United flight stranded in freezing Canada

[K50 DEL]

El stovey said:

Simply put, it looks like UA179 a UAL B777-224ER, N76010, EWR - HKG had a pax problem in the NAT HLA so via satcoms and CPDLC and ACARS for comms and met decided to divert to YYR (N53°19.15' / W60°25.55') for a RNAV (GNSS) 26. On the ground the L2 broke and they went tech and the pax had a delay.

Rather worryingly, despite having never worked in the industry, I understood all of that!
And yes, I know I should get out more lol

[Dog Star]

Gameface said:

Went tech...

Listen to yourselves!

What Gameface said.

I go on a lot of ferries: I have never felt the urge to talk like a sailor. Er, matey.

[NRS]

I don't care either way, and had not heard it before. However there is a reason to use it, as the EU compensation thing for delays distinguishes it being something technically wrong, rather than say a strike/crew not turning up. The exact details might not be right as no expert, but you would want to know if it's 'tech' or not.

[bloomen]

CastroSays said:

'... went tech...'

Fk me!!!

Sad sad wkers.

It's a common term and is used in plenty of other areas nowt to do with flight. Guernsey locals are always moaning about the ferry going tech.

That said I fully support the skinning of ANYONE who types it and being rolled in salt and then run over and over and over and over and over with a spiky steam roller until they're deaddeadDEADDEAD.

[CastroSays]

Gameface said:

Firstly I understood what it meant. It's just a wky way of saying it.

Secondly, it wasn't me was name calling. And if there is any desperation on here, I'd suggest it's from those trying to sound like pilots/those in the airline industry.

Thirdly, if you are inclined to use language like this, what difference does how often you fly make? He seems to be suggesting that if you fly often enough you gain entry into the 'special language' club.

I truly don't care about enough to argue about it. You are welcome to the last word. I will leave you to it and foxtrot oscar.

Edited by Gameface on Tuesday 22 January 12:02

/|\ what he said.

'.... went tech ...' sadder than the saddest man on the saddest day in Sadsville. Morons.

Edited by CastroSays on Tuesday 22 January 19:40

[anonymous-user]

Is it a bit weird people getting so upset about someone saying “going tech”?

It’s just a bit of jargon.

[WinstonWolf]

Roger Roger.

[pushthebutton]

Kenty said:

They arrived back in NY and were given a full refund, free flight to Hong Kong and $500.
These things happen, the airline doesn’t want it to but safety comes first, thank goodness.
You can’t avoid it but you can make sure you fly with airlines with the youngest most modern fleet of aircraft but you always run the risk!
Emirates latest A380, delivered in December went tech this week - unfortunately it happens to best as well!

There are generally two times in an aircraft's life when it's at its most unreliable, when it's brand new and when it's old. That's the accepted wisdom and why airlines often attempt to avoid being the launch customer for a new type. The early A380s are unwanted on the used market; the early 787s had widely reported issues; the early 777s had several problems which were eventually ironed out.

The recent Lion Air 737 Max crash involved an aircraft that entered service in August 2018 and it could be argued that a new system, specific to the Max, was a contributory factor.

I'm not sure that your suggestion to fly on airlines with the youngest, most modern fleets is representative of reality.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 22 January 19:48

[Kenty]

pushthebutton said:

There are generally two times in an aircraft's life when it's at its most unreliable, when it's brand new and when it's old. That's the accepted wisdom and why airlines often attempt to avoid being the launch customer for a new type. The early A380s are unwanted on the used market; the early 787s had widely reported issues; the early 777s had several problems which were eventually ironed out.

The recent Lion Air 737 Max crash involved an aircraft that entered service in August 2018 and it could be argued that a new system, specific to the Max, was a contributory factor.

I'm not sure that your suggestion to fly on airlines with the youngest, most modern fleets is representative of reality.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 22 January 19:48

I would certainly like to be on a young fleet than an old one - any day!
The used A380 market has hardly been tested, only two retired by Singapore and one of those is now back in service. MAS has reassigned theirs and they are doing quite nicely.

[Hoofy]

Kenty said:

pushthebutton said:

There are generally two times in an aircraft's life when it's at its most unreliable, when it's brand new and when it's old. That's the accepted wisdom and why airlines often attempt to avoid being the launch customer for a new type. The early A380s are unwanted on the used market; the early 787s had widely reported issues; the early 777s had several problems which were eventually ironed out.

The recent Lion Air 737 Max crash involved an aircraft that entered service in August 2018 and it could be argued that a new system, specific to the Max, was a contributory factor.

I'm not sure that your suggestion to fly on airlines with the youngest, most modern fleets is representative of reality.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 22 January 19:48

I would certainly like to be on a young fleet than an old one - any day!
The used A380 market has hardly been tested, only two retired by Singapore and one of those is now back in service. MAS has reassigned theirs and they are doing quite nicely.

I guess it's a bit like cars, but potentially more devastating.

[pushthebutton]

pushthebutton said:

Kenty said:

You can’t avoid it but you can make sure you fly with airlines with the youngest most modern fleet of aircraft but you always run the risk!
Emirates latest A380, delivered in December went tech this week - unfortunately it happens to best as well!

I'm not sure that your suggestion to fly on airlines with the youngest, most modern fleets is representative of reality.

Kenty said:

I would certainly like to be on a young fleet than an old one - any day!
The used A380 market has hardly been tested, only two retired by Singapore and one of those is now back in service. MAS has reassigned theirs and they are doing quite nicely.

Your chart - although I'm not sure what the inputs are or what the units of the time axis is - seems to back up what I'm saying. I've operated an 'entry into service' aircraft, a new version of a proven design and the last of a type and I can tell you where I'm most comfortable plonking my backside: it's right in the middle of the graph you posted. Component wear rates are known (not predicted); design flaws have come to be known and been corrected and crews and operators are familiar with the systems and the operation of the aircraft (think B777s since the early to mid 2000s).

The early A380s are overweight and not as reliable as newer versions. As a result their operational costs are higher. One BIG operator is more than sniffing around the used market and hasn't taken options on the above aircraft from the operators you mentioned for the reasons I've highlighted and more.