dhh1

I saw a UA 747 landing at DTW mid-day Thursday and they have no scheduled 747 flights from DTW - Can anyone add any insight to this?

Thanks in advance.

UnitedSkies

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...655Z/EGLL/KDTW

kents

It was UA 929, LHR -> ORD, and the diversion was for refueling

About 3 hrs before landing, the captain informed us that due to ATC technical issues in Canadian airspace, we needed to fly a much longer route at a lower altitude - which burned a lot more fuel.

So we diverted to Detroit. Several of us noticed other diverted aircraft as well - we were next to a Royal Jordanian Air airbus, for instance.

Yesterday was a long day - 929 was originally scheduled into ORD at 10:10 am. With a late inbound aircraft it was first delayed 2 hrs. We were stuck at the stand in LHR for an additional :45 due to LHR ATC. Then came the fuel diversion to DTW. On landing at ORD, no gates at T5 were available (because of all the other fuel diversions), so we sat on a taxiway for about an hour.

Arrived T5 at 4:15, about 7 hrs late.

Made a 5:04pm connection out of C25 (thanks Global Entry and GS security line). Then that flight was delayed an additional :25 for crew. And then I needed to check my carry-on because of full bins.

In Denver, it was 50 minutes before baggage was delivered. I am usually in my car within :15 minutes of stepping off the plane, so a very non-standard day.

...long day

markontime

FYI,

Royal Jordanian fly's to DTW twice a week.

flyinbob

A 747 diverted on the LHR-ORD route for refueling?

That seems not right. To divert it enroute enough for that kind of fuel consumption either means a smaller plane could have gone down in the Ocean or the captain did not put much fuel in before departing LHR. And why didn't they know about these ATC conditions before leaving LHR? Lots of weird stuff about this.

FlyinHawaiian

A smaller plane or one with a more critical fuel need would have diverted to a nearer airfield, like Gander or Yellowknife (not knowing the exact route, but those are often used for TATL diversions). It also sounds like the ATC problem that caused the diversion occurred after the flight departed, so there was no time to file an alternate flight plan or take on more fuel.

lhrsfo

The captain would never put full fuel in unless it was needed. Not sure what the exact requirements are but they put in enough fuel to get to the destination, fly around it for a while and then divert to another airport. It's possible that if the diversions in Canadian airspace were extreme and unexpected, and everything else was conspiring against, then this could happen.

I once was on a 777 from LHR-SFO and we seemed to wait around for ever at the end of the runway. I switched Ch9 on and it transpired that there was some glitch in sending our electronic route from UA HQ to ATC, which meant we couldn't go. Eventually, after about 20 minutes, the Captain requested to move to a holding point and switch the engines off, otherwise we would have to return to stand to get more fuel.

sbm12

Sure, why not?

Not really. Unless someone was negligent in not filling or not checking the fuel levels this isn't really a risk at all.
This is more likely.
Canada has seen a fair amout of "work to rule" activity from various union groups associated with air travel as of yesterday. It isn't all that much of a shock that this wasn't known earlier.

They don't fully tank up a 747 for the LHR-ORD route; carrying all that extra fuel is horribly expensive. They fill based on the scheduled route, expected weather en route, diversion points and other buffer factors. But they don't top off the tanks. So when something happens that causes the flight to experience a much more significant burn they have to divert.

aluminumdriver

As someone else pointed out, Captains can't add enough fuel to cover all the what-if's, United doesn't allow it. We carry fuel to get to destination, then to an alternate if one is required, then FAR fuel reserves. We don't usually carry more than that due to United's fuel savings plan. If we have to divert, oh well. United says diverting due to fuel is not a failure.

AD

dmodemd

It's like my company policy on always buying a non-refundable ticket. On some occasions we need to change and pay the penalty, but the majority of the time we don't and we save the difference, so the net savings overall is significant

sbm12

Do you disagree?

How much extra fuel would you carry on every flight to avoid the potential for the occasional fuel diversion?

harryhood

No issues on UA939 LHR-IAD yesterday (other than congestion delays at LHR, which still didn't hurt on-time arrive), which I was on, but its flight plan only has it over Newfoundland for a few hundred miles.

PhateX1337

It doesn't really matter how much extra...it's just a guaranteed money loser.

As others have said, it's a simple cost analysis. It's a lot cheaper for any airline to fly with minimum safe amount of fuel and run the risk of having to stop for a refuel 5% of the time rather than carry tens of thousands of pounds more in fuel. It burns fuel to carry fuel. AKA it burns cash to carry more fuel on every single route.

flyinbob

I'm just wondering what kind of ATC situation was that unforeseeable, considering diverting has to cost quite a bit of money. Will United investigate? Hold anyone accountable? Or was it a weather diversion that big that wasn't forecast? Or someone screw the pooch?

jhayes_1780

Does it? (becuase I really don't know... excluding the cost of fuel, maybe a few thousand dollars in ramp service/landing fee expense?).

This kind of thing happens everyday, even at UA.