Not Again: United Airlines Boeing 777 Makes Emergency Landing In Denver
Not Again: United Airlines Boeing 777 Makes Emergency Landing In Denver
It's adding to the growing list of technical troubles at United.
You're viewing a single thread.
Not every emergency landing means there is a fundamental issue with the company. These things happen. If the plane can divert to Denver when it is flying over Montana, they clearly are still well in control.
Right. Emergency landings are pretty common in the case of health emergencies, which is bound to happen from time to time when there are hundreds of flights every day and each one is full of 250+ people.
Emergency landings for mechanical issues are also very common. Check out VASAviation sometime.
Or, check out https://avherald.com/
This was not one, though.
Weird, it says "emergency landing" in the headline.
after the aircraft experienced engine issues.
There is an article that expands on what the headline says. The link is there in the title. You could click on it….and ..I dunno, read it maybe.
The article was irrelevant to the fact that emergency landings happen all the time.
No one was suggesting that there wasn't an engine issue.
But you’re comparing to a health emergency which is not the case of this one. That’s false equivalency and the wrong argument here. The article is relevant. It’s the topic. it states what kind of emergency landing it was. It was not a health emergency.
It is not any type of equivalency, false or otherwise. The comment I replied to was simply stating that emergency landings are not necessarily indicative of some sort of deficiency of the plane. I simply elaborated on it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Please go away.
No. You go away and stop spreading misinformation and derailing from what actually is being discussed. You brought nothing of value to this discussion and acting in poor faith.
You don't even have to read the article. Just click the link. The first bullet point of the summary states:
United Airlines flight from San Francisco to Paris faced engine issues, diverting to Denver and canceling onward flights.
That's all well and good, but emergency landings for any reason are the worst. At best, it's a huge inconvenience. I had one a few years back because a passenger was acting like an asshole, and it cost a full day of my limited vacation, so I'd really rather not have one even if the plane is safe enough for them to land.
I dunno. I’d say crashes are worse than emergency landings. But then again, I haven’t had the experience of an emergency landing, like you have. So I might be in the wrong here.
Did I say they weren't? My point was that emergency landings aren't a great time and I'd rather not have one, not that they're on the level of a crash. It'd just be nice to not have either of those things.
Did I say they weren't?
To be fair, you did in fact say that "emergency landings for any reason are the worst."
Come on, don't be that guy. It's obviously a figure of speech.
I won’t be that guy. If you stop being a drama queen.
Do you know what an emergency landing does? It means there are now hundreds of people stuck in an airport they're not supposed to be in, so airline staff then have to try to find spots for them on other flights that are often full, if not overbooked, which causes a domino effect that can last days. It means people miss connections, so they have to figure those out, too. The flight I was on, someone missed their kid's wedding because it took so long to get them to their destination. It made airport staff's next 24 hours hell. Oh, and the woman who caused it lost her job and had to pay tens of thousands in fines because it's taken that seriously. It's not just, "oopsie, well let's get a different plane and reboard all the same people."
It's not dramatic to say that emergency landings suck, and everyone should want to avoid them. And if Boeing planes are having that many issues, that's a problem. Guarantee you that the airline doesn't think it's ok, nor do any of the people on that flight.
Yet calling them the “worst” is. You only said that to get engagement about your sad story. Going on a rant about it when you get a different type of engagement you hoped for is pretty dramatic.
I really advise you to think about what you write before posting. Yes you had a bad experience. No it wasn’t the worst thing in the world, not even close.
Are you kidding? You've never heard anyone say, "that was the worst," and mean that it sucked, not that it was the literal worst thing they've ever experienced? I can honestly say no one has ever taken that phrase that literally before, and it's kind of fascinating to see someone who doesn't appear to understand how human speech works, but is so confident about it anyway. I bet people in real life find that really fun.
Of course I have. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a dumb, very American drama, thing to say.
Yep. Incidents are merely incidents, but also trends are trends.
after the aircraft experienced engine issues.
It was literally for the reason out of caution that there was an issue with the aircraft in this case. Might not be the best case to be defending Boeing on this one.
A) Boeing doesn’t make the engines B) These things do happen. It doesn’t point to a structural issue immediately. There will be an investigation. Only afterwards can you reach conclusion on the root cause and who might be to blame. But referring to A) it most likely isn’t Boeing in this case.
You seem to have reached a conclusion already. Practice what you preach.
They are saying that because Boeing doesn’t make the engines.