UA 179 (EWR-HKG) 19 Jan 2019 diverted YYR , passengers stuck on board for 13 hours
Jan 21, 2019, 11:49 am
#106
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
I talked to the pilots said it was an issue of trying to find both pilots and flight attendants. They found pilots who then timed out while waiting for flight attendants. Then flight attendants timed out waiting for new pilots. I think the problem was trying to decide on continuing to HKG or returning to EWR. No one could decide where we where going next instead of just getting back to EWR.
Jan 21, 2019, 11:54 am
#107
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston
Programs: UA LT GS 4.2 MM, AA Gold 1MM, HH Lifetime Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 394
We had dedicated immigration lanes and customs lanes when we returned so I do not think they had an issue due to the situation. Even passengers with Global Entry had to use these lanes.
Jan 21, 2019, 2:09 pm
#108
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
You'd have been no better off with an Asian carrier.
If there are crew or fuel issues to make the entire trip to HKG not feasible, they typically fly a decent ways to a hub(let), and use the time in flight to get a new plane / crew set up to continue on the journey. (SFO/NRT/HNL?)
Lot depends on where there are usable resources, both crew and frame. Could be back EWR / ORD / IAD, if it makes sense.
Pretty dynamic situation.
Lot depends on where there are usable resources, both crew and frame. Could be back EWR / ORD / IAD, if it makes sense.
Pretty dynamic situation.
If you're on a regional jet for a 1-hour flight and you get stuck on the ground for 13 hours, that's a big deal. If you're on a widebody scheduled for a 16-hour flight and you end up on the ground for 16-hours... trust me you'd rather be on the plane with the plane's food and restrooms than sandwiched into a room with a vending machine in an airport at midnight.
And you can't just let everyone into the terminal - too many doors and it would be a fire hazard to keep them locked.
Jan 21, 2019, 2:21 pm
#109
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,158
...
Again, this is a trans-arctic flight. Once you're over Canada, the first major airport you'll get to before Hong Kong is... Beijing. SFO/HNL are NOWHERE CLOSE to the flight path. (HNL is quarter of the way around the world.) NRT would be maybe 1,000 miles closer than HKG.
...
.
Again, this is a trans-arctic flight. Once you're over Canada, the first major airport you'll get to before Hong Kong is... Beijing. SFO/HNL are NOWHERE CLOSE to the flight path. (HNL is quarter of the way around the world.) NRT would be maybe 1,000 miles closer than HKG.
...
.
For operational recovery, that could be SFO / HNL / LAX / Wherever they have the "legs" to get to. The advantage is it allows the passengers to get closer to their destination, and gives United Ops time to arrange for the follow-on flight to get them all the way to HKG. Suppose it could be FRA / LHR, though I don't think I have ever heard of those being used for Ops recovery....
Bottom line - every situation is different, with resources (planes and crews) at different locations across the globe based on that particular day / time.
Jan 21, 2019, 2:35 pm
#110
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM
Posts: 6,340
My "home" airport is a single-gate airport with a sterile post-security area. There is no way it is big enough to handle a 777 full of passengers. And it's got a vending machine, while the plane has food for 16 hours. Even from a restroom perspective there's more ... 'facilities' on the plane.
If you're on a regional jet for a 1-hour flight and you get stuck on the ground for 13 hours, that's a big deal. If you're on a widebody scheduled for a 16-hour flight and you end up on the ground for 16-hours... trust me you'd rather be on the plane with the plane's food and restrooms than sandwiched into a room with a vending machine in an airport at midnight.
If you're on a regional jet for a 1-hour flight and you get stuck on the ground for 13 hours, that's a big deal. If you're on a widebody scheduled for a 16-hour flight and you end up on the ground for 16-hours... trust me you'd rather be on the plane with the plane's food and restrooms than sandwiched into a room with a vending machine in an airport at midnight.
As posted here, there's barracks available on the airport grounds. But yeah, I agree that the plane wasn't the worst case scenario for this situation. Just questioning the [apparent?] lack of a contingency plan at Goose Bay.
It's seemingly an occurrence that isn't that uncommon. September 2017 saw AF66 (A380) divert there, and passengers then were also left on the plane until replacement planes were brought in.
I guess no one at Goose Bay thinks it prudent to offer alternative solutions. Too much protocol & red tape in Canada maybe? Heck, one might think this could be good business. Offer shelter for stranded passengers...at a cost!
Jan 21, 2019, 3:30 pm
#111
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Programs: UA 1K, AA Lifetime Platinum, DL Platinum, Honors Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 7,969
I'm glad to hear that you made it in one piece. Can you describe in more detail the conditions on the airplane? It's unclear to many of us what the passenger experience was actually like (aside from the frustration, lack of information, and of course delayed journey).
For example, here's coverage in the Hong Kong press:
https://beta.scmp.com/news/world/uni...hrough-13-hour
How cold was it inside? Presumably the airplane still had power (i.e. they ran the APU the whole time). I have no idea about heat - can the APU provide heat? If necessary, can they run an engine at idle to generate heat? I would guess that they only dumped enough fuel to get down to maximum landing weight, so that probably left enough fuel to run the APU and/or an engine at idle for days.
Also, why would food and water run short after 10 hours on a flight that was planned to operate for 16 hours? IIRC, the flight was well past Goose Bay when it turned back. Presumably the first meal service had been completed by then. There should have been at least another full meal (breakfast) on board for everyone that they would serve at some point. Or, were the galleys non-operational?
For example, here's coverage in the Hong Kong press:
https://beta.scmp.com/news/world/uni...hrough-13-hour
Passengers en route to Hong Kong shiver through 13-hour ordeal on Canadian tarmac. ... Passengers shivered under thin blankets handed out by flight attendants... plane's barely heated interior ... food and water running short some 10 hours into the ordeal
Also, why would food and water run short after 10 hours on a flight that was planned to operate for 16 hours? IIRC, the flight was well past Goose Bay when it turned back. Presumably the first meal service had been completed by then. There should have been at least another full meal (breakfast) on board for everyone that they would serve at some point. Or, were the galleys non-operational?
Jan 21, 2019, 3:49 pm
#112
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 861
I talked to the pilots said it was an issue of trying to find both pilots and flight attendants. They found pilots who then timed out while waiting for flight attendants. Then flight attendants timed out waiting for new pilots. I think the problem was trying to decide on continuing to HKG or returning to EWR. No one could decide where we where going next instead of just getting back to EWR.
Jan 21, 2019, 3:56 pm
#113
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 843
I didn't mean to imply they will stay on their original flight path. The question I was addressing was about fuel and crew time issues. Once they take off from Canada after diverting, they can fly anywhere that the fuel and crew limits allow them to.
For operational recovery, that could be SFO / HNL / LAX / Wherever they have the "legs" to get to. The advantage is it allows the passengers to get closer to their destination, and gives United Ops time to arrange for the follow-on flight to get them all the way to HKG. Suppose it could be FRA / LHR, though I don't think I have ever heard of those being used for Ops recovery....
Bottom line - every situation is different, with resources (planes and crews) at different locations across the globe based on that particular day / time.
For operational recovery, that could be SFO / HNL / LAX / Wherever they have the "legs" to get to. The advantage is it allows the passengers to get closer to their destination, and gives United Ops time to arrange for the follow-on flight to get them all the way to HKG. Suppose it could be FRA / LHR, though I don't think I have ever heard of those being used for Ops recovery....
Bottom line - every situation is different, with resources (planes and crews) at different locations across the globe based on that particular day / time.
YYR-EWR-HKG is 1000 miles shorter than YYR-SFO-HKG. Going to any other UA hub, in this particular case, would, at best, be going sideways and not making “progress” toward the destination vs. the option they chose of just returning to EWR (assuming heading direct to HKG from YYR was not an option).
Jan 21, 2019, 4:01 pm
#114
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Programs: UA GS
Posts: 2,438
For those saying it is no big deal that the pax were on the ground for so long when it’s a 16 hour flight to begin with, it’s a bit different to be at cruising altitude where most pax are just trying to sleep through vs on the ground where you’re probably getting regular updates from the crew, people are coming and going, etc. If people aren’t sleeping they’re probably consuming more. And at least after suffering through the interminable duration you end up where you want to go.
Jan 21, 2019, 4:03 pm
#115
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,118
That can’t be the issue. YYR is a 2 hour flight from EWR. EWR is awash with aircraft, pilots and flight attendants. In a emergency which a aircraft on the ground in minus 30 temps certainly is you simply cancel a revenue flight or two depending on what is available and dispatch those aircraft to YYR. Sounds like someone at UAL made a decision not to disrupt revenue flights. That would be a very poor choice.
Jan 21, 2019, 4:03 pm
#116
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,116
That can’t be the issue. YYR is a 2 hour flight from EWR. EWR is awash with aircraft, pilots and flight attendants. In a emergency which a aircraft on the ground in minus 30 temps certainly is you simply cancel a revenue flight or two depending on what is available and dispatch those aircraft to YYR. Sounds like someone at UAL made a decision not to disrupt revenue flights. That would be a very poor choice.
they were on a plane with food and facilities for that number of people for 16+ hours. The airport was not set up for that many people.
reports on the plane was it wasn’t freezing, bathrooms worked, food was available...
it got handled. They will comp everyone which will be cheaper than putting facilities at the airport forever waiting another 5yrs for this to happen again.
i fly this route 7-8 times a year. 16 hours is how long the flight is. I’ve had 3 hour ground delays in hkg before on top of that.
dont think uA did anything wrong here
Jan 21, 2019, 4:12 pm
#117
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
That can’t be the issue. YYR is a 2 hour flight from EWR. EWR is awash with aircraft, pilots and flight attendants. In a emergency which a aircraft on the ground in minus 30 temps certainly is you simply cancel a revenue flight or two depending on what is available and dispatch those aircraft to YYR. Sounds like someone at UAL made a decision not to disrupt revenue flights. That would be a very poor choice.
What sort of "alternative solutions" do you think the good people of Goose Bay, all 8 thousand or so of them, should put in place for the occasional diversion of aircraft?
Last edited by Badenoch; Jan 21, 2019 at 4:26 pm
Jan 21, 2019, 4:22 pm
#118
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 861
Due to the length of the flight the crew would have timed out very quickly once the door could not be closed. Just the divert alone on flights of those lengths will often time out the pilots. The flight became critical the moment the door would not close and plans for a rescue flight should have began at that point.
Jan 21, 2019, 4:34 pm
#119
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston
Programs: UA LT GS 4.2 MM, AA Gold 1MM, HH Lifetime Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 394
I'm glad to hear that you made it in one piece. Can you describe in more detail the conditions on the airplane? It's unclear to many of us what the passenger experience was actually like (aside from the frustration, lack of information, and of course delayed journey).
For example, here's coverage in the Hong Kong press:
https://beta.scmp.com/news/world/uni...hrough-13-hour
How cold was it inside? Presumably the airplane still had power (i.e. they ran the APU the whole time). I have no idea about heat - can the APU provide heat? If necessary, can they run an engine at idle to generate heat? I would guess that they only dumped enough fuel to get down to maximum landing weight, so that probably left enough fuel to run the APU and/or an engine at idle for days.
Also, why would food and water run short after 10 hours on a flight that was planned to operate for 16 hours? IIRC, the flight was well past Goose Bay when it turned back. Presumably the first meal service had been completed by then. There should have been at least another full meal (breakfast) on board for everyone that they would serve at some point. Or, were the galleys non-operational?
For example, here's coverage in the Hong Kong press:
https://beta.scmp.com/news/world/uni...hrough-13-hour
How cold was it inside? Presumably the airplane still had power (i.e. they ran the APU the whole time). I have no idea about heat - can the APU provide heat? If necessary, can they run an engine at idle to generate heat? I would guess that they only dumped enough fuel to get down to maximum landing weight, so that probably left enough fuel to run the APU and/or an engine at idle for days.
Also, why would food and water run short after 10 hours on a flight that was planned to operate for 16 hours? IIRC, the flight was well past Goose Bay when it turned back. Presumably the first meal service had been completed by then. There should have been at least another full meal (breakfast) on board for everyone that they would serve at some point. Or, were the galleys non-operational?
Usually in a situation like this you expect everyone to applaud when something good happens. Nothing happened when food was delivered in the morning, when they rescue plane landed, when we took off. Maybe everyone was just tired. Maybe 100 people got off and walked around. They all looked much happier when they came back on. I decided to just stay on board rather than go out into the cold.
Jan 21, 2019, 4:43 pm
#120
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,447
However, on the ground, in extreme cold temperatures, with moving, lubricated parts, that's not necessarily the case. A freak failure. The problem is that temperatures aren't supposed to rise enough to warm up the components that are frozen, and Goose Bay doesn't have the equipment (sort of like a tent) that could be set up around the door and allow technicians to heat up the mechanism.
My guess is that equipment is going to have to be flown up from EWR. Not exactly a logistical cakewalk.
Pax couldn't enter Canada to take the domestic flight, so this wouldn't be an option.
Last edited by EWR764; Jan 21, 2019 at 4:54 pm