U.S. Airways Flight Enroute to Charlotte
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
LD3
Veteran
What's that, 3 of them now?
Iclubbabyseals
Veteran
- Jul 22, 2011
- 793
- 350
Really? When? I don't even think it was ever a "focus" city.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Quite a while ago, I'm thinking it was still US Air or even one of the predecessor carriers like Piedmont or Allegheny. Some one here will know and fill us in. Might go back as far as pre deregulation.
Art at ISP
Veteran
No, Mr. Sparrow, I don't think Piedmont or Allegheny ever had a hub in KC. One version of Braniff did, and I think Eastern tried it at one point, but it never worked out.
The terminal design and gate layout at MCI is not conducive to hub operation-one has to constantly leave and enter secured areas every time they change gates--I think there are only 2-3 gates per secure area.
US was once more active in MCI, but I don't think it ever reached even Focus City status.
The terminal design and gate layout at MCI is not conducive to hub operation-one has to constantly leave and enter secured areas every time they change gates--I think there are only 2-3 gates per secure area.
US was once more active in MCI, but I don't think it ever reached even Focus City status.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
There was indeed a minor hub at MCI in the late 80s or early 90s. It was a transfer point for about 8 737-300s and -400s which had trouble negotiating the non-stops to/from the west coast. I flew those trips quite often, and it was a royal pain.
It didn't last very long, mainly due to the exact reason you stated: The terminal design is absolutely unsuited for a hub-and-spoke operation. Every transfer passenger had to reclear security when passing through MCI. That was almost everybody...often including the crews.
MCI was a state-of-the-art terminal when it was designed in the pre-screening days. Car to plane in about 100 feet. Now, saddled with that cumbersome security issue, this really great airport which is nicely located cannot be effectively used for a hub. I'm surprised the airport authorities haven't undertaken a huge redesign to make it more conducive to hub operations.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Seems we have yet another report. Also seems some of the Tempe Apologist posters are wrong in their assertions regarding customers complaining of illness as well. The "Smoking Gun" for me is the AFA has been tracking this over a significant amount of time.
Balance of Article
Balance of Article
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
SH,
You can call me an apologist if you like, but I think you know me well enough to know better. There are real issues and there is hype about real issues. I'll take two remarks from the AFA expert's remarks to illustrate what I mean:
"This happens on all airlines and all kinds of airplanes… not just US Airways. It is a real issue. We want the company to hear us."
If it's an issue with all airlines and all kinds of airplanes, why do they want just "the company" (US) to hear them? You know enough about this business to know that issues with "all airlines and all kinds of airplanes" is something to take up with the FAA and aircraft manufacturers. IF the AFA has done that and been ignored, why is the blame not heaped on them?
"Murawski says for years crew members have repeatedly asked US Airways to filter its air systems and have some sort of checks-and-balances to make sure oil isn't leaking."
Again, you know enough about the industry to know that US can't just start slapping filters or sensors on the air supply system - the FAA has to approve any change. And if it's an issue with "all airlines and all kinds of airplanes" why just ask US to take preventive measures. Again, the FAA and aircraft manufacturers are the place to go and if the AFA has done that and been ignored why not say so.
Could it be that the singling out US for not doing something is due to negotiations going on with the AFA? I guess it could be claimed that the writer was writing about incidents with US so Murawski used US as the villein, but why then mention say it's a problem with "all airlines" without accusing "all airlines" of not making the requested changes to the system?
I'll throw this in for kicks. The plane in Brasilia - for over two hours - didn't have fresh air supplied and was 97 degrees inside. That in itself could cause some people to throw up or feel nauseous. Were tests done to determine what, if any, toxic chemicals were in the cabin air? Was the concentration high enough that whatever was in the air, by itself, caused people to get nauseous?
Jim
You can call me an apologist if you like, but I think you know me well enough to know better. There are real issues and there is hype about real issues. I'll take two remarks from the AFA expert's remarks to illustrate what I mean:
"This happens on all airlines and all kinds of airplanes… not just US Airways. It is a real issue. We want the company to hear us."
If it's an issue with all airlines and all kinds of airplanes, why do they want just "the company" (US) to hear them? You know enough about this business to know that issues with "all airlines and all kinds of airplanes" is something to take up with the FAA and aircraft manufacturers. IF the AFA has done that and been ignored, why is the blame not heaped on them?
"Murawski says for years crew members have repeatedly asked US Airways to filter its air systems and have some sort of checks-and-balances to make sure oil isn't leaking."
Again, you know enough about the industry to know that US can't just start slapping filters or sensors on the air supply system - the FAA has to approve any change. And if it's an issue with "all airlines and all kinds of airplanes" why just ask US to take preventive measures. Again, the FAA and aircraft manufacturers are the place to go and if the AFA has done that and been ignored why not say so.
Could it be that the singling out US for not doing something is due to negotiations going on with the AFA? I guess it could be claimed that the writer was writing about incidents with US so Murawski used US as the villein, but why then mention say it's a problem with "all airlines" without accusing "all airlines" of not making the requested changes to the system?
I'll throw this in for kicks. The plane in Brasilia - for over two hours - didn't have fresh air supplied and was 97 degrees inside. That in itself could cause some people to throw up or feel nauseous. Were tests done to determine what, if any, toxic chemicals were in the cabin air? Was the concentration high enough that whatever was in the air, by itself, caused people to get nauseous?
Jim
Glucose Intolerant
Senior
- Feb 22, 2008
- 443
- 264
No I don't. But competent management could.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
There's apparently no competent management in the industry then. According to the AFA safety person quoted in the article SH linked to, the problem affects "all airlines and all kinds of airplanes." Of course, she also said that US alone should fix it.
Jim
Glucose Intolerant
Senior
- Feb 22, 2008
- 443
- 264
Jim -
How many times did you experience a "fume" event during your career at US Airways? If any - how many of those during the last six years since the "mavericks' out west took over?
Were fume events EVER a problem (before) that they have now become today? And please don't try use the same old retreaded lame excuse that it all is somehow just "contract and labor negotiations" related.
I already know what Jerry Glass thinks.
Speaking as someone that WAS actually involved in one of these recent events - they are definitely not imaginary nor are the product of contract talks. It's just bad oversight of outsourced heavy maintenance by third party MROs on some rather old aircraft that are flown 21 hours a day - something that the entire industry seems to be doing if not moving toward. Yet somehow other airlines are not having near the same problems or events. That is if they are actually being reported. Same as here.
So I stand by my comment - competent management could fix or mitigate the current problem. That isn't happening here anytime soon. Unfortunately this management team seem more inclined to play lanyard police and trying to cover up the root problem by intimidating flight crews (for writing up legitimate maintenance squawks) and somehow making it out to be only an EAST issue. Yeah that's the logical solution.
By the way does the West have any 767s or 330s in their livery? What aircraft are we experiencing problems? Interesting.
Spin it as you wish - these incidents are happening. The west should be happy that they haven't experienced the rash of incidents we have had of late - unless we move the 767s out to PHX. Then let's see how long it takes before it happens. But then again if it did happen - it wouldn't REALLY happen would it?
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
and here is another one...
http://www.wbtv.com/story/15294815/2-hospitalized-from-plane-that-lands-in-charlotte
CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) - Two people complaining about smoke on board a US Airways flight to Charlotte were taken to the hospital Thursday night.
Flight 1489 from New York declared an emergency before landing.....
http://www.wbtv.com/story/15294815/2-hospitalized-from-plane-that-lands-in-charlotte
CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) - Two people complaining about smoke on board a US Airways flight to Charlotte were taken to the hospital Thursday night.
Flight 1489 from New York declared an emergency before landing.....
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Probably at least 3 or 4 dozen including 2 or 3 skydrol mist events that were on walkaround. The most common were sucking up the exhaust of another airplane when in line for takeoff. Next most common was probably smoke or a burning smell from the packs. I only worked a little over a year post-merger and that probably also was 2 or 3 events (all in the cockpit although the cabin was affected also. Keep in mind that in 90+% of them I was aware of what the fumes were, although the FA's might not have been and the passengers even less like to know.
I've never denied that there have been some toxic fume events. But can you honestly say that every event where crews went to a medical facility to be checked out were toxic fumes events?
It's amazing how anything that doesn't agree with someone's perspective is "spin". In the old days it would have been a difference of opinion, but I guess these days any disagreement with someone must have a sinister motive. I've certainly seen that expressed plenty of times in the pilots' thread.
From what's been posted here and the comments of the AFA specialist to the media, not just the 767 and 330 are having fume events. I just saw something in the last couple of days that a West airplane had one. If I remember, I'll try to find it tomorrow.
I'm still amazed that what used to be call differences of opinion is now label "spin". These days it seems that any disagreement with the East mantra must have some sinister motive or purpose. I've certainly experienced that enough in the pilots' thread. It seems that the East doesn't have opinion, they have Truth and nobody is allowed to disagree.
Jim
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
