Timeline for Why would a plane be allowed to fly to LAX but not Maui?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2 at 23:25 | vote | accept | Arcanist Lupus | ||
| Jul 2 at 18:42 | comment | added | Jpe61 | @reirab I agree, I may have used the word "classified" a bit lightly, I was thinking more along the lines of "not to be discussed with passengers" due to company policy, not NSA or CIA kinda classified. | |
| Jul 2 at 16:40 | history | edited | Machavity | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved formatting
|
| Jul 2 at 14:59 | comment | added | reirab | It is exceptionally unlikely that the reason a plane was not able to operate an ETOPS route would be classified at any level. Very-little-to-no information pertaining to the normal operation of a passenger airline is actually classified. A rather small percentage of airline employees would even have an active security clearance and the vast majority of those would just be people such as pilots who are still reserve members of the military (e.g. pilots who are still in the Air Force or Navy Reserves.) ETOPS regulations are openly published by the federal government itself. | |
| Jul 2 at 13:22 | comment | added | user3067860 | Re: can't tell you This is speculative but they might be a little bit more cautious after the recent NTSB smackdown of Boeing sharing information that was already public but sharing it in a way that linked it to an ongoing investigation. Even if that wouldn't apply here they may have tighter guidelines to not tell anyone anything ever. | |
| Jul 2 at 8:33 | comment | added | Jpe61 | Thanks @gparyani! The answers to that question do leave the legal side of the matter unanswered, maybe a new question there... | |
| Jul 2 at 0:33 | comment | added | gparyani | RE your last paragraph: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/55475/… | |
| Jul 1 at 23:04 | comment | added | Mark | An example of a failure that would rule out ETOPS flight but not PHX-LAX would be a defective life raft: not exactly something you're going to need if the plane makes a forced landing in the middle of a desert. | |
| Jul 1 at 9:08 | history | edited | Jpe61 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed typos, added MLW issue
|
| Jul 1 at 7:33 | comment | added | Jpe61 | @busdriver the MLW scenario depends huuugely on the aircraft in question, but your point of delay cost is very good. | |
| Jul 1 at 6:35 | comment | added | busdriver | Price of the extra fuel burned is negligent compared to the price of delay required to arrange a third jet and to mange additional delays to the network. The most likely reason is that plane was so fully fueled in anticipation for a longer flight that it would have been overweight in landing after a planned, shorter flight. | |
| Jun 30 at 21:01 | history | answered | Jpe61 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |