From the people whom I have spoken with informally, the answer to these questions is no.

I certainly do not want to downplay the severity of the issue, as a professional flight crew's decision to divert an intercontinental flight just before commencing an oceanic crossing should not be taken lightly, but the consensus opinion seems to be that this was not a situation wherein passengers and crew were in imminent danger (and rightfully so). As to whether a diversion was absolutely necessary, that is something I could not credibly opine to. The benefit of the doubt will 100% of the time rest with the operating crew. If a pilot identifies a potential safety issue that warrants a diversion, I want to be sitting behind the crew that will divert every time.

For what it's worth...

We've been to Goose Bay ! From ORD to BRU Feb. 2009 or 2010. Had to shut down 1 engine , I forgot why. Can't fly over water with just 1 engine. The landing was very rough. Overheard the captain in the galley telling the FA's he hadn't expected as much wind shear.
Were told there was not a building big enough to hold all of us, and no customs available anyways. AA bumped passengers from a JFK flight to Buenos Aires, flew that plane with a fresh crew and a replacement crew to Goose Bay for the original flight to BRU. Everything un and re loaded on the JFK plane. Some of us were not too happy to climb down and up stairs in 20 degree weather to reboard. After reading all the issues these poor passengers had, I'm glad AA took such decisive action and only caused us a 6 hour delay.

It's a bit different to go SFO-ORD vs. EWR-LHR. They probably need to recrew, clean the plane, replenish the meals, and deal with whatever security inspections/screening (e.g., luggage) needed for an international flight. Purely anecdotal guessing on my part.

I'm really amazed by all the whining from passengers about this incident.

There are four areas to consider:

1. The diversion itself. Was it prudent and safely done. Yes, without a doubt. Of course, if the trouble was a bit latter into the flight, passengers could have found themselves in UAK rather than YYR. Would they really have wanted to be stuck there?

2. Complaints about temporary accommodations. Lots of people think that they should have been giving hotel space prior to the crew. That is, IMO, nonsense. Crew -- both flight crew and cabin crew - need to be rested for safety reasons. Period. Besides, these are the poor people who endure that most flying and IRROPS -- more so than any UA passenger. Other complain that the accommodations were unheated and even "freezing". However, outdoor temperatures were in the 50s (F) all night long -- no where near freezing. There was therefore, no need for heat and only need for modest bed coverings.

3. Poor communications. Yes, the Twiter post was stupid. They should have invited the passenger to phone them. Didn't he not have access to a telephone? But, anyone who thinks that UA should have had staff in-place at YYR is, IMO, not in touch with reality.

4. Providing transport to EWR rather than onto UK. This, IMO, is the only real failure of UA. Yes, UA has only X number of aircraft and Y number of slots at LHR. Still:

Did UA consider upguaging one of their EWR/ORD/IAD-LHR flights and having it made a rescue stop at YYR enroute to LHR?

Did UA consider ferrying an aircraft (or two) to YYR and then having them continue on to one of the many other London area airports even if they didn't have slot availability at LHR? Did they consider not only aircraft available in the US but also aircraft in Europe (especially in Ireland and the UK)?

Did UA consider wet leasing an aircraft to pick up the passengers and fly them on to London? Titan Airways (ZT) may well have been able to provide such service on very short notice.

Did UA inquire of AC to see if they had an aircraft and crew available (perhaps at YYT or YHZ) to pick the passengers up at YYR shortly after their landing there?

Did UA rebook as many passengers as possible onto scheduled flight ex-YYR that departed before the UA rescue flight arrived?

I don't believe this is correct. A quick check of the records says that temperatures fell into the upper 30's the evening of the 12th/morning of the 13th.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/hap...-weather/49432

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to sell this?

First, the crew needed nothing. They were NOT needed to fly back to EWR, and they probably would have done the whining if they did. Plus why couldn't they get sleep in those luxurious accommodations you insist the passengers had? If passengers could sleep in the barracks, so could the crew.

Second, the crew has a responsibility to the passengers. Where was that responsibility?

Finally, "these are the poor people who endure that most flying and IRROPS -- more so than any UA passenger"??? REALLY? They "endure" IRROPS? From their own company? :confused:

You're the guy who wrote the United tweet, aren't you? :D (kidding)

Goose Bay is an airport that handles diversions regularly, especially TATL flights. Lots of medical issues. In think its staffed 24/7 by immigration/customs.

You are entitled to your opinion, not your version of the facts :rolleyes:

According to the WSJ:

According to the Goose Bay airport’s website, it is staffed by Canada Border Service Agency personnel, but they are able to handle only general aviation flights of no more than 15 passengers.

That said, the first-hand reports indicate that pax did clear immigration.

From United's hometown newspaper:

Passengers' barracks stay dents United's customer-service image

A few lines from it:

Article also reports that two minors were provided with hotel accommodations and the pilot personally contacted their parents. Well worth reading.

There used to be a presumption-tradition that the aircraft captain and his reports were responsible for the care and safety of passengers for the duration of the journey -- no matter what happened en route. That appears to no longer be the custom.

Hindsight is powerful. Some irregularities on board aircraft justify an URGENT response. Flight control 'flutter' and fire just to name two. We could dig up tragic events that seemed controllable - right up to the point where they lost control. The Swissair fire & divert attempt into Halifax and the Alaska Airlines MD83 loss of pitch control off LA are prime examples.

Diversions happen. The crew did what they felt they had to do. But, how United handled the aftermath made it worse and makes me wonder about United's competencies when things go wrong.

1) THe barracks. No issues here. I've been to Goose Bay. They do have customs 24/7, sort of. Only a couple agents assigned, because they are usually only necessary for diversions and general aviation. There are no scheduled international charter/cargo/passenger flights at Goose Bay. And, in my experience, they do not have standard hours. They show up when they know they have a flight. Also as far as housing, there really isn't that much in Goose Bay, some of it is still closed in early June, and believe it or not there are tourists this time of year heading towards the coast to see icebergs and wildlife (including, on occasion an early whale). So, finding rooms for a full 767 would be near impossible. Finally, there is a huge hydro project in the area (Muskrat Valley) and Goose Bay is the closest place to house the workers.

2) What really bugs me is the lack of communication (could united not get 1 staff member up there? Goose Bay does have scheduled air service), the flippant responses on Twitter (let's make our angry passengers angrier) and the length of the stranding. Don't tell me that United (or Air Canada if United had asked/been willing to pay) couldn't get two narrowbodies there to at least take passengers to EWR/YUL/YYZ etc...heck or even Halifax (which has a daily flight to London) where they could get people on other flights to London, or at least more comfortable accomodations while they waited.

United should have gotten personnel up there ASAP, rather than stick it to the handful of Canadian Forces and their contract employees.

They quote Mary Schiavo, former DOT Inspector General, saying:

If I were their lawyer, we would say, 'We will take care of your next travel,' and then make a payment of $5,000 that might exceed their delay damage that they could get," Schiavo said.

But (per nautical's posts) UA only offered pax 20,000 miles or $500 e-certs.

Several years ago I was on staff for a charity bicycle tour when the route for the following day was unexpectedly closed due to weather. The only way around was a lengthy 100 mile detour that required us to shuttle all the riders, their bikes and gear on very short notice.

Fortunately, the event coordinators had planned for just such an occurrence and we managed to successfully re-route and transport 2000+ people at significant additional expense and delay with minimal grumblings. We ordered in truckloads of pizza and beer; hired a local band to play while people waited for their buses; and provided frequent and timely updates all throughout the day. We all had radios and we used them constantly to direct and manage the situation.

That single incident taught me more about the proper response to crisis management than any MBA class ever could. It all boils down to doing whatever is necessary to get the job done while communicating status and taking responsibility and accountability - something that the current management at UA has completely lost sight of.