US Airways Dividend Miles - PHL-FCO returns to Philly last night

From USAToday:

Rome-bound US Air flight returns to Philly after computer glitch

A Rome-bound US Airways flight returned to Philadelphia about two hours after takeoff Wednesday evening because of a glitch in a backup navigational computer, The Associated Press reports. "The pilot discovered the problem with a backup navigation system as the flight headed over the ocean," AP writes, citing airline spokeswoman Andrea Rader. She said fliers were never in danger. "Because you're heading out over the Atlantic, you want to have an abundance of caution," Rader tells AP. "It was a very minor problem in a backup to the backup (system)."


As someone posted on Ben Mutzabaugh's blog, "USAIR and computer glitch in the same sentence, who would have ever thought?"

I wonder if that is why there was such a mess down in the B terminal with rebooking late last night. The B ticketing was messed up (no kiosks) and the customer service desk at the B gates was also a mess with what appeared to be many foreign customers....

Nice sightseeing flight, PHL to PHL

03-Apr-2007 A333/Q Philadelphia Int'l (KPHL) Philadelphia Int'l (KPHL) 08:45PM EDT 10:22PM EDT 1:37

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA718/history/20070404/0045Z/KPHL/KPHL

Over on USaviation.com, it was discussed extensively. All the passengers were rebooked and flew out the next day, mostly on other airlines. But the way they were "handled" by the agents in the airport was allegedly pretty bad.

The reason given that the plane didn't go back out after the nav computer was fixed, or why they didn't use the A330 that is always overnight at PHL for the SJU morning flight, was because the crew timed out and no reserve crew could be found.

Were they served the arrival donut somewhere over Trenton?

At the same time that flight was turning around I was standing at customer service with 150 other people who missed their international connections b/c PHL didn't take incoming aircraft for a couple of hours. It must have been a real mess once the Rome flight landed.

From USAToday:

Rome-bound US Air flight returns to Philly after computer glitch

A Rome-bound US Airways flight returned to Philadelphia about two hours after takeoff Wednesday evening because of a glitch in a backup navigational computer, The Associated Press reports. "The pilot discovered the problem with a backup navigation system as the flight headed over the ocean," AP writes, citing airline spokeswoman Andrea Rader. She said fliers were never in danger. "Because you're heading out over the Atlantic, you want to have an abundance of caution," Rader tells AP. "It was a very minor problem in a backup to the backup (system)."


As someone posted on Ben Mutzabaugh's blog, "USAIR and computer glitch in the same sentence, who would have ever thought?"


You seem to be associating the res problems and the 'glitches' on US Airways.com to this cancelled flight situation - is that the case? If so, you are very wrong. Flights are not cancelled/rerouted due to such trivial matters. Flights return to the airport if the pilot needs something to be checked out, and this is for the safety if the passengers and all on board. Your post is over-simplistic and unhelpful. I worked overtime to sort these pax out with alternative flights, and from what I hear the flight crew were absolutely right to return the plane to Philly for further checks. safety is the priority.

Although, it seems the PHL staff went home and simply toold the delayed pax to call Reservations. Not a good PR move. That is the main issue here.

I worked overtime to sort these pax out with alternative flights, and from what I hear the flight crew were absolutely right to return the plane to Philly for further checks. safety is the priority.


I heard (from US maintenance people, albeit not in PHL) that it the flight was legal to continue but the Captain exercised his authority to return to PHL.

That might have been the prudent safety move. It may also have been the "do one's job" campaign that the East ALPA unit is pushing.

I heard (from US maintenance people, albeit not in PHL) that it the flight was legal to continue but the Captain exercised his authority to return to PHL.

That might have been the prudent safety move. It may also have been the "do one's job" campaign that the East ALPA unit is pushing.

To further add to this, it is being reported on usaviation that they lost 1 of 3 display management computers. Once airborne, they are (according to the source on usaviation and common sense) legal to continue on 2 of these with no interruption (they have to slave the captain's displays to the first officer's DMC) and can get over the pond with limited displays on 1 computer. Oh, and they allegedly reset the problematic DMC (inflight) and it came up.

The commentary on that site, allegedly by one of the mechanics who worked the aircraft, was along the lines of "a month ago, this flight continues to Rome." So, let's chalk this one up to about --> <-- of a safety concern, and a whole ton of use of captain's authority to prove a point to his/her management.

I'm not debating the wisdom of the latter, but I'm sick and tired of hearing "safety" recited as a mantra for every other airline screwup.

and a whole ton of use of captain's authority to prove a point to his/her management.

I'm not debating the wisdom of the latter
Still, if this is truly the case, then it's very selfish of the captain to inconvenience a whole plane-load of passengers in that way. Not to mention all the passengers on the FCO-PHL flight the next day who at least are entitled to EU-style compensation...

Still, if this is truly the case, then it's very selfish of the captain to inconvenience a whole plane-load of passengers in that way. Not to mention all the passengers on the FCO-PHL flight the next day who at least are entitled to EU-style compensation...

Perhaps. They are working to the rules that the FCC (and to them, more importantly) management crammed down their throat with the last contract in bankruptcy.

Chalk it up to unhappy employees. Some of them have subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways of dealing with the problem.

What is left unsaid here is that US could not or did not have a reserve crew available in PHL to take the aircraft to Rome when the crew timed out. Why, knowing that if that flight tanked it would knock out the return from Rome was the reserve crew not called as soon as the plane turned around?

(answer: US is cheap, but that's another discussion for another thread).

well the newest posting says that the captain had not crossed fully into NAT airspace and was obligated to return. Apparently the real problem was no backup crew.

You seem to be associating the res problems and the 'glitches' on US Airways.com to this cancelled flight situation - is that the case? If so, you are very wrong. Flights are not cancelled/rerouted due to such trivial matters. Flights return to the airport if the pilot needs something to be checked out, and this is for the safety if the passengers and all on board. Your post is over-simplistic and unhelpful. I worked overtime to sort these pax out with alternative flights, and from what I hear the flight crew were absolutely right to return the plane to Philly for further checks. safety is the priority.

I think you're misreading this.

The point is "what, USAirways having computer glitches?" no....... not them!

It seems to be the problem du jour lately.. And the excuse is getting old.

OK, attack me, but ... will they get full mileage credit for the returned flight and then the one they were rebooked on?

OK, attack me, but ... will they get full mileage credit for the returned flight and then the one they were rebooked on?

This is an unusual scenario, but for what it's worth, here's my 2 cents based on previous experience. If they stayed booked on US, then NO. (They'd just get credit for the final flight to Rome.)

However, if they were switched to another carrier's flight, say Alitalia, Delta, AA, etc, they'd be eligible for both the scheduled (but incomplete) US flight as well as mileage credit in the final carrier's program. (That assumes, of course, that the pax is an existing member of the other airline's program.)

well the newest posting says that the captain had not crossed fully into NAT airspace and was obligated to return. Apparently the real problem was no backup crew.

As I've posted over there--I'm not really qualified to fly a transport class aircraft over the pond, but if you look at that track it is certainly not like the thing quit over the coast of Jersey--they were a couple of hundred miles out, easy.

Without knowing the US FOM on this, it's (including mine) idle speculation. I do believe that before the pilots started "working to rule" that the flight probably continues. (a note--I don't see the working to rule as a bad thing, per se, I'm just making the observation).

But let's take it at face value--US knows the aircraft is coming back and knows the crew is going to timeout in somewhat short order--why was the reserve crew not called at that point?

The answer: US is cheap. If they did not need the reserve crew, they would have had to pay their guarantee. Instead, they strand people in PHL for at least a day, strand people in FCO for at least a day, and presumably get hit the paying the FCO originating people according to the EU rules on the subject. I believe our two colleagues from Guinness said it best: "Brilliant."