188
Not Again: United Airlines Boeing 777 Makes Emergency Landing In Denver
(simpleflying.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
188 points (87.6% liked)
News
23001 readers
3697 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not every emergency landing means there is a fundamental issue with the company. These things happen. If the plane can divert to Denver when it is flying over Montana, they clearly are still well in control.
Right. Emergency landings are pretty common in the case of health emergencies, which is bound to happen from time to time when there are hundreds of flights every day and each one is full of 250+ people.
Emergency landings for mechanical issues are also very common. Check out VASAviation sometime.
Or, check out https://avherald.com/
This was not one, though.
Weird, it says "emergency landing" in the headline.
There is an article that expands on what the headline says. The link is there in the title. You could click on it….and ..I dunno, read it maybe.
The article was irrelevant to the fact that emergency landings happen all the time.
No one was suggesting that there wasn't an engine issue.
But you’re comparing to a health emergency which is not the case of this one. That’s false equivalency and the wrong argument here. The article is relevant. It’s the topic. it states what kind of emergency landing it was. It was not a health emergency.
It is not any type of equivalency, false or otherwise. The comment I replied to was simply stating that emergency landings are not necessarily indicative of some sort of deficiency of the plane. I simply elaborated on it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Please go away.
No. You go away and stop spreading misinformation and derailing from what actually is being discussed. You brought nothing of value to this discussion and acting in poor faith.
You don't even have to read the article. Just click the link. The first bullet point of the summary states:
That's all well and good, but emergency landings for any reason are the worst. At best, it's a huge inconvenience. I had one a few years back because a passenger was acting like an asshole, and it cost a full day of my limited vacation, so I'd really rather not have one even if the plane is safe enough for them to land.
I dunno. I’d say crashes are worse than emergency landings. But then again, I haven’t had the experience of an emergency landing, like you have. So I might be in the wrong here.
Did I say they weren't? My point was that emergency landings aren't a great time and I'd rather not have one, not that they're on the level of a crash. It'd just be nice to not have either of those things.
To be fair, you did in fact say that "emergency landings for any reason are the worst."
Come on, don't be that guy. It's obviously a figure of speech.
I won’t be that guy. If you stop being a drama queen.
Do you know what an emergency landing does? It means there are now hundreds of people stuck in an airport they're not supposed to be in, so airline staff then have to try to find spots for them on other flights that are often full, if not overbooked, which causes a domino effect that can last days. It means people miss connections, so they have to figure those out, too. The flight I was on, someone missed their kid's wedding because it took so long to get them to their destination. It made airport staff's next 24 hours hell. Oh, and the woman who caused it lost her job and had to pay tens of thousands in fines because it's taken that seriously. It's not just, "oopsie, well let's get a different plane and reboard all the same people."
It's not dramatic to say that emergency landings suck, and everyone should want to avoid them. And if Boeing planes are having that many issues, that's a problem. Guarantee you that the airline doesn't think it's ok, nor do any of the people on that flight.
Yet calling them the “worst” is. You only said that to get engagement about your sad story. Going on a rant about it when you get a different type of engagement you hoped for is pretty dramatic.
I really advise you to think about what you write before posting. Yes you had a bad experience. No it wasn’t the worst thing in the world, not even close.
Are you kidding? You've never heard anyone say, "that was the worst," and mean that it sucked, not that it was the literal worst thing they've ever experienced? I can honestly say no one has ever taken that phrase that literally before, and it's kind of fascinating to see someone who doesn't appear to understand how human speech works, but is so confident about it anyway. I bet people in real life find that really fun.
Of course I have. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a dumb, very American drama, thing to say.
Yep. Incidents are merely incidents, but also trends are trends.
It was literally for the reason out of caution that there was an issue with the aircraft in this case. Might not be the best case to be defending Boeing on this one.
A) Boeing doesn’t make the engines B) These things do happen. It doesn’t point to a structural issue immediately. There will be an investigation. Only afterwards can you reach conclusion on the root cause and who might be to blame. But referring to A) it most likely isn’t Boeing in this case.
You seem to have reached a conclusion already. Practice what you preach.
They are saying that because Boeing doesn’t make the engines.