'split' scimitar at O'Hare

[underfire]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1200x686/dkrawcxwsaujyu5_cd204de413214b01aa813e9363a171306985aa19.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1080x1057/dkrjsr_wsaaidrf_c9508a14a45237622359e4f0abffc28159297530.jpg

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

You'd think there were enough wing-walkers in that second pic to avoid something bad happening...

[Jet Jockey A4]

What? Another ground incident? WOW!

[pattern_is_full]

I'm just trying to figure out if this was "not enough pushback" or "not enough nose-wheel." Or both.

[RadarContactLost]

I never Marshall aircraft into or out of a gate without wingwalkers...
why would you do so without wingwalkers???

[SMT Member]

I never Marshall aircraft into or out of a gate without wingwalkers...
why would you do so without wingwalkers???

Good luck with that in very many airports around the world! Why do without? Because in a lot of cases it's not necessary; not all gates are operating in ways they were not originally intended, or have been designed by bean counters with zero appreciation of how the real world works.

[akaSylvia]

Are there actually more ground incidents? Or are they just making mainstream headlines more often by a media who seriously increased their aviation reporting after MH370?

[underfire]

Are there actually more ground incidents? Or are they just making mainstream headlines more often by a media who seriously increased their aviation reporting after MH370?

Probably the same amount of ground incidents, its air travelers with Twitter accounts.

Probably not MH370...stuff more like Air Canada trying to land on taxiways full of aircraft, or people getting sucked out of aircraft when an engine unravels, or recently, drunk crew.

People are getting more savy on why their flight is delayed. Rather than pax just listening to a flight delay or cancellation, and accepting it, they are figuring out why.

[gatbusdriver]

You mean to say.....”due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft” doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.

[llondel]

You mean to say.....”due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft” doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.

It might do if the pax can look out the window and see it's not there, although admittedly the airline might be hiding it round the corner.

Looking at the aircraft positions in the picture, it looks like they did a pushback and turned it in a very confined space. Is there a reason for this, because normally I'd expect them to push back clear of all other aircraft out onto a taxiway. Or did it start life more aligned with the aircraft at C31 and not really need a push?

[DaveReidUK]

You mean to say.....”due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft” doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.

Except that the majority of delays are rotational/knock-on ones as a result of an earlier problem (from whatever cause) and so are indeed "due to the late arrival of the inbound aircraft".

[Tube Rider]

Or my ole favorite; "due to operational reasons". As opposed to what? - non-operational reasons.

This arrogant and empty excuse presumes customers have not the intelligence to realize they have been given no information whatsoever about what has disrupted their travel plans.

[RadarContactLost]

Good luck with that in very many airports around the world! Why do without? Because in a lot of cases it's not necessary; not all gates are operating in ways they were not originally intended, or have been designed by bean counters with zero appreciation of how the real world works.
to clarify yes I've marshalled 727, 737, a300, a310 into and out of gates alone IF there was no aircraft at adjoining gates..
If there was an aircraft at an adjoining hate the n yes I used a wingwalker

[FlightlessParrot]

Or my ole favorite; "due to operational reasons". As opposed to what? - non-operational reasons.

This arrogant and empty excuse presumes customers have not the intelligence to realize they have been given no information whatsoever about what has disrupted their travel plans.


I have always assumed that this statement covers everything from the late arrival of the aircraft because of some problem down the line, through the need to service or replace some part of the aircraft's equipment, to one of the crew not turning up for an untold variety of reasons. In any case, what matters to me is that I feel confident that the airline will not let the flight depart without everything being OK. Otherwise, I'm late, that's bad, nothing to do about it, long explanation changes nothing for me. If I think the airline capriciously cancels flights without caring about the consequences for PAX, I'll never fly with them again (so long, IBERIA), but I don't need a detailed explanation (which could just be some bunch of lies, anyway); I want to believe that they're trying to make it good.

[oceancrosser]

I have always assumed that this statement covers everything from the late arrival of the aircraft because of some problem down the line, through the need to service or replace some part of the aircraft's equipment, to one of the crew not turning up for an untold variety of reasons. In any case, what matters to me is that I feel confident that the airline will not let the flight depart without everything being OK. Otherwise, I'm late, that's bad, nothing to do about it, long explanation changes nothing for me. If I think the airline capriciously cancels flights without caring about the consequences for PAX, I'll never fly with them again (so long, IBERIA), but I don't need a detailed explanation (which could just be some bunch of lies, anyway); I want to believe that they're trying to make it good.

Good points. If delayed, all the pax care about is how and when the airlines is going to get them moving. Detailed explanations about “why the delay” are not necessary.