UA958 Jun 12 '15: MX @ ORD, Diverts to YYR for 2nd MX, Pax Housed @ Military Barracks
#331
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CT/NY
Programs: UA 1K/1MM, AA EXP, Marriott LT Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Plat Amb
Posts: 5,984
The kicker: since our original crew was sCO and the new plane was sUA, six of them deadheaded in GlobalFirst, creating the true employee class since no paid passengers was sitting in GF.
#332
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,253
Airlines do not have pilots sitting around all day and night. One interesting fact is that 50-60% of pilots do not live in the city they are based. They live all around the country and world and non rev to their base to work. If reserve crews are available and at the base, they need to be called in.
#333
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SFO South Bay
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 3,052
Yes, tarmac delays were reduced but altogether cncls went up as a direct result and fines were collected for the government coffers but not given to impacted consumers.
What would a regulation do? Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert in an emergency situation. Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert to the safest place they could land. It wouldn't likely force airlines to staff every possible landing site with enough hotel rooms to accommodate every possible emergency landing, nor staff them in advance with representatives 24/7 on the rare chance that at any particular landing strip would have a rep there in case of an emergency.
A service failure hurts the company in a way that regulation can't, terrible PR. That is already accomplished. The airline refunded/is refunding all money for the flight in addition to a voluntary "bonus".
Poor communication in a remote place isn't going to be changed with regulation. A service failure of this type is being "regulated" by the press and the free market system via consumer choices.
What would a regulation do? Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert in an emergency situation. Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert to the safest place they could land. It wouldn't likely force airlines to staff every possible landing site with enough hotel rooms to accommodate every possible emergency landing, nor staff them in advance with representatives 24/7 on the rare chance that at any particular landing strip would have a rep there in case of an emergency.
A service failure hurts the company in a way that regulation can't, terrible PR. That is already accomplished. The airline refunded/is refunding all money for the flight in addition to a voluntary "bonus".
Poor communication in a remote place isn't going to be changed with regulation. A service failure of this type is being "regulated" by the press and the free market system via consumer choices.
But, I fully agree with you that the unintended consequences of government interference are always bad, for everyone.
#334
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
Well, I know of at least one airline that does have pilots "sitting around all day and night" - Delta. My brother is a DL 767/757 captain, and in the winter when schedules aren't so tight, he typically spends part of his monthly duty sitting in a hotel near LAX on reserve. When a captain is ill, or stuck somewhere else with a broken plane, my brother gets the call and he reports for duty.
Since pilots are trained and certified on particular aircraft types, it would make less sense to keep them sitting at an airport. Also, their union contract might forbid that practice.
#335
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: UA Premier 1K: PlAAtinum; DL SM, MM; Marriott Gold; CO Plat Emeritus; NW Plat Emeritus
Posts: 4,776
Well, I know of at least one airline that does have pilots "sitting around all day and night" - Delta. My brother is a DL 767/757 captain, and in the winter when schedules aren't so tight, he typically spends part of his monthly duty sitting in a hotel near LAX on reserve. When a captain is ill, or stuck somewhere else with a broken plane, my brother gets the call and he reports for duty.
#336
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AA LT Plat, UA 1k/1mm+, National EE, IC Plat, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 2,605
You keep bringing up regulation. As I said, GOOD companies treat customers well without the government telling them to do so. BAD companies do not, and eventually (if the company is large enough or the industry important enough) the government steps in, which is not a good thing for any of us. I want UA to be a good company, therefore no additional regulation. UA keeps wanting to be a BAD company to customers. We know where this is going.....
But, I fully agree with you that the unintended consequences of government interference are always bad, for everyone.
But, I fully agree with you that the unintended consequences of government interference are always bad, for everyone.
Don't kid yourself...
#337
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Runway 22 @ KROC
Posts: 706
Just think of the mess it would have been had it been , say,January ...
#338
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,684
"If you like numbers, the government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics has plenty. During the most recent winter (October 2010 through February 2011), for instance, the worst month for weather-delayed flights was December, with 36.67 percent delays. But May and June were even worse for delays, and July was nearly as bad." http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/flight-...ry?id=13519150
This data isn't "fresh" but it is usually the case regardless of year.
This wasn't ATC/WX related as a direct cause, but the ability to recover with other aircraft/crew is much tougher in the summer (unstable weather, capacity may maximum.)
#339
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
Given that UA (and other airline) flights divert to YYR on a somewhat regular basis, I wonder why the airline doesn't at least have a contract and procedures in place with the service company that runs the civilian side of YYR to provide something for passengers beyond the military barracks and mess hall? They could easily arrange for pizza and beer deliveries to the barracks and to have additional blanket brought out of storage and distributed to displaced passengers (who should have also been instructed to bring their blankets from the aircraft when deplaning at YYR even if only to use for sitting on the floor in the initial processing building before returning the items to UA after leaving YYR).
In fact, I wonder why UA and other airlines don't somehow get the service company to upgrade the barracks to something more like a basic hotel standard or even to construct more hotel space to use in such situations. If passengers' local expenses are charged to the airline during diversions, more money could be collected for hotel-standard accommodations. It would be worth some money to airlines to be able to avoid all the bad will and bad publicity that these situations generate. Even if the hotel space isn't needed often, in an isolated place, very high rates could be charged to the captive airline. The service company has staff that can be called upon for overtime work or locals could be used for the occasional labor that this enterprise would require. It wouldn't be luxury, but it wouldn't be barracks style living either.
It sounds like the barracks are rarely if ever fully occupied here, so the upgrades wouldn't necessarily be subject to a lot of wear and tear. Military personnel would appreciate the relative luxury in their living quarters when they find themselves at YYR. If the service company runs the barracks, as they appear to do, they might be able to pass some of the additional expense to the military for the rooms that are used by YYR staff. It's unclear how much additional expense would be involved in keeping the barracks at more of a hotel standard when all this housing seems to largely be unused except during major diversions.
Please don't attack me.....I'm just thinking aloud here and I know some of this is speculation or even fantasy.
In fact, I wonder why UA and other airlines don't somehow get the service company to upgrade the barracks to something more like a basic hotel standard or even to construct more hotel space to use in such situations. If passengers' local expenses are charged to the airline during diversions, more money could be collected for hotel-standard accommodations. It would be worth some money to airlines to be able to avoid all the bad will and bad publicity that these situations generate. Even if the hotel space isn't needed often, in an isolated place, very high rates could be charged to the captive airline. The service company has staff that can be called upon for overtime work or locals could be used for the occasional labor that this enterprise would require. It wouldn't be luxury, but it wouldn't be barracks style living either.
It sounds like the barracks are rarely if ever fully occupied here, so the upgrades wouldn't necessarily be subject to a lot of wear and tear. Military personnel would appreciate the relative luxury in their living quarters when they find themselves at YYR. If the service company runs the barracks, as they appear to do, they might be able to pass some of the additional expense to the military for the rooms that are used by YYR staff. It's unclear how much additional expense would be involved in keeping the barracks at more of a hotel standard when all this housing seems to largely be unused except during major diversions.
Please don't attack me.....I'm just thinking aloud here and I know some of this is speculation or even fantasy.
#340
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
That was my first thought upon hearing about this incident. My question then became: Just how common are such events at YYR? Would their frequency justify the cost?
#341
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Given that UA (and other airline) flights divert to YYR on a somewhat regular basis, I wonder why the airline doesn't at least have a contract and procedures in place with the service company that runs the civilian side of YYR to provide something for passengers beyond the military barracks and mess hall? They could easily arrange for pizza and beer deliveries to the barracks and to have additional blanket brought out of storage and distributed to displaced passengers (who should have also been instructed to bring their blankets from the aircraft when deplaning at YYR even if only to use for sitting on the floor in the initial processing building before returning the items to UA after leaving YYR).
Some reports said that the pax were forced to endure extremely long periods with no food.
Other reports said that the military gave multiple choice warm meals to the pax.
Which is the truth?
Did the pax get fed properly 3 meals per day?
It's clear they got at least one or two military meals.
So, I'm not sure what the gap is.
Personally, I'd rather have a nourishing and substantial military meal that be forced to survive on beer and pizza. It sounds like the capability to provide pax with the same food as soldiers, already exists. So, I'm not sure where the gap is here.
Military food might not be featured in the "top 50 restaurant guide" but it's nutritious enough to keep soldiers strong and healthy enough for training and battles. And, I'd rather have bland but nourishing food than to be forced to eat chemicals, alcohol, and sugar and other processed foods that are devoid of nutrition.
#342
Moderator: United MileagePlus
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
Topic Check
Good Day Everyone -
Please remember the topic of this thread is UA958's diversion to YYR / Goose Bay; please focus the discussion on that.
Safe Travels,
J.Edward
UA forum co-Moderator
Please remember the topic of this thread is UA958's diversion to YYR / Goose Bay; please focus the discussion on that.
Safe Travels,
J.Edward
UA forum co-Moderator
#343
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, NYC, somewhere on planet Earth
Programs: UA 1K, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 8,289
Given that UA (and other airline) flights divert to YYR on a somewhat regular basis, I wonder why the airline doesn't at least have a contract and procedures in place with the service company that runs the civilian side of YYR to provide something for passengers beyond the military barracks and mess hall? They could easily arrange for pizza and beer deliveries to the barracks and to have additional blanket brought out of storage and distributed to displaced passengers (who should have also been instructed to bring their blankets from the aircraft when deplaning at YYR even if only to use for sitting on the floor in the initial processing building before returning the items to UA after leaving YYR).
In fact, I wonder why UA and other airlines don't somehow get the service company to upgrade the barracks to something more like a basic hotel standard or even to construct more hotel space to use in such situations. If passengers' local expenses are charged to the airline during diversions, more money could be collected for hotel-standard accommodations. It would be worth some money to airlines to be able to avoid all the bad will and bad publicity that these situations generate. Even if the hotel space isn't needed often, in an isolated place, very high rates could be charged to the captive airline. The service company has staff that can be called upon for overtime work or locals could be used for the occasional labor that this enterprise would require. It wouldn't be luxury, but it wouldn't be barracks style living either.
It sounds like the barracks are rarely if ever fully occupied here, so the upgrades wouldn't necessarily be subject to a lot of wear and tear. Military personnel would appreciate the relative luxury in their living quarters when they find themselves at YYR. If the service company runs the barracks, as they appear to do, they might be able to pass some of the additional expense to the military for the rooms that are used by YYR staff. It's unclear how much additional expense would be involved in keeping the barracks at more of a hotel standard when all this housing seems to largely be unused except during major diversions.
Please don't attack me.....I'm just thinking aloud here and I know some of this is speculation or even fantasy.
In fact, I wonder why UA and other airlines don't somehow get the service company to upgrade the barracks to something more like a basic hotel standard or even to construct more hotel space to use in such situations. If passengers' local expenses are charged to the airline during diversions, more money could be collected for hotel-standard accommodations. It would be worth some money to airlines to be able to avoid all the bad will and bad publicity that these situations generate. Even if the hotel space isn't needed often, in an isolated place, very high rates could be charged to the captive airline. The service company has staff that can be called upon for overtime work or locals could be used for the occasional labor that this enterprise would require. It wouldn't be luxury, but it wouldn't be barracks style living either.
It sounds like the barracks are rarely if ever fully occupied here, so the upgrades wouldn't necessarily be subject to a lot of wear and tear. Military personnel would appreciate the relative luxury in their living quarters when they find themselves at YYR. If the service company runs the barracks, as they appear to do, they might be able to pass some of the additional expense to the military for the rooms that are used by YYR staff. It's unclear how much additional expense would be involved in keeping the barracks at more of a hotel standard when all this housing seems to largely be unused except during major diversions.
Please don't attack me.....I'm just thinking aloud here and I know some of this is speculation or even fantasy.
I've heard conflicting reports.
Some reports said that the pax were forced to endure extremely long periods with no food.
Other reports said that the military gave multiple choice warm meals to the pax.
Which is the truth?
Did the pax get fed properly 3 meals per day?
It's clear they got at least one or two military meals.
So, I'm not sure what the gap is.
Personally, I'd rather have a nourishing and substantial military meal that be forced to survive on beer and pizza. It sounds like the capability to provide pax with the same food as soldiers, already exists. So, I'm not sure where the gap is here.
Military food might not be featured in the "top 50 restaurant guide" but it's nutritious enough to keep soldiers strong and healthy enough for training and battles. And, I'd rather have bland but nourishing food than to be forced to eat chemicals, alcohol, and sugar and other processed foods that are devoid of nutrition.
Some reports said that the pax were forced to endure extremely long periods with no food.
Other reports said that the military gave multiple choice warm meals to the pax.
Which is the truth?
Did the pax get fed properly 3 meals per day?
It's clear they got at least one or two military meals.
So, I'm not sure what the gap is.
Personally, I'd rather have a nourishing and substantial military meal that be forced to survive on beer and pizza. It sounds like the capability to provide pax with the same food as soldiers, already exists. So, I'm not sure where the gap is here.
Military food might not be featured in the "top 50 restaurant guide" but it's nutritious enough to keep soldiers strong and healthy enough for training and battles. And, I'd rather have bland but nourishing food than to be forced to eat chemicals, alcohol, and sugar and other processed foods that are devoid of nutrition.
#344
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SEA, OGG(I wish)
Programs: was UA 1K now Gold, cuz UA 1.3 MM; HA,DL,AS (no status in these), Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,238
For me, the most sensible posts are: #287 (vitira) & #330 (BearX220) ... thoughtful, constructive & well said.
Last edited by BH62; Jun 17, 2015 at 11:54 am Reason: added poster handles
#345
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: TPA
Programs: United - PG, Marriott Silver
Posts: 1,625
After having read this thread (was quite late to the party), especially the first hand account, a couple of things come to mind.
1) Obviously good on the flight crew for getting the plane on the ground. BUT...
2) That the entire crew separated themselves from all but two pax is inexcusable. It seems the biggest pax issue was the lack of communication. A forceful crew could have pushed for more communication, or, at least, provided updates through official channels. Whether this was a result of contractual issues or not, the impression it gives is awful. And I'm sorry, I find the notion that the pilot of an aircraft cannot suitably meet his rest requirements while billeted at an air force base, to be quite ironic.
3) This thread alone has provided dozens of suggestions on things UA could have done to help passengers. Of course it doesn't seem like UA knew what pax needed, because they had no representative with the pax. This is inexcusable. If it was not possible to have at least a few crew members stay with the pax, then someone should have been sent immediately (I suppose an airline knows how to rent an aircraft of some sort). By doing this, passengers would have at least felt as if someone was listening to them. Imagine the difference in outcomes if, after a few phone conversations with a crew member, an RJ/private jet/helicopter/anything was dispatched with blankets/toiletries/etc. No person at the scene meant UA didn't see what pax were seeing, which led to the avalanche of criticism through the media (most of it earned).
4) As for the operational issues, who knows why one aircraft was or was not sent. Had the communication with pax been better, this would have been much less of an issue than it became.
5) The response of the Canadians after 9/11 has been referenced a few times ITT. If you have some time, I strongly recommend watching this clip. It aired during the 2010 Olympics. It's quite long, but for anyone interested in commercial aviation (or who just appreciates human decency in the face of tragedy), it's absolutely remarkable (despite the poor quality).
.
1) Obviously good on the flight crew for getting the plane on the ground. BUT...
2) That the entire crew separated themselves from all but two pax is inexcusable. It seems the biggest pax issue was the lack of communication. A forceful crew could have pushed for more communication, or, at least, provided updates through official channels. Whether this was a result of contractual issues or not, the impression it gives is awful. And I'm sorry, I find the notion that the pilot of an aircraft cannot suitably meet his rest requirements while billeted at an air force base, to be quite ironic.
3) This thread alone has provided dozens of suggestions on things UA could have done to help passengers. Of course it doesn't seem like UA knew what pax needed, because they had no representative with the pax. This is inexcusable. If it was not possible to have at least a few crew members stay with the pax, then someone should have been sent immediately (I suppose an airline knows how to rent an aircraft of some sort). By doing this, passengers would have at least felt as if someone was listening to them. Imagine the difference in outcomes if, after a few phone conversations with a crew member, an RJ/private jet/helicopter/anything was dispatched with blankets/toiletries/etc. No person at the scene meant UA didn't see what pax were seeing, which led to the avalanche of criticism through the media (most of it earned).
4) As for the operational issues, who knows why one aircraft was or was not sent. Had the communication with pax been better, this would have been much less of an issue than it became.
5) The response of the Canadians after 9/11 has been referenced a few times ITT. If you have some time, I strongly recommend watching this clip. It aired during the 2010 Olympics. It's quite long, but for anyone interested in commercial aviation (or who just appreciates human decency in the face of tragedy), it's absolutely remarkable (despite the poor quality).