone wrong with a.net. \?


There's nothing wrong with Anet. I think two very valid questions to ask, in a situation like with UA 179, and in a forum such as Anet, is why would the pilots decide to try and make it to HKG when a passenger, 45 minutes into the flight, suffered bad enough seizures that the crew needed to ask if there were any doctors on board. At the 45 minute mark, they could divert to BOS, back to EWR....


2nd question, why not fly mechanics up to Goose Bay as soon as there is a problem with the plane, especially with a door. Why wait to put them on the rescue flight nearly 12 hours after the first reported probem?

These are very valid questions and is entirely appropriate for this kind of a forum. Its not dumping or attacking UA. In hindsight, a pax suffering seizures, bad enough that a doctor is needed, probably shouldnt be on a plane for the next 15 hours.

UA is obviously a very well run airline but there are always ways you can improve.


And I am the one that asked why UA wouldn't continue on to SFO not thinking that the plane was heading in the complete opposite direction. So, that is my bad and thanks to those who corrected me.
 
x1234
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:00 pm

Hey at least it was Canada and not Russia! Recently on DL128 from PEK to SEA where there was an engine failure over Kamchatka the pilot diverted to Shemya AK flying a extra 2 hours on 1 engine because the SOP is that you absolutely do not divert to Russia given the state of relations and poor infrastructure/IRROPS unless you have something drastic like engine failure and even then like DL128 if you are close to AK/China/Japan/South Korea you go there.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:23 pm

IPFreely wrote:
This thread is an example of what has gone wrong with a.net. An airplane doesn't divert for a medical reason unless it's serious...i.e. life threatening. And out of 50 posts, not one expression of concern about the prognosis or even survival of the passenger? Instead we have dozens of posts wondering if the other passengers got free pizza mixed in with a few posts about a door handle and one gleeful poster celebrating the inconvenience a medical diversion causes. Some people should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, what is the obsession with SFO in this thread? The original flight was EWR-HKG, a routing that goes nowhere near SFO. The diversion was to YYR; sending a plane to get the pax and take them to SFO is a 16+ hour round trip, on what planet does that make sense?

Post #29 did (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413477#p21026315).
Maybe you should have read the thread instead of complaining?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:09 pm

777Mech wrote:
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
Those pax were allowed to deplane into the hangar in SYA, so you can go ahead and get your facts straight on that.

Upon reading this thread, I found myself thinking back to AF66; the A380 that suffered an engine failure some 16 mths ago (Sep 2017) whilst routing CDG-LAX, diverting to Goose Bay.
That thread attracted just under 700 posts, but seems to have been completely forgotten here, possibly because it didn't involve a US airline?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375147&hilit=goose
More recently this thread entitled "Goose Bay YYR Diversions" asked similar questions regarding terminal & accommodation facilities.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1406883&p=20807301&hilit=goose#p20807301
Image

I was particularly interested in the following image of a Monarch a/c receiving emergency maintenance in one of the large and usually empty ex RAF hangars (yes, RAF, not RCAF). With hindsight, this is probably where UA 179 should have gone, allowing the passengers the option to deplane and stretch their legs within the confines of the hangar. Hell, there was probably even a local blacksmith who could have helped UA with their frozen door whilst it was in there :lol:
Image
Goose Bay is sufficiently remote, and the ambient weather sufficiently unpleasant that nobody in their right mind would jump ship, so it would be quite in order for Canadian Border Security to relax their rules and offer some famous Canadian hospitality to the stranded pax. And just off base there is a pizza outlet that would do more trade in one day than they probably manage in the average fortnight. The local hotel would struggle to accommodate a full plane load if things dragged on, but basic accommodation is still available in the old Luftwaffe barracks AFAIK.
Image
The fact that this type of event occurs as often as it does begs the question; could Goose Bay be better prepared?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:29 pm

jumbojet wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
This thread is an example of what has gone wrong with a.net. \?


There's nothing wrong with Anet. I think two very valid questions to ask, in a situation like with UA 179, and in a forum such as Anet, is why would the pilots decide to try and make it to HKG when a passenger, 45 minutes into the flight, suffered bad enough seizures that the crew needed to ask if there were any doctors on board. At the 45 minute mark, they could divert to BOS, back to EWR....


2nd question, why not fly mechanics up to Goose Bay as soon as there is a problem with the plane, especially with a door. Why wait to put them on the rescue flight nearly 12 hours after the first reported probem?

These are very valid questions and is entirely appropriate for this kind of a forum. Its not dumping or attacking UA. In hindsight, a pax suffering seizures, bad enough that a doctor is needed, probably shouldnt be on a plane for the next 15 hours.

UA is obviously a very well run airline but there are always ways you can improve.


And I am the one that asked why UA wouldn't continue on to SFO not thinking that the plane was heading in the complete opposite direction. So, that is my bad and thanks to those who corrected me.


We go through this over and over. If there is not a recommendation to divert then you generally don’t divert. Based on the condition of the passenger st the 45 minute mark, it might have been deemed fine to continue. When their condition worsened, the recommendation changed and they diverted.

How many times a week are medical issues encountered on an aircraft and they don’t divert? I’m guessing it’s quite a few. Occasionally there are diversions. It might very well be that some of those diversions started off as “no, it’s ok to continue” but then the condition worsened and they diverted.

I just find it a bit gratuitous to be able to sit here and judge what you/we think should have happened absent the full story, particularly when the diversion wasn’t even a problem until the mechanical issue ensued.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1525
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:33 pm

Maybe they could have done it Ryanair style and just dropped the passengers off in Novosibirsk, then flown back empty. From there the passengers could take a bus the rest of the way.
 
n92r03
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:24 pm

Sheikh makes some good points. However I think this was a perfect storm, timing, WX back at EWR, etc. I think UA179 landed around 22:00 so limited resources onsite. I doubt a tug would be avail to pull the 777 into that hangar, but if that was an option, it should have been explored...what a difference that would have made. Could Goose Bay have been better prepared? Yes, but the answer then would be who would/should pay for that level of preparedness?
 
ConnectAir
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:09 pm

jumbojet wrote:
In hindsight, a pax suffering seizures, bad enough that a doctor is needed, probably shouldnt be on a plane for the next 15 hours.


As someone who is trained to provide emergency medical care in remote situations where you are hours away from help I think I can lend some insight into why the plane was not immediately diverted. While I was not on board the plane and cannot speak to what the medical practitioners observed, I can say that in some situations it would be appropriate to keep a seizure patient onboard the aircraft and continue on. These situations might include hypoglycemia (easily treated with oral sugar), or a situation where someone with a seizure disorder forgot to take their meds. With these patients you would want to continuously assess their status and if they keep on having seizures, or if they remain in a postictal (post seizure) state you would want to then divert, which is most likely what happened with UA 179.

In other situations, such as someone with no history of past seizures (or other conditions that could explain a seizure), a seizure lasting 5 minutes, or 3 or more seizures in a row I would definitely want to divert the aircraft because those are all warning signs that the seizures are an urgent medical problem.
WN, LX, AZ, BA, LH, KL, DL, OK, S5, US, UA, VY, IB, AF, LY, F9, CO, YX x2, PD, AC, AA, OO, PT, QK

A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, B712, B733, B737, B738, B753, B744, B764, B772, B789, CRJ9, DH8D, E145, E190
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2897
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:16 pm

ConnectAir wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
In hindsight, a pax suffering seizures, bad enough that a doctor is needed, probably shouldnt be on a plane for the next 15 hours.


As someone who is trained to provide emergency medical care in remote situations where you are hours away from help I think I can lend some insight into why the plane was not immediately diverted. While I was not on board the plane and cannot speak to what the medical practitioners observed, I can say that in some situations it would be appropriate to keep a seizure patient onboard the aircraft and continue on. These situations might include hypoglycemia (easily treated with oral sugar), or a situation where someone with a seizure disorder forgot to take their meds. With these patients you would want to continuously assess their status and if they keep on having seizures, or if they remain in a postictal (post seizure) state you would want to then divert, which is most likely what happened with UA 179.

In other situations, such as someone with no history of past seizures (or other conditions that could explain a seizure), a seizure lasting 5 minutes, or 3 or more seizures in a row I would definitely want to divert the aircraft because those are all warning signs that the seizures are an urgent medical problem.


Makes perfect sense, thanks for the informative reply. If the above senario is what actualy happened, than I can see why the plane continued on.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:15 pm

jumbojet wrote:
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?


I've already answered your specific question in how I thought UA should have handled this situation by sending the first available 777 flight crew and any available FA's up to YYR. The rescue aircraft was in EWR all we needed was a crew. I already stated I believe UA should have delayed one of the early morning 777 flights from EWR instead of delaying the rescue mission for over 7 hours waiting for crew. As far as sending our own mechanics the aircraft with the frozen door was finally defrosted, repaired and flown out of YYR today it left at 9:34am. The actual air temperature when they landed was -29 degrees, if there was an available hangar I'm sure local authorities would have allowed UA to pull the aircraft into the hangar and I'm sure those local mechanics who did work on the aircraft would have preferred to work inside a heated hangar and not outside with the door open in -29 degree weather. I can only assume the hangars at YYR were full so sending mechanics on a private jet would have done nothing especially since the aircraft sat outside in -29 degree temps which then froze when they closed it. As long at the aircraft was outside they couldn't repair it because the door was frozen which meant the aircraft was no longer airworthy. The issue that I have with this situation is with the rescue mission the arrival time of the mechanics is not important and has no bearing because the only way to melt the ice is by pulling the aircraft into a heated hangar and it's obvious from the pictures the aircraft remained outside throughout the entire ordeal. Its wasn't brought into a heated hangar until some time yesterday after the passengers had left.
I'm not defending UA's response because I do believe UA could have handled the rescue mission better and an 18 hour ordeal could have been over in 11-13 hours, but putting a mechanic on a private jet would not have solved the problem any faster especially if there was no space available inside of a heated hanger. The first priority in these types of situation once it becomes clear the aircraft isn't airworthy is to get the passengers out of this situation then find a way to recover the aircraft. This is where UA failed by not prioritizing these passengers stuck in YYR over passengers leaving EWR for West coast or international destinations. UA allowed those early morning flights to leave on-time and chose to delay the rescue mission over 7 hours that was the failure fixing the door is secondary. If just one of those early morning flights have been delays that crew could flown the rescue mission UA could have had the rescue aircraft on the ground at YYR by 8am the same exact time that customs showed up and civil authorities allowed passengers to disembark.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:29 pm

Why not just spray the door with deicing fluid?
 
Oilman
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:37 pm

Related to the airplane that went mechanical with the frozen door, would it have been possible to do a maintenance ferry at a low altitude without pax without the door being airtight?
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:24 pm

No place to put the passengers.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:44 pm

Oilman wrote:
Related to the airplane that went mechanical with the frozen door, would it have been possible to do a maintenance ferry at a low altitude without pax without the door being airtight?

Was the door open or closed when it froze.
Captain Kevin
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:49 pm

Closed
 
asdf
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:01 am

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
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?


I've already answered your specific question in how I thought UA should have handled this situation by sending the first available 777 flight crew and any available FA's up to YYR. The rescue aircraft was in EWR all we needed was a crew. I already stated I believe UA should have delayed one of the early morning 777 flights from EWR instead of delaying the rescue mission for over 7 hours waiting for crew. As far as sending our own mechanics the aircraft with the frozen door was finally defrosted, repaired and flown out of YYR today it left at 9:34am. The actual air temperature when they landed was -29 degrees, if there was an available hangar I'm sure local authorities would have allowed UA to pull the aircraft into the hangar and I'm sure those local mechanics who did work on the aircraft would have preferred to work inside a heated hangar and not outside with the door open in -29 degree weather. I can only assume the hangars at YYR were full so sending mechanics on a private jet would have done nothing especially since the aircraft sat outside in -29 degree temps which then froze when they closed it. As long at the aircraft was outside they couldn't repair it because the door was frozen which meant the aircraft was no longer airworthy. The issue that I have with this situation is with the rescue mission the arrival time of the mechanics is not important and has no bearing because the only way to melt the ice is by pulling the aircraft into a heated hangar and it's obvious from the pictures the aircraft remained outside throughout the entire ordeal. Its wasn't brought into a heated hangar until some time yesterday after the passengers had left.
I'm not defending UA's response because I do believe UA could have handled the rescue mission better and an 18 hour ordeal could have been over in 11-13 hours, but putting a mechanic on a private jet would not have solved the problem any faster especially if there was no space available inside of a heated hanger. The first priority in these types of situation once it becomes clear the aircraft isn't airworthy is to get the passengers out of this situation then find a way to recover the aircraft. This is where UA failed by not prioritizing these passengers stuck in YYR over passengers leaving EWR for West coast or international destinations. UA allowed those early morning flights to leave on-time and chose to delay the rescue mission over 7 hours that was the failure fixing the door is secondary. If just one of those early morning flights have been delays that crew could flown the rescue mission UA could have had the rescue aircraft on the ground at YYR by 8am the same exact time that customs showed up and civil authorities allowed passengers to disembark.


delay the rescue mission:
one aircraft load of already annoyed passengers still annoyed

additional delay of the early mornig flight:
two aircraft loads of annoyed passengers

take your choice ...
 
DDR
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:10 am

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
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?


I've already answered your specific question in how I thought UA should have handled this situation by sending the first available 777 flight crew and any available FA's up to YYR. The rescue aircraft was in EWR all we needed was a crew. I already stated I believe UA should have delayed one of the early morning 777 flights from EWR instead of delaying the rescue mission for over 7 hours waiting for crew. As far as sending our own mechanics the aircraft with the frozen door was finally defrosted, repaired and flown out of YYR today it left at 9:34am. The actual air temperature when they landed was -29 degrees, if there was an available hangar I'm sure local authorities would have allowed UA to pull the aircraft into the hangar and I'm sure those local mechanics who did work on the aircraft would have preferred to work inside a heated hangar and not outside with the door open in -29 degree weather. I can only assume the hangars at YYR were full so sending mechanics on a private jet would have done nothing especially since the aircraft sat outside in -29 degree temps which then froze when they closed it. As long at the aircraft was outside they couldn't repair it because the door was frozen which meant the aircraft was no longer airworthy. The issue that I have with this situation is with the rescue mission the arrival time of the mechanics is not important and has no bearing because the only way to melt the ice is by pulling the aircraft into a heated hangar and it's obvious from the pictures the aircraft remained outside throughout the entire ordeal. Its wasn't brought into a heated hangar until some time yesterday after the passengers had left.
I'm not defending UA's response because I do believe UA could have handled the rescue mission better and an 18 hour ordeal could have been over in 11-13 hours, but putting a mechanic on a private jet would not have solved the problem any faster especially if there was no space available inside of a heated hanger. The first priority in these types of situation once it becomes clear the aircraft isn't airworthy is to get the passengers out of this situation then find a way to recover the aircraft. This is where UA failed by not prioritizing these passengers stuck in YYR over passengers leaving EWR for West coast or international destinations. UA allowed those early morning flights to leave on-time and chose to delay the rescue mission over 7 hours that was the failure fixing the door is secondary. If just one of those early morning flights have been delays that crew could flown the rescue mission UA could have had the rescue aircraft on the ground at YYR by 8am the same exact time that customs showed up and civil authorities allowed passengers to disembark.


jayunited - thanks for your informed post. You provided a lot of good information on this post as well as your previous post. Don't worry about the DL troll.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:14 am

asdf wrote:
jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
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?


I've already answered your specific question in how I thought UA should have handled this situation by sending the first available 777 flight crew and any available FA's up to YYR. The rescue aircraft was in EWR all we needed was a crew. I already stated I believe UA should have delayed one of the early morning 777 flights from EWR instead of delaying the rescue mission for over 7 hours waiting for crew. As far as sending our own mechanics the aircraft with the frozen door was finally defrosted, repaired and flown out of YYR today it left at 9:34am. The actual air temperature when they landed was -29 degrees, if there was an available hangar I'm sure local authorities would have allowed UA to pull the aircraft into the hangar and I'm sure those local mechanics who did work on the aircraft would have preferred to work inside a heated hangar and not outside with the door open in -29 degree weather. I can only assume the hangars at YYR were full so sending mechanics on a private jet would have done nothing especially since the aircraft sat outside in -29 degree temps which then froze when they closed it. As long at the aircraft was outside they couldn't repair it because the door was frozen which meant the aircraft was no longer airworthy. The issue that I have with this situation is with the rescue mission the arrival time of the mechanics is not important and has no bearing because the only way to melt the ice is by pulling the aircraft into a heated hangar and it's obvious from the pictures the aircraft remained outside throughout the entire ordeal. Its wasn't brought into a heated hangar until some time yesterday after the passengers had left.
I'm not defending UA's response because I do believe UA could have handled the rescue mission better and an 18 hour ordeal could have been over in 11-13 hours, but putting a mechanic on a private jet would not have solved the problem any faster especially if there was no space available inside of a heated hanger. The first priority in these types of situation once it becomes clear the aircraft isn't airworthy is to get the passengers out of this situation then find a way to recover the aircraft. This is where UA failed by not prioritizing these passengers stuck in YYR over passengers leaving EWR for West coast or international destinations. UA allowed those early morning flights to leave on-time and chose to delay the rescue mission over 7 hours that was the failure fixing the door is secondary. If just one of those early morning flights have been delays that crew could flown the rescue mission UA could have had the rescue aircraft on the ground at YYR by 8am the same exact time that customs showed up and civil authorities allowed passengers to disembark.


delay the rescue mission:
one aircraft load of already annoyed passengers still annoyed

additional delay of the early mornig flight:
two aircraft loads of annoyed passengers

take your choice ...


I tend to agree with that general idea, but not in this particular case. You had two choices: Delay another set of passengers in the nation's largest city, where ample hotel rooms, food options, or even their own residences are an option, or leave people basically stranded in sub-zero weather for the better part of a day in a somewhat remote Canadian airport with no option to deplane? In this case, it made sense to cascade the problem across multiple flights as needed as it was (to me) the right thing to do. Now I'm not suggesting that UA said 'screw 'em' but perhaps it got away from them a bit or things just dragged out longer than they expected. Reminiscent of the AS Buffalo diversion a few weeks back.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:37 am

jayunited wrote:
As far as sending our own mechanics the aircraft with the frozen door was finally defrosted, repaired and flown out of YYR today it left at 9:34am. The actual air temperature when they landed was -29 degrees, if there was an available hangar I'm sure local authorities would have allowed UA to pull the aircraft into the hangar...
Canadian hospitality is good, but they would still want to know UA was going to stump up some $$$ for all this inconvenience.
jayunited wrote:
...and I'm sure those local mechanics who did work on the aircraft would have preferred to work inside a heated hangar and not outside with the door open in -29 degree weather. I can only assume the hangars at YYR were full {I'm not so sure - see below} so sending mechanics on a private jet would have done nothing especially since the aircraft sat outside in -29 degree temps which then froze when they closed it. As long at the aircraft was outside they couldn't repair it because the door was frozen which meant the aircraft was no longer airworthy. The issue that I have with this situation is with the rescue mission the arrival time of the mechanics is not important and has no bearing because the only way to melt the ice is by pulling the aircraft into a heated hangar and it's obvious from the pictures the aircraft remained outside throughout the entire ordeal. Its wasn't brought into a heated hangar until some time yesterday after the passengers had left.

You assume the hangars were full; I assume they were empty. In truth neither of us were there at the time, but I suspect I'm a lot more likely to be correct.

And here's why...
As I mentioned up-thread, at least some of those big hangars are ex RAF, designed originally to each house six RAF Vulcan bombers. The RAF retired those long ago back in 1984, and the only Vulcan left at Goose Bay is the museum example, left outside to suffer in the weather. :cry:
Since then, visiting detachments from the Royal Air Force, Luftwaffe, Royal Netherlands Air Force, and the Aeronautica Militare, have periodically appeared, invariably during the summer months. That mostly ceased ca 2005.

Other than that, the hangars are almost always EMPTY - unless you are unlucky enough to be the second a/c to have a major technical malfunction that day....

I suspect the delay was a case of UA not having anybody around with enough rings on their sleeves to authorise the necessary payments.

Or.... maybe UA couldn't find the right person at Goose Bay to talk to. Or even, because it was Saturday night/Sunday morning, the duty officer was in the pub/hungover, and the following morning he was getting ready to go to church.
All of these options are possible, but it's usually about the money, and airlines crossing their fingers that this time they would get away with it.

The way things panned out, I do have some sympathy for UA. Hence my earlier question which asked if Goose Bay could do more to be prepared. Perhaps every airline that lists Goose Bay as a diversion airport should pony up a modest retainer, before the brown stuff hits the whirling metal.? What are the chances…. :shakehead:

Happy days at CFB Goose Bay
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:13 pm

Maybe someone can explain why they couldn’t at least deplane even if customs was closed? Just let them stretch out and get local law enforcement out to make sure no one leaves.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:28 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
Maybe someone can explain why they couldn’t at least deplane even if customs was closed? Just let them stretch out and get local law enforcement out to make sure no one leaves.


Because that's not how international travel works...
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:32 pm

Maybe the hangars can’t holda 777, it’s way bigger than a Vulcan.

And the Monarch A330 didn’t fit all the way and a 777 is bigger.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:40 pm

Goose is a picnic compared to some of the Siberian diverts on the Polar routes. Anyone for Tiksi or Mirny? Or Thule, Greenland or Svalbard, Norway? BTW, planes can be dispatched with an inoperative APU. Think about that.

I’m pretty certain the hangars can’t hold a B777.

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:49 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
Maybe someone can explain why they couldn’t at least deplane even if customs was closed? Just let them stretch out and get local law enforcement out to make sure no one leaves.


Because that's not how international travel works...


I saw that happen at KBDL on a BA 747 divertwith no APU, left an engine running for a couple hours waiting for JFK to open up. Customs is not routinely available at the Goose, but realistically the pax aren’t goin’ anywhere

GF
 
gsg013
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:03 am

ltbewr wrote:
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.


This is why DL has a spare 777-200ER and 777-LR on standby in case they need to send a spare to pickup stranded pax in a timely manner... this is just another example of UA not being prepared with a good executable plan when something inevitably will go wrong.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:48 am

gsg013 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
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.


This is why DL has a spare 777-200ER and 777-LR on standby in case they need to send a spare to pickup stranded pax in a timely manner... this is just another example of UA not being prepared with a good executable plan when something inevitably will go wrong.


So to be clear, DL keeps 11% of it's 777 fleet on standby, and this is separate from any that are in for D1 suites?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
d8s
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:59 am

jumbojet wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
This thread is an example of what has gone wrong with a.net. \?


There's nothing wrong with Anet. I think two very valid questions to ask, in a situation like with UA 179, and in a forum such as Anet, is why would the pilots decide to try and make it to HKG when a passenger, 45 minutes into the flight, suffered bad enough seizures that the crew needed to ask if there were any doctors on board. At the 45 minute mark, they could divert to BOS, back to EWR....

2nd question, why not fly mechanics up to Goose Bay as soon as there is a problem with the plane, especially with a door. Why wait to put them on the rescue flight nearly 12 hours after the first reported probem?

And I am the one that asked why UA wouldn't continue on to SFO not thinking that the plane was heading in the complete opposite direction. So, that is my bad and thanks to those who corrected me.


First Question: None of us were on the flight and none of us are the pilots on the flight. Decisions are made...period...why does every armchair pilot/A.net CEO need to question them?

Second question...would the UA mechanics do anything different than the mechanics did that night?
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:20 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Goose is a picnic compared to some of the Siberian diverts on the Polar routes. Anyone for Tiksi or Mirny? Or Thule, Greenland or Svalbard, Norway? BTW, planes can be dispatched with an inoperative APU. Think about that.

I’m pretty certain the hangars can’t hold a B777.

GF


When was the last time a plane diverted to Mirny or Tiksi or Thule (genuinely curious)? Or even Svalbard for that matter?

As for Svalbard LYR - that wouldn't be so bad because a) there's a whole bunch of hotels in Longyearbyen, including a Radisson and b) Svalbard basically has open borders, virtually anyone can enter.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:35 am

Well, I doubt it’s ever happened but they’re all listed as Polar alternates and while Shemya and Ascension Island have been used, probablya matter of time before one of the Siberian bases are needed. True enough about LYR, but it’d still be interesting how an unscheduled 777 would be handled.


Gf
 
iahcsr
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:41 am

From today’s employee United Daily...
In addition to this weekend’s weather, by now you may have read press reports about Flight 179, scheduled from EWR to HKG (Hong Kong) on Saturday, which was diverted to Goose Bay, Canada, due to a medical emergency.

An ill customer was met by medical personnel and transported to the hospital for help. After we refueled the plane and prepped it for departure, a mechanical problem with one of the aircraft doors prevented the flight from departing. With no customs officials at the airport overnight, nobody was able to exit the plane until customs arrived early Sunday morning, and customers were understandably upset. Meanwhile, our teams in the NOC worked to find crew members, mechanics, customer service representatives and baggage handlers to rescue the flight – all while a snowstorm was raging across the Midwest, causing its own disruptions.

“We are looking at every single aspect of what happened to understand how we could have done better,” said SVP and Chief Customer Officer Toby Enqvist. “While we do so, I want to thank our many teammates who did their best to come up with solutions and to those who continue to work with our customers on refunds and other compensation.”

The mention of baggage handlers brings up the question if YYR has the ground equipment to deal with containers? If not were bags moved by hand and bulk loaded on the other aircraft? Also imagine the passengers had to clear US customs when they got back to EWR.
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
tjerome
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:59 am

Boof02671 wrote:
Why not just spray the door with deicing fluid?


Not supposed to spray deicing fluid directly at certain things, aircraft doors being one of them.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:04 am

gsg013 wrote:

This is why DL has a spare 777-200ER and 777-LR on standby in case they need to send a spare to pickup stranded pax in a timely manner... this is just another example of UA not being prepared with a good executable plan when something inevitably will go wrong.

Airlines has spares from time to time depending on the operation. But nobody purposely keeps two widebody aircraft on the ground for just in case.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:26 am

gsg013 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
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.


This is why DL has a spare 777-200ER and 777-LR on standby in case they need to send a spare to pickup stranded pax in a timely manner... this is just another example of UA not being prepared with a good executable plan when something inevitably will go wrong.


As the kids would say: GTFOHWTBS
:roll:
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:18 am

tjerome wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
Why not just spray the door with deicing fluid?


Not supposed to spray deicing fluid directly at certain things, aircraft doors being one of them.

Wrong
 
zippy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:32 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I tend to agree with that general idea, but not in this particular case. You had two choices: Delay another set of passengers in the nation's largest city, where ample hotel rooms, food options, or even their own residences are an option, or leave people basically stranded in sub-zero weather for the better part of a day in a somewhat remote Canadian airport with no option to deplane? In this case, it made sense to cascade the problem across multiple flights as needed as it was (to me) the right thing to do. Now I'm not suggesting that UA said 'screw 'em' but perhaps it got away from them a bit or things just dragged out longer than they expected. Reminiscent of the AS Buffalo diversion a few weeks back.


Who said that this was the only option? EWR is a major hub for United and they should have some slack, but Newark is not in the middle of nowhere (and neither is Buffalo). Why not charter a Canadian plane, maybe one from an alliance member like Air Canada? Goose Bay to Quebec is half the distance of Newark and both JFK and Toronto are about equidistant to Goose Bay. Between all those airports there was not a single plane with enough slack in its schedule to route the passengers somewhere less barbaric? Geez. Even if Canadian immigration can't or won't process the passengers at least the Quebec airport is better suited to house the passengers until a better solution comes about. What about flying immigration officials in or using a narrow body to make multiple flights?

Ultimately it comes down to short term profits. United saved money with the rescue op at the cost of bad PR and a few hundred people that are unlikely to fly United in the foreseeable future. Even if things simply took longer than expected, there's a bit of wisdom I've learned from doing software development: fail early. If something is not working out don't get so attached to the solution that you keep trying to force it. If something isn't working, find a better solution. The cost of a one-off charter shouldn't be a deal breaker for such a large company. If a charter is too burdensome (e.g. because diversions are so commonplace) perhaps there's a larger problem at United.
 
zippy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:36 am

d8s wrote:
why does every armchair pilot/A.net CEO need to question them?


Why? Because United stranded a plane full of paying customers in subzero temperatures for most of a day. That's why.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7898
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:56 am

gsg013 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
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.


This is why DL has a spare 777-200ER and 777-LR on standby in case they need to send a spare to pickup stranded pax in a timely manner... this is just another example of UA not being prepared with a good executable plan when something inevitably will go wrong.


Notwithstanding that I don't believe that DL keep two 777s as operational spares, as already pointed out several times United had an aircraft at EWR ready to go, they just didn't have anyone to fly it. Note that this occurred during an ice storm and it is understandable why crew struggled to get to the airport.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Judge1310
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:01 am

zippy wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I tend to agree with that general idea, but not in this particular case. You had two choices: Delay another set of passengers in the nation's largest city, where ample hotel rooms, food options, or even their own residences are an option, or leave people basically stranded in sub-zero weather for the better part of a day in a somewhat remote Canadian airport with no option to deplane? In this case, it made sense to cascade the problem across multiple flights as needed as it was (to me) the right thing to do. Now I'm not suggesting that UA said 'screw 'em' but perhaps it got away from them a bit or things just dragged out longer than they expected. Reminiscent of the AS Buffalo diversion a few weeks back.


Who said that this was the only option? EWR is a major hub for United and they should have some slack, but Newark is not in the middle of nowhere (and neither is Buffalo). Why not charter a Canadian plane, maybe one from an alliance member like Air Canada? Goose Bay to Quebec is half the distance of Newark and both JFK and Toronto are about equidistant to Goose Bay. Between all those airports there was not a single plane with enough slack in its schedule to route the passengers somewhere less barbaric? Geez. Even if Canadian immigration can't or won't process the passengers at least the Quebec airport is better suited to house the passengers until a better solution comes about. What about flying immigration officials in or using a narrow body to make multiple flights?

Ultimately it comes down to short term profits. United saved money with the rescue op at the cost of bad PR and a few hundred people that are unlikely to fly United in the foreseeable future. Even if things simply took longer than expected, there's a bit of wisdom I've learned from doing software development: fail early. If something is not working out don't get so attached to the solution that you keep trying to force it. If something isn't working, find a better solution. The cost of a one-off charter shouldn't be a deal breaker for such a large company. If a charter is too burdensome (e.g. because diversions are so commonplace) perhaps there's a larger problem at United.


And here we go with subjectivity and lack of understanding of how flights operating in international space work. (This is seriously getting tiring).

Aircraft are multi-million dollar equipment that do nothing for airlines when they're sat on the ground. So no, any airline worth its salt will NOT have random aircraft capable of performing all missions sitting around "just in case".

Following that, where, pray tell, would any airline just, at the drop of a hat and dime, source the aircraft and resources needed to get over 250 people from an airport that operates mostly as a diversion point for emergencies? And let's add in the factors of inclement weather and harsh conditions in the area. Diversions are NOT commonplace and charters aren't burdensome for UA; especially considering that UA flies charter flights as well.

This was a situation that just sucked all the way around. Bad weather, a pax who really needed to be take care of, a call made by MedLink that directed the aircraft to land in YYR. Oh yeah, for the education of folks on here, although the captain has ultimate authority of the aircraft, a determination of where to land is primarily made by MedLink as they consider the appropriateness of medical facilities available at the diversion point with respect to the medical condition. The flight crew then work in consort with dispatch to determine the necessary actions to land at the DIV point (amount of fuel to be dumped in order to be within aircraft structural limitations and such). The primary goal is to get the affected pax off the aircraft and with qualified medical personnel as soon as possible.

When an aircraft arrives and a door has to be open, it's standard operating procedure to disarm all doors for arrival in order to prevent Inadvertent Slide Deployment. Problem is, when temps are in the upper negative 20s Fahrenheit, the mechanisms (thinking girt bar) in the doors can get locked up as, believe it or not, it's not a common event to be arming and disarming 777 doors in such cold temperatures. Personally, I've had to take a delay on an early morning departure out of the northern US states as temps were so low that we couldn't start up the aircraft as it sat outside overnight and things just didn't work right.

Finally, a foreign country can't just land in another sovereign country's territory and expect them to pull out all the stops. If certain facilities are not available, they're simply not available. And NO, pax just can't be led outside to "stretch their legs"...heck, any airline would be bished at for letting folks out in arctic temperatures. Also, it's a sovereign country! One does not simply just open doors, have airstairs pull up, and let people roam about in a foreign land. Although we, as airlines, fly across borders, we also must respect the rules of the host countries. If their Customs Offices are closed, then all we can do is wait. Also, after all was said and done, these folks arrived back in EWR more or less within a similar time on the aircraft that they would have been had the flight been going to HKG the whole time. They got served all the items they would have been typically served for the entire route and then some. Would I have enjoyed the experience myself? No, for sure not. But the hemming and hawing that some folks have made about this flight is so "drama-queen" filled that it drowns out the understanding of the objective logistics behind such medical diversions...
 
d8s
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:31 pm

zippy wrote:
d8s wrote:
why does every armchair pilot/A.net CEO need to question them?


Why? Because United stranded a plane full of paying customers in subzero temperatures for most of a day. That's why.


And NO OTHER airline has ever done anything close to that...
 
ryanov
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:34 am

My only question was why this seems to sometimes routinely take so long -- was hoping someone who was familiar with the industry might know some regular timeframes, etc. It seems to happen to most airlines eventually, except those that don't operate past anywhere remote. If the answer really is that they have no slack in the system (eg. no extra crews around, no extra aircraft), that would seem to explain most of it, but then the the airline has to just eat the bad PR. I guess if everything goes about as bad as it could, it could take them a couple of hours to figure out they need a rescue, 8 hours to get a crew, and then when you fly the plane up there, you're close to the time it took this time?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:11 am

A B777 is a $200 million asset, they just don’t buy spares just in case a passenger gets ill near Goose Bay, not to mention crewing. It’s a big undertaking to rescue a divert and it just doesn’t happen all that often. The “system” works on things going right, not going wrong.

GF
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:50 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A B777 is a $200 million asset, they just don’t buy spares just in case a passenger gets ill near Goose Bay, not to mention crewing. It’s a big undertaking to rescue a divert and it just doesn’t happen all that often. The “system” works on things going right, not going wrong.

GF

But do you really need to tie-up a $200 million asset, when there are all these lying around?



The capital cost of these is … the sum of their scrap value. The cost boils down to keeping them airworthy, maintaining a semi-retired standby crew with the right credentials, and maybe tossing them up in the sky once a month (¹) to keep the cobwebs at bay. The fact that they are not quite as fuel efficient as a 777 is barely relevant because you are not using them every day. The fact that they only have limited hours left on the frame or before the next C check is due is not relevant because....

(¹) And if the airline flags up where and when these irregular service substitutions occur, any spare tickets will sell like hot cakes to everyone on a.net. They only have to be short hops, e.g. JFK - BOS & back again.

What's not to like? :bigthumbsup:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
LDRA
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:55 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A B777 is a $200 million asset, they just don’t buy spares just in case a passenger gets ill near Goose Bay, not to mention crewing. It’s a big undertaking to rescue a divert and it just doesn’t happen all that often. The “system” works on things going right, not going wrong.

GF

But do you really need to tie-up a $200 million asset, when there are all these lying around?



The capital cost of these is … the sum of their scrap value. The cost boils down to keeping them airworthy, maintaining a semi-retired standby crew with the right credentials, and maybe tossing them up in the sky once a month (¹) to keep the cobwebs at bay. The fact that they are not quite as fuel efficient as a 777 is barely relevant because you are not using them every day. The fact that they only have limited hours left on the frame or before the next C check is due is not relevant because....

(¹) And if the airline flags up where and when these irregular service substitutions occur, any spare tickets will sell like hot cakes to everyone on a.net. They only have to be short hops, e.g. JFK - BOS & back again.

What's not to like? :bigthumbsup:


Agree. It does pay to have some older aircraft around, fully depreciated, in low utilization duty. So when shit happens, there is slack that can be utilized. Does not have to be wide body either
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: UA 179 diversion to Goose Bay 1/19

Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:58 pm

Its not that simple.

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