RealFan

I was on UA 840 which departed SYD on 1/23 arriving earlier today in LAX. I was standing in the Group 1 boarding lane and overheard a GS rep tell a GS pax that the 747 which went MX earlier in the week was being flown to SFO as a cargo/crew only flight with no pax.

NYRunner2

No offense intended, but this is a dangerous road to go down. There's a name for it that I can't remember right now, something like "tombstone mentality". It's the idea that as long as we haven't seen an incident of XXXX, then we don't need to worry about XXXX.

Thing is, accidents are more or less unacceptable. Maintenance standards are supposed to be held to a level where maintenance-related accidents basically never happen. So I'm not comfy with the argument "It must be okay, 'cause a 747 hasn't fallen out of the sky in a long time." By the time a plane falls out of the sky, we're into We Should Not Have Gone Here Land.

Rather, I would argue that the generally accepted maintenance standard is evinced by the "minor mechanical failure" record of most airlines -- for which the [observable] rate of MX cancellation on typical flights is a proxy. I don't know what that is, but I'm pretty sure that the UA 747 fleet is running a higher rate of mechanical failures than that. Which, in turn, makes me concerned that UA has maybe elected to save money by performing a lower level of maintenance than most other carriers consider appropriate. And that, in turn, implies that maybe the [still very low] probability of a major mechanical failure is higher than is generally considered acceptable.

There could totally be another explanation. But this one does worry me.


I am with you here. My co-workers and I who are all fly SFO/LAX-SYD 6-8 times per year were sitting in the Koru Club before 840 on 1/22 discussing whether it was time to start going QF on this route, at least until the 777's are up.

When you look at the progression they moved nearly all 747's to SFO to in their words 'better maintain' them, then they scrapped that idea, announced the 777 would replace the 747 on this route, and now suddenly it's like they can't keep these things on schedule. Did they realize these planes were falling apart 2 years ago, tried to patch them up, and now the patches are falling off?

Col Ronson

UA is not switching to 777s because they can't maintain the 747. They are switching to 777 because of abysmal LFs on this route during non-peak travel seasons. With fuel the way it is, its better to put the 747 on more heavy routes such as ORD-NRT/HKG than 777s, and to put the 777s on the SYD route. Keep in mind that the 777s replacing the 747s are only 4-5 years newer than the 747s they're replacing on average. Some of the 747s in UA's fleet are newer than the 772ERs.

777s hold more cargo anyways and that combined with the lower fuel consumption will keep this route viable for UA. While i'm sure it wasn't a deciding factor, the improvement in Y (AVOD) to compete with every other carrier on this route probably helped with that decision.

I flew UA839 last in October 2013; and the 747 had about 80 seats empty when i checked the seat map upon departure. The 747 only makes money when you fill most of the seats, especially with fuel this high.

AT612

I was on the UA840 from MEL-SYD-LAX on 1/23 that was late. The captain announced that a baggage container was stuck in the hold and they ended up having to remove quite a few containers to get it unstuck and then had to move all the bags to a new container and reload the plane. Once that was done the doors were closed but had to be reopened due to a clogged drain. This was not announced but I overheard it being radioed in. The mechanic fixed it quickly so that only added about 5-10 mins...wish they would have found that out before they closed they corrected all of the baggage issues.

I ended up having to rush in LAX through immigration and then a United Rep came up to me and had me just go through customs without it because they couldn't see my bag scanned at SYD and didn't know if it made it on the flight. When I landed in MSP they told me it had made it to LAX and now I am waiting to see when it arrives. Next time someone please smack me for packing all of my winter clothes in my checked bag when my final destination is MSP. Had to go buy a new ones when I arrived as they don't know when my bag will reach me.

Daniel-SYD

1/27 U870 sigh. Load issue - returned to gate. 2.5 hours and counting. One movie down :-)

Claim is a balance issue perhaps due to Econ being so empty and the front cabin being full plus whatever is going on in cargo. I'm somewhat surprised and amazed it is taking this long to figure out what do to. Curious as to what the complexities are .. Looking forward to understanding more.

LordTentacle

if light pass load
they might have loaded more cargo and it might be medium density and lots of it
this could potentialty make even loading impossible

having a spare combi 747 becomes really amazing in times like this where you have a great deal more space to sort out the loading options

master029

Crew didn't time out after 2.5 hours? I'm shocked.

Daniel-SYD

They ended up loading extra fuel into a rear ballast - which took a good 30 minutes.

GlobalSTL

Any idea why today's 840 was diverted?? Seems to be in hnl right now.

0840/07FEB
P MEL/OUT 1247P E00.08 ☨
P MEL/OFF 105P
P SYD/ON 200P
P SYD/IN 204P E00.16 ☨
P SYD/OUT 320P ON TIME ☨
P SYD/OFF 347P
P HNL/ON 342A
P HNL/IN 352A
F HNL/ETD 515A
P LAX/ETA 1006A L00.16☨
P LAX/ETA 1006A L00.16
F LAX/ETA 1219P L02.29
D FCF/DVRT HNL ENRT SYD-LAX A/MAINTENANCE

SKED MEL ORIG 1255P GTD 18 SHIP 8478
SYD 220P 320P GTA 61 GTD 60 SHIP 8479
LAX 950A TERM GTA 74

kenn0223

Looks like broken airplane:

GlobalSTL

How can the 747s be so unreliable for SYD but seemingly ok for other routes?

debracey

Any idea what was actually wrong with the plane? Must have been quite serious to divert to a non MX station at 4 in the morning...

-- Dan

Kacee

They're problematic on the other routes, too. But SYD does seem worse for some reason.

JDT1955

And now, it's cancelled from HNL. Unclear what the actual problem was...

debracey

Has anyone actually filed a DOT complaint against United for these flights? Surely the FAA/DOT should investigate UA to ensure their 744 maintenance is up to standard. DL has 744s that are older than UAs and they don't have 100s of pages of 744 cancellations.

*ducks*

-- Dan