Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > Northwest WorldPerks
Reload this Page >

Diverson Due to Accommodating Passengers

Diverson Due to Accommodating Passengers

 
Old Jul 11, 2007, 9:15 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 1,931
Originally Posted by RobOnLI
Sure, but there is a big difference between *scheduled* stop and *diversion*. In your scheduled stop scenario, I'd imagine AC was selling seats on the HNL-SYD segment, thus allowing passengers onto the plane. Even if they were not and it was purely a petrol stop, I could see ICE being concerned.

-RM
(I hope I'm right, but I think...) there is actually an "old" regime and a new arrangement.

Until recently (~18 months?), all passengers between YVR and SYD had to deplane in HNL and go through US customs, even though AC could not sell ticket between HNL and SYD and thus would not pick up passengers. IIRC, the a/c also did not drop passengers in HNL; YVR-HNL was operated by a separate aircraft. (I may be wrong on this last point.)

There is now a new arrangement whereby pax do not have to deplane and clear US immigration although the plane (B763) still makes a refueling stop in HNL. AC will operate YVR-SYD direct starting January (I think) using B777.

All international airports in Canada have a dry transit zone, so that passengers connecting in Canada from an international destination onwards to another international destination do not have to clear customs. This is like the international zone near Piers E&F in AMS, for instance. I doubt any pax had to clear Canadian customs, except of course those for which YEG was their entry point to Canada.

(I haven't flown AC for so long... I hope my information is largely correct.)
respectable_man is offline  
Old Jul 11, 2007, 10:24 pm
  #17  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 386
I sent a TTU asking about the diversion and am waiting for the response.

No passengers were allowed on or off the plane during the stop. We did not pull up to a gate. We were on the ground for about 35 minutes for refueling.

No updates were announced to pax regarding remaining flight time during/after the stop so some folks in FC were trying to estimate it from the route map in the back of the NWA mag.

At the gate in DTW elites were asking about FC upgrades and told that FC was full. Just before the boarding door was closed, 3 seats were open in FC (one next to me) and the FA verified with me that seat was empty. A few minutes later, 3 bodies fill the seats. I asked my new neighbor and discovered she was on a standby list (coach ticket, non-elite, senior trip) to get on the flight. Coach was full and so she and her flight companion made the flight and got FC. Great for her (due to the extended time of the flight). Not good for the elites that were denied the upgrade (compounded by the length of the flight). Of course, the folks that were denied will never know the whole story and maybe being blissfully unaware keeps the peace.

Another observation: Even tho I had the 'butt in seat' miles, my posted mileage activity only credits me for the original flight plan. I did not get a credit for the extra miles from the stopover.
macoz is offline  
Old Jul 11, 2007, 11:22 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PDX
Programs: AS MVP Gold 100K
Posts: 2,989
Originally Posted by golf4000
Due to the extreme heat this past week, if the flight was going to go without a stop it would have need to bump 40 passengers due to it being weight critical. The other option was to take a full load of passengers and divert for a refueling stop in Canada and then continue on to ANC. They took option 2, which is why it was classified as “accommodating passengers” (the 40 they would have had to bump in DTW).
We have a winner. I remember last year when MSP was hit with a heat wave, NW had to make some planned fuel stops on the ANC/FAI runs in YEG due to limited takeoff performance. Happens from time to time.
Chugach is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 1:33 am
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Floating around
Programs: UA 1K (1MM), DL Gold (1MM), Marriott LTT
Posts: 10,335
Originally Posted by macoz
Another observation: Even tho I had the 'butt in seat' miles, my posted mileage activity only credits me for the original flight plan. I did not get a credit for the extra miles from the stopover.
If it's not a scheduled stop, you aren't getting the miles.

Besides, if it were scheduled as DTW-YEG-ANC, it would have been under the same flight number, thus providing the DTW-ANC mileage only.

-RM
RobOnLI is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 5:10 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by YVR Cockroach
OIC. As long as the a/c doors are not opened at YEG, no ICE clearance is required at ANC.
Interesting. And the paranoid US homeland security folks go along with this? They trust foreigners to be telling the truth, that no doors were opened and no one got on and nothing got smuggled onto the plane? After all, no US government offical is there to verify that the doors remain closed, they just have to trust the Canadians and the crew. I wonder if they would be quite as candid if (hypothetically) the IAH-SJU flight made an unscheduled stop in Havana.
CaptainMiles is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 9:45 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,679
Originally Posted by CaptainMiles
Interesting. And the paranoid US homeland security folks go along with this? They trust foreigners to be telling the truth, that no doors were opened and no one got on and nothing got smuggled onto the plane? After all, no US government offical is there to verify that the doors remain closed, they just have to trust the Canadians and the crew. I wonder if they would be quite as candid if (hypothetically) the IAH-SJU flight made an unscheduled stop in Havana.
Considering that, through NORAD, we have planes patrolling US airspace that are commanded by Canadian Armed Forces, yes I would say we trust the Canadians. I doubt a stop in Mexico would be able to skip ICE.
motytrah is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 10:46 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,794
Originally Posted by respectable_man
(I hope I'm right, but I think...) there is actually an "old" regime and a new arrangement.

Until recently (~18 months?), all passengers between YVR and SYD had to deplane in HNL and go through US customs, even though AC could not sell ticket between HNL and SYD and thus would not pick up passengers. IIRC, the a/c also did not drop passengers in HNL; YVR-HNL was operated by a separate aircraft. (I may be wrong on this last point.)
AC (and CP which was the predecessor on that route) has long had 5th freedom HNL-SYD (and beyond). QF even had 5th freedom HNL-YYZ/YVR (and also SFO-YVR).

What you were describing was AC's attempt at a "non-stop" service between YVR and SYD with a 343. It was NS one way but on the other, there was a stop required due to inadequate range. As long as the cabin doors weren't open, pax weren't required to go through ICE.

All international airports in Canada have a dry transit zone, so that passengers connecting in Canada from an international destination onwards to another international destination do not have to clear customs. This is like the international zone near Piers E&F in AMS, for instance. I doubt any pax had to clear Canadian customs, except of course those for which YEG was their entry point to Canada.
No they don't. Nothing like AMS or other international airports where you can change from any non-Schengen flight to another non-Schengen flight w/o seeing any government officials.

There are exemptions such as Vancouver (and presumably Toronto for an LY flight that continues to/from LAX) but same-plane transiting passengers, depending on which direction the a/c is going, are either kept on the plane (I think CX 888 HKG-YVR-JFK and PR MNL-YVR-LAS) or are penned in a holding area (CX 889 JFK-YVR-HKG, PR LAS-YVR-MNL and probably the JL NRT-YVR-MEX and v-v flights). Other than that, transit facilities are very limited in Canada, if non-existent.
YVR Cockroach is online now  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 12:49 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 1,931
Originally Posted by YVR Cockroach
AC (and CP which was the predecessor on that route) has long had 5th freedom HNL-SYD (and beyond). QF even had 5th freedom HNL-YYZ/YVR (and also SFO-YVR).

What you were describing was AC's attempt at a "non-stop" service between YVR and SYD with a 343. It was NS one way but on the other, there was a stop required due to inadequate range. As long as the cabin doors weren't open, pax weren't required to go through ICE.
Thanks for correcting me on both counts. I have been on YVR-SYD once (definitely a B763) and was forced to deplane in the middle of the night to go through US immigration.


Originally Posted by YVR Cockroach
Nothing like AMS or other international airports where you can change from any non-Schengen flight to another non-Schengen flight w/o seeing any government officials.

There are exemptions such as Vancouver (and presumably Toronto for an LY flight that continues to/from LAX) but same-plane transiting passengers, depending on which direction the a/c is going, are either kept on the plane (I think CX 888 HKG-YVR-JFK and PR MNL-YVR-LAS) or are penned in a holding area (CX 889 JFK-YVR-HKG, PR LAS-YVR-MNL and probably the JL NRT-YVR-MEX and v-v flights). Other than that, transit facilities are very limited in Canada, if non-existent.
This is interesting and I did not know this. Again, thanx for correcting my version of events.
respectable_man is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 2:08 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: Dirt Status w/ All
Posts: 5,040
Odd that the pilot would not have explained it better. The one time I had a heat related diversion was MEM-DTW where the decision was made to go to GRR because of storms in the way. We ended up diverting from GRR back to DTW because they found a slot. The pilot was very clear about the issues with heat, weight, runway length, storm location and fuel reserves.

I flew NW851 on June 30 and had one of the 757-200s with winglets. When I saw it at the gate I was happy I would get to try the new pseudo WBC on the TATL version. Turns out when boarding it was the regular 752 inside (without the forward galley in 13-15). Is NW puting winglets on all of the 752s? I expected that all interiors would be converted now that the Germany and Belgium flights have started.
tev9999 is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 2:13 pm
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: DL SkyClub Lifer
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by tev9999
I flew NW851 on June 30 and had one of the 757-200s with winglets. When I saw it at the gate I was happy I would get to try the new pseudo WBC on the TATL version. Turns out when boarding it was the regular 752 inside (without the forward galley in 13-15). Is NW puting winglets on all of the 752s? I expected that all interiors would be converted now that the Germany and Belgium flights have started.
I had a wingletted 752 with no WBC DTW-PHL on 23 June; the process of upgrading a 752 is multi-phased, and the winglets are done first, somewhere different than the interiors.
DanTravels is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2007, 2:32 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: New York, NY USA
Programs: DL DM/ 2MM, BA Silver, Amtrak Select Executive, SPG Life Plat/Amb, Fairmont Preferred
Posts: 1,056
These unscheduled stops are called "flag stops" (after the railroad usage), yes?

I had one on a Delta CRJ, LGA-MSY. We stopped somewhere in the Carolinas for fuel. Interestingly they knew it would happen before we even took off, due to the tailwinds.
PersonalFlotationDevice is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.