A330 to CUN

[beachboy]

Anyone know more details about the 330 to CUN being downsized daily now because no authority was obtained to land it by the Mexican government? From what the pilots were saying it was a huge cluster.
Always forward thinking at THE NEW USAirways.

 

[Travelpro72]

It's only a matter of time before the defenders come to the rescue. This is typical US bologna. They just have no clue. I guess this kind of stuff happens at AA, UA, DL, CO and others? Mmmmmm hmmmmm :blink:

 

[Poug Darker]

Ready? Shoot! Aim...

 

[Hot Nuts]

Being a home owner and frequent visitor to Mexico, I don’t believe US is entirely the one to blame here. Also, Pilots are as bad as the knitting circle when it comes to chitchat.

 

[etops1]

I didn't even know we were flying the A330 down to CUN.

 

[HP2USFA]

Egads... so nice of the Mexican government to inform US that they would not be able to land their A330 before they took off. It's not like they got a flight plan or anything WELL before departure...

 

[N905TW]

Something doesn't pass the smell test here.... Up until recently I had been flying CUN turns two to four times per week, and saw a variety of A330 aircraft from airlines such as Mexicana, LTU, and AirTransat. The airport has also seen larger aircraft in the past such as the L1011 and B747.

Maybe the company failed to discuss and arrange gate and parking options with the ground handling company. I do not know how many A330 capable gates are usually available in Terminal 3 where US Airways operates. Then again, there should be plenty of room over on the Terminal 1 apron for a hard stand / bussing operation. Would be interesting to find out who really dropped the ball here.....

 

[aptboeses]

Something doesn't pass the smell test here.... Up until recently I had been flying CUN turns two to four times per week, and saw a variety of A330 aircraft from airlines such as Mexicana, LTU, and AirTransat. The airport has also seen larger aircraft in the past such as the L1011 and B747.

Maybe the company failed to discuss and arrange gate and parking options with the ground handling company. I do not know how many A330 capable gates are usually available in Terminal 3 where US Airways operates. Then again, there should be plenty of room over on the Terminal 1 apron for a hard stand / bussing operation. Would be interesting to find out who really dropped the ball here.....

Your reason sounds logical to me. Having used all three terminals for a number of years I know that the A330 can land there. I don't think T3 can handle that size of aircraft without blocking another gate which might have been the problem being high season for CUN traffic. US could split ops to T2 if they wanted but it wouldn't be an easy or efficient operation to say the least.

 

[hp_fa]

How could it happen that an airline shifts the flying of a certain route to larger equipment and doesn't adequately consider whether the larger aircraft can make use of its existing gates or otherwise make appropriate preparations for that aircraft?

It sounds like more professional thinking worthy of a bonus.

 

[HP2USFA]

True HP, but as mentioned there are adequate Ramp locations even if a gate wasn't available.

 

[spanglish]

This flight did operate as an A330 on March 1st and March 2nd. It seems that yesterday & today are the first days it has been downsized. If USAirways did not have the authority to land this plane there, would they have allowed it on the 1st and 2nd? Not being smart, just asking. ~Spanglish

 

[PHL]

Does an airline that has existing service at CUN have to get permission to fly a different aircraft type? Or, could it be that they operated it for a few days and it turned out to cause problems in the gate areas (with space), another airline complained(or the airport), and now US has been told to downsize or use a better capable gate?

 

[nycbusdriver]

At the risk of being politically incorrect, this may simply be a case of the Mexican authorities being pissy. We've obviously had permission to do these flights with 757s and 767s, and just showing up one day with a larger airplane may not be the way the Mexican authorites like things done.

It's a LOT about paperwork, greased palms and sovereignty. They threw out 330s out because they can. Not because the airport can't handle the airplane. It's likely because USAirways overstepped and landed squarely on some self-important official's feet.

 

[hp_fa]

Assuming that you are correct I wonder what would happen if a few airlines dropped a few flights to send the Mexican government a message that corruption cannot exist if they want travelers to come spend their money in Mexican resorts. At the end of the day the Mexicans need us more than we need them and the sooner they clean up their mess the better.

(BTW, for the record, I like Mexico. But the corruption needs to be addressed and sooner is better than later.)

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Assuming that you are correct I wonder what would happen if a few airlines dropped a few flights to send the Mexican government a message that corruption cannot exist if they want travelers to come spend their money in Mexican resorts. At the end of the day the Mexicans need us more than we need them and the sooner they clean up their mess the better.

(BTW, for the record, I like Mexico. But the corruption needs to be addressed and sooner is better than later.)

My gut feeling is that it is easier and cheaper to pay off an official or two than to do what you suggest (path of least resistance).