why can't United do this n/s
Mar 12, 2019, 12:53 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Washington DC
Programs: Delta 1MM, Delta SM, United Silver, Amx Plat, Delta Amx Plat, Six-T Plat, IHG Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 590
why can't United do this n/s
So I was recently booked r/t IAH-EWR-BOM. The outbound portion went fine. While I was in BOM I looked and saw (three days ahead of time) that flight #49 had already posted a 5 hour delay for the EWR-(FRA)-BOM portion. I'm well aware that the refueling/diversion whatever you want to call it is b/c of the Indian/Pakistani dispute right now. I certainly "get" that United can't do anything about that. What I don't understand tho is that Air Canada flies from BOM-YYZ and they were running their flights nonstop. I'm pointing this out b/c it would seem to me that AC would be governed by whatever restrictions are currently in place preventing United from doing the route non-stop, so ANY IDEAS WHY UNITED is currently not doing the return portion from BOM-EWR nonstop?? it would seem that that flight would follow much of the flight path of the Air Canada into Toronto. Any informed ideas as to "why" would be very helpful and safe travels to everyone! Thnx
Mar 12, 2019, 1:14 pm
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Not sure what all the CAPS are about, but:
1. BOM-YYZ is 500 km, < BOM-EWR.
2. AC may have cut loads or freight or both in order to make it, while UA is not.
You may be 100% assured that UA and all of the carriers serving routes which cross Pakistani air space would do anything not to add in a technical stop other than compromise passenger safety. The fact that an aircraft could theoretically operate the additional 500 km., does not mean that it will do so in civil aviation. There must be sufficient fuel, not only to make it to EWR, buit to hold at EWR, make it to diversion #1 , hold there, make it to diveersion #2 and land. That is expensive and likely means the FRA stop is necessary. But, from where I sit, I would much prefer the 70 minutes at FRA to going into the drink.
1. BOM-YYZ is 500 km, < BOM-EWR.
2. AC may have cut loads or freight or both in order to make it, while UA is not.
You may be 100% assured that UA and all of the carriers serving routes which cross Pakistani air space would do anything not to add in a technical stop other than compromise passenger safety. The fact that an aircraft could theoretically operate the additional 500 km., does not mean that it will do so in civil aviation. There must be sufficient fuel, not only to make it to EWR, buit to hold at EWR, make it to diversion #1 , hold there, make it to diveersion #2 and land. That is expensive and likely means the FRA stop is necessary. But, from where I sit, I would much prefer the 70 minutes at FRA to going into the drink.
Mar 12, 2019, 1:19 pm
#4
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,125
Not sure what all the CAPS are about, but:
1. BOM-YYZ is 500 km, < BOM-EWR.
2. AC may have cut loads or freight or both in order to make it, while UA is not.
You may be 100% assured that UA and all of the carriers serving routes which cross Pakistani air space would do anything not to add in a technical stop other than compromise passenger safety. The fact that an aircraft could theoretically operate the additional 500 km., does not mean that it will do so in civil aviation. There must be sufficient fuel, not only to make it to EWR, buit to hold at EWR, make it to diversion #1 , hold there, make it to diveersion #2 and land. That is expensive and likely means the FRA stop is necessary. But, from where I sit, I would much prefer the 70 minutes at FRA to going into the drink.
1. BOM-YYZ is 500 km, < BOM-EWR.
2. AC may have cut loads or freight or both in order to make it, while UA is not.
You may be 100% assured that UA and all of the carriers serving routes which cross Pakistani air space would do anything not to add in a technical stop other than compromise passenger safety. The fact that an aircraft could theoretically operate the additional 500 km., does not mean that it will do so in civil aviation. There must be sufficient fuel, not only to make it to EWR, buit to hold at EWR, make it to diversion #1 , hold there, make it to diveersion #2 and land. That is expensive and likely means the FRA stop is necessary. But, from where I sit, I would much prefer the 70 minutes at FRA to going into the drink.
Mar 12, 2019, 1:31 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Washington DC
Programs: Delta 1MM, Delta SM, United Silver, Amx Plat, Delta Amx Plat, Six-T Plat, IHG Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 590
Ah!! good info so far. Thanks! and "often" the ALL CAPS are b/c I inadvertently hit my CAPS LOCK button and I neglected to fix it. Also. it's more than a 70 min delay. The flights have been leaving 3-4 later then scheduled departure time and have been on the ground in Germany for an hour or so so the cumulative delay winds up being 4-5 hours not just 70 mins as you stated so a 545 am arrival is now clocking into EWR at 10:20, 11:20 etc causing major misconnects. In the end I was bummed that I could not enjoy the Polaris experience both ways but was glad to be re booked on Air Canada and get home on time. Thanks again for all the great info
Mar 12, 2019, 2:08 pm
#6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
Also. it's more than a 70 min delay. The flights have been leaving 3-4 later then scheduled departure time and have been on the ground in Germany for an hour or so so the cumulative delay winds up being 4-5 hours not just 70 mins as you stated so a 545 am arrival is now clocking into EWR at 10:20, 11:20 etc
Mar 12, 2019, 2:11 pm
#7
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: WAS
Programs: Free Agent
Posts: 1,757
Mar 12, 2019, 8:06 pm
#8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: UA GS (1MM), DL Gold, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist, Avis CC
Posts: 526
However, I know from personal experience that the old IAD-DXB flight regularly flew over Iran. I often debated with friends what would happen if the plane had an emergency and the usually high number of US military personnel on the plane with security clearances (...myself included earlier in the decade) suddenly found themselves on the ground under Iranian custody.