cblaisd

For my COS-DEN and DEN-MCI flights I try very hard to avoid Republic (although it's really hard, especially with the latter). I wonder about their maintenance sometimes, they cannot reliably stay on schedule, and they have virtually no backup aircraft when something goes badly amiss. (I'm not aware of any other United Express carrier for which United has ever apologized to an entire city).

Unless the pilot declared and emergency (or ATC did on his behalf), the original Tweeter was a bit overly dramatic in the use of the word "emergency." Does sound like an indicator light problem.

ROCAT

In general anytime an aircraft says they have an error light it is going to be treated as an emergency by ATC.

mkr

According to UA.com, the flight was a Bombadier Q400. It was headed to ABQ when it returned to COS. After maintenance work performed, it eventually flew to ABQ.

COSPILOT

So a quick update with second hand info I heard today with regard to the DEN-ABQ flight that made a stop in COS.

The passenger next to me on ABQ-DEN mentioned that he was on the flight cblaisd asked about. In his words, the pilot explained that the ground crew had not properly latched the cargo door in DEN, causing the stop in COS. The COS mechanics identified the issue, but it required that everyone deplane while they confirmed it was ok. As he described, the pilot had nothing nice to say about the new ground crew in DEN.

harryhood

UA1733 DEN-SFO 2/27 delayed because of late arriving crew, and more. Rolling delays from 5:55pm to 6:15pm, then to 6:45pm, then 7:15pm and finally left gate at 7:40pm. Crew arrives at about 6:15 so I knew we were waiting longer (they had already boarded us), then the pilots had requested more fuel, then there was a paperwork issue that took the better part of an hour to resolve. At about 7:25 the pilot basically invited people to get up and stretch their legs, even out onto the jetway (!) which I took as silly given that it usually takes longer than expected for people to reboard and settle in.

Anway, new 737-900, with new car smell, but dark -- no screens, wifi available but no streaming entertainment.

ekchidiya

Flight was boarding as normal when people started running out of space for cabin bags in overhead bins. Usually, this would prompt offers to gate check the bags that could not be accommodated but today the FA was informed there was no space in the hold to do so.

She exclaimed aloud that this was the first time she had ever heard such a thing. Eventually after a lot of adjusting existing bags in overhead bins (moving them around, asking people to hold on to coats instead of keeping them in the bin) everything got sorted and the plane took off 22 mins late and reached the gate 26 minutes late.

ekchidiya

Boarding started for the flight and Groups 1,2 had boarded. Just before boarding Group 3, the GA came on-board and announced that the flight was being cancelled "due to deicing equipment in Dallas"!

Needless to say, the flight shows cancelled due to "adverse weather conditions". Quite a few flights to both DFW and DAL are cancelled and queues at terminal B customer service are spilling into the main hall.

The returning flight UA4720 is also cancelled.

vielflieger

Hi there, I was booked on UA336 today from RSW to IAH and it was cancelled due to "weather" for inbound flight from EWR UA736.

When I checked earlier online due to a text I got saying my flight is delayed, it showed inbound UA736 returned to gate in EWR due to a "mechanical issue" (unfortunately did not take a screen shot, now that info is gone).

They rebooked me for first flight out on Tuesday (!!) and now I am forced to stay in Ft. Myers for 2 nights and United told me tough luck, no automatic Hotel reimbursement due to the "weather" situation....Not a bad thing considering the blue sky weather forecast EXCEPT I will miss important meetings and get stuck with hotel charges in excess of $200 plus per night due to high season! Not counting rental car, meals etc....what to do?

Any way to find out why 736 returned to gate? Would like to get reimbursed for my expenses, I guess it would be easier if confirmed "mechanical".

Any help and hints appreciated!

808oman

Flights
Search: Departing on 03/01/15
Flying UA flight 736

Flight Status Depart Arrive
Location Date Reliability Location Date
UA 736 Landed PHX
Term: 2
Gate: 6B
Scheduled: 03/01/15 6:24 AM
Estimated: 03/01/15 6:24 AM
Actual: 03/01/15 6:29 AM
100% / 0m EWR
Term: C
Gate: 103
Scheduled: 03/01/15 1:03 PM
Estimated: 03/01/15 12:29 PM
Actual: 03/01/15 12:30 PM
UA 736 Canceled EWR
Term: C
Gate: 113
Scheduled: 03/01/15 2:30 PM
Estimated: 03/01/15 5:00 PM
Actual:
60% / 68m RSW
Gate: C5
Scheduled: 03/01/15 5:45 PM
Estimated: 03/01/15 7:57 PM
Actual:
Comments:
0736/01MAR
P PHX/OUT 629A L00.05 ☨
P PHX/OFF 638A
P EWR/ON 1221P
P EWR/IN 1230P E00.33 ☨
P EWR/OUT 246P L00.16 EST OFF 340PWEATHER
P EWR/RR 350P
F EWR/ETD 500P L02.30 MAINTENANCE
N RSW/LX WEATHER
D CRC//EWR POSSIBLE DELAYS DUE TO MIXED PRECIPITATION
☨

SKED PHX ORIG 624A GTD 6B SHIP 4620
EWR 103P 230P GTA C103 GTD C113 SHIP 4295
RSW 545P TERM GTA C5

Baze

English version?

sbm12

The plane was late off the gate due to weather

Plane returned to gate because of MX issues

RSW-EWR cancelled due to weather.

msk6261

When we arrived at EWR for our non-stop flight to SFO yesterday. We were informed that are now planning to literally make a "pit stop" in Kansas City to re-fuel.

No more explanation, just that's the new plan.

Needless to say, our 20 minute stop turned into a longer delay as they noticed some dislodged "weatherstripping" on the wing. We arrived 4 hours late.

I wasn't the only one who had never experienced this before and everyone was baffled. I did overhear another passenger suggesting that headwinds cause certain planes to burn too much fuel for them to go the whole way.

And why do they choose those 737's if they can't make it to their destination?

808oman

This route is usually fine, but especially in the winter, flight to the west fly again the jet stream, which can sometimes be 150+ mph winds you are flying against and you can't route around as much on a 6 hour flight as you can on a 15 hour flight.

Thus, if the winds are strong, a fuel stop is necessary. On the return Eastbound, the opposite is true.

Thus, if just a handful of days require this and the rest of the 360 days or so are fine without a stop, it probably makes sense.

There are other Trans Atlantic flights that require fuel stops much more often, which may be more an issue than EWR-SFO.

Liz

I think at least 3 EWR-SFO had planned fuel stops today.

jjmoore

Not sure why these kinds of things happen (i.e. - weight restriction to plan in advance for extra fuel burn)... the range of a 739ER is 3250nm. With a 130kt headwind over the course of a 6 hour flight from EWR to SFO (~2400nm route), this could add 780nm of air range to the flight and bring it close to the maximum range, especially knowing that there is a surplus fuel budget in case of diversion or holding pattern. My guess is that they underestimated conditions and ended up cutting it too close for comfort and took the safe play to land at MCI to add a bit of fuel.

At least the mx shifted the responsibility entirely on UA for people's missed connections, etc...... even though I would say it's UA's fault in the first place for not getting the weight balance right.... my belief here is that it is easier to IDB 10 pax in EWR to have the rest of them in SFO on time than to cause 70-120 missed connections in SFO because of the "scheduled" refueling stop.