UA 179 (EWR-HKG) 19 Jan 2019 diverted YYR , passengers stuck on board for 13 hours
Jan 20, 2019, 3:59 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RDU
Programs: UA Plat 2MM, Delta Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott cardboard
Posts: 1,699
UA 179 (EWR-HKG) 19 Jan 2019 diverted YYR , passengers stuck on board for 13 hours
UA 179 Jan 19 diverted to YYR. Anyone know what happened?
I'm on 179 on Tuesday. Was hoping the polar vortex got it to HKG early.
I'm on 179 on Tuesday. Was hoping the polar vortex got it to HKG early.
Jan 20, 2019, 4:28 am
#2
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 729
This was the same aircraft, 3010, that strangely flew AMA-EWR Friday night that I asked about in the winter storm Harper thread. Not sure if the issues are related.
They have aircraft 3016 set to go to Goose Bay this morning and return to EWR.
They have aircraft 3016 set to go to Goose Bay this morning and return to EWR.
Jan 20, 2019, 5:39 am
#4
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM
Posts: 6,349
Jan 20, 2019, 7:57 am
#5
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 729
Jan 20, 2019, 8:04 am
#6
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM
Posts: 6,349
Jan 20, 2019, 10:06 am
#7
Join Date: May 2015
Programs: All the programs!
Posts: 1,006
Jan 20, 2019, 10:27 am
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
@dulcamara
Indeed, YYR Goose Bay, Labrador.
Some really interesting posts and photos in this Twitter feed
https://twitter.com/hashtag/UA179?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
After more than 12 hours up there, quite a few with a great sense of humour.
Indeed, YYR Goose Bay, Labrador.
Some really interesting posts and photos in this Twitter feed
https://twitter.com/hashtag/UA179?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
After more than 12 hours up there, quite a few with a great sense of humour.
Jan 20, 2019, 11:19 am
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
United Airlines leaves passengers stuck on board for 13 hours
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...-bay-1.4985858
A United Airlines plane diverted to Goose Bay Airport in Labrador Saturday night has resulted in a lengthy stay on the tarmac, according to passengers stranded on the aircraft.
United Flight 179 travelling from Newark, N.J., to Hong Kong was diverted to Goose Bay, N.L., due to medical emergency, where medical personnel met the plane and brought the passenger to hospital.
However, a mechanical issue prevented the plane from taking off again. Passengers were not able to leave the aircraft because customs officers were not available overnight, United said.
Passengers told CBC News 250 people are on board and have been waiting more than 13 hours for a replacement airplane.
United Flight 179 travelling from Newark, N.J., to Hong Kong was diverted to Goose Bay, N.L., due to medical emergency, where medical personnel met the plane and brought the passenger to hospital.
However, a mechanical issue prevented the plane from taking off again. Passengers were not able to leave the aircraft because customs officers were not available overnight, United said.
Passengers told CBC News 250 people are on board and have been waiting more than 13 hours for a replacement airplane.
Jan 20, 2019, 11:25 am
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The thread title is misleading, by the terms of the CBC report which he himself posted.
As the report makes clear, the reason the passengers were refused offloading was that Canadian Customs (CBSA?) officers were not available and would not permit the passengers to be offloaded.
This was an unfortunate situation and it is far from the first time that CBSA has been intransigent in this situation, but the fact is that YYR is a long-established diversion point, medical emergencies occur, and this could have occurred on any air carrier operating over the North Atlantic.
Unfortunate, but not appropriately either a UA issue or one for which UA is blameworthy.
As the report makes clear, the reason the passengers were refused offloading was that Canadian Customs (CBSA?) officers were not available and would not permit the passengers to be offloaded.
This was an unfortunate situation and it is far from the first time that CBSA has been intransigent in this situation, but the fact is that YYR is a long-established diversion point, medical emergencies occur, and this could have occurred on any air carrier operating over the North Atlantic.
Unfortunate, but not appropriately either a UA issue or one for which UA is blameworthy.
Jan 20, 2019, 11:26 am
#11
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 812
The thread title is misleading, by the terms of the CBC report which he himself posted.
As the report makes clear, the reason the passengers were refused offloading was that Canadian Customs (CBSA?) officers were not available and would not permit the passengers to be offloaded.
This was an unfortunate situation and it is far from the first time that CBSA has been intransigent in this situation, but the fact is that YYR is a long-established diversion point, medical emergencies occur, and this could have occurred on any air carrier operating over the North Atlantic.
Unfortunate, but not appropriately either a UA issue or one for which UA is blameworthy.
As the report makes clear, the reason the passengers were refused offloading was that Canadian Customs (CBSA?) officers were not available and would not permit the passengers to be offloaded.
This was an unfortunate situation and it is far from the first time that CBSA has been intransigent in this situation, but the fact is that YYR is a long-established diversion point, medical emergencies occur, and this could have occurred on any air carrier operating over the North Atlantic.
Unfortunate, but not appropriately either a UA issue or one for which UA is blameworthy.
Who is responsible for a mechanical issue on an United aircraft? United.
Jan 20, 2019, 11:35 am
#12
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
That's insanity! I don't care if customs officials couldn't meet the passengers at night. They should've cordoned off an area of the terminal and let them stay in the heated confines of the airport. The requirement that you must clear immigration/customs to be on Canadian soil is an urban legend. They do precisely this at YVR (HKG->JFK via YVR) and YYZ (INTL>INTL) all the time, why couldn't they make an exception for this rare incident! -30 is fine if you're a Northerner like myself but most people can't stand that type of temperature drop, certainly not the least of which for over a dozen hours. I'm sure the ETOPS plan of UA allows for just this incident to occur since they are supposed to stock at least an extra meal (or more) in such incidents.
-James
-James
Jan 20, 2019, 11:48 am
#13
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM
Posts: 6,349
Looks like they are [soon] going back to EWR on this plane: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N57016
Jan 20, 2019, 11:52 am
#14
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
-James
Jan 20, 2019, 11:52 am
#15
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
It may have been an ETOPs rule violation if they could not get the pax and crew off the plane into adequate shelter in that harsh environment.