jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:43 pm

Was just curious what the deal is with this United B789. It left SFO Sunday night en-route to AMS but diverted to BGR due to a cabin pressure issue I believe. It was supposed to fly to EWR on Monday but cancelled and was then supposed to fly back to SFO today but again cancelled. I know the passengers are long gone and in Amsterdam but was wondering if anyone knows whats going on with N35953 and when she might actually leave BGR.

Also, with UA down this 789 for a few days, does this have any sort of a ripple affect throughout the UA 789 daily schedule or is there enough slack to absorb one less 789 for the time being?

Thanks

JJ
Last edited by SQ22 on Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:16 pm

United may have no mechanics there, nor are there any other mechanics , available to trouble shoot this aircraft. United may have to send some mechanics on a road trip along with likely parts to troubleshoot and repair the aircraft. The only other option is to ferry it to a station where it can be repaired at an altitude of less than ten thousand feet. :old:
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
jayunited
Posts: 2262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:34 pm

jumbojet wrote:
Was just curious what the deal is with this United B789. It left SFO Sunday night en-route to AMS but diverted to BGR due to a cabin pressure issue I believe. It was supposed to fly to EWR on Monday but cancelled and was then supposed to fly back to SFO today but again cancelled. I know the passengers are long gone and in Amsterdam but was wondering if anyone knows whats going on with N35953 and when she might actually leave BGR.

Also, with UA down this 789 for a few days, does this have any sort of a ripple affect throughout the UA 789 daily schedule or is there enough slack to absorb one less 789 for the time being?

Thanks

JJ


The right pack and DC bus failed simultaneously a reset was attempted by the flight crew while at cruise altitude however the left pack then failed oxygen mask deployed the captain performed a rapid decent down to FL100. Passenger were rescued and flowned to EWR then continued on to AMS while a maintenance crew from EWR was ferried up to BGR to work on repairing the aircraft. If the work is completed the aircraft will ferry down to EWR on tomorrow 10/09/19 and from there ferry to SMB although I don't know when the EWR-SMB ferry will happen.

Concerning the 789 schedule there has been no ripple effect there is enough slack built into the 789 schedule.
 
kunta67
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:20 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:59 pm

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Was just curious what the deal is with this United B789. It left SFO Sunday night en-route to AMS but diverted to BGR due to a cabin pressure issue I believe. It was supposed to fly to EWR on Monday but cancelled and was then supposed to fly back to SFO today but again cancelled. I know the passengers are long gone and in Amsterdam but was wondering if anyone knows whats going on with N35953 and when she might actually leave BGR.

Also, with UA down this 789 for a few days, does this have any sort of a ripple affect throughout the UA 789 daily schedule or is there enough slack to absorb one less 789 for the time being?

Thanks

JJ


The right pack and DC bus failed simultaneously a reset was attempted by the flight crew while at cruise altitude however the left pack then failed oxygen mask deployed the captain performed a rapid decent down to FL100. Passenger were rescued and flowned to EWR then continued on to AMS while a maintenance crew from EWR was ferried up to BGR to work on repairing the aircraft. If the work is completed the aircraft will ferry down to EWR on tomorrow 10/09/19 and from there ferry to SMB although I don't know when the EWR-SMB ferry will happen.

Concerning the 789 schedule there has been no ripple effect there is enough slack built into the 789 schedule.


It has to go all the way to Chile?
 
jayunited
Posts: 2262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:13 pm

kunta67 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Was just curious what the deal is with this United B789. It left SFO Sunday night en-route to AMS but diverted to BGR due to a cabin pressure issue I believe. It was supposed to fly to EWR on Monday but cancelled and was then supposed to fly back to SFO today but again cancelled. I know the passengers are long gone and in Amsterdam but was wondering if anyone knows whats going on with N35953 and when she might actually leave BGR.

Also, with UA down this 789 for a few days, does this have any sort of a ripple affect throughout the UA 789 daily schedule or is there enough slack to absorb one less 789 for the time being?

Thanks

JJ


The right pack and DC bus failed simultaneously a reset was attempted by the flight crew while at cruise altitude however the left pack then failed oxygen mask deployed the captain performed a rapid decent down to FL100. Passenger were rescued and flowned to EWR then continued on to AMS while a maintenance crew from EWR was ferried up to BGR to work on repairing the aircraft. If the work is completed the aircraft will ferry down to EWR on tomorrow 10/09/19 and from there ferry to SMB although I don't know when the EWR-SMB ferry will happen.

Concerning the 789 schedule there has been no ripple effect there is enough slack built into the 789 schedule.


It has to go all the way to Chile?


Chile... no my fault... SMB is UA's internal code for San Francisco Maintenance Bay. Sorry I should have used SFO I'm just reading the report which uses SMB and being a UA employee I know what that code means when I see it.
 
jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:29 pm

N35953, the UA 789 (did I get that right?) is still in Bangor, Maine (did I get that right to?) No indication on when its leaving. Seems like its a bigger issue than just pressurization? Otherwise, like someone else had mentioned, just fly the bird no higher than 10K feet.
 
Western727
Posts: 1642
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:39 pm

jumbojet wrote:
N35953, the UA 789 (did I get that right?) is still in Bangor, Maine (did I get that right to?) No indication on when its leaving. Seems like its a bigger issue than just pressurization? Otherwise, like someone else had mentioned, just fly the bird no higher than 10K feet.


I'm only speculating here, but the mention of electrical problems implies that electrical "gremlins" may be preventing a flight out of BGR.
Jack @ AUS
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:07 pm

The invented conventions for airplane models (hyphen, no hyphen, one zero, two zeros, no zeros, capitals or not) is about as hard to keep track of as are the spellings of first names by modern couples who want to have a unique way of spelling for their child. Us curmudgeons have absolutely no guilt over getting it wrong, only sympathy for the child. Most canons for good writing give a good passing grade so long as there is no ambiguity.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ordbosewr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:26 pm

jumbojet wrote:
N35953, the UA 789 (did I get that right?) is still in Bangor, Maine (did I get that right to?) No indication on when its leaving. Seems like its a bigger issue than just pressurization? Otherwise, like someone else had mentioned, just fly the bird no higher than 10K feet.


ferry flight (to EWR) is scheduled for today (10/9), but it is already past the scheduled departure time (I know that with a ferry flight it can move at will).
-> edit - it seems like ferry flights have been scheduled each day since diversion to either SFO or EWR and canceled, so no guarantee it will go today.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7828
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:49 pm

jumbojet wrote:
Was just curious what the deal is with this United B789.


It's scheduled to leave BGR today and head to EWR. I'm sure with the weather delays in EWR the'yre only taking scheduled flights in. I've seen that before when I worked for an airline in the northeast
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14319
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:57 pm

It would make sense to bring it to EWR has UA has major mx facilities there as well as a base of 787 operations. Its too bad the weather in the EWR area is bad, likely to continue into Thursday with rain, heavy winds.
 
jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:17 pm

ordbosewr wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
N35953, the UA 789 (did I get that right?) is still in Bangor, Maine (did I get that right to?) No indication on when its leaving. Seems like its a bigger issue than just pressurization? Otherwise, like someone else had mentioned, just fly the bird no higher than 10K feet.


ferry flight (to EWR) is scheduled for today (10/9), but it is already past the scheduled departure time (I know that with a ferry flight it can move at will).
-> edit - it seems like ferry flights have been scheduled each day since diversion to either SFO or EWR and canceled, so no guarantee it will go today.


according to flightaware, it was cancelled yet again.

edited to add, another section of flightaware shows it departing late.
 
jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:22 pm

United.com says its cancelled due to operational issues. Damn, now into day 3.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:54 pm

jumbojet wrote:
according to flightaware, it was cancelled yet again.

edited to add, another section of flightaware shows it departing late.


I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this thread or the point your trying to make but its pretty simple both right and left packs failed there was a DC bus problem as well which forced a rapid decent to FL100 and subsequent emergency landing at BGR. The aircraft has been out of service while EWR mechanics work on fixing the problem so UA can at least ferry the aircraft down to EWR. Anyone who has been in the airline industry knows sometimes its hard to nail down electrical issues, so yes the departure times have been changed. The destination and flight number has been changed as well, UA wanted to get the aircraft to our maintenance bay at SFO but we can only have permits to go as far as EWR for now.

Why the change of flight number you may ask? There are multiple reasons for the change of flight number and this isn't just exclusive to UA all US flagged carriers have different flight number assigned so that everyone from the operations center up to and including the FAA and ATC know what type of flight it is. All US flagged carriers have flight numbers reserved for just revenue passenger flights, numbers for extra sections, numbers for charters flights, numbers for military flights, numbers for cargo ferry flights, empty ferries, and maintenance ferries.

However within the maintenance ferry there are several different flight numbers UA has reserved specifically for maintenance ferries but it all depends on the type of maintenance ferry and special permits needed to ferry an aircraft from where it is to a maintenance bay. The delays and changes are because maintenance is working on the aircraft and reporting what they find. Employees at TOMC (Technical Operations Maintenance Center) are working with other relevant groups to get the necessary permits and approval from the FAA to ferry the aircraft from point A to point B. In some cases the FAA will not give approval for the maintenance ferry as filed so an airline will cancel that flight, make the necessary changes perform additional maintenance work to get the permits necessary to ferry the aircraft and the flight number has to match the specific maintenance ferry permits.
 
jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:05 pm

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
according to flightaware, it was cancelled yet again.

edited to add, another section of flightaware shows it departing late.


I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this thread or the point your trying to make but its pretty simple both right and left packs failed there was a DC bus problem as well which forced a rapid decent to FL100 and subsequent emergency landing at BGR. The aircraft has been out of service while EWR mechanics work on fixing the problem so UA can at least ferry the aircraft down to EWR. Anyone who has been in the airline industry knows sometimes its hard to nail down electrical issues, so yes the departure times have been changed. The destination and flight number has been changed as well, UA wanted to get the aircraft to our maintenance bay at SFO but we can only have permits to go as far as EWR for now.

Why the change of flight number you may ask? There are multiple reasons for the change of flight number and this isn't just exclusive to UA all US flagged carriers have different flight number assigned so that everyone from the operations center up to and including the FAA and ATC know what type of flight it is. All US flagged carriers have flight numbers reserved for just revenue passenger flights, numbers for extra sections, numbers for charters flights, numbers for military flights, numbers for cargo ferry flights, empty ferries, and maintenance ferries.

However within the maintenance ferry there are several different flight numbers UA has reserved specifically for maintenance ferries but it all depends on the type of maintenance ferry and special permits needed to ferry an aircraft from where it is to a maintenance bay. The delays and changes are because maintenance is working on the aircraft and reporting what they find. Employees at TOMC (Technical Operations Maintenance Center) are working with other relevant groups to get the necessary permits and approval from the FAA to ferry the aircraft from point A to point B. In some cases the FAA will not give approval for the maintenance ferry as filed so an airline will cancel that flight, make the necessary changes perform additional maintenance work to get the permits necessary to ferry the aircraft and the flight number has to match the specific maintenance ferry permits.


I am simply curious as to why its taking so long to diagnos this problem and get the plane back in service. they've had all day Monday, Tuesday and today. I find it interesting that this plane, only a few years old, has been out this long. Also I did not ask about the change of flight number. Its that simple. I am not bashing United, nothing like that. If you don't like where I am going with this particular thread, then there is no need for you to participate in it.
 
DualQual
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:10 pm

jumbojet wrote:
jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
according to flightaware, it was cancelled yet again.

edited to add, another section of flightaware shows it departing late.


I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this thread or the point your trying to make but its pretty simple both right and left packs failed there was a DC bus problem as well which forced a rapid decent to FL100 and subsequent emergency landing at BGR. The aircraft has been out of service while EWR mechanics work on fixing the problem so UA can at least ferry the aircraft down to EWR. Anyone who has been in the airline industry knows sometimes its hard to nail down electrical issues, so yes the departure times have been changed. The destination and flight number has been changed as well, UA wanted to get the aircraft to our maintenance bay at SFO but we can only have permits to go as far as EWR for now.

Why the change of flight number you may ask? There are multiple reasons for the change of flight number and this isn't just exclusive to UA all US flagged carriers have different flight number assigned so that everyone from the operations center up to and including the FAA and ATC know what type of flight it is. All US flagged carriers have flight numbers reserved for just revenue passenger flights, numbers for extra sections, numbers for charters flights, numbers for military flights, numbers for cargo ferry flights, empty ferries, and maintenance ferries.

However within the maintenance ferry there are several different flight numbers UA has reserved specifically for maintenance ferries but it all depends on the type of maintenance ferry and special permits needed to ferry an aircraft from where it is to a maintenance bay. The delays and changes are because maintenance is working on the aircraft and reporting what they find. Employees at TOMC (Technical Operations Maintenance Center) are working with other relevant groups to get the necessary permits and approval from the FAA to ferry the aircraft from point A to point B. In some cases the FAA will not give approval for the maintenance ferry as filed so an airline will cancel that flight, make the necessary changes perform additional maintenance work to get the permits necessary to ferry the aircraft and the flight number has to match the specific maintenance ferry permits.


I am simply curious as to why its taking so long to diagnos this problem and get the plane back in service. they've had all day Monday, Tuesday and today. I find it interesting that this plane, only a few years old, has been out this long. Also I did not ask about the change of flight number. Its that simple. I am not bashing United, nothing like that. If you don't like where I am going with this particular thread, then there is no need for you to participate in it.


Point blank you generally come across as having an agenda and a reputation on this site. It should not be surprising that someone questions your motives when you lock onto something that either paints your favorite airline favorably or may be unfavorable to other carriers. Your reputation precedes you.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
Okie
Posts: 4025
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:28 pm

jumbojet wrote:
I am simply curious as to why its taking so long to diagnos this problem and get the plane back in service. they've had all day Monday, Tuesday and today. I find it interesting that this plane, only a few years old, has been out this long.


If the issue is similar to the FOD in an electrical panel as in the previous ZA002 incident, then it may take a day or two just to ship a complete panel.
Most likely a complete panel probably would not be a stores item.

Okie
 
sqlblr
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Long-time lurker - Occasional poster. I know this thread is focused on technical issues.

I was a passenger on the flight. Here is my account ( as accurate as I can be).

1. At the time of the incident, the cabin crew had wrapped up the snack service in Y.
2. We felt a mild turbulence kind of bump and the pilot came on the PA and announced "Emergency decent"
3. The cabin crew immediately kicked into emergency mode and prepared the cabin
4. About 30s to 1 min into the decent the oxygen masks deployed
5. About 2-3 ish mins later the decent ended but we continued to use the masks for a bit more time
6. The internet connective died at some point in the rapid descent
7. About 8 mins in the crew asked people to remove their mask
8. The captain came on-board and announced the a/c systems had failed and they were looking to soon land the plane
9. The captain assured the structure was safe and completely flyable
10. The captain also assured that the crew were very experienced pilots with each 25+ experience so they have handled this in the past
11. We were told we are headed to EWR at 10FL all the way for the next 2 hours
11a. At some point the cabin started to get really hot
11b. At some point all screens and galley ovens were shut down to reduce the heat
11c. The crew walked across the cabin multiple times and assured that everything was ok and not to panic.
12. About 1 hr in we were told we are landing in BGR in 45 mins as the best decision
13. Landing in BGR was followed by the emergency response units
14. 2 hrs post-event firemen made a visual inspection of the cabin (in dark) and then we were allowed to de-board

I want to point out the superb performance of the pilots, cabin crew and United. They did their best to keep us informed and were very friendly and professional.

Fun moment: The delayed flight was BGR-EWR-AMS itself had technical issues on the ramp. I have a hilarious pic of duct tape being applied on the wings due to peeling paint. Needless to say everyone took it lightly and laughed it out.
 
airboss787
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:39 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:34 pm

sqlblr wrote:
Long-time lurker - Occasional poster. I know this thread is focused on technical issues.

I was a passenger on the flight. Here is my account ( as accurate as I can be).

1. At the time of the incident, the cabin crew had wrapped up the snack service in Y.
2. We felt a mild turbulence kind of bump and the pilot came on the PA and announced "Emergency decent"
3. The cabin crew immediately kicked into emergency mode and prepared the cabin
4. About 30s to 1 min into the decent the oxygen masks deployed
5. About 2-3 ish mins later the decent ended but we continued to use the masks for a bit more time
6. The internet connective died at some point in the rapid descent
7. About 8 mins in the crew asked people to remove their mask
8. The captain came on-board and announced the a/c systems had failed and they were looking to soon land the plane
9. The captain assured the structure was safe and completely flyable
10. The captain also assured that the crew were very experienced pilots with each 25+ experience so they have handled this in the past
11. We were told we are headed to EWR at 10FL all the way for the next 2 hours
11a. At some point the cabin started to get really hot
11b. At some point all screens and galley ovens were shut down to reduce the heat
11c. The crew walked across the cabin multiple times and assured that everything was ok and not to panic.
12. About 1 hr in we were told we are landing in BGR in 45 mins as the best decision
13. Landing in BGR was followed by the emergency response units
14. 2 hrs post-event firemen made a visual inspection of the cabin (in dark) and then we were allowed to de-board

I want to point out the superb performance of the pilots, cabin crew and United. They did their best to keep us informed and were very friendly and professional.

Fun moment: The delayed flight was BGR-EWR-AMS itself had technical issues on the ramp. I have a hilarious pic of duct tape being applied on the wings due to peeling paint. Needless to say everyone took it lightly and laughed it out.


Glad to see everything turned out okay. Happy to see that UA did their best in helping out as much as they could. Sounds like quite a frightening experience for a rare traveler or even a relatively experienced one since this does not happen very often.
Do you mean, after landing, you were kept on the plane for 2 hours? Were you provided any food/drinks or were you able to walk around the cabin? Also, how and when did you get out of there on to AMS?

On a side note, looks like N35953 is on the way to EWR as UA2704.
Star Alliance Gold
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:35 pm

sqlblr wrote:
Long-time lurker - Occasional poster. I know this thread is focused on technical issues.

I was a passenger on the flight. Here is my account ( as accurate as I can be).

1. At the time of the incident, the cabin crew had wrapped up the snack service in Y.
2. We felt a mild turbulence kind of bump and the pilot came on the PA and announced "Emergency decent"
3. The cabin crew immediately kicked into emergency mode and prepared the cabin
4. About 30s to 1 min into the decent the oxygen masks deployed
5. About 2-3 ish mins later the decent ended but we continued to use the masks for a bit more time
6. The internet connective died at some point in the rapid descent
7. About 8 mins in the crew asked people to remove their mask
8. The captain came on-board and announced the a/c systems had failed and they were looking to soon land the plane
9. The captain assured the structure was safe and completely flyable
10. The captain also assured that the crew were very experienced pilots with each 25+ experience so they have handled this in the past
11. We were told we are headed to EWR at 10FL all the way for the next 2 hours
11a. At some point the cabin started to get really hot
11b. At some point all screens and galley ovens were shut down to reduce the heat
11c. The crew walked across the cabin multiple times and assured that everything was ok and not to panic.
12. About 1 hr in we were told we are landing in BGR in 45 mins as the best decision
13. Landing in BGR was followed by the emergency response units
14. 2 hrs post-event firemen made a visual inspection of the cabin (in dark) and then we were allowed to de-board

I want to point out the superb performance of the pilots, cabin crew and United. They did their best to keep us informed and were very friendly and professional.

Fun moment: The delayed flight was BGR-EWR-AMS itself had technical issues on the ramp. I have a hilarious pic of duct tape being applied on the wings due to peeling paint. Needless to say everyone took it lightly and laughed it out.


Thank you for your account and I’m glad we handled this the best we could.

Just so you know that bump of turbulence you felt prior to the descent was most likely the speed brakes coming out full for the rapid descent.
 
jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:48 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
jayunited wrote:

I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this thread or the point your trying to make but its pretty simple both right and left packs failed there was a DC bus problem as well which forced a rapid decent to FL100 and subsequent emergency landing at BGR. The aircraft has been out of service while EWR mechanics work on fixing the problem so UA can at least ferry the aircraft down to EWR. Anyone who has been in the airline industry knows sometimes its hard to nail down electrical issues, so yes the departure times have been changed. The destination and flight number has been changed as well, UA wanted to get the aircraft to our maintenance bay at SFO but we can only have permits to go as far as EWR for now.

Why the change of flight number you may ask? There are multiple reasons for the change of flight number and this isn't just exclusive to UA all US flagged carriers have different flight number assigned so that everyone from the operations center up to and including the FAA and ATC know what type of flight it is. All US flagged carriers have flight numbers reserved for just revenue passenger flights, numbers for extra sections, numbers for charters flights, numbers for military flights, numbers for cargo ferry flights, empty ferries, and maintenance ferries.

However within the maintenance ferry there are several different flight numbers UA has reserved specifically for maintenance ferries but it all depends on the type of maintenance ferry and special permits needed to ferry an aircraft from where it is to a maintenance bay. The delays and changes are because maintenance is working on the aircraft and reporting what they find. Employees at TOMC (Technical Operations Maintenance Center) are working with other relevant groups to get the necessary permits and approval from the FAA to ferry the aircraft from point A to point B. In some cases the FAA will not give approval for the maintenance ferry as filed so an airline will cancel that flight, make the necessary changes perform additional maintenance work to get the permits necessary to ferry the aircraft and the flight number has to match the specific maintenance ferry permits.


I am simply curious as to why its taking so long to diagnos this problem and get the plane back in service. they've had all day Monday, Tuesday and today. I find it interesting that this plane, only a few years old, has been out this long. Also I did not ask about the change of flight number. Its that simple. I am not bashing United, nothing like that. If you don't like where I am going with this particular thread, then there is no need for you to participate in it.


You have a reputation that you created yourself. I’m interested to see how long this goes before you bash United. So far you are doing good. So thank you.

I'm impressed with the United Airlines of today. I think they do a pretty good job overall and have vastly improved over the past couple of years. Again, I just find it interesting that UA mechanics aren't able to figure out how to get this particular plane out of Bangor. Modern airplanes, as sophisticated as they are, have computers that should tell you more or less what is wrong with the plane. Not knocking United mechanics but again, I just find it perplexing that this bird is still in Bangor.

So, looks like the plane is enroute to EWR now and flying at 39,000 feet. Sounds like whatever the issue was, it has been fixed if their flying that high an altitude.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:24 pm

jayunited wrote:
The right pack and DC bus failed simultaneously a reset was attempted by the flight crew while at cruise altitude however the left pack then failed oxygen mask deployed the captain performed a rapid decent down to FL100. Passenger were rescued and flowned to EWR then continued on to AMS while a maintenance crew from EWR was ferried up to BGR to work on repairing the aircraft. If the work is completed the aircraft will ferry down to EWR on tomorrow 10/09/19 and from there ferry to SMB although I don't know when the EWR-SMB ferry will happen.

Concerning the 789 schedule there has been no ripple effect there is enough slack built into the 789 schedule.


My original post yesterday showing a ferry on today 10/09/2019,below are some of the post you made starting this morning culminating with your last post where you still could not help yourself.

jumbojet wrote:
according to flightaware, it was cancelled yet again.
edited to add, another section of flightaware shows it departing late.

jumbojet wrote:
United.com says its cancelled due to operational issues. Damn, now into day 3.


jumbojet wrote:
I'm impressed with the United Airlines of today. I think they do a pretty good job overall and have vastly improved over the past couple of years. Again, I just find it interesting that UA mechanics aren't able to figure out how to get this particular plane out of Bangor. Modern airplanes, as sophisticated as they are, have computers that should tell you more or less what is wrong with the plane. Not knocking United mechanics but again, I just find it perplexing that this bird is still in Bangor.

So, looks like the plane is enroute to EWR now and flying at 39,000 feet. Sounds like whatever the issue was, it has been fixed if their flying that high an altitude.


I'm sure you are aware there are 24 hours in a day and just because an aircraft hasn't left in the early morning hours or shows multiple cancellation and different flight numbers does not mean UA mechanics aren't able to figure out how to fix the problem. Hence the reason I gave you a small amount of information pertaining to maintenance ferries. Your last post about UA mechanics not being able to figure out the problem is such a slap in the face of every aircraft mechanic at every airline who show up to work and gets the job done. Sorry it didn't happen in the time frame you allotted but in the airline industry safety never takes a backseat to time, getting the job done right is what's most important in this industry.
The next time you want to try and throw shade at UA mechanics perhaps you should trying spending a day in their shoes or the shoes of any airline mechanic before you criticize them. Oh wait your not knocking them right? :roll:

I'm sure it must have just pained you to edit your last post and have to add the plane is enroute after just posting a criticism of UA mechanics.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:13 am

sqlblr wrote:
Long-time lurker - Occasional poster. I know this thread is focused on technical issues.

I was a passenger on the flight. Here is my account ( as accurate as I can be).

1. At the time of the incident, the cabin crew had wrapped up the snack service in Y.
2. We felt a mild turbulence kind of bump and the pilot came on the PA and announced "Emergency decent"
3. The cabin crew immediately kicked into emergency mode and prepared the cabin
4. About 30s to 1 min into the decent the oxygen masks deployed
5. About 2-3 ish mins later the decent ended but we continued to use the masks for a bit more time
6. The internet connective died at some point in the rapid descent
7. About 8 mins in the crew asked people to remove their mask
8. The captain came on-board and announced the a/c systems had failed and they were looking to soon land the plane
9. The captain assured the structure was safe and completely flyable
10. The captain also assured that the crew were very experienced pilots with each 25+ experience so they have handled this in the past
11. We were told we are headed to EWR at 10FL all the way for the next 2 hours
11a. At some point the cabin started to get really hot
11b. At some point all screens and galley ovens were shut down to reduce the heat
11c. The crew walked across the cabin multiple times and assured that everything was ok and not to panic.
12. About 1 hr in we were told we are landing in BGR in 45 mins as the best decision
13. Landing in BGR was followed by the emergency response units
14. 2 hrs post-event firemen made a visual inspection of the cabin (in dark) and then we were allowed to de-board

I want to point out the superb performance of the pilots, cabin crew and United. They did their best to keep us informed and were very friendly and professional.

Fun moment: The delayed flight was BGR-EWR-AMS itself had technical issues on the ramp. I have a hilarious pic of duct tape being applied on the wings due to peeling paint. Needless to say everyone took it lightly and laughed it out.


Great summary. It’s clear that there was an ongoing set of decision making that it took to come down in BGR. Glad you had great pilots.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:25 am

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
according to flightaware, it was cancelled yet again.

edited to add, another section of flightaware shows it departing late.


I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this thread or the point your trying to make but its pretty simple both right and left packs failed there was a DC bus problem as well which forced a rapid decent to FL100 and subsequent emergency landing at BGR. The aircraft has been out of service while EWR mechanics work on fixing the problem so UA can at least ferry the aircraft down to EWR. Anyone who has been in the airline industry knows sometimes its hard to nail down electrical issues, so yes the departure times have been changed. The destination and flight number has been changed as well, UA wanted to get the aircraft to our maintenance bay at SFO but we can only have permits to go as far as EWR for now.

Why the change of flight number you may ask? There are multiple reasons for the change of flight number and this isn't just exclusive to UA all US flagged carriers have different flight number assigned so that everyone from the operations center up to and including the FAA and ATC know what type of flight it is. All US flagged carriers have flight numbers reserved for just revenue passenger flights, numbers for extra sections, numbers for charters flights, numbers for military flights, numbers for cargo ferry flights, empty ferries, and maintenance ferries.

However within the maintenance ferry there are several different flight numbers UA has reserved specifically for maintenance ferries but it all depends on the type of maintenance ferry and special permits needed to ferry an aircraft from where it is to a maintenance bay. The delays and changes are because maintenance is working on the aircraft and reporting what they find. Employees at TOMC (Technical Operations Maintenance Center) are working with other relevant groups to get the necessary permits and approval from the FAA to ferry the aircraft from point A to point B. In some cases the FAA will not give approval for the maintenance ferry as filed so an airline will cancel that flight, make the necessary changes perform additional maintenance work to get the permits necessary to ferry the aircraft and the flight number has to match the specific maintenance ferry permits.

A type2 Ferry flight release is only good for a certain number of hours or days. If the flight can't depart when projected, It might require a new Ferry permit and the approvals will all have to be signed again, And at least 4 vp level or Director Levels have to sign off as well as an No Technica; Objection by the FAA. Also The Ferry flight numbers for a Type 2 Maintenance ferry are VERY Limited (3 that I know of before I retired) Positio. ning Ferry flights have more Numbers But Maintenance Test and Ferry flights to repair? Not so much..
 
catiii
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 am

jumbojet wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
jumbojet wrote:

I am simply curious as to why its taking so long to diagnos this problem and get the plane back in service. they've had all day Monday, Tuesday and today. I find it interesting that this plane, only a few years old, has been out this long. Also I did not ask about the change of flight number. Its that simple. I am not bashing United, nothing like that. If you don't like where I am going with this particular thread, then there is no need for you to participate in it.


You have a reputation that you created yourself. I’m interested to see how long this goes before you bash United. So far you are doing good. So thank you.

I'm impressed with the United Airlines of today. I think they do a pretty good job overall and have vastly improved over the past couple of years. Again, I just find it interesting that UA mechanics aren't able to figure out how to get this particular plane out of Bangor. Modern airplanes, as sophisticated as they are, have computers that should tell you more or less what is wrong with the plane. Not knocking United mechanics but again, I just find it perplexing that this bird is still in Bangor.

So, looks like the plane is enroute to EWR now and flying at 39,000 feet. Sounds like whatever the issue was, it has been fixed if their flying that high an altitude.


At least it wasn’t stuck in PDL for a month after a botched crosswind landing...
 
USAirKid
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:19 am

jayunited wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Was just curious what the deal is with this United B789. It left SFO Sunday night en-route to AMS but diverted to BGR due to a cabin pressure issue I believe. It was supposed to fly to EWR on Monday but cancelled and was then supposed to fly back to SFO today but again cancelled. I know the passengers are long gone and in Amsterdam but was wondering if anyone knows whats going on with N35953 and when she might actually leave BGR.

Also, with UA down this 789 for a few days, does this have any sort of a ripple affect throughout the UA 789 daily schedule or is there enough slack to absorb one less 789 for the time being?

Thanks

JJ


The right pack and DC bus failed simultaneously a reset was attempted by the flight crew while at cruise altitude however the left pack then failed oxygen mask deployed the captain performed a rapid decent down to FL100. Passenger were rescued and flowned to EWR then continued on to AMS while a maintenance crew from EWR was ferried up to BGR to work on repairing the aircraft. If the work is completed the aircraft will ferry down to EWR on tomorrow 10/09/19 and from there ferry to SMB although I don't know when the EWR-SMB ferry will happen.

Concerning the 789 schedule there has been no ripple effect there is enough slack built into the 789 schedule.


I’m curious, how long gone does it take to replace all the oxygen generation canisters and masks after they’re deployed on a plane like a 787? Is that an item that is regularly in the stores, or does it have to be ordered with multiple days notice?
 
jettaknight
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:43 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:33 pm

DualQual wrote:
Point blank you generally come across as having an agenda and a reputation on this site. It should not be surprising that someone questions your motives when you lock onto something that either paints your favorite airline favorably or may be unfavorable to other carriers. Your reputation precedes you.


CriticalPoint wrote:

You have a reputation that you created yourself. I’m interested to see how long this goes before you bash United. So far you are doing good. So thank you.


As an impartial observer, it never would've occurred to me that the OP was being critical of United, but what do I know. My fellow fans of the Green Bay Packers always complain about the obvious bias against our team by Joe Buck and Troy Aikman. All I ever hear is informed, entertaining, and well balanced commentary.
 
DualQual
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:14 pm

jettaknight wrote:
DualQual wrote:
Point blank you generally come across as having an agenda and a reputation on this site. It should not be surprising that someone questions your motives when you lock onto something that either paints your favorite airline favorably or may be unfavorable to other carriers. Your reputation precedes you.


CriticalPoint wrote:

You have a reputation that you created yourself. I’m interested to see how long this goes before you bash United. So far you are doing good. So thank you.


As an impartial observer, it never would've occurred to me that the OP was being critical of United, but what do I know. My fellow fans of the Green Bay Packers always complain about the obvious bias against our team by Joe Buck and Troy Aikman. All I ever hear is informed, entertaining, and well balanced commentary.


Neither of us accused the OP of being critical. The OP has a reputation on this site that they needed to be reminded of because the OP was shocked that someone would question their motives for digging into this event. OP asked why we were shocked, a few of us answered.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
Rowberto
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:09 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:40 pm

Hey folks,

I'm a new user who created an account just to post as I'm very curious about this incident....because I was a passenger on the plane, just like the poster above. He did a very, very good job of detailing our incident, however I wanted to add a detail or two to his account, as well as a couple of things I recall slightly differently.

My add is that once we were in the Bangor terminal and waiting for several hours to be processed for hotel rooms, once we got rooms, we were not allowed to collect our checked bags. I asked the airport director a couple of times, and he apologized saying, 'they still don't have the hydraulics to open the cargo door'. That said, they were able to access our bags by the time we returned to the airport mid day the next day to fly to Newark. We departed in the pouring rain, and as we were shuttled out to the new plane on the tarmac, I snapped a photo of our old plane....and there in the pouring rain our cargo door was just sitting wide open.

Also, in the descent event:

I was sitting mid-ship, on the entry side of the aircraft in econ plus, row 21, seat A, and i was awake but not watching my screen. I felt a strong 'thud' or bump. [i think I was sitting right over the PAC] and i immediately started poking at my screen to get the the aircraft data screen. I'd estimate it was 10 seconds later, about the time that i got to the correct screen, that I felt a second thing, a smaller bump and slight decel as the captain come over the PA to announce, 'prepare for emergency descent'. I think the 2nd feeling was the airbrakes. I was sitting next to my wife, and while I was talking to her I was watching our descent rate and pulled out my phone to start a timer to calculate rate. You can confirm on Flight Aware that it was ~5k per minute. In my recollection, as i tracked this, the O2 masks did not drop for about 5 minutes out of the 6 min descent. They dropped as I watched rate right about FL140. The last altitude i saw on my screen was about FL125.

The only other couple mechanical things of note:

The Captain was great, and while he made several announcements, in the one after about 1 hour of flying at FL100 in the direction of Newark, when he announced that we were now diverting to Bangor, he said, "its time we stop chasing power systems and get this bird on the ground'. This lead me to believe we had bigger power issues than just the Pacs. I also noticed that while the plane was flying rock solid with steady engine sound, that when we made our couple turns to line up our approach, we do so very, very far out...like tens of minutes out. And, these turns were very minor inputs that also overshot a bit and had to be corrected. Then, my feeling was that they brought is in as slow as poss, and as shallow. Basically i don't think they trusted any hydraulic control input at all and didn't want to rely on it. I felt no rudder, a solid hit on tarmac, but no inputs at all in the moments before contact. It felt as close to dead stick as possible. However, once on the ground, we were able to taxi under our own power and taxi actually to a gate. I just think the pilots did not trust what they had while still in the air. Also, I can't be sure, and maybe the other passenger can comment, but our landing gear deployment was anything but normal. Several minutes of not regular sounds, and done maybe 20 min out during our super subtle descent, which makes sense.

I also have photos of the techs applying tape to the replacement aircraft on the tarmac. We were all nervously laughing, but it wasn't funny. The pilot also stated that mechanics were working on a 2nd 'maintenance issue' below decks. This wasn't a great feeling after the first plane's emergency descent. As an aircraft enthusiast, I have, since this flight, looked more closely at the innovations of the 787-9. There is a lot more new than I thought. One thing that really helped in this situation is that our plane really started to heat load up. Had we had chemical O2 systems in that cabin instead of canister pulse system, we would have had to land even sooner due to heat. As it was, we had a couple elderly folks starting to get distressed due to heat, etc in my area. I wish that I knew how hot it got inside, but I think, like boiling frogs, its impossible to have an accurate guess. Some pics:
 
jumbojet
Topic Author
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:17 pm

Rowberto, thanks for that very detailed description of events. Must have been a little nerve racking. Thanks for posting that.

While I know absolutely nothing about what could've gone wrong, it sounds like it was handled very professionally by UA

Also, interesting to note that this plane is still out of service. It has not flown since it landed back in EWR this past Wednesday
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4112
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:19 pm

jayunited wrote:
Why the change of flight number you may ask? There are multiple reasons for the change of flight number and this isn't just exclusive to UA all US flagged carriers have different flight number assigned so that everyone from the operations center up to and including the FAA and ATC know what type of flight it is. All US flagged carriers have flight numbers reserved for just revenue passenger flights, numbers for extra sections, numbers for charters flights, numbers for military flights, numbers for cargo ferry flights, empty ferries, and maintenance ferries.

However within the maintenance ferry there are several different flight numbers UA has reserved specifically for maintenance ferries but it all depends on the type of maintenance ferry and special permits needed to ferry an aircraft from where it is to a maintenance bay. The delays and changes are because maintenance is working on the aircraft and reporting what they find. Employees at TOMC (Technical Operations Maintenance Center) are working with other relevant groups to get the necessary permits and approval from the FAA to ferry the aircraft from point A to point B. In some cases the FAA will not give approval for the maintenance ferry as filed so an airline will cancel that flight, make the necessary changes perform additional maintenance work to get the permits necessary to ferry the aircraft and the flight number has to match the specific maintenance ferry permits.

I was aware airlines have multiple banks of flight numbers to separate scheduled ops from charters, ferry, etc... But am I correct in understanding from your post above that there are subdivisions within these banks, e.g. specific ferry flight numbers depending on the reason behind the ferry, down to the type of maintenance required? And that these banks of flight numbers are somehow communicated to the FAA? I'm guessing that means ATC knows what is the purpose of a flight by matching the flight number and the airline?

I'm also surprised that a ferry permit would state the flight number to be used. I would have thought the plane's registration number would have been a more reliable identifier...
The Trump/Johnson special relationship: Special people on both sides of the Atlantic
 
rnav2dlrey
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:10 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:19 pm

Fantastic posts, Rowberto and sqlblr! Thank you, and please consider posting more in the future.
 
Murf
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 11:47 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:48 pm

I'm gonna speculate and guess that the DC bus failure might be the root cause for why the air conditioning failed and possibly other users on that power bus also failed... As for it taking so long to fix...if the mechanics needs 2 weeks to fix it then by all means allow them 2 weeks to fix it...This is human lives these guys are dealing with... Maybe they get it fixed earlier and that's great... But I'd be pretty disappointed in any airline that deemed how many clock hours had gone by as the determining factor of whether a plane should be fixed and flying already... I'm guessing these are complicated pieces of machinery... Sometimes it's a 15 mins and sometimes it's multiple days... As long as it's fixed right... An airline is the last place you should run your maintenance like a chop shop.

Another thing that maybe caused the delay is the oxygen generator replacement...I read after ValuJet crash those can no longer be carried in airplane cargo so organising hazardous materials shipping by road from Newark, SFO or Chicago will take time for parts too get there.

Maybe they didn't have any spare crew at the time to do the ferry so rescheduled.

Either way I could be totally wrong with my speculations...but these are expensive assets... Better to be safe than sorry... Take all the time you need to do the job right... The Airlines.net scheduling/timeline is the least of their concern

Murf
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7828
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:12 am

sqlblr wrote:
Long-time lurker - Occasional poster. I know this thread is focused on technical issues.

I was a passenger on the flight. Here is my account ( as accurate as I can be).

1. At the time of the incident, the cabin crew had wrapped up the snack service in Y.
2. We felt a mild turbulence kind of bump and the pilot came on the PA and announced "Emergency decent"
3. The cabin crew immediately kicked into emergency mode and prepared the cabin
4. About 30s to 1 min into the decent the oxygen masks deployed
5. About 2-3 ish mins later the decent ended but we continued to use the masks for a bit more time
6. The internet connective died at some point in the rapid descent
7. About 8 mins in the crew asked people to remove their mask
8. The captain came on-board and announced the a/c systems had failed and they were looking to soon land the plane
9. The captain assured the structure was safe and completely flyable
10. The captain also assured that the crew were very experienced pilots with each 25+ experience so they have handled this in the past
11. We were told we are headed to EWR at 10FL all the way for the next 2 hours
11a. At some point the cabin started to get really hot
11b. At some point all screens and galley ovens were shut down to reduce the heat
11c. The crew walked across the cabin multiple times and assured that everything was ok and not to panic.
12. About 1 hr in we were told we are landing in BGR in 45 mins as the best decision
13. Landing in BGR was followed by the emergency response units
14. 2 hrs post-event firemen made a visual inspection of the cabin (in dark) and then we were allowed to de-board

I want to point out the superb performance of the pilots, cabin crew and United. They did their best to keep us informed and were very friendly and professional.

Fun moment: The delayed flight was BGR-EWR-AMS itself had technical issues on the ramp. I have a hilarious pic of duct tape being applied on the wings due to peeling paint. Needless to say everyone took it lightly and laughed it out.



I worked at BGR 1996-2000...did you have time to see any sites, or did they keep you at the Terminal - Hotel..? Stephen Kings house is close by and easy to get too. I miss BGR. It was a great place to cut my teeth in aviation. Worked with a great group of people.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:30 am

No updates in three days? I don't think a daily update is too much to ask for since we were getting hourly updates on the status of a maintenance ferry flight just a few days ago.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-9 Still in Bangor, Maine from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:38 am

IPFreely wrote:
No updates in three days? I don't think a daily update is too much to ask for since we were getting hourly updates on the status of a maintenance ferry flight just a few days ago.


A simple search of the tail number on FR24 would tell you it’s already back in service. Don’t be afraid to do things yourself.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: UA N35953 Boeing 787-900 Still in Bangor Main from a Sunday Night SFO Flight

Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:15 am

Sqlblr and Rowberto, thanks for great reports from the actual incident! Very interesting reading.

Also,

jettaknight wrote:
As an impartial observer, it never would've occurred to me that the OP was being critical of United, but what do I know.


+1

I realise that some folks on the site may have a history and/or may be sensitive to particular angles relating to particular companies. However, please cut it out! We don't need an unnecessary debate on a thread that in my opinion was interesting by itself.

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