Last edit by: WineCountryUA
For domestic flight issues, use Consolidated cancelled/delayed domestic flights [2018]
Previous international delayed / cancelled report threads
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2017)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2016)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2015)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2014)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2012/13)
If you need documentation of delay / cancellation for trip insurance or refunds from hotel / tour / .... operator, try this
Previous international delayed / cancelled report threads
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2017)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2016)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2015)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2014)
Consolidated "Delayed/Cancelled" International Flights (2012/13)
If you need documentation of delay / cancellation for trip insurance or refunds from hotel / tour / .... operator, try this
Verification letters
Upon request, we can provide a statement of proof that a United flight was delayed or canceled. You may email your request to [email protected]. Be sure to include the names of all customers in your party, confirmation number, flight numbers and dates of travel, phone contact and the email address or mailing address where you would like it sent. Please allow 5-10 business days for processing.
Upon request, we can provide a statement of proof that a United flight was delayed or canceled. You may email your request to [email protected]. Be sure to include the names of all customers in your party, confirmation number, flight numbers and dates of travel, phone contact and the email address or mailing address where you would like it sent. Please allow 5-10 business days for processing.
Consolidated delayed/cancelled international flights (2018)
#571
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 20,990
Reschedule to arrive at 11:59.
https://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/fl...ls&query=ua917
Cannot see anything on CHC arrivals departures
https://www.christchurchairport.co.n...nd-departures/
https://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/fl...ls&query=ua917
Cannot see anything on CHC arrivals departures
https://www.christchurchairport.co.n...nd-departures/
#572
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand (most of the time)
Programs: Air NZ Elite *G, Honors Gold, IHG Platinum Elite
Posts: 6,098
There was a complete ground stop at AKL due to weather. It's logical to divert to your alternate rather than burning fuel circling.
#573
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: NZNS/YBBN
Programs: Air New Zealand f/f, QF f/f Silver. Emirates Skywards
Posts: 77
Reschedule to arrive at 11:59.
https://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/flights?leg=Arrivals&query=ua917
Cannot see anything on CHC arrivals departures
https://www.christchurchairport.co.n...nd-departures/
https://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/flights?leg=Arrivals&query=ua917
Cannot see anything on CHC arrivals departures
https://www.christchurchairport.co.n...nd-departures/
https://www.google.com/search?q=ua917&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
#574
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,172
- Prior to departure, does the forecast weather at destination require nominating as alternate? This planning element determines fuel reserve to be carried and the range of options subsequently available
- The actual weather at destination prior to arrival (as opposed to what was forecast)
- Adequacy of alternate in terms of passenger handling (if required), refuel and turnaround
- Any issues of crew duty and knock-on impacts
- Any prescriptive company policy
Last edited by Thai-Kiwi; Dec 3, 2018 at 4:11 pm
#575
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Zealand
Programs: NZ Elite, QF Platinum (LTS), VA Platinum
Posts: 1,672
The short answer is yes. It was that bad with a number of flights already holding prior to UA coming in. I’m not around all the time but the thunder and lightning was the most impressive I’ve seen in Auckland for a while. Glad it passed through with some speed.
#577
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: NZ Airpoints GE, Qantas Platinum, Accor Diamond, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 955
Just a gas and go. No one disembarked.
#578
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,637
Well, not always. The decision to divert or hold depends on a number of factors, although company policies can trump some of these:
- Prior to departure, does the forecast weather at destination require nominating as alternate? This planning element determines fuel reserve to be carried and the range of options subsequently available
- The actual weather at destination prior to arrival (as opposed to what was forecast)
- Adequacy of alternate in terms of passenger handling (if required), refuel and turnaround
- Any issues of crew duty and knock-on impacts
- Any prescriptive company policy
- Prior to departure, does the forecast weather at destination require nominating as alternate? This planning element determines fuel reserve to be carried and the range of options subsequently available
- The actual weather at destination prior to arrival (as opposed to what was forecast)
- Adequacy of alternate in terms of passenger handling (if required), refuel and turnaround
- Any issues of crew duty and knock-on impacts
- Any prescriptive company policy
The weather will dictate with alternatives are picked. Though there is normally a minimum distance built in so local weather shouldn't factor in most cases. For Trans Pacific to NZ the forecast won't help much as things change to much and too fast. I remember eariler in the year when SQ was still doing CBR WLG. The QF, VA & NZ flights all went to AKL or CHC, so having a go other just going screw it and just diverting without having a go. The SQ flight was about half and hour behind and came in fine. Nowcast in NZ generally only affect domestic flights, won't leave until the weather has past, particularly to the regions.
Forecasted weather may mean the company or pilots tanker more fuel so have more time before hitting fuel emergency.
When picking destination alternatives the company will consider ground handling, relief crew, etc hence why CHC is favoured over Ohakea even though Ohakea is closer to to AKL. En route alternatives are big enough handle aircraft and for medical and less time pressing will factor in medical facilities, ground handling, etc. E.g. LIke QF's Dallas flight will stop in BNE for fuel or crew and given times QF can stage the rescue crew to BNE. NZ had a medical on the Houston to AKL flight one time where had to go to LAX and the both crews were going to time out so NZ staged the rescue crew to Nadi on non revenue A320 flight.
#579
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,172
My lunchtime musings.
Given that UA was the only aircraft to have diverted (?) and most others held, it does me wonder about the fuel reserves they were carrying and whether they were required to nominate an alternate or not (there is set meteorological criteria for this). This is a planning decision based on the forecast destination weather at the planned time of arrival and, if an alternate is needed, then the weather forecast there also needs to meet specified criteria. There will be a manufacturer and/or company minimum fuel state to which the fuel reserve is applied.
If an alternate IS required, then turbine aircraft on arrival at the destination needs enough fuel to fly to the alternate airfield and then fly for a further 30 mins at holding speed at 1500' above the airfield.
If an alternate ISN'T required, then turbine aircraft on arrival at the destination needs enough fuel to fly for a further 30 mins at holding speed at 1500' above the airfield.
Simplistically, then, nominating an alternate requires the carriage of additional fuel for the sector destination-alternate (AKL-CHC in this case). Carriers prefer not to have to carry this additional fuel if possible as it either reduces pax/freight load or results in a higher weight and higher fuel burn for the entire flight (in turn requiring a further increment in fuel load). Google "burning fuel to carry fuel".
So, if they didn't need to nominate an alternate during flight planning, but nearing AKL they held concerns about the weather such that they wouldn't be certain of landing within the remaining 30 mins of fuel, then diverting to CHC without holding or attempting an approach makes sense.
CAR Part 91, E, 91.403-91.405 refers.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legac...solidation.pdf
Given that UA was the only aircraft to have diverted (?) and most others held, it does me wonder about the fuel reserves they were carrying and whether they were required to nominate an alternate or not (there is set meteorological criteria for this). This is a planning decision based on the forecast destination weather at the planned time of arrival and, if an alternate is needed, then the weather forecast there also needs to meet specified criteria. There will be a manufacturer and/or company minimum fuel state to which the fuel reserve is applied.
If an alternate IS required, then turbine aircraft on arrival at the destination needs enough fuel to fly to the alternate airfield and then fly for a further 30 mins at holding speed at 1500' above the airfield.
If an alternate ISN'T required, then turbine aircraft on arrival at the destination needs enough fuel to fly for a further 30 mins at holding speed at 1500' above the airfield.
Simplistically, then, nominating an alternate requires the carriage of additional fuel for the sector destination-alternate (AKL-CHC in this case). Carriers prefer not to have to carry this additional fuel if possible as it either reduces pax/freight load or results in a higher weight and higher fuel burn for the entire flight (in turn requiring a further increment in fuel load). Google "burning fuel to carry fuel".
So, if they didn't need to nominate an alternate during flight planning, but nearing AKL they held concerns about the weather such that they wouldn't be certain of landing within the remaining 30 mins of fuel, then diverting to CHC without holding or attempting an approach makes sense.
CAR Part 91, E, 91.403-91.405 refers.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legac...solidation.pdf
#580
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 5,447
UA 945 FRA-ORD this morning returned to gate due to MX, arrived ORD almost 3h late, causing UA 895 ORD-HKG to be delayed 2.5h and counting.
#581
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM, HH Diamond
Posts: 43
12/8 UA835 ORD-PVG returned to Gate with engine issue
No connection in Shanghai to worry about and we powered ourselves back to Gate. Anyone know how long we have before pilot or crew go illegal on hours?
14 hr flight wheels up to wheels down.
Pilot said indicator light and that MX needs 1 hr, departure time now 12 vs 10am. 2 hr delay
update:
On taxiway for wheels up at 12:30 pm...arrive 2 hrs late
14 hr flight wheels up to wheels down.
Pilot said indicator light and that MX needs 1 hr, departure time now 12 vs 10am. 2 hr delay
update:
On taxiway for wheels up at 12:30 pm...arrive 2 hrs late
Last edited by cos999; Dec 8, 2018 at 11:23 am Reason: New info
#582
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: JFK/GDL
Programs: AA PLT, UA 1P
Posts: 415
OK, so this is a little late, but I didn't see it posted. I was at EDI on November 24 and noticed a UA plane on the ground departing to IAH. Since UA does not serve IAH from EDI, it must have been a diversion. Anyone know from where and why?
***UPDATE***
Well, to answer my own question, I see that it was UA 21, a 777 from AMS to IAH that diverted to EDI. I wonder why. That is a lot of fuel to dump.
***UPDATE***
Well, to answer my own question, I see that it was UA 21, a 777 from AMS to IAH that diverted to EDI. I wonder why. That is a lot of fuel to dump.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Dec 10, 2018 at 5:30 pm Reason: merged update / consecutive posts by same member
#583
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,531
"From what I hear from airport ground staff it is a critically serious medical emergency"
"A reason is yet to be confirmed by United Airlines but reports on Twitter suggest a crew member became unwell." https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...m-houston-UA21
"Sick crew member, departing again in about 30 minutes"
"medical emergency" Diverted ? We inform
And then, the only official response from United:
"
Hello, this was due to air traffic control clearance. We appreciate you reaching out. ^LT
...
Air traffic control is in control of global flight operations and give all directions to aircraft in the air and on the ground for flight patterns. This delay was due to flow patterns in the air and was taken for the safety of all passengers in the air. Thank you. ^LT
" -UA on twitter (
#584
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: JFK/GDL
Programs: AA PLT, UA 1P
Posts: 415
Thanks, threeoh. I assume the medical diversion explanation is the correct one, although a bit unusual if it was a crew member. Hope they are OK if so. UA's explanation of air traffic control clearance would be even more unusual I would think, and does not really make sense unless CBP or TSA wanted a passenger removed. I was surprised to see the flight listed normally on the EDI flight boards, and it only occurred to me later that UA does not have a EDI-IAH flight.
In any event, if it was an ill crew member they offloaded, how could they depart again so quickly without a replacement? This one is a bit of a mystery.
In any event, if it was an ill crew member they offloaded, how could they depart again so quickly without a replacement? This one is a bit of a mystery.
#585
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,531
I guess it's also possible that they stole an existing crew member from the latest EWR flight to finish the EDI-IAH flight, and then deadheaded someone else in to work the next EWR flight, from EWR, LHR, or FRA.