Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

16OCT18 UA5277 ORD-CHA diverted due to CHA ground ops

16OCT18 UA5277 ORD-CHA diverted due to CHA ground ops

Old Oct 22, 18, 9:49 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PWM
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 985
16OCT18 UA5277 ORD-CHA diverted due to CHA ground ops

What a bizarre story. Anyone have any guesses/answers?
sexykitten7 is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 9:57 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,754
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!
Miggles and wrp96 like this.
fumje is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 12:47 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott
Posts: 3,251
I'm baffled
kjnangre is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 5:30 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: US Gold, DL, AA, UA
Posts: 145
I find it incredible there wasn't some sort of computer check to make sure an aircraft can fly into a given airport
GNVFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 6:03 pm
  #5  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 60,611
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.
exerda is online now  
Old Oct 22, 18, 6:03 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by GNVFlyer View Post
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.
kjnangre is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 6:03 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.6MM, Hertz PC
Posts: 4,159
" 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.
kjnangre likes this.
narvik is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 6:04 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sunshine State
Programs: Avis Trump. Costco Exec. SPG PLAT PREM-90. WN A+/CP. AA SLV. Nat EE..
Posts: 447
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.
kjnangre likes this.

Last edited by ucfjoe; Oct 22, 18 at 6:12 pm
ucfjoe is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 7:50 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: All of them, UA-Plat, 1MM*G
Posts: 841
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.
nancypants likes this.
seenitall is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 7:56 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DEN / CGK
Programs: UA 1K, AS MVPG 75K, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,555
Originally Posted by seenitall View Post
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.
Miggles likes this.
pushmyredbutton is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 7:58 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott
Posts: 3,251
Originally Posted by seenitall View Post
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
narvik likes this.
kjnangre is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 8:22 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 7,963
Originally Posted by seenitall View Post
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.
EWR764 is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 8:43 pm
  #13  
Moderator: United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.85MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Gold
Posts: 54,562
Originally Posted by seenitall View Post
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?
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 9:57 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago IL US
Programs: UA 1K; Hertz PC & Hotels Galore
Posts: 893
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA View Post
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?
onthesam is offline  
Old Oct 22, 18, 10:06 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, Omni Black, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,445
Originally Posted by exerda View Post
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?
N1120A is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: