FlyerTalk Forums
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   United Airlines | MileagePlus (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus-681/)
-   -   16OCT18 UA5277 ORD-CHA diverted due to CHA ground ops (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1936811-16oct18-ua5277-ord-cha-diverted-due-cha-ground-ops.html)

sexykitten7 Oct 22, 2018 9:49 am
16OCT18 UA5277 ORD-CHA diverted due to CHA ground ops
 
What a bizarre story. Anyone have any guesses/answers?

fumje Oct 22, 2018 9:57 am
Painful --

Fallon and another passenger on the plane said there was a last-minute aircraft swap, from one type of regional jet to another due to a mechanical issue, which changed their seat assignments but didn't delay the flight.

...

Fallon and passenger Jill Lohsen recall the pilot saying the plane, a 76-seat Embraer 175, was "too large'' to land in Chattanooga.

...

Flight 5277 landed back in Chicago at 4:29 p.m. and passengers were greeted with Cheez-Its, pretzels and water, and a new flight scheduled to leave within the hour.

...

Passengers were put on a 50-seat Bombardier CRJ 200, which United typically uses on the flight. Passengers finally arrived at the gate in Chattanooga just before 8:30 p.m. local time, more than three hours late.
-- getting a late up-gauge to E175, then having to turn around and stuff back into a CR2. Not worth $300 ETC + refund! :(

Mountain Explorer Oct 22, 2018 12:47 pm
I'm baffled

GNVFlyer Oct 22, 2018 5:30 pm
I find it incredible there wasn't some sort of computer check to make sure an aircraft can fly into a given airport

exerda Oct 22, 2018 6:03 pm
Reminds me of UA's loss of CLD when they retired the EMB-120s, and CLD didn't extend their runway... and thus couldn't support any of the remaining UX aircraft.

Mountain Explorer Oct 22, 2018 6:03 pm
Originally Posted by GNVFlyer (Post 30344703)
I find it incredible there wasn't some sort of computer check to make sure an aircraft can fly into a given airport
The airport is perfectly capable of handling this plane, and much larger. The actual reason for the rejected arrival is unclear. It might be that there were not enough ground employees to handle the larger plane, per union rules. Or that the employees on duty hadn't trained on that plane, etc.

narvik Oct 22, 2018 6:03 pm
" SkyWest spokeswoman Marissa Snow did not provide any other details, saying only that the 76-seat Embraer aircraft used on the first flight to Chattanooga was "just a different aircraft than typical for ground personnel there.'' "

That makes more sense, as the 175 definitely isn't too big.

ucfjoe Oct 22, 2018 6:04 pm
The better question is why/how did they not figure out a better solution like borrowing equipment from another airport user. To avoiding having to ask that embarrassing question or some union issue? No way this method wouldn’t have been cheaper and easier.
Delta Runs MD88...Shoot FedEx has a 757 departing in a few hours. I’m going to stick with my original two theories.

seenitall Oct 22, 2018 7:50 pm
On another board, the speculated reason for this diversion is that CHA lacked a towbar to fit the E175. So it could land fine, but just not be pushed back for the return flight.

pushmyredbutton Oct 22, 2018 7:56 pm
Originally Posted by seenitall (Post 30345008)
On another board, the speculated reason for this diversion is that CHA lacked a towbar to fit the E175. So it could land fine, but just not be pushed back for the return flight.
But even if so, couldn't someone come up with a creative solution such as deplaning at a remote stand or some other area of the airport where the aircraft can just taxi out on it's own?

Weird situation for sure.

Mountain Explorer Oct 22, 2018 7:58 pm
Originally Posted by seenitall (Post 30345008)
On another board, the speculated reason for this diversion is that CHA lacked a towbar to fit the E175. So it could land fine, but just not be pushed back for the return flight.
Surely they must have some rolling stairs. That's awful if they diverted for that

EWR764 Oct 22, 2018 8:22 pm
Originally Posted by seenitall (Post 30345008)
On another board, the speculated reason for this diversion is that CHA lacked a towbar to fit the E175. So it could land fine, but just not be pushed back for the return flight.
My money is on this. I don't see any scheduled E75 flights to CHA and a towbar is about the only airplane-specific item that comes to mind under these circumstances.

WineCountryUA Oct 22, 2018 8:43 pm
Originally Posted by seenitall (Post 30345008)
On another board, the speculated reason for this diversion is that CHA lacked a towbar to fit the E175. So it could land fine, but just not be pushed back for the return flight.
If that was the issue, wonder why the option of flying in an E175 towbar on the next available flight (from any hub to CHA -- perhaps any carrier) was not selected? Would not that have been less distributive?

onthesam Oct 22, 2018 9:57 pm
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA (Post 30345134)
If that was the issue, wonder why the option of flying in an E175 towbar on the next available flight (from any hub to CHA -- perhaps any carrier) was not selected? Would not that have been less distributive?
Tow bar wont fit in Devil's Chariot? :D

N1120A Oct 22, 2018 10:06 pm
Originally Posted by exerda (Post 30344784)
Reminds me of UA's loss of CLD when they retired the EMB-120s, and CLD didn't extend their runway... and thus couldn't support any of the remaining UX aircraft.
Do you mean CRQ, as in Palomar?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 pm.
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.