Truk and an aborted Trip - Thanks United
- Thread starter Peter69_56
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Wow, wetpup, it's almost as if they knew the more likely scenario. Grrr
Something like that.
Unsurprisingly, it got worse. I flew out of Chuuk yesterday and the flight from Pohnpei was delayed because the truck that does the plane push backs had a flat battery...
Seriously.
United then told us that they wouldn't hold our connecting flight in Guam through to Cairns, and that if we wanted to make it, we'd have to sprint through the airport, convince immigration to let us fast track, clear customs, and then get through TSA screening - in under 30 minutes.
We made it. Shockingly enough, so did our bags.
This whole situation with United - in both directions - has ruined the trip for me. It has put me off returning to FSM entirely unless I can fly with another airline. Rumour has it that Air Nauru is going to start operating in the region, so I'm going to keep an eye on that situation.
Unsurprisingly, it got worse. I flew out of Chuuk yesterday and the flight from Pohnpei was delayed because the truck that does the plane push backs had a flat battery...
Seriously.
United then told us that they wouldn't hold our connecting flight in Guam through to Cairns, and that if we wanted to make it, we'd have to sprint through the airport, convince immigration to let us fast track, clear customs, and then get through TSA screening - in under 30 minutes.
We made it. Shockingly enough, so did our bags.
This whole situation with United - in both directions - has ruined the trip for me. It has put me off returning to FSM entirely unless I can fly with another airline. Rumour has it that Air Nauru is going to start operating in the region, so I'm going to keep an eye on that situation.
Wingy
Contributor
On the subject of covermore Wetpup have you ever had trouble claiming with them before? I no longer use them after being threatened with a fraud charge because they stated I was not on a delayed plane (6 hour delay) that stuffed up my other flights because their geniuses couldnt work out I was on Air Tahiti Nui not Air Tahiti ...... resolved after involving the ombudsman and 6 months. I have changed to world nomads since.
Never had to make a claim with CoverMore myself, but my partner did for a medical issue, and it went smoothly.
I've only ever personally had to claim on our corporate travel insurance policy at work, which is most definitely not CoverMore. They evacuated me out of 2 conflict zones without batting an eyelid. And the one time that my luggage got lost on the way back from a work trip to South America, it wasn't a pleasant experience dealing with them, but it was eventually resolved (not to my satisfaction, but better than nothing).
I've only ever personally had to claim on our corporate travel insurance policy at work, which is most definitely not CoverMore. They evacuated me out of 2 conflict zones without batting an eyelid. And the one time that my luggage got lost on the way back from a work trip to South America, it wasn't a pleasant experience dealing with them, but it was eventually resolved (not to my satisfaction, but better than nothing).
Damselfish
Contributor
I never heard of Nauru. When I googled it I found this - Nauru's Our Airline - Airline Review. The Pacific's worst airline?. Pretty amusing. (Site doesn't have much nice to say about most other airlines, either.)
Super bummer. But.....
Just need to point out that the whole, "they should put more gas in the plane" and "they should have a crew on standby" is neither realistic, nor economically feasible.
Extra gas means heavier weight, which can mean any number of things up to and including the fact that unless something does go wrong, you can't land on the runway. That's a bummer huh. Not to mention now they have to cut everybody's luggage allowance to make up for the extra weight in the plane, and increase the ticket cost to account for the additional maintenance on the engines because they're working harder to shove the heavier cargo through the air. Or they don't and the engines break mid-flight. Oh, and if something doesn't go wrong, they should just waste that extra gas by either burning it off flying patterns for an hour, or dump it into the upper atmosphere?
Standby crews mean you'd need to have extra crews at every single island along the way, paying them to do nothing but sit there and wait for a flight crew to hit max hours before regulations kick in and they CANNOT fly. Just like truckers, they have legally mandated off time to keep them from falling asleep and plowing into the bottom of the sea floor at 350 knots. An airline cannot afford to keep a full flight staff on standby at every airport.
Regardless, both of which means your already high ticket price will be MUCH higher right off the top. Airline profit margins are already staggeringly low (think 1-4% depending on whose numbers you read) so you better believe they're already going out of their way to make sure they're not throwing money away at silly things like too much extra gas or hundreds of standby crews all over the world.
Just need to point out that the whole, "they should put more gas in the plane" and "they should have a crew on standby" is neither realistic, nor economically feasible.
Extra gas means heavier weight, which can mean any number of things up to and including the fact that unless something does go wrong, you can't land on the runway. That's a bummer huh. Not to mention now they have to cut everybody's luggage allowance to make up for the extra weight in the plane, and increase the ticket cost to account for the additional maintenance on the engines because they're working harder to shove the heavier cargo through the air. Or they don't and the engines break mid-flight. Oh, and if something doesn't go wrong, they should just waste that extra gas by either burning it off flying patterns for an hour, or dump it into the upper atmosphere?
Standby crews mean you'd need to have extra crews at every single island along the way, paying them to do nothing but sit there and wait for a flight crew to hit max hours before regulations kick in and they CANNOT fly. Just like truckers, they have legally mandated off time to keep them from falling asleep and plowing into the bottom of the sea floor at 350 knots. An airline cannot afford to keep a full flight staff on standby at every airport.
Regardless, both of which means your already high ticket price will be MUCH higher right off the top. Airline profit margins are already staggeringly low (think 1-4% depending on whose numbers you read) so you better believe they're already going out of their way to make sure they're not throwing money away at silly things like too much extra gas or hundreds of standby crews all over the world.
Damselfish
Contributor
Which of course everyone understands. However that doesn't negate the fact that United needs a more appropriate contingency plan should something go wrong like it did for us. Stranding almost 80 passengers for days on end with a lack of accommodation options and no information was totally unacceptable. Given the United schedules on the island hopper route, and the number of stranded passengers, a rescue flight should have been sent from Guam. By all accounts there were sufficient aircraft and flight crew in Guam to come and get us from Pohnpei and take us to Chuuk the same day we got diverted, but United's operations in Chicago wouldn't approve a rescue flight.
Similar threads
