United to try to avoid YYR / Goose Bay!

Old Feb 5, 19, 6:08 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 911
United to try to avoid YYR / Goose Bay!

Not surprising. The WSJ article may only be for subscribers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...-bay-1.5005484
https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/...-stranded.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/united-...rs-11549297751


(Moderator add) From CBC story:
After more than 200 passengers spent a night locked inside a plane earlier this month, United Airlines is designating Goose Bay Airport for emergencies only. ...United Airlines Flight 179 was on its way to Hong Kong from Newark, N.J., when it landed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for a medical emergency. The passenger was taken off and sent to hospital, but the rest were told they'd have to stay onboard while the crew dealt with a mechanical issue.





Last edited by l etoile; Feb 6, 19 at 2:35 pm Reason: added a couple of graphs from story
AndyPatterson is offline  
Old Feb 5, 19, 7:16 pm
  #2  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 46,872
I think that it is an effort to get CBSA and the airport authority to work to fix the underlying issue, e.g., permitting passengers what amounts to transit access to the larger facility if whatever the diversion issue is will require ground time exceeding something reasonable.
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 5, 19, 9:08 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CVG
Programs: UA Silver, AA, DL, Marriott Silver
Posts: 12,003
Iím kind of confused.

The CBC article refers to UA changing to using other airports instead of YYR in Ďanything less than an emergencyí. Iíd like to know which UA flights have landed in YYR in non-emergency situations. Maybe there are scheduled flights that Im unaware of? If youíre spending thousands of $ in landing fees for an unscheduled stop, isnít it pretty much only because of an emergency?
emcampbe is offline  
Old Feb 5, 19, 9:39 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RNO, NV, USA.
Programs: UA 1K 2MM
Posts: 4,209
Originally Posted by emcampbe View Post
Iím kind of confused.

The CBC article refers to UA changing to using other airports instead of YYR in Ďanything less than an emergencyí. Iíd like to know which UA flights have landed in YYR in non-emergency situations. Maybe there are scheduled flights that Im unaware of? If youíre spending thousands of $ in landing fees for an unscheduled stop, isnít it pretty much only because of an emergency?
Perhaps there are different levels of emergencies. In the most recent medical diversion, one wonders why plane didn't land at St. John's Nfld. (YYT), which would have been better equipped to manage medical and passenger issues.
restlessinRNO is offline  
Old Feb 5, 19, 10:09 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CLE
Programs: NEXUS, MileagePlus 1K, IHG Spire, Marriott Gold, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by restlessinRNO View Post
Perhaps there are different levels of emergencies. In the most recent medical diversion, one wonders why plane didn't land at St. John's Nfld. (YYT), which would have been better equipped to manage medical and passenger issues.
That's a good point. I'd be interested to see the results of an investigation. They likely just pushed out this article in a hurry to curtail the PR damage.
trmbn65 is offline  
Old Feb 5, 19, 10:50 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,976
Originally Posted by emcampbe View Post
Iím kind of confused.

The CBC article refers to UA changing to using other airports instead of YYR in Ďanything less than an emergencyí. Iíd like to know which UA flights have landed in YYR in non-emergency situations. Maybe there are scheduled flights that Im unaware of? If youíre spending thousands of $ in landing fees for an unscheduled stop, isnít it pretty much only because of an emergency?
Maybe planned fuel stops for west-bound TATL (esp 757s) that know at take-off that they will need to refuel? Definitely not an emergency.
gcashin likes this.
threeoh is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 2:10 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NRT / HND
Programs: AA EXP, Former UA 1K
Posts: 4,434
Originally Posted by emcampbe View Post
Iím kind of confused.

The CBC article refers to UA changing to using other airports instead of YYR in Ďanything less than an emergencyí. Iíd like to know which UA flights have landed in YYR in non-emergency situations. Maybe there are scheduled flights that Im unaware of? If youíre spending thousands of $ in landing fees for an unscheduled stop, isnít it pretty much only because of an emergency?
Westbound fuel stops in winter on aircraft that push their range limit on the route. Anytime they get a strong headwind the 757's from Europe are susceptible to fuel stops in Canada. Assume the 737Max that airlines are looking to start on TATL will have the same issue.
dvs7310 is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 5:26 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by restlessinRNO View Post
Perhaps there are different levels of emergencies. In the most recent medical diversion, one wonders why plane didn't land at St. John's Nfld. (YYT), which would have been better equipped to manage medical and passenger issues.
If youíre making a diversion for a passenger medical, itís obviously fairly time critical. Goose Bay is perfectly suitable for that; long runway, medical facilities, adequate fuel availability.

Assuming the weather is above minimums and that happens to be the nearest suitable airport, thatís where you go to get medical help for an ailing passenger.
Often1 and ContinentalFan like this.
clubord is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 5:59 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 46,872
Both UA and CBC have dumbed the issue down for public consumption. You can be assured that UA's operations folks are well aware of the choices and can advise the Captain accordingly. Also worth remembering that while there may be a better alternative than YYR, that alternative may not be available for any number of reasons, e.g. local weather. Further, in large weather situations, YYR may be the only field capable of taking larger numbers of sizeable aircraft.

This was originally planned as a medical diversion which would have required a brief stop to offload the ill passenger, topping up the fuel and continuing on (or returning to EWR).
EWR764 likes this.
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 7:07 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 741
Well UA949 LHR-SFO is off to BGR instead:

Comments:

0949/06FEB
P LHR/OUT 924A L00.04 EST OFF 947A
P LHR/OFF 957A
P BGR/ETA 1128A FLIGHT DECK CREW
F BGR/ETD 104P
F SFO/ETA 431P L04.01
D FCF/FSTOP BGR ENRT LHR-SFO A/FLIGHT DECK CREW

SKED LHR ORIG 920A GTD B33 SHIP 2897
SFO 1230P TERM GTA 80
djmp is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 7:16 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by djmp View Post
Well UA949 LHR-SFO is off to BGR instead:

Comments:

0949/06FEB
P LHR/OUT 924A L00.04 EST OFF 947A
P LHR/OFF 957A
P BGR/ETA 1128A FLIGHT DECK CREW
F BGR/ETD 104P
F SFO/ETA 431P L04.01
D FCF/FSTOP BGR ENRT LHR-SFO A/FLIGHT DECK CREW

SKED LHR ORIG 920A GTD B33 SHIP 2897
SFO 1230P TERM GTA 80
One of the pilots got sick so now thereís only two instead of the augmented three required thus this diversion.

Any situation with a crew change issue like this is done at a stateside airport to avoid the additional delay/hassle of Canadian customs.

If this situation occurs going to EWR we usually swap crews in BOS.
clubord is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 8:02 am
  #12  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 46,872
BGR is also 700 miles from YYR. It's not as though these are all co-terminals.

BGR also has scheduled service from a number of airports, including UA from EWR. A lot easier to reunite a reserve pilot by flying her to BGR if the logistics work.
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 8:12 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston MA
Programs: UA 1K/1.5 million miler, SU Gold, JL Sapphire
Posts: 529
It is more than a tad ridiculous and frankly a lack of hospitality for the passengers not being able to stretch their legs in some kind of terminal.

What about border security? Goose Bay is as secure as you can get. It is not like you can walk out and hop on a bus to somewhere. You can either go south or west on a single road, and we are talking hundreds of miles before reaching major towns. Even small hamlets are separated by huge distances. Can't seriously expect passengers to suddenly elope Canadian immigration laws.

In Saint-John, Gander or even Sept-Iles, sure (even if it would be farfetched). But Goose Bay? Good luck with that!

Canadian authorities are making a mountain out of a molehole by not letting people out to stretch their legs.
skidooman is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 8:21 am
  #14  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 88,578
It's their country and Canada can make the rules they consider appropriate.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Feb 6, 19, 8:59 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston MA
Programs: UA 1K/1.5 million miler, SU Gold, JL Sapphire
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
It's their country and Canada can make the rules they consider appropriate.
Correction. It is my country.

I come from that region.

It is just a stupid bureaucrat in Ottawa that is not thinking in practical terms. Not reflective of the country in general.
LarryJ and ajGoes like this.
skidooman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: