Mike Jacoubowsky

Right; I was thinking about diversions that United has to take ownership of.

Alpha Golf

I love a good conspiracy theory, but this is ridiculous. We know the cause, it's been on AvHerald -- an abnormal indication for the right hand elevator which could be felt in the rudder. I don't think any airline puts out press releases detailing every mechanical.

And Gander isn't much bigger than Goose. They were both major refueling points -- there's a very famous El Al ad from when it got the ability to fly non stop -- "No Goose, no Gander." I've actually been to both, willing to bet the reporter hasn't.

toomanybooks

I remember seeing that years ago; thanks for posting.

And let us not forget how the Canadian Embassy rescued Americans during the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. Canada is one hell of an ally.

KRSW

This latest UA incident was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. None of our employees were on any of the affected flights, BUT, I don't want to risk it.

I'm in charge of all of our company travel. This also means our employees call ME instead of the airlines for IRROPS and expect ME to fix it for them. I don't have time to do UA's job for them. Literally, the company I work for WILL NOT BE USING UA from this point forward until they get their crap together. All 8 flights I booked today were on DL or AA. Eight flights UA would have received in the past. No more.

I hope the UAL shareholders are listening. BTW, how's that working out for you guys? I'm very happy with my JBLU stock.

nautical

funny part of all this...
because united refunded that leg, we got 0 PQM. the 5,930 PQMs that should have posted from this flight would have put me at 1k this year
also, cost me 13,424 award miles. just laughable they refunded only that leg, didn't award miles for that leg, then offered a crap 25k "apology" for all that inconvenience.

blueman2

Classic example of adding insult to injury.

I bet if you call in and make an issue of it, they will give you the PQM. They really should. PQD, I understand. But PQM, well, you really did fly!! And a LOT more distance than 5930 miles!!!!! Also what about lifetime miles for MM? Did they give you that?

United is often incompetent and mismanaged, but I have found the agents (when empowered) are humans like all of us and will understand and do what they can for you. Give it a try.

USHPNWDLUA

Wow, what a story. It will be hard to not think of this the next time I board a flight on UA. While nothing this dramatic, I have been bit by UA MX issues and communication in these matters has always been less than desirable.

I think there's one comment on the "crew stayed at hotel" issue that hasn't yet been made. Hindsight being 20/20, it looks pretty bad now for UA that the crew stayed in better accommodations than the passengers, but it matters at the time what was being planned. If the plan, or one of the possible plans, was to repair that plane and fly it from Canada to LHR, if the crew had not rested legally, they would not have been able to continue the journey. Can you imagine the outcry if UA had failed to plan for this, the plane had been repaired (or checked out ok) and there was no crew available to fly the plane?

I'm not arguing that UA handled this situation well, only pointing out that what's known and not known at the time affects decisions being made. Would be nice for someone at UA to provide some explanation of the events - and an apology - but as time passes....

luckypierre

The clumsiness and indifference of United's response to this event is startling. Seems to have infected every facet of it.

Somewhat OT, but it would be interesting to know if this elevator issue is covered by the Airworthiness Directive the FAA issued on May 7 2013 to all operators of 767 ac.

mduell

Crew have a legal rest requirement and contractual agreement with the company regarding accomodations. Pax don't.

United_727

You would think UA could have had their Star Alliance partner AC help them out.

Pat89339

I mentioned to a colleague when we were discussing the incident and offer that UA would pull this. Sorry, but not surprised, my suspicion was confirmed.

goalie

Not surprised either but fwiw, I would contact United and ask that "in the interest of customer service", they credit you either with just the PQM's to reach 1k (or perhaps just grant you 1k given the circumstances)

NewportGuy

There's a reason rules are written on paper and not carved in stone.

And the rest rule was moot, as they were not required to fly back to EWR.

kettle1

- The PAX should have been flown to LHR (or any airport in London), not back to the USA.

- The PAX should have been given food by UA - not the Canadian Military.

- The PAX should have been given updates on what is going on (every hour) by UA. Either by the crew (who stayed at a hotel), or by Air Canada Rouge (owned by AC) who serve that airport and are part of Star Alliance. Even through Rouge is not directly part of the Star Alliance they are owned by AC.

- This entire event was a huge FAIL on UA.

Indelaware

Now that's just silly, IMO. I can't think of one carrier - US or European - that hasn't had MX diversions to YYR and hasn't been forced to accommodate passenger on base.


Gee. How? Fly in food and heat it up on board an airplane? I doubt that Canadian Forces/les Forces canadiennes would have allowed them to use their kitchen.

As it is, UA certainly did provide the food in that Canadian Forces/les Forces canadiennes are surely to bill UA for it.

So UA should have potentially ignored federal regulations -- be they DOT or DOL regulations -- by discounting both safety rules and its contracted word to labor?