Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
DiamondFlyer wrote:ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
At small cities, it's quite common to see DGS (Delta Global Services) handling DL and other carriers. Same for other carriers inhouse ground handling. AA has Piedmont, I'm sure they handle non AA carriers in some stations.
MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
Just because somebody can work a type doesnt mean they will do so to help a competitor. Remember, every airline has its own schedule to worry about. There aren't tons of rampers sitting around looking for something to do. Flights typically leave/arrive at similar times too. Even if an agreement can be made, it wont be cheap for the airline. The diversion and equipment change might very well be cheaper and quicker.
United1 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
CHA is contracted out and while I wish "cooperation" would have solved this issue as with many things in aviation it's not that simple. Whomever handles AA in CHA could not have handled the flight without training from OO on their procedures for the E175.
ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance & Unions.
DiamondFlyer wrote:ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
At small cities, it's quite common to see DGS (Delta Global Services) handling DL and other carriers. Same for other carriers inhouse ground handling. AA has Piedmont, I'm sure they handle non AA carriers in some stations.
United1 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:Typical line of UA bullsh*t if they tried to imply it was too large to land. AA Eagle sends E175s in here all the time. Hell DL sends 3 MD88s a day.
UA is really transparent when it comes to explaining why a flight is delayed. I couldn't tell you what was said to the passengers by OO on the flight but here is what UA itself told passengers.
"We're sorry for returning to Chicago. The airport in Chattanooga is unable to assist with ground operational requirements for your current aircraft type. We assigned your flight a new plane."
United1 wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:ual763 wrote:
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
At small cities, it's quite common to see DGS (Delta Global Services) handling DL and other carriers. Same for other carriers inhouse ground handling. AA has Piedmont, I'm sure they handle non AA carriers in some stations.
And UA (and UGE) handle other airlines as well....however they are contracted, trained and staffed to do so.
evank516 wrote:
Luckily the plane was only filled with 50 pax. What would they have done if the flight had 60?
drdisque wrote:Does UA ground board in CHA?
If so that could have been the problem. All CRJ's and ERJ-135/145 in the UAX fleet have integrated stairs. The E-175 does not. So it's possible that nobody in CHA was trained to move the jetbridge or marshall a jet into the jetbridge position. That would be an even bigger impediment.
Boston92 wrote:Surprised AA/UA don't use the same ground handlers.
MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:evank516 wrote:
Luckily the plane was only filled with 50 pax. What would they have done if the flight had 60?
Bumped 10 people when they got back to ORD.
drdisque wrote:Does UA ground board in CHA?
If so that could have been the problem. All CRJ's and ERJ-135/145 in the UAX fleet have integrated stairs. The E-175 does not. So it's possible that nobody in CHA was trained to move the jetbridge or marshall a jet into the jetbridge position. That would be an even bigger impediment.
WorldFlier wrote:The original CRJ was swapped for an ERJ-175, made it further than halfway, turned around, was re-swapped for a CRJ:
Everyone got a refund for the leg and a $300 voucher, so I'm not bashing United...just wondering what happened?
Bonus here's the message from the App:
"Your 2:13 p.m. United flight to Chattanooga is delayed because of unforeseen circumstances,'' it said. "This is an unusual situation and we're working hard to solve it. We value your time and we're sorry for the inconvenience.''
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 694330002/
Any Professionals want to let us know whats up? ERJ-175 can't be "too large" can it when there have to be 737s, A320s, or 717s at the Airport the size of CHA?
CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:WorldFlier wrote:The original CRJ was swapped for an ERJ-175, made it further than halfway, turned around, was re-swapped for a CRJ:
Everyone got a refund for the leg and a $300 voucher, so I'm not bashing United...just wondering what happened?
Bonus here's the message from the App:
"Your 2:13 p.m. United flight to Chattanooga is delayed because of unforeseen circumstances,'' it said. "This is an unusual situation and we're working hard to solve it. We value your time and we're sorry for the inconvenience.''
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 694330002/
Any Professionals want to let us know whats up? ERJ-175 can't be "too large" can it when there have to be 737s, A320s, or 717s at the Airport the size of CHA?
It's possible the airport is not in the 175 operators Operations Specifications. The operator took the assignment and it was caught after the fact. Years ago when I flew for a United Express carrier, we had an event in which the exact same scenario played out. Our plane turned around halfway once we were informed the airport wasn't in our Ops Specs.
ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
2175301 wrote:ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
Your's is one of many that makes an obvious false claim.
I have personally 3 times been on diverted flights to the closest airport (1 medical - where they then chose to have some maintenance done as that airport had the spare parts in stock; which added 2 more hours to ground time, 1 mechanical, 1 unknown) where the aircraft was ground handled and serviced by another company. In the mechanical case we and our luggage was offloaded and we were all routed onto other aircraft from competitor airlines. In the unknown case we took off after a while - and after the aircraft took on a fair amount of fuel.
So, the base agreements are indeed in place to handle any aircraft at any airport after landing. Now getting the aircraft back into the sky may not be done with passengers onboard if the runway is shorter than normal, or other factors.
Have a great day,
iahcsr wrote:I agree... Ground crews must be trained to work each aircraft type. Someone higher up in the chain of command obviously discovered too late personel in CHA were not trained/qualified for the ERJ175.
Jshank83 wrote:Reminds me of an AA (envoy?) flight I was on a couple months ago. We diverted to Richmond (going to DCA) and the pilot told us if the delay was longer than a gas and go they would have to get a bus because they didn’t have a tow bar for a E175. Which meant we couldn’t use the jetway. It surprised me but didn’t seem like a big deal. You would have thought they could have worked around it if needed at CHA but it sounds like they decided just to head back instead.
CLTRampRat wrote:Jshank83 wrote:Reminds me of an AA (envoy?) flight I was on a couple months ago. We diverted to Richmond (going to DCA) and the pilot told us if the delay was longer than a gas and go they would have to get a bus because they didn’t have a tow bar for a E175. Which meant we couldn’t use the jetway. It surprised me but didn’t seem like a big deal. You would have thought they could have worked around it if needed at CHA but it sounds like they decided just to head back instead.
I used to work at RIC, AA had E175s on daily service to Miami. That’s a load of Bravo Sierra.
ual763 wrote:RamblinMan wrote:United1 wrote:Don’t think it’s an airport issue. Sounds like UAs ground handlers in CHA couldn’t work the E175.
Like I mentioned in the above post, 175s are used regularly on AA DFW-CHA. I don't know if all the ground handling is done in-house or contracted out but the point is SOMEBODY at the airport is qualified to work that type. A little cooperation between carriers and ground handling contractors could have solved this problem without anyone noticing a glitch.
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:evank516 wrote:
Luckily the plane was only filled with 50 pax. What would they have done if the flight had 60?
Bumped 10 people when they got back to ORD.
Rdh3e wrote:MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:evank516 wrote:
Luckily the plane was only filled with 50 pax. What would they have done if the flight had 60?
Bumped 10 people when they got back to ORD.
The flight was originally scheduled to be be a CRJ in the first place so it would not have been possible to have 60.
evank516 wrote:Rdh3e wrote:MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
Bumped 10 people when they got back to ORD.
The flight was originally scheduled to be be a CRJ in the first place so it would not have been possible to have 60.
Where does it say that in the article?
jayunited wrote:evank516 wrote:Rdh3e wrote:The flight was originally scheduled to be be a CRJ in the first place so it would not have been possible to have 60.
Where does it say that in the article?
Passengers were put on a 50-seat Bombardier CRJ 200, which United typically uses on the flight. Passengers finally arrived at the gate in Chattanooga just before 8:30 p.m. local time, more than three hours late. The original equipment was a CRJ 50 seater in fact this is the only equipment type UA sends to this airport at this time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 694330002/
In my 23 years with United I've never heard of this type of situation happening, usually UA would just cancel the UAX flight if the exact equipment type wasn't available. However UA is trying to improve our UAX completion rate and on-time departure rate and no one who was involved in the decision to upguage this flight ever thought to check an see if CHS could handle the E175. This wasn't clear in the report but I'm assuming the decision makers just treated this UAX flight like they would a mainline flight that has a upguage in equipment at the last minute because most line stations can handle any A320/19, or 737-7/8/9ER. This was an expensive lesson for UA but in the end UA did the right thing by refunding passengers their ticket giving a $300 dollar voucher, and still getting them to their destination a little over 3 hours late.
Cubsrule wrote:
Maybe this is a stupid question, but shouldn’t the dispatcher catch that when planning the flight?
ual763 wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:ual763 wrote:
When was the last time you saw a Delta/American/United ramp crew working an aircraft from the other carrier? It doesn’t work that way and for two reasons: Insurance Requirements & Unions.
At small cities, it's quite common to see DGS (Delta Global Services) handling DL and other carriers. Same for other carriers inhouse ground handling. AA has Piedmont, I'm sure they handle non AA carriers in some stations.
But DGS is it’s own company whose sole business is ground handling contracting. What I’m talking about is physical Delta/American/United employees. And even if they do “sometimes” help each other out, it’s not like they just go do it willy nilly. They aren’t allowed to touch another comoany’s Multi-million dollar asset without complex agreements and contracts. If they do, it is pre-planned in agreements and also there is lots of training that goes on. This is all mandated by the insurance companies. It was this way back at GFK when I used to work on the ramp. DGS was only allowed to work Delta flights and we over at GFK Flight Support were only allowed to touch the Allegiant MD-80s. In the off event they needed to borrow some airstairs or equipment, we had to receive training from them to do so even though it was our damn equipment. And they also had to pay out the ass for our services too.
B737900ER wrote:And what would have happened had they continued to CHA? They would have landed, off loaded, and cancelled the return, or paid a contractor to handle the aircraft, just like they would have done for a diversion.
But are we surprised? No, these regional airlines who United contracts out to don’t take the PR hit. These are the same people that trigged the Dr. Dao incident by booking seats 15 minutes before departure. They don’t take the backlash from their poor decision making.