Having started this thread, it has been fascinating to watch the way it has drifted away from its original intent. In the meantime, the original story itself has also drifted considerably.
I was very interested indeed to notice that within 30 minutes of making my initial posting, the title of the article had changed to "United Airlines aircraft
diverts ...". A much more appropriate choice of words, I thought.
But today, the story has reverted back to its original title and, on the link on the news.com.au website, it is being described as a "US-bound" United Airlines flight. Now, if it was indeed US-bound and had to divert into Brisbane for fuel,
that would be a problem.
Sadly, the revised article that appeared today is no improvement on the drivel of the original article. The misleading photograph remains, with the very first sentence describing the "forced landing" of the aircraft in Brisbane. Sorry journos, but a diversion for fuel does not constitute a "forced landing" although the use of such inflammatory terminology is sure to appear more newsworthy.
The journalist has now apparently even contacted the ATSB, who said that it was "not unusual for long haul flights to be forced to refuel close to their destination". But I thought the aircraft was "US-bound"?
The revised article can be found here:
United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au
No wonder "UA officials could not be contacted for comment". They were probably alternating between laughing and crying at the rubbish that has been published in a national newspaper.