AirCanada Turns back on way to Hawaii

[Guest]

The article says it is a 737 Max which means it is a very new aircraft.  I guess we will learn more later.

Air Canada flight to Maui diverted back to YVR after ‘hydraulic indication

News provided by citynews1130.com

BY SASHA LAKIC Posted Dec 24, 2018 2:55 pm PST

(Source: Air Canada website)

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) — A Vancouver-Maui flight almost half-way to its destination has had to turn around and fly back to YVR after a mechanical issue.

Air Canada says flight AC535 is now on its way back to Vancouver with 167 passengers, for whom the airline is arranging another airplane to get them back to Hawaii “as soon as possible.”

Peter Wagner@peterjontheair

It appears an @AirCanada flight from #VancouverBC to #Maui turned around en-route, is due back around 2:30, according to FlightAware.

(Note — the map can only approximate the position of the plane over the ocean) @NEWS1130 1:20 PM – Dec 24, 2018 See Peter Wagner’s other Tweets

Isabelle Arthur, Air Canada’s director of media relations, says the Boeing 737 MAX 8 had to return for “maintenance reasons due to hydraulic indication.”

No further details were given.

[blues deville]

That would have been a tough PA to make. 

Might have gone unnoticed (probably not) with a more generous voucher amount. Some bad holiday PR but better than having the aircraft grounded in Maui for a possible longer period out of service.

https://www.theloop.ca/ctvnews/air-canada-flight-turns-back-halfway-to-hawaii-passengers-get-10-vouchers/

[rudder]

They were already on the track so could have continued. However, would likely have been grounded absent repair on arrival (non-deferrable for ETOPS?)

Made sense to return to a MTC base where repairs or an aircraft replacement could be made.

WXX/MTC/ATC - all realities in the world of commercial air travel. I guess it is up to each carrier to decide what acceptable compensation is for delayed travel.

[Seeker]

I'm always puzzled by this idea that passengers have that the airline is responsible for their food, watering and accommodations from the time they check-in till arrival.  If the flight arrives on-time they'd be buying their own meals at destination so if the flight is late they buy their meals at the airport - same difference.  

One time in Toronto there was a big snowstorm happening outside the terminal windows.  I was standing at the gate waiting for the inbound aircraft, delayed an hour due to the storm, and some woman comes up and asks to speak to me - wants to talk to me about compensation for the delay.  Every airline, every bus, every taxi - delayed.  Hardly anyone's fault - it's weather.  Look, I say, there's a big snowstorm outside, the flight will get here eventually and we'll board everyone and be on out way.  She says she's from Europe and in Europe there's compensation for every delay no matter what the cause!  I said, well, you're in Canada and in Canada you don't get compensated for weather delays and you should be happy about that because it means that your ticket is cheaper because the airline doesn't have to build a weather compensation delay charge into your ticket price.  She looks at me like I'm speaking Swahili - no understanding at all, seems to think compensation is free money.

[blues deville]

3 hours ago, seeker said:

I'm always puzzled by this idea that passengers have that the airline is responsible for their food, watering and accommodations from the time they check-in till arrival.  If the flight arrives on-time they'd be buying their own meals at destination so if the flight is late they buy their meals at the airport - same difference.  

One time in Toronto there was a big snowstorm happening outside the terminal windows.  I was standing at the gate waiting for the inbound aircraft, delayed an hour due to the storm, and some woman comes up and asks to speak to me - wants to talk to me about compensation for the delay.  Every airline, every bus, every taxi - delayed.  Hardly anyone's fault - it's weather.  Look, I say, there's a big snowstorm outside, the flight will get here eventually and we'll board everyone and be on out way.  She says she's from Europe and in Europe there's compensation for every delay no matter what the cause!  I said, well, you're in Canada and in Canada you don't get compensated for weather delays and you should be happy about that because it means that your ticket is cheaper because the airline doesn't have to build a weather compensation delay charge into your ticket price.  She looks at me like I'm speaking Swahili - no understanding at all, seems to think compensation is free money.

Some people have unrealistic expectations when in comes to delays but it’s more than likely a good percentage of these AC passenger’s vacation plans did not originate in Vancouver or even BC. Two of our family holidays from Toronto to Maui included an overnight in YVR due to the early OGG departure time. All went well but a turnback would have cost me another YVR hotel room, meals, etc plus the loss of the pre-paid Kihei hotel room. Would not have been happy either. 

I’m sure the 15 hour delay wasn’t pleasant but there may have been serious operational issues for a return departure from Maui’s 6900’ runway.

[Seeker]

1 hour ago, blues deville said:

All went well but a turnback would have cost me another YVR hotel room, meals, etc plus the loss of the pre-paid Kihei hotel room. Would not have been happy either. 

 

Yes, there are an almost infinite number of variations in the situations of the passengers affected.  For someone such as yourself I can see the accommodation being covered by the airline for a mechanical delay/return.  As far as the meals go - wouldn't you be paying for meals anyway?

Yes, I know, I know, someone will mention the possibility of someone who's going to an all-inclusive.

[Super 80]

Has there been an all-inclusive in Hawaii in the last thirty years?

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Super 80 said:

Has there been an all-inclusive in Hawaii in the last thirty years?

If so I would love to know about a current one>     However if passengers are boarding in a foreign port (to them) and if the aircraft goes mechanical, then the airline should pay for food and lodging. 

[blues deville]

11 hours ago, seeker said:

Yes, there are an almost infinite number of variations in the situations of the passengers affected.  For someone such as yourself I can see the accommodation being covered by the airline for a mechanical delay/return.  As far as the meals go - wouldn't you be paying for meals anyway?

Regarding my/our trips to OGG we stayed at our crew hotel at a reduced rate but there wasn’t a refund for being a no-show. It was tough enough to get that rate at March break. 

Getting to Maui from most west coast cities isn’t a problem. AC rouge has a seasonal flight from YYZ but other than that it’s a YVR connection on AC for many. So if you fall into that connector category I think the carrier has some responsibility if the delay or turnback is mechanical with weather delays being the exception. And $10 for 15 hours at the terminal doesn’t really cover much and certainly won’t help with repeat customers. 

In this particular event the group who should be really PO’d is AC for having one of their newest aircraft turn around mid-route due to a potential problem. These aren’t old formerly mothballs airframes so not too many excuses from Boeing as to why they are not serviceable. 

[Super 80]

Assuming it wasn't merely to avoid an AOG event in Maui the return could have been necessitated by ETOPS.

[blues deville]

7 hours ago, Super 80 said:

Assuming it wasn't merely to avoid an AOG event in Maui the return could have been necessitated by ETOPS.

Good point. But they appeared to be nearly half way according to the initial post map so perhaps well into ETOPs /EDTO when the problem occurred.

I think runway length could have also played a factor depending on the hydraulic problem but more than likely lack of full maintenance support in Maui.  Either way, machines will fail but it’s frustrating and expensive when it’s brand new equipment being parked. 

One C3 deadhead after landing in HNL was a short hop to OGG on a Aloha 737-200. About half way along with some trailing edge flaps still extended and slower than normal speed they turned around and did an almost flapless landing on 8L (12300’) back at HNL. After a very fast approach/CFR inspection and parking at the gate the skipper spoke to us as we deplaned saying they were about 210kts over the threshold and there was no possibility of doing that in Maui. 

[AIP]

13 hours ago, Super 80 said:

Assuming it wasn't merely to avoid an AOG event in Maui the return could have been necessitated by ETOPS.

Doubtful.  At that point there were already ETOPS. In most cases, once in the ETOPS area, you stay in the ETOPS area unless decision is made otherwise.

My guess is, this had more to do with the Hydraulics issue and the short runway in OGG. 

[Homerun]

With prevailing winds, it was likely faster to turn back then continue from the geographic halfway point.  They would have had the “equal time point” on their flight plan.

All hydraulic systems must be operating normally to enter the Etops area, once there, its the PIC’s call to remain there if you encounter a problem.  Losing 1 of 2 hydraulic systems would be a good reason to not fly longer than necessary imo.

[j.k.]

The Pilots made a great decision... probably just inside ETOPs when the issue occurred, well ahead of the ETP... a little bit of figuring and coordinating was likely before the turn around which took them further out... but why chance it with 1 system left over a big ocean into a base with minimal support and a shortish runway.

The flight got back to YVR at 1433.

Replacement flight left YVR at 1936, into OGG late that evening - Pax didn't miss any nights...

Less than 5 hours in the terminal... all considered not too bad IMO. If you can't get by with a 10 dollar sandwich and a coffee, chip in an extra 5 or 10 and get what you want. I mean what do you want? Surf and turf and a bottle of '81 Chateau Latour?

No these people want to be victims. Like the story of the Hawaii holiday trip and oceanic diversion isn't enough. 

And instead of saying great job pilots and airline, we're glad we were accommodated reasonably quickly all considered and got there safely later that day, they call the CBC and feign outrage. Get a life.

[Innuendo]

Quote

they call the CBC and feign outrage. 

 

And of course the CBC would be delighted to help them along with dramatising their outrage

[Seeker]

34 minutes ago, j.k. said:

And instead of saying great job pilots and airline, we're glad we were accommodated reasonably quickly all considered and got there safely later that day, they call the CBC and feign outrage. Get a life.

Exactly.  This is my point.  Sometimes the airline is responsible but sometimes stuff happens that is outside their control.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, seeker said:

Exactly.  This is my point.  Sometimes the airline is responsible but sometimes stuff happens that is outside their control.

In the land of OZ, mechanical is definitely in the control of the airline/ owner / manufacturer of the aircraft. 

[Seeker]

 

[j.k.]

"non-contributing zero"

Sums it up well... LoL...

Be careful about dropping Louis CK truths though... Someone will have a problem with that too.

[J.O.]

11 hours ago, j.k. said:

Be careful about dropping Louis CK truths though... Someone will have a problem with that too.

Just because he’s a self-confessed pig doesn’t mean what he said about flying is wrong. 

[j.k.]

55 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Just because he’s a self-confessed pig doesn’t mean what he said about flying is wrong. 

I'm not saying that. 

As I stated "truths"...

But somebody will inevitably have a problem with him and anything he says no matter how right it might be. Some are more interested in shouting down discourse because of the messenger rather than listening to an idea on its own merit.

It's impossible to bring up some things now, impossible to reference some people now, without someone else being deeply offended.

Anyway... my statement was more a joke about that... "LoL"... and the association to the "victims" of this well handled oceanic diversion and recovery.

[Seeker]

39 minutes ago, j.k. said:

But somebody will inevitably have a problem with him and anything he says no matter how right it might be. Some are more interested in shouting down discourse because of the messenger rather than listening to an idea on its own merit.

 

Yeah, some people are idiots - best to just ignore them.

[mo32a]

On 12/27/2018 at 2:00 PM, seeker said:

I'm always puzzled by this idea that passengers have that the airline is responsible for their food, watering and accommodations from the time they check-in till arrival.  If the flight arrives on-time they'd be buying their own meals at destination so if the flight is late they buy their meals at the airport - same difference.  

One time in Toronto there was a big snowstorm happening outside the terminal windows.  I was standing at the gate waiting for the inbound aircraft, delayed an hour due to the storm, and some woman comes up and asks to speak to me - wants to talk to me about compensation for the delay.  Every airline, every bus, every taxi - delayed.  Hardly anyone's fault - it's weather.  Look, I say, there's a big snowstorm outside, the flight will get here eventually and we'll board everyone and be on out way.  She says she's from Europe and in Europe there's compensation for every delay no matter what the cause!  I said, well, you're in Canada and in Canada you don't get compensated for weather delays and you should be happy about that because it means that your ticket is cheaper because the airline doesn't have to build a weather compensation delay charge into your ticket price.  She looks at me like I'm speaking Swahili - no understanding at all, seems to think compensation is free money.

Kinda like when people illegally cross the border and we are expected to feed water and accommodate them, indefinitely.