HJPlikestofly

You got to be kidding me.

+1

chinatraderjmr

It's already tomorrow over here (still trying to grasp that concept . I don't know why UA has still not cancelled 33 for this afternoon. (Could they have gotten a waiver from the FAA)?? People are already flying up from all over SE Asia to catch this flight. I personally don't think there is really a danger but God forbid something happens & UA is operating 33 on some kind of waiver - that would open them up to the worst publicity ever seen. I can't imagine them operating it but .com, and the NRT site still says ontime

I'm on my way to NRT tonight (but I think I arrive T-2). I wish i was coming into T-1 just to see what UA is officially telling people. Looking at ANA's web site they have zeroed out the next 2 days flights from HND-FRA but looks like they expect to be flying again this weekend

zrs70

UA 33 NRT-LAX for Jan 17 now showing as cancelled.

For the 18th, flight shows as scheduled, but an additional 777, flight number 1756, also shows up.

craz

Then please explain to me why they didnt sub a different ac type for the 32 today and at least keep their 787s flying Only on Domestic routes, where it would be able to land pretty much in a few mins, rather then be hrs from the nearest landing spot when over water.

Caution is what should have been #1 along with Safety and its obvious to me at least that wasnt COs # 1 & 2 on their list Reminds me of Ford not recalling the Pinto when they knew very well a rear end collsion could cause the car to go up in flames. They ran the #s and it ended up it would be cheaper to let some folks die then to do a complete Recall as many other companys have done when faced with things, if the damage will be less by not doing anything they dont = $$$ is the Final determination if something should be done or not

In COs favor they will simply place as many folks on the IAD,SEA,SFO,ORD flights depending where the persons final Destination is and ANA or JAL non-stops into LAX if need be.

But they could have avoided that had they put say a 777 onto the 32 today instead

#32 for 1/17 Thurs is also CXed, dont know why they couldnt pull a 777 from somewhere even the old config. I think 1 just when in for a change to the new seats. Hold off a week or so and put it onto LAX-NRT

channa

This is not the same UA as before.

While I certainly think (and hope) you are right. Integrity has been a challenge for this organization in the eyes of many of its loyal customers, specifically over the past year or so.

I can understand why customers would question the actions of the airline now more than before.

chinatraderjmr

True but I think ANA already has there hands full getting there own 787 passengers to where they need to go. The 787 is not a large plane, I'm pretty sure UA can handle the passengers from one cancelled flight on the other 6 flights going to the US (all 777's & a 747)

ANA also flys HND-FRA w the 787 and I just noticed they have already subbed a 777 on both the SEA & FRA routes

As I just mentioned, that's what ANA has done. UA is kind of quick at the draw when it comes to making decisions and not looking at all the outcomes That said, perhaps UA knows it can handle the 787 customers to/from NRT on exhisting flights so why go thru the expense

+1. UNITED, has been known the world over for its outstanding maintenance (the old UA). The same fantastic mechanics and pilots are still there but working under a whole new regime. While CO has there own great mechanics & pilots, I just don't trust them (CO, NOT the employees) like I did the old UA. No, I don't believe they would let a plane fly that they thought was unsafe. That's just ridiculous but I also don't think they are as cautious as they should and could be (I'm talking about mgmnt here)

kokonutz

I am so torn by this news.

I want to dance on Smisek's smug braggardly pre-flight face.

But I am a huge Boeing fan and proponent.

So I hope they work this stuff out.

Sulley

Both subsidiaries had (and still have) excellent TechOps programs.

I may seem like I'm being sensitive, but I know enough MX guys and gals to know that safety is still (and has always been) priority number one. Everyone takes extreme pride in their work.

I know that you guys aren't a fan of SHARES or Jeff but this is stretching it. I also counter with that if the plane was not safe, ALPA/CAL AFA would be up in arms until the planes were fixed and would not let flight crews even touch the things.

craz

NRT-LAX ANA uses its 777-300ER, did they use the 787 to any US city?

Could very well be that since the flights are far from full this time of year, CO $$wise felt its best to leave everything as is and to simply ferry the LA passengers to say SEA or SFO and have those flights go out Full instead of full of empty seats. Folks flying to LA can be rerouted to any other City to catch the NRT bound flight instead of into LAX

Yes I do feel it was a decision based on $$$ rather then Safety or Caution

swm61230

Well my problem with all this is that if it was UA execs in charge and not CO execs in charge we wouldn't be worrying about it at the moment.

Ok so maybe that is a bit far fetched but they should have never replaced the 777 LAX-NRT/NRT-LAX with a 787. Especially after they discovered the bad wiring in one of them.

There is something wrong in the head with United execs at the moment and are spiting themselves at every turn. Why in the world would you take a very sold out or near sold out route and reduce the capacity of it by 40 seats and in addition reduce your cargo capacity which is what makes money for the airline in the first place.

But I am sick of seeing LAX Getting the shaft from the EX-CON's. I never thought that pin when I saw it fit a group of people better then all of the legacy continental staff. Because they sure act like a bunch of EX-CON's

Sorry for the hijack.

Sulley

Management is management. Old management's policy to defer everything was not that great either

swm61230

Totally agree with ChinaTrader.

As many times as the new UNITED has lied and stolen from it's legacy UNITED fliers I don't trust a single decision that upper management makes.

channa

The issue is not the TechOps program. The issue is the credibility of the company as a whole. TechOps doesn't work in isolation. TechOps works for United. Based on United's actions, people are less likely to trust United than before. You can have the best staff and procedures in the world in that division, but how United treats its customers may cause increased questioning or scrutiny and possibly distrust.

It's a PR issue, really.


Not really. The leader sets the tone. You can run the best child care center in the country, with the most dedicated and professional staff. But nobody will trust the company if you make Jerry Sandusky the CEO. It doesn't matter how good the work is of the staff under him.

cfischer

called and had my RPU refunded tonight. No questions asked, but it took a while.

bse118

Seems that we've gone more than a bit OT here...