Jan 1, 2017, 3:18 pm
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2017)
Jan 1, 2017, 4:59 am
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 32,028
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2017)
A new thread for 2017 ... hopefully shorter than the 2016 thread 
UA197 NRT-GUM 738 1h30 late due to aircraft maintenance
UA197 NRT-GUM 738 1h30 late due to aircraft maintenance
Jan 1, 2017, 10:18 am
#2
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Coast NSW, Australia
Programs: UA and SQ; Hilton, Fairmont, Marriott, Rydges Priority
Posts: 290
UA870 diverted to Auckland then cancelled
What's the real story here?
UA claim crew time out.
Edit: OK, looks like unruly passenger incident.
UA claim crew time out.
Edit: OK, looks like unruly passenger incident.
Last edited by grapegrower; Jan 1, 2017 at 10:26 am Reason: Additional info
Jan 1, 2017, 10:39 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,884
Why is this not the real story?
i have no insight and haven't looked this up. But given the SYD flight are among UAs longest, the potential for this kind of situation with a diversion are quite high. Don't know the details of crew regulations or what UA allows in their contract, but if the diversion to AKL, combined with the new time requiired to get to the destination is beyond the legal working hours for the crew, the crew times out, and they can not leave until they have received minimum rest, or UA can get a new crew there. Clearly, this was the option that UA chose given the alternatives. UA doesn't have extra crew in SYD/AKL. The only real otheroption to consider may have been to stop in HNL, and gather a crew while enroute there to replace the ones onboard and continue on. This has other consequences down the line (another stop for pax, two crews out of position vs. 1, etc.) and may have not even have been an option. UA would have evaluated alternatives before deciding. None is going to be optimal, as even if they could have continued on, they still have a crew and aricraft with additional schedule after arrival and UA may have to scramble to make alternatives for.
Crew time outs can especially be an issue on these long flights, where there isn't much of a buffer available. SYD/AKL/SIN and EWR-HKG/India are some of the more likely flights to run into this scenario - a 1 -2 hour delay is enough for the crew to time out.
i have no insight and haven't looked this up. But given the SYD flight are among UAs longest, the potential for this kind of situation with a diversion are quite high. Don't know the details of crew regulations or what UA allows in their contract, but if the diversion to AKL, combined with the new time requiired to get to the destination is beyond the legal working hours for the crew, the crew times out, and they can not leave until they have received minimum rest, or UA can get a new crew there. Clearly, this was the option that UA chose given the alternatives. UA doesn't have extra crew in SYD/AKL. The only real otheroption to consider may have been to stop in HNL, and gather a crew while enroute there to replace the ones onboard and continue on. This has other consequences down the line (another stop for pax, two crews out of position vs. 1, etc.) and may have not even have been an option. UA would have evaluated alternatives before deciding. None is going to be optimal, as even if they could have continued on, they still have a crew and aricraft with additional schedule after arrival and UA may have to scramble to make alternatives for.
Crew time outs can especially be an issue on these long flights, where there isn't much of a buffer available. SYD/AKL/SIN and EWR-HKG/India are some of the more likely flights to run into this scenario - a 1 -2 hour delay is enough for the crew to time out.
Jan 1, 2017, 10:44 am
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 32,028
UA870 SYD-SFO 789 diverted to AKL then cancelled
extra section tomorrow
UA2052 AKL-SFO
extra section tomorrow
UA2052 AKL-SFO
Jan 1, 2017, 11:44 am
#7
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,071
A friend of mine was on this. He said they were close to Fiji when the pilot said they needed to divert to AKL due to a belligerent passenger. They had to spend the night in Auckland. Bummer.
This was a 787. Imagine the expense involved in this diversion.
This was a 787. Imagine the expense involved in this diversion.
Jan 1, 2017, 11:51 am
#8
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 295
Why is this not the real story?
i have no insight and haven't looked this up. But given the SYD flight are among UAs longest, the potential for this kind of situation with a diversion are quite high. Don't know the details of crew regulations or what UA allows in their contract, but if the diversion to AKL, combined with the new time requiired to get to the destination is beyond the legal working hours for the crew, the crew times out, and they can not leave until they have received minimum rest, or UA can get a new crew there. Clearly, this was the option that UA chose given the alternatives. UA doesn't have extra crew in SYD/AKL. The only real otheroption to consider may have been to stop in HNL, and gather a crew while enroute there to replace the ones onboard and continue on. This has other consequences down the line (another stop for pax, two crews out of position vs. 1, etc.) and may have not even have been an option. UA would have evaluated alternatives before deciding. None is going to be optimal, as even if they could have continued on, they still have a crew and aricraft with additional schedule after arrival and UA may have to scramble to make alternatives for.
Crew time outs can especially be an issue on these long flights, where there isn't much of a buffer available. SYD/AKL/SIN and EWR-HKG/India are some of the more likely flights to run into this scenario - a 1 -2 hour delay is enough for the crew to time out.
i have no insight and haven't looked this up. But given the SYD flight are among UAs longest, the potential for this kind of situation with a diversion are quite high. Don't know the details of crew regulations or what UA allows in their contract, but if the diversion to AKL, combined with the new time requiired to get to the destination is beyond the legal working hours for the crew, the crew times out, and they can not leave until they have received minimum rest, or UA can get a new crew there. Clearly, this was the option that UA chose given the alternatives. UA doesn't have extra crew in SYD/AKL. The only real otheroption to consider may have been to stop in HNL, and gather a crew while enroute there to replace the ones onboard and continue on. This has other consequences down the line (another stop for pax, two crews out of position vs. 1, etc.) and may have not even have been an option. UA would have evaluated alternatives before deciding. None is going to be optimal, as even if they could have continued on, they still have a crew and aricraft with additional schedule after arrival and UA may have to scramble to make alternatives for.
Crew time outs can especially be an issue on these long flights, where there isn't much of a buffer available. SYD/AKL/SIN and EWR-HKG/India are some of the more likely flights to run into this scenario - a 1 -2 hour delay is enough for the crew to time out.
Jan 1, 2017, 12:20 pm
#9
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Boise, ID
Programs: Virtuoso
Posts: 617
Agree with this post. I have a client on the flight and they were put up in hotel at the AKL airport for the night. Suppose to leave early afternoon NZ time today.
Jan 1, 2017, 12:30 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,071
Does anyone know what happens to the passenger in this situation? Let's assume his/her belligerence really did require a diversion. And let's say it's not a NZ national. What happens next? Criminal charges in Auckland? How do you get that passenger back to their home nation? Another commercial flight?
Jan 1, 2017, 12:52 pm
#11
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
I hope it involves being billed for some of the cost of the diversion.
Jan 1, 2017, 12:54 pm
#12
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1
Removed
Last edited by Skyflyer415; Jan 1, 2017 at 7:18 pm
Jan 1, 2017, 12:55 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,450
Does anyone know what happens to the passenger in this situation? Let's assume his/her belligerence really did require a diversion. And let's say it's not a NZ national. What happens next? Criminal charges in Auckland? How do you get that passenger back to their home nation? Another commercial flight?
A US national was tried and charged in the UK last year for causing a diversion. He was acquitted. American Cleared of Air Rage Charges After Flight Diversion.
Jan 1, 2017, 1:10 pm
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,071
In this case, the passenger was a US citizen with legal residency in Australia. However, due to the circumstances, New Zealand did not grant him entry to the country. He was arrested at the airport and will spend his time in NZ in jail, until he can book a flight to leave. He will not be permitted onboard a UA flight ever again.
Jan 1, 2017, 1:18 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,965
It really depends on the jurisdiction and what the local authorities choose to do.
A US national was tried and charged in the UK last year for causing a diversion. He was acquitted. American Cleared of Air Rage Charges After Flight Diversion.
A US national was tried and charged in the UK last year for causing a diversion. He was acquitted. American Cleared of Air Rage Charges After Flight Diversion.