It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


United grounds ALL boeing 777`s

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:12 PM

United Airlines’ long-haul services today are severely disrupted after the carrier withdrew its entire fleet of Boeing 777s from service.

The airline says it has 52 777s in its fleet.

This is the second US carrier , after south western, to ground the type over fears due to compliance with airworthiness directives . This looks like a widening trend - or rather alot more public information regarding safety and checking.

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:37 PM
If there's a problem with the 777 then I'd better change my ticket!
I'm booked on a AI 777LR from NYC to Bombay at the end of this month!

All this due to that same scavenge tank(?) issue we talked about earlier?

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:48 PM
There is no South Western. And it's not because of the scavange tank issue. It's all related to SOUTHWEST's clearing aircraft to fly without doing inspections on them, and shortcutting through maintenance. Delta and American both grounded hundreds of flights to inspect MD-80s. There was nothing about that, so why about the 777? It's an Airworthiness Directive issue. The FAA is cracking down due to the issue Southwest had.

From the source:

In a statement United says: “As part of a regular review of maintenance records the company discovered that the functional test that checks the firing system on one of the five bottles in the cargo fire suppression system on the Boeing 777 was not performed and this was voluntarily disclosed to the FAA.

“United is in the process of checking this part of the system. This system is regularly tested as part of the pre-flight safety checks.

“These checks are related to compliance. United will not operate these aircraft until the tests are complete.”


[edit on 4/2/2008 by Zaphod58]

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:02 PM
Is it just me or do Boeings always seem to have problems?

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:11 PM
Airbus has had their fair share over the years as well. These "problems" they are having now aren't even real problems. It's all because some idiot at Southwest shortcut the maintenance procedures. The "problem" that United grounded them over not having checked is something that even gets checked in preflight. It's not even a real problem, it's just the airlines being stupid about this.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:47 AM
Man this kind of idiocy never ceases to both amaze and scare me. But to be honest the real problem here isnt as you suggested Zaph some idiot at Southwest or United taking minor maintenance manual procedure short cuts, it seems to be one of a systemically bad corporate culture. I am constantly being made aware at work which carriers will routinely take short cuts and which dont, and it physically shows. When for instance was the last time you saw a scrappy looking SIA aircraft? Answer: Almost never. You cant sadly say the same for carriers like UA. Im not trying to pick on any one airline here (Hell my employer isnt perfect but we dont take safety short cuts EVER), but some do it right and some dont, and the problem and solution is at the top of the corporate ladder.

As an example, I just did a 12hr night shift and things were pretty full tilt. I started the evening on a 767-300 rectifying A check defects, then shot over to the terminal and did back to back transit checks on a 747-400 and a -400ER. After a real quick dinner I nocked off a bunch of issues we found in the -400ER, filled out paperwork, chased parts etc etc. Now my point is that eventually my crew wound up at 04:45 in the morning carrying out another A check walk through on another quite old -400, because we had to get the ball rolling and make a dent in the workload. We could have sat on our butts and done nothing which would have been nice as we all looked like death, but we didnt. More importantly we did NOT take short cuts and infact whilst I was very carefully carrying out main cabin door checks I added in several "to inspect" items that are not on the maintenance amplification card, because it is the right thing to do. End result was that at 05:30 I was writing up a list of 10 defects on 5 doors and 2 of those defects (condensation and water beading on the door window inner pane) are not on that check list. I was dead tired, under pressure but I did not rush the job or take short cuts, and added in extra for the sake of safety. We are also short staffed have had corporate cost cutting, but the one thing we never do is short change engineering safety. It both saddens and angers me that people do this kind of thing, and worries me that there is apparently no one making sure that it doesnt.

People, nothing in this industry is worse than TV images of a big smoking hole in the ground surrounded by lots of bodies. How some airlines and individuals can routinely be so careless has to make you wonder.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by thebozeian]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:56 PM
I agree about taking shortcuts, it's incredibly STUPID and dangerous. But grounding a fleet of aircraft for something that is checked before flight in the preflight check doesn't make sense to me either. Yes they should have done their maintenance the way it was supposed to be done, but the point is that the check WAS done, every time they preflighted.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58
Sorry Zaphod I should have read the text a little closer, what can I say, "thats fatigue for you"

Yes it does seem grossly excessive to pull the whole fleet, there are much smarter ways of handling this kind of issue. Perhaps there is another much bigger problem we havent heard about, they are being overly cautious about the 777's image to the public in light of all the recent negative press coverage, or it is as you suggested Zaph the airline being silly. On the plus side, at least they volunteered the info to the FAA rather than try burying it.


posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:15 PM
As an observation, United also have the least pretty stewardesses, they shortcut straight to ugly
Now, JAL, that's a different story!

top topics


log in