fly18725

I'd estimate they'd forgo about a million in revenue per spare widebody per day. Plus the cost of a couple sets of crew per airplane above and beyond normal reserve crews. It could make the difference between a profit and a loss.

A better plan is to have widebodies operating domestically that can be pulled for international service. You can then shuffle domestic planes around to compensate.

blueman2

Oh, I see. This was the passenger's fault.
And there should be rules for how passengers, who are the SOLE reason these people have a job, are treated as well. Starting with good communication.

fastair

Ahhhh....regulation in the airline industry beyond safety...that was great for consumers

blueman2

My company is not regulated. Yet we have very strict, written rules for how customers are treated. Who said anything about government regulation?

But yeah, regulation was not an answer to any problem, got to agree with you there!

I hate government regulation, but if businesses fail to treat people with respect, it will happen. Look at what happened when airlines refused to do anything about long tarmac delays.

ochoA350

There is no doubt United should've handled this better. However, if this "vibration" would've resulted in a crash where everyone resulted injured or dead, isn't this "traumatic" barracks situation a blessing? It's all about perspective and I think we just automatically think about the negative things and not see the positive things that come out of situations.

DenverBrian

And the whole point is: There ought to be detailed and specific rules for passengers in cases like this as well.

The only other industry I can think of that treats its customers so poorly is cable companies.

fastair

Yes, tarmac delays were reduced but altogether cncls went up as a direct result and fines were collected for the government coffers but not given to impacted consumers.

What would a regulation do? Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert in an emergency situation. Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert to the safest place they could land. It wouldn't likely force airlines to staff every possible landing site with enough hotel rooms to accommodate every possible emergency landing, nor staff them in advance with representatives 24/7 on the rare chance that at any particular landing strip would have a rep there in case of an emergency.

A service failure hurts the company in a way that regulation can't, terrible PR. That is already accomplished. The airline refunded/is refunding all money for the flight in addition to a voluntary "bonus".

Poor communication in a remote place isn't going to be changed with regulation. A service failure of this type is being "regulated" by the press and the free market system via consumer choices.

Aventine

There's an enormous symbolic value to sticking around. The optics of leaving and staying in a hotel looks like the PR disaster that has unfolded.

kettle1

ANSWER: To be the face of the company they are employed by - UAL (United Continental Holdings). They should be in contact with Sears (Willis) Tower and do the customers right. Without the customer - there is no UAL.

If it were not for the fine people in Canada these PAX would have been screwed.

NO updates from UA to the PAX.
NO new flt to London. Sent back to the USA.
NO food provided for many hours.
NO FA or Pilot to answer questions (the crew were placed in a hotel).
Horrible PR about this from the media.

100% FAIL on UA's part. All of this was preventable if UA had policies in place for these rare events.

I think vitira nailed it (post #287).

Perhaps this is a learning moment for UA. I would guess not.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Get your crews training on how to handle such matters and FIX the problem, although very rare - stuff happens.

I will place a on this, since LETTERBOY did.

tuolumne

They've been doing just that. I just did SFO-IAD-FRA all on the same 3-class 777 in F. They're rotating those planes transcontinental from Asia, sending them to IAD to operate the European flights, then sending them back again. 763s, however, are spread thin. There's a lot of substitutions going on for 76E and 67I at the moment. For instance, ZRH-IAD-ZRH last night went to 3-class 763. The European routes are overbooked to the tilt at the moment, in all cabin classes, so the 767s are being pushed to their maximum. Last night I flew IAD-GVA in a 67I that had had two Buisness seats folding function inoperative for the last 48 hours. They were blocked and filled with NRSA.

yourbackseatkiller

The longest runway at YYR is 11k feet, compare to 8k at YYT.

halls120

How much revenue are they losing with all these widebody cancellations?

So when they have slack produced by the method you suggest, are the widebody aircraft going to be magically immune from the breakdowns that occur when they are employed on international flights?

Your solution makes sense if United didn't have aircraft that go mechanical at a greater rate than the competition. Right now they do, which is why having spares is a better solution - that is, of course, if you want to be regarded as running a reliable operation.

tuolumne

The past two summers UAL did have a spare 67I. Mind you, the 67I was the one involved in this incident. Not sure what's going on with that fleet this year.

Maclock

And that main runway at YYT is not in service at the moment. It may have been inadvisable to try landing a 767 with a TATL fuel load on one of the shorter runways at YYT, especially with the mechanical problems that the aircraft was suffering at the time.

I suppose that Stephenville airport -- YJT -- might have also have sense with its long runway and with hotels in Stephenville and in a few nearby towns, but I'd imagine that customs and immigration officers would likely have to be brought in from Corner Brook or Deer Lake, about 60 to 90 minutes by car, respectively, from Stephenville if memory serves correct. Gander's main runway is 10,500' long and it has 24 hour customs services and hotels in town and in the nearby town of Grand Falls-Windsor, so YQX might also have worked. All things being equal, though, I'd imagine the captain just wanted to get that plane down as quickly as possible, so Goose Bay may have appeared to be the only sensible option in his eyes. What are ya gonna do?

goodeats21

Wonder if some EU261- type regulation might just encourage a bit more reliability and responsiveness when these types of things happen?

As mentioned before, it is these type of service failures that prompt legislation that airlines don't like.

I really don't understand how United failed to send emails / texts / phone calls to the passengers of this flight with updates. This should be an automatic action with a diverted flight, especially of this length. Even if only 1/4 of the passengers get the message the word will spread among everyone.