J.Edward

Never seen this before - was booked on UA2327 IAH → LAS, took a MX delay, got the heads up from UA around 7am (good job on that UA - ultimately saved me a trip to the airport).

10:45am departued pushed back to ~2pm, no real issues...we've all been through a MX delay.

But here's where it gets weird: UA booted all passengers from the flight than flew the plane to IAH as a ghost flight under the same flight number.

I get there are more MX resources at IAH vs an outstation (although LAS is one of the larger outstations) and that there may be other considerations with a/c positioning and all, but in my 2mm miles with UA, I've never seen this happen where the flight still operated as a ghost flight and curious to see if anyone else has run across similar issues.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Seemed like they were parking some planes at LAS last year, but when I was there a couple of days ago they were gone. I’m not sure that would have mattered - not sure if planes that h ave been parked can be put into service immediately when the need arises.

bocastephen

Maybe it was a maintenance issue of significance that did not allow the carrying of passengers or crew other than pilots, and it needed to go to IAH for service.

jsloan

I suspect that this is exactly what happened. There are a number of conditions (e.g., no working lavatory) that could prevent a plane from being certified for passenger travel but do not inhibit safe operation of the plane.

LASUA1K

My wife, a former UA Flight Attendant, would often have flights like this. Basically it’s airworthy without passengers and would fly it to a hub for repair.

emcampbe

I'd guess this too (though I'm not sure if working lavs would be the reason - not sure they are required - I thought they were not, and I'm pretty sure I had a [short, proabably ~1 hour] flight once where they announced the lav wasn't working, encouraging people to use the facilities at the airport if they needed first). What I'm a little more surprised about is why they would fly with the original flight number - you'd think they'd cancel the flight in the system - then fly the plane with a different flight number (ie, don't they have flight numbers set aside for ferries like this, I think it used to be 21XX or 25XX something, but I could be wrong). I don't know what additional logistics go into that, in terms of flight planning or whatnot, but you'd think canceling the flight would also make it easier for the pax to get rebooked.

On another note, I remember one time several years ago getting on a UAX short hop (probably CVG-ORD), and at boarding, figuring out my tray table latch wasn't working properly at boarding - it was loose or something and the tray table was unlatching occasionally and without me touching it. I was trying to make a connection somewhere of relative importance, and I think it was already delayed, and didn't want to affect the other 70 people (or whatever) on board. Rather then alert the FA right away and have something like this happen (or more likely, a call to maintenance with an additional not minor further delay), I held it up myself to make sure it wouldn't unlatch until after take off, then alerted the flight attendant when we were in the air so it could be fixed on the ground.

J.Edward

Thank you all for your replies - appreciate the insight.
This is what’s throwing me off.

I get UA’s got their MX at hubs but it’s not like LAS in some small outstation either that’s unable to perform anything more than basic repairs. Is UA *really* saving money on the whole when the cheaper MX at IAH is offset off against the cost of the ferry flight?

Moreover, if UA wanted to straight up ferry the flight back to IAH, why wait 3hrs?

I guess what I can’t figure out is why not have LAS do whatever MX needed to be done, even if it cost more than doing at IAH, as they’d save the ops cost of the ferry flight.

jsloan

It depends upon what was wrong. If they were going to have to ferry in the part, that'd cost the same as ferrying the empty plane.

WineCountryUA

The needed expertise or materials were not available at LAS? Some cargo was time critical tand there was no other way to get the cargo to IAH in time?

There probably a number reasons and we will never know unless a UA employee looks it up and reports

apparently UA thought that was the best solution

fezzington

I have no knowledge of this exact flight, but could they thought there was a fix possible in LAS? Then, it became evident that no such fix could be made, and the decision was made to ferry the plane to IAH to minimize disruption to the system?

As an aside, I don't remember the TechOps situation in LAS (inhouse vs contracted, warehouse situation)

Also, as there are not 4 seats listed as occupied, I would imagine it left without FAs aboard, though I could be wrong.

PTahCha

Are FAs required on ferry flights, similar to staffing on cargo-only flights?

PHLGovFlyer

Another possibility is that the fix could have been accomplished at LAS, but the right part(s) and/or qualified people would not be available until much later, or at very high cost. This happened on a Saturday, so 24-48 hours to get parts and people in place at a non-hub station is not unheard of depending on the nature of the fix. In that event UA knows that the aircraft can't do the flight and simply looks at what the lowest cost alternatives would be, including ferrying an empty plane to a hub.

clubord

Ferry flights only require the minimum cockpit crew, F/A not needed.

danielflyer

They also probably wanted to have the plane in IAH for another flight.

wxguy

This. Other examples -- inoperative passenger supplemental oxygen system, inoperative emergency exits, even a non-functional PA system (and no megaphones). There are many possibilities.