Originally Posted by
lincolnjkc
I believe SOP (to minimize risk of aircraft damage) is to not release the parking bake while the jetway is in contact with the aircraft so since the aircraft "departed" it most likely had been pulled which would also jive with the "returned to gate" status
Most likely what happened was something along the lines of
- All doors were closed
- Jet bridge was pulled by the gate agent in preparation for push
- Parking brake was released [when combined with #1 still being true, the "Departed" status gets set]
- For whatever reasons (ATC, weather, needing a flight plan update, congestion, cargo, ...) the push didn't start immediately
- Either because of the family situation or for other reasons (ex: late baggage/cargo) the parking brake was reapplied.
Still it is disinformation to claim a plane has departed gate and is taxiing to runway when it is still stationary and has not moved from the gate. Of course, I have no knowledge as to whether or not parking brake was released and reapplied, but for sure the plane did not move and was never 'taxiing'.
As regards reason for #4, there were, as had been mentioned, strong head winds and if we left on time we would arrive LHR too early and, according to the Captain, United would be fined if we arrived outside 20 mins of assigned time. So initial plan was to leave the gate and park somewhere for half hour so we arrive within allowed window. Then at some point it was decided we would stay parked at Gate instead. The family disembarking was not part of that reason but rather the family took advantage of us still being at the gate.
Originally Posted by
jsloan
It appears that the flight was scheduled for a 10:10 arrival and you arrived at 10:15, officially on-time. So, no, UA wasn’t lying or “quoting the wrong reasons for [a] delay” — in fact, there was no delay.
Correct - a delayed take-off was intentional and was still on time arrival, but the passenger disembarking made that also a delayed departure.