Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 19, 2009 02:43 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 19, 2009 02:43 PM
United UA 840 SYD-LAX returns to Sydney after concerns about a "bomb on board"
A very costly event for all concerned
which will throw a spotlight on how local and US authorities, including United
Airlines, work in today's fearful flying climate.
It's an unhappy situation for many airlines whose
security departments each day deal with all sorts of threats to the integrity of
the airline's operation. Phone threats are not unknown and of course don't reach
public awareness unless arrests are made and charges laid. The task is one of
risk management, working out when to act, and when to ignore as "just another
nutter".
Last night's return of a United Airlines 747-400 to its departing airport of Sydney, with over 200 passengers and crew, was the first I can recall such an incident taking place in Australia.
So far the media reports have shown reasonable care and accuracy, it being the lead report on tonight's evening news, juxtaposed with the loss of a small 6-seater Piper aircraft which had earlier in the day left Sydney's other airport, Bankstown, on its way to Victoria's Benalla. The media will often pair such stories.
One media report stated that the captain of the United 747 "immediately" took up a return heading once he was shown the airsickness bag on which was written the letters, "BOB". It had apparently been found in the first class restroom.
Later reports suggested the captain had conversed with UA HQ in Chicago, but that ultimately he had taken responsibility for the aircraft's return. We also saw the rather unedifying spectacle of the captain being harassed by reporters with all manner of microphones and cameras thrust at him. Naturally, he didn't say much, and appeared unaccompanied by local UA ground staff.
Reports were also that a considerable amount of fuel had to be dumped over the Pacific as the aircraft would have had at least 16 hours of endurance fuel on board, too much for the landing after being in flight for less than 3 hours - 90 minutes after leaving Sydney.
Some websites reported local Sydney airport residents were concerned that the aircraft was permitted to return to Sydney once the threat was being taken seriously. They suggested a large built-up metropolis was not the right place for a bomb-laden plane to return, preferring it to land at some rural location which could handle an aircraft that size.
Clearly, once those in the position of making risk management decisions had determined the aircraft would not continue to its destination, a decision would need to be made as to where it should put down. Given its fuel load, giving it at least 14 hours duration before reserves, it could cover a quarter the planet! Thus it could have continued onto US soil where UA has a presence such as Honolulu (HNL) or other ports such as Nadi, Auckland, Brisbane, or Melbourne. Indeed the flight number had originated in Melbourne, although it may not have been the same aircraft.
It will be interesting to hear how the decision to return to Sydney was made. There would be crew who would take the flight out the next day from the inbound UA 839 of the same day, or perhaps another crew would travel out from LAX by deadheading on Air New Zealand or Qantas. Or the same crew may take it out the next day having been debriefed by UA and the various local authorities, and with sufficient rest. These may be details that may not become known for quite some time. I also wonder if flying on to Hawaii was given consideration since hotel accommodation would have been at a premium due to an American Psychological Association conference taking place there this week.
Perhaps returning to Sydney would mean many people could return to their homes reducing the cost of local hotel accommodation. That is an utterly pragmatic consideration but even a cash-strapped UA is still likely to have put passenger and crew welfare ahead of dollars.
Already some are suspecting UA may have to look to itself to explain what occurred. Some local flight attendants interviewed have suggested that writing BOB is commonly performed to let others know of Best on Board, referring to an attractive passenger by virtue of certain physical characteristics. Such hijinks are not uncommon and help to breed staff morale and bonding on the particular long trans-Pacific flights usually staffed by the most senior cabin and flight crews.
That the bag containing the message was allegedly located in first class is also interesting, since if left there for the amusement of a passenger travelling in that class, it is an easy way to draw attention to oneself given there are less than a dozen pax in that class.
The massive display of anti-terrorist airport activity also put on by local authorities will no doubt be scrutinised closely since it gave a real-life test of current preparations for "the real deal".
And of course, it also gave local politicians a chance to work up the appropriate sound bite for the television and radio news.
For the passengers on board, it's another story. Perhaps the first they may have learnt - the stories will start to come out soon enough - was watching the inflight map displaying the aircraft turning. Others may have seen the fine misting spray of the fuel being off-loaded from the wing fueltanks to bring the landing weight to acceptable levels which may have proven unnerving without a forewarning for the flight crew.
Many passengers will have been interviewed with suspicion by local authorities on their return to Sydney. Some will take it on as another part of the overseas adventure, while others will feel seriously inconvenienced, having missed connections, meetings, cruises, and friends. And a few will feel frightened to fly and need some extra assistance from UA groundstaff and cabin crew.
No doubt a few will strike up friendships with fellow passengers, previously strangers when they compare stories and feelings, providing them an unexpected bonding experience of their own.
Last night's return of a United Airlines 747-400 to its departing airport of Sydney, with over 200 passengers and crew, was the first I can recall such an incident taking place in Australia.
So far the media reports have shown reasonable care and accuracy, it being the lead report on tonight's evening news, juxtaposed with the loss of a small 6-seater Piper aircraft which had earlier in the day left Sydney's other airport, Bankstown, on its way to Victoria's Benalla. The media will often pair such stories.
One media report stated that the captain of the United 747 "immediately" took up a return heading once he was shown the airsickness bag on which was written the letters, "BOB". It had apparently been found in the first class restroom.
Later reports suggested the captain had conversed with UA HQ in Chicago, but that ultimately he had taken responsibility for the aircraft's return. We also saw the rather unedifying spectacle of the captain being harassed by reporters with all manner of microphones and cameras thrust at him. Naturally, he didn't say much, and appeared unaccompanied by local UA ground staff.
Reports were also that a considerable amount of fuel had to be dumped over the Pacific as the aircraft would have had at least 16 hours of endurance fuel on board, too much for the landing after being in flight for less than 3 hours - 90 minutes after leaving Sydney.
Some websites reported local Sydney airport residents were concerned that the aircraft was permitted to return to Sydney once the threat was being taken seriously. They suggested a large built-up metropolis was not the right place for a bomb-laden plane to return, preferring it to land at some rural location which could handle an aircraft that size.
Clearly, once those in the position of making risk management decisions had determined the aircraft would not continue to its destination, a decision would need to be made as to where it should put down. Given its fuel load, giving it at least 14 hours duration before reserves, it could cover a quarter the planet! Thus it could have continued onto US soil where UA has a presence such as Honolulu (HNL) or other ports such as Nadi, Auckland, Brisbane, or Melbourne. Indeed the flight number had originated in Melbourne, although it may not have been the same aircraft.
It will be interesting to hear how the decision to return to Sydney was made. There would be crew who would take the flight out the next day from the inbound UA 839 of the same day, or perhaps another crew would travel out from LAX by deadheading on Air New Zealand or Qantas. Or the same crew may take it out the next day having been debriefed by UA and the various local authorities, and with sufficient rest. These may be details that may not become known for quite some time. I also wonder if flying on to Hawaii was given consideration since hotel accommodation would have been at a premium due to an American Psychological Association conference taking place there this week.
Perhaps returning to Sydney would mean many people could return to their homes reducing the cost of local hotel accommodation. That is an utterly pragmatic consideration but even a cash-strapped UA is still likely to have put passenger and crew welfare ahead of dollars.
Already some are suspecting UA may have to look to itself to explain what occurred. Some local flight attendants interviewed have suggested that writing BOB is commonly performed to let others know of Best on Board, referring to an attractive passenger by virtue of certain physical characteristics. Such hijinks are not uncommon and help to breed staff morale and bonding on the particular long trans-Pacific flights usually staffed by the most senior cabin and flight crews.
That the bag containing the message was allegedly located in first class is also interesting, since if left there for the amusement of a passenger travelling in that class, it is an easy way to draw attention to oneself given there are less than a dozen pax in that class.
The massive display of anti-terrorist airport activity also put on by local authorities will no doubt be scrutinised closely since it gave a real-life test of current preparations for "the real deal".
And of course, it also gave local politicians a chance to work up the appropriate sound bite for the television and radio news.
For the passengers on board, it's another story. Perhaps the first they may have learnt - the stories will start to come out soon enough - was watching the inflight map displaying the aircraft turning. Others may have seen the fine misting spray of the fuel being off-loaded from the wing fueltanks to bring the landing weight to acceptable levels which may have proven unnerving without a forewarning for the flight crew.
Many passengers will have been interviewed with suspicion by local authorities on their return to Sydney. Some will take it on as another part of the overseas adventure, while others will feel seriously inconvenienced, having missed connections, meetings, cruises, and friends. And a few will feel frightened to fly and need some extra assistance from UA groundstaff and cabin crew.
No doubt a few will strike up friendships with fellow passengers, previously strangers when they compare stories and feelings, providing them an unexpected bonding experience of their own.
A United Airlines 747-400 on the tarmac at Sydney
(Update: July 29) Not surprisingly, overnight more of the story has unfolded. It appears from news reports that passengers may not have been kept informed of the circumstances of their return to Sydney. Others have raised concerns that pax were kept on board for 45" at some distance from the terminal while the aircraft was inspected, and then bussed back to the terminal.\
No reports I have seen have said how United's groundstaff managed the passenger welfare duties, and I imagine Qantas staff would have been heavily involved since they also act as United handling agents, now that former Aussie Star Alliance partner, Ansett, is no more.
The "Best on Board" explanation has also taken on greater weight, although reports from authority figures still maintain that in the circumstances the captain was correct in returning to Sydney.
However, if the barf bag message was indeed placed there by the crew, it seems odd indeed that the captain would not know of this crew pastime, and if he did, would not have asked the Cabin Manager, or chief purser, to attempt to track down if one of his or her crew had written the message.
If he didn't know at some point, he would have had to inform cabin crew that he wished to return to Sydney, and for senior cabin crew to prepare the aircraft as such. He then ought to have been asked on what basis he made the decision in which case the BOB barg bag would have been shown. In that case, the cabin management crew could then have said, "it's one of our's" and attempted to speak with staff to track it down. Given the flight was 90 mins out of Sydney - and possibly closer to Brisbane - there was plenty of time to do an initial period of cabin crew investigating. The interesting report to come will be the time between a crew remember first seeing this BOB warning and the captains' decision to return. Just a few minutes, or more than that while various authorities and UA HQ are informed.
Imagining they knew nothing of it, since the aircraft continued to return, is it possible a non-crew member left it there - perhaps a deadheading crew member, or could it have been left there by a previous crew? Seems doubtful, as one expects first class restrooms would get a thorough cleaning.
Whatever the case, the cost to United may well approach $1,000,000 according to some reports given over 100,000 litres of fuel was dumped, new crew, hotel accommodation, and potential compensation for those needing to be put up in LAX in order to make their onwards connections. Other media reports have suggested it may be as little as $200,000. I wonder if the various emergency authorities activated in Sydney will actually invoice United for their trouble!
Those who had been upgraded on mileage points on the SYD-LAX leg the next day, as well as US-based connections, might find they may lose their upgrades to fare-paying passengers who are given priority. These are the times when I am grateful I have been keepjng up my high status membership of UA Mileage plus program. I wonder if those inconvenienced will find a surprise mileage bonus in their next month's mileage update.
Of course, barf bags on aircraft have been around for a long term, and many people collect them and engage in swaps with others, much like others do with photos and other airline paraphenalia. "Mr. Bean" is famous for his barg bag routine which can be view here (an .avi file) and Australian entertainer Barry Humphries has been well know to play "chunder" tricks on board.
Posted: Wednesday - July 28, 2004 at 07:49 PM |