View Full Version : Air travel incident
While flying to Ft Bliss after a Qatar deployment, our plane suffered a hard landing in New Hampshire, http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20180727-1 I was seated just behind 1st class and just a few rows in front of where the fuselage buckled. What say the experts on the forces experienced causing that level of damage? Still waiting on checked baggage to get released pending completion of the investigation.
LMT Shooter
07-29-18, 14:01
Wow, I hope everyone is OK. Were you or any other passengers injured?
No injuries, maybe some soreness but that could just be from being stuck in various planes for about 24 hours.
When it happened I thought we had blown a tire or something like that but then we saw the outside of the plane.
The_War_Wagon
07-29-18, 14:21
Who KNEW you could land a 767 in NH!!! :eek:
LMT Shooter
07-29-18, 14:21
I'm glad that you, and all the other soldiers, are OK.
Glad you’re on the up and up. I do find it funny that they have photos from US Army WTF moments.
We were supposed to leave Qatar on the 25th, and get to Ft Bliss early on the 26th, we didn’t end up leaving Qatar until the 26th and didn’t get to Bliss until the 28th. Between being the NCOIC for the group and getting old and not being able to sleep on planes anymore, the only sleep I got between the 26th morning (Qatar time) and night time on the 28th (mountain time) was four hours of sleep on the 27th in Indiana at a hotel outside of an Air Force base.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-29-18, 16:57
Who KNEW you could land a 767 in NH!!! :eek:
From the incident report, it sounds like it was a charter flight? FRA-PSM isn't something you see on the sandwich board signs often.
Why land in NH? It looks like the ER versions, which this seems to be one, would be able to do the Frankfurt-El Paso leg. Unless you guys were really heavy? Or this was a really tired older version of the 767.
I have only flown on 767s a few times. I know the longer versions of the 737 have issues because they can drag the tail on rough landings and take offs.
I just watch the faces on the flight attendants. They aren't as concerned about not showing that something is up anymore. You can see in their faces when something aint kosher.
I would say we were pretty heavy, almost every seat was filled, most had weapons and not all bags were able to fit in the belly of the plane.
The folks at Pease were super nice and had tons of coffee and snacks for us.
I used to fly for Atlas, but was on the 747, not the 767.
I believe all of the pax 767 Atlas has are 300ER versions. Can go about 6k miles. Google says Hahn to El Paso is 5500 miles. Thats stretching it if you need alternate gas(you almost always carry an alternate on over water and then "re-dispatch" near coast in).
A lot of those stops are crew duty day stops. My guess(without knowing the crew schedule) is they flew from Qatar to Hahn to PSM, then another crew was scheduled to take the plane on to ELP.
I did one out of Kuwait City to Al Udeid then on to Ramstein. We got off, new crew on, and they were going on to Baltimore.
I heard a bit about this accident, but I cant share it since the investigation is on-going.
A buddy of mine who works in the aerospace industry thinks the hydraulics in the front strut failed causing it to bottom out with no resistance when the pilot pushed down through the ground effect the second time which was when we heard and felt the loud bang of the fuselage crumpling.
I’m definitely interested in finding out the final determination on this as this is the sort of stuff I’m currently going to school for. One thing I was looking for and didn’t see was distortion to the fuselage on the bottom, was expecting to see the metal stretched out on the bottom of it under where it crumpled. Maybe the paint just hid it though.
A buddy of mine who works in the aerospace industry thinks the hydraulics in the front strut failed causing it to bottom out with no resistance when the pilot pushed down through the ground effect the second time which was when we heard and felt the loud bang of the fuselage crumpling.
Thats not what I am hearing, but again, I wont comment on an ongoing investigation. Your comment about "the second time" is where the issue lies...
I am a trained accident/incident investigator and I dont want to speculate. BUT what I am hearing is it wasnt an issue with the airplane, well, until the airplane bent at least...
Been a while since I flew the 767... BUT... Based on the last two posts, my swag (complete swag)... You have to land the mains (rear wheels) then "fly" the nosewheel down. If you don't fly the nosewheel down, it can hit really hard. If that happens, it won't matter if there is fluid in the strut or not. That in is't self can buckle the metal if it's hard enough. If i had to bet $5, this would be my guess.
Or... It could have looked like this... Oops. https://youtu.be/Jw-aUVa3a0U
Either way, I'm glad no one was seriously hurt.
That looks an awful lot like how it felt. Am I correct in my belief that the airframe is considered totaled after something like that? Even if it is repairable I would imagine that it wouldn’t be cost effective for a 26 year old bird.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-31-18, 08:09
53149
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1334bba3-90d5-4a4f-b83f-fcca17881198#SyhlY-60pEX.copy
Shirley, you must be kidding...
53149
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1334bba3-90d5-4a4f-b83f-fcca17881198#SyhlY-60pEX.copy
Shirley, you must be kidding...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixljWVyPby0
You have to land the mains (rear wheels) then "fly" the nosewheel down. If you don't fly the nosewheel down, it can hit really hard. If that happens, it won't matter if there is fluid in the strut or not. That in is't self can buckle the metal if it's hard enough. If i had to bet $5, this would be my guess.
Or... It could have looked like this... Oops. https://youtu.be/Jw-aUVa3a0U
From what I hear its more the first and not the second.
The flight data recorder will show exactly what occurred and will probably confirm what I am hearing from my buddies that are still there and still have contacts there.
Averageman
07-31-18, 12:13
That crease will buff right out, a bunch of upholstery however I'm sure is a total loss.
sundance435
07-31-18, 14:12
That looks an awful lot like how it felt. Am I correct in my belief that the airframe is considered totaled after something like that? Even if it is repairable I would imagine that it wouldn’t be cost effective for a 26 year old bird.
Maybe rjacobs has some insight, but charter/cargo operators do tend to operate birds at the "older" end of the spectrum, though I can't imagine they'd put much money into fixing a 26 year-old 767 even if it was an option. The 300ERs are being dumped pretty regularly on the used market with less time on the frame. Just like with modern medicine, I'm more scared of operator error than whatever is the actual procedure and equipment used: Whether it's an appendectomy or hurtling a huge metal tube laden with combustible liquid into to the air with me on it and landing it safely, the errors that occur are most likely on the human end.
To the OP, glad you ended up making it to your destination safely.
Moose-Knuckle
07-31-18, 15:52
That crease will buff right out, a bunch of upholstery however I'm sure is a total loss.
There is a "salesman slaps roof of plane" meme in there somewhere.
Yes. Odds are it will be made into aluminum cans. Most airlines (mine included) are retiring their 767-300s over the next few years. You can get a good used one on the cheap now.
It was one of the best birds EVER made back in the 90’s, but the 787 has all but made her obsolete.
787 operating costs are SKY HIGH compared to the 767-300 when lease or purchase costs are taken into account.
There is a reason United has or is attempting to buy more 767's from Boeing, even though they have and are getting more 787's. My buddy at United said it costs 2x as much to operate a 787 as a 767-300 or 400 when you take lease payments into account. Last numbers I saw was a 767-300er cost like 8k an hour to operate. The 787 cost is like 15k an hour to operate.
787 is great for long thin routes and has opened up a shit load of new markets, but its NOT cheap to do that.
MX costs on older air frames get expensive, but swapping them for new airplanes that wont incur major mx expenses for a few years might not be the cost savings that they think...
BUT with that said you obviously cant fly an airplane forever and you need to continuously re-fleet and airlines look 20-30 years into the future as far as cost scheduling.
^^^^ Untied is famous for flying their passengers around in old dilapidated planes. If that works for their business plan, so be it. NWA had the same plan.
It's different metrics for each property. At mine, they ran the numbers and we actually were able to get a mix of newer Boeing's and Scarebus' and have lower overall operating costs than currently with our older 767-300s. For us, they are not economical fir us any more. Different strokes... I'm sure Uni-Cal payed TOP DOLLAR for their 787 leases so that they could be first on the block with them. I think lease prices have come down on new 787s since the A350 is out. Competition is a good thing. When Uni-Cal leased theirs, there was no working A350 to compete with. You can get a better deal on 787s now.
Moose-Knuckle
08-02-18, 04:41
What do you gents think about the 737 Max?
Saw a vid of it take of and whoa.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-02-18, 10:41
I f’ing hate those long 737s compared to 757s. On UA 737s-8/9 the windows get misaligned in E+. You have everyone loading through the front door, not the mid door like on a 757 so they few times I do get upgraded, I get smacked in the head by the 300 people’s baggage heading back to coach. The 737s have what they call ‘slim-line’ seats that were developed initially by CIA contractors as stress position devices.
787s are nice if you can get a first class lay flat, but in back, UA put in an extra seat across versus some other 787 operators. I don’t know about you, but maybe CO has spoiled me- they talk about how they are able to keep the humidity higher in 787s. The last thing I want is humidity on a plane when I’m packed like nuclear fuel rods in the back of the plane.
I could give a flying snack box what the performance numbers of a plane are, outside of seat pitch and width.
What do you gents think about the 737 Max?
Saw a vid of it take of and whoa.I hated the old 737s. Recently did at Atlanta to Vancouver and back in the stretch version and I have a new level of hate. What an uncomfortable plane.
IMHO. Boeing screwed the pooch. The 737 for what it is designed to do, is an amazing aircraft. With that said, it’s a large regional jet. The original intent is shorter hops perhaps topping out at 2 or 2 1/2 hours. It does that very well, which is why Southwest airlines has exploded on the scene the way they have.
With that said, Boeing tried to make a one size fits all. In the meantime, they left a large gap by shutting down the 717 and 757 lines. IMHO... FAIL! Airbus jumped in with both feet to fill the gap on the 757 by building the 321 and the 321 NEO. Canadair covered the 717 with their new large regional offering. The 757 was perfect for the longer routes that were too small for a widebody yet too big for the puny little 737. For shorter routes with lots of passengers, nothing beat the 717. Delta just can’t get enough of those. Now Boeing Has lost the market share for a large narrowbody or a small widebody to fit in where the 757 left off. So, since the 737 has been continuous production since 1967 they just keep stretching them, modernizing them, and making them fly further. The same applies for the 717, they are losing out there also now. Boeing kept trying to hold off Canadair with lawsuits but finally lost out. Again, in all fairness though, for what these 737 was “originally intended” to do, nothing beats it.
We’re all in it together. It sucks as a passenger experience on long-haul flights because you’re crammed into the back of a sardine can. Since we airline pilots get paid based on the size of our airplanes, the itty-bitty 737 does not pay as much to fly as would a 757 or a A321. Much-less so than a 787, 747, A330 or A350. Edit: Thank goodness I have seniority and should never have to fly the “little guy”.
This is all market driven, as the vast majority of passengers now just want cheap tickets. If you want cheap tickets, the 737 is your guy. Long gone are the days of $1500 one way trans continental fares that provided luxury service. You want to go to New York from California non-stop at a cheap price, you’re going to be on a 737. You better spring for that first class ticket if you want the big seat and the coddling. Like I said. We are all in it together. The shareholders and executives are laughing all the way to the bank.
What I can assure you is that none of us have any say in the matter.
What do you gents think about the 737 Max?
Its got a ton of power down low, but its a dog up high. We're seeing ~15% fuel savings over the NG. The motors need 3 minute warm up and cool down and we have been having issues complying with that due to short taxi times. They also take ~2 minutes to start if they are hot because they do a bowed rotor start(if cold its basically a normal start). Guys bitch about this, but 15% fuel savings means more money in the profit sharing piggy bank.
The big screens are great, except the primary flight display is to small because they made the compass rose show ~270 degrees instead of the ~45 degrees on the NG displays... Said compass rose is just that, a compass rose... no nav data AT ALL. So having a big 270 degree display is utterly useless as the rest of the screen is smaller as a result. Its got some other display quirks.
The airplane is very quiet inside.
As far as 737 vs. 757, its the same fuselage barrel... But the 757 is much taller and has a far better wing on it and more powerful engines... The fuselage barrel goes back to the 707. 727 also used the same barrel.
Its got a ton of power down low, but its a dog up high. We're seeing ~15% fuel savings over the NG. The motors need 3 minute warm up and cool down and we have been having issues complying with that due to short taxi times. They also take ~2 minutes to start if they are hot because they do a bowed rotor start(if cold its basically a normal start). Guys bitch about this, but 15% fuel savings means more money in the profit sharing piggy bank.
The big screens are great, except the primary flight display is to small because they made the compass rose show ~270 degrees instead of the ~45 degrees on the NG displays... Said compass rose is just that, a compass rose... no nav data AT ALL. So having a big 270 degree display is utterly useless as the rest of the screen is smaller as a result. Its got some other display quirks.
The airplane is very quiet inside.
Yup ^^^ I do like having a PTT button on the dashboard.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-02-18, 23:42
I love the 175s over the 145 and 700s that UA flies. Lots of F seats to upgrade, bigger cabins than the other RJs and real over heads for bags- saves me 15 minutes at the end of each flight, as the Yellow handles work sporadically. 170s are a good improvement over 700s.
We get what the most of us will pay the least for. That sucks for those of us that do this ‘professionally’, with benefit of sitting in the cockpit. There are times I’d rather play waitress in the aisle, then be stuck in one of those cramped seats.
Coal Dragger
08-03-18, 01:22
IMHO. Boeing screwed the pooch. The 737 for what it is designed to do, is an amazing aircraft. With that said, it’s a large regional jet. The original intent is shorter hops perhaps topping out at 2 or 2 1/2 hours. It does that very well, which is why Southwest airlines has exploded on the scene the way they have.
With that said, Boeing tried to make a one size fits all. In the meantime, they left a large gap by shutting down the 717 and 757 lines. IMHO... FAIL! Airbus jumped in with both feet to fill the gap on the 757 by building the 321 and the 321 NEO. Canadair covered the 717 with their new large regional offering. The 757 was perfect for the longer routes that were too small for a widebody yet too big for the puny little 737. For shorter routes with lots of passengers, nothing beat the 717. Delta just can’t get enough of those. Now Boeing Has lost the market share for a large narrowbody or a small widebody to fit in where the 757 left off. So, since the 737 has been continuous production since 1967 they just keep stretching them, modernizing them, and making them fly further. The same applies for the 717, they are losing out there also now. Boeing kept trying to hold off Canadair with lawsuits but finally lost out. Again, in all fairness though, for what these 737 was “originally intended” to do, nothing beats it.
We’re all in it together. It sucks as a passenger experience on long-haul flights because you’re crammed into the back of a sardine can. Since we airline pilots get paid based on the size of our airplanes, the itty-bitty 737 does not pay as much to fly as would a 757 or a A321. Much-less so than a 787, 747, A330 or A350. Edit: Thank goodness I have seniority and should never have to fly the “little guy”.
This is all market driven, as the vast majority of passengers now just want cheap tickets. If you want cheap tickets, the 737 is your guy. Long gone are the days of $1500 one way trans continental fares that provided luxury service. You want to go to New York from California non-stop at a cheap price, you’re going to be on a 737. You better spring for that first class ticket if you want the big seat and the coddling. Like I said. We are all in it together. The shareholders and executives are laughing all the way to the bank.
What I can assure you is that none of us have any say in the matter.
I don’t like flying on 737’s very much and your assertions that Boeing has screwed the pooch on their product mix may be right; but... at my job we’re hauling more 737 fuselages this year than I’ve ever seen in years prior.
Boeing must have a shit ton of 737 orders, we’re moving at least one sometimes two trains a day through here with 1-3 fuselages on the manifest plus whatever Boeing sticks in the over sized freight cars that accompany most of the fuselages. Been going this way since early spring, and hasn’t let up.
I don’t like flying on 737’s very much and your assertions that Boeing has screwed the pooch on their product mix may be right; but... at my job we’re hauling more 737 fuselages this year than I’ve ever seen in years prior.
Yes, when you factor in that Boeing has stopped production of the 717 and 757, the are making more 737s to fill the gap. NOW add many airlines are replacing older 737s that have been flying for 15-25 years. So, there probably are More being made now than ever. The 737 is here to stay. With the Max, it's going to be around for the next 30 years. There will an upgraded Maximus, then a Max-Max then maybe a Mad-Max? It will be around until space planes become mainstream or the liberals are successful in making us move back into caves.
From a workhorse standpoint, the 737 is rock solid. Boeing has not made a bad product in many years. I just wish they'd modernize and tool up the 757 line again. Imho, the 757 modernized would put the A-321 NEO out of work. The 767 was my favorite bird to fly, but with the 787 out now, the space for the modern 767 will be limited. Hopefully I'll get my hands on a 787 in a year or two.
Edited spelling and one more point... Also don’t forget the emerging market in Asia. There is room there for another few thousand 737’s over next 10-20 years right there.
Auto spec check sucks for us older folks.
Problem I read with the 757 line was it was essentially hand built... I get that all airplanes are hand built, but the 757 was like crazy labor intensive and there are lots of parts on the airplanes that the same part doesnt interchange between air frames because it was hand fitted on the line to that serial number. So not only was it labor intensive to build, its getting very hard to keep them flying because of this issue.
My dad LOVED the 757, said it was second to the L1011 as far as being a pilots airplane.
As far as the 737, it's ok. I wont say it does anything well, but it does everything OK. I find it very easy to fly and to me its a very forgiving airplane.
Ive got a LOT of time in Embraer 145's and its a solid airplane and very fun to fly, but as far as for passengers its a shitty experience.
I had a BLAST flying 747's and thats an amazing airplane. I'm glad I got to fly them.
sundance435
08-03-18, 12:50
Problem I read with the 757 line was it was essentially hand built... I get that all airplanes are hand built, but the 757 was like crazy labor intensive and there are lots of parts on the airplanes that the same part doesnt interchange between air frames because it was hand fitted on the line to that serial number. So not only was it labor intensive to build, its getting very hard to keep them flying because of this issue.
My dad LOVED the 757, said it was second to the L1011 as far as being a pilots airplane.
As far as the 737, it's ok. I wont say it does anything well, but it does everything OK. I find it very easy to fly and to me its a very forgiving airplane.
The history of how the 757 came to be is somewhat interesting, too. Re: the ERJ-145, I'll take being a passenger in one of those any day over the CRJ-700 or 737 MAX. Embraers are way more comfortable for me than Canadairs and the new 737s.
Ive got a LOT of time in Embraer 145's and its a solid airplane and very fun to fly, but as far as for passengers its a shitty experience.
.
I'm not a frequent flyer, at most one round trip a year and I don't know a thing about flying. I steered a single engine Cessna once, when my buddy let me control the wheel for 30 minutes.
In my limited experience, for short flights, I really enjoyed the little Bombardier CRJ and the Embraer series. Maybe it's due to the small airports that they service. Less dealing with crowds, quick to board/unboard. I've never had a bad flight on those little planes, the rides were surprisingly comfortable.
As a passenger, I've flown through many parts of the world in my lifetime. As a plane enthusiast, here is a list of all the planes I've flown on, random order as they pop to mind:
DC3
DC4
DC6
DC7
DC8
DC9
DC10
707
727
737
747
757
767
A320
A330
A380
L1011
CRJ (can't remember which number)
Embraer 145
and one unique, dear to my heart Sud Avation Caravelle - tail # XU-JTB.
the ERJ-145, I'll take being a passenger in one of those any day over the CRJ-700 or 737 MAX. Embraers are way more comfortable for me than Canadairs and the new 737s.
Ive got ~7000 hours in the EMB-145. Once you are seated in the airplane, as a passenger, it isnt bad, just dont try to move around to much. The CRJ-200 SUCKS BIG TIME. The damn windows are down by your knees. The CRJ-700 I thought was pretty decent as is the EMB170/190 series.
The MAX that my company flies is 100% identical to our layout the -800 NG model... zero difference. I would say our MAX interiors are BETTER than the NG's as they have the latest and greatest interior with the new seats, LED's, better over heads, etc... plus they are MUCH quieter.
I have HEARD that American's 737 MAX has a very odd layout and the passengers hate it, but I have not witnessed it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-03-18, 16:16
145 are OK, I used to get 1A most of the time. So plenty of leg room and no one beside you BUT the curve of cabin makes it so that it makes putting your left foot flat on the floor uncomfortable.
ETA: Plus, with the door right there, and it would get COLD. I used to say that I know how a side gunner felt in a B17...
Most planes are OK, if you use them for what they were intended. Cincy to Chicago on a 145- 45 min air time is fine. A 145 on a 3+ hour flight ugh. They are REGIONAL jets, not INTER-REGIONAL jets.
I've gotten to ride upstairs on a 747, on Lufthansa, so that was actually good service. The one seat I never got to sit in was on the 747 in the lower F cabin right on the middle on the back wall of the front section- it is all by itself and it is a lay flat.
Worst has to be the CRJ200s. On UA, there are no E+ seats. I've heard them called "Devil's Chariots".
sundance435
08-03-18, 20:03
I have HEARD that American's 737 MAX has a very odd layout and the passengers hate it, but I have not witnessed it.
It's why I've switched to United after being loyal to AA for 10 years (it's basically either UA or AA out of ORD for good connections), along with the fact that they're racing to the bottom in customer service and hard/soft product while trying to match Delta in other ways - they have not done a single thing to imitate Delta in a good way. AA's 737 MAX is a cattle car in economy. I know that's been said for years about many configurations, but this is the closest I've actually experienced. If Doug Parker could get the FAA to approve standing room only, AA would have it, or they'll just wait until Delta does. The seats have gotten so "slimline" that you'd better pack your own cushion and pray no one is sitting next to you. It might be fine on a 2 hour flight, but AA is obviously only slotting them on 3.5+ hour flights and even transcons. Combine that with no seatback TV's and you've got a miserable trip. Oh, and the bathrooms would be comically small, if it wasn't such an important feature.
I won't say that United is demonstrably better than AA so far (1.5 years), but it's been less bad in general. I only ever attain the lowest elite status, but so far no complaints for UA Silver vs. AA Gold.
It's why I've switched to United after being loyal to AA for 10 years (it's basically either UA or AA out of ORD for good connections), along with the fact that they're racing to the bottom in customer service and hard/soft product while trying to match Delta in other ways - they have not done a single thing to imitate Delta in a good way. AA's 737 MAX is a cattle car in economy. I know that's been said for years about many configurations, but this is the closest I've actually experienced. If Doug Parker could get the FAA to approve standing room only, AA would have it, or they'll just wait until Delta does. The seats have gotten so "slimline" that you'd better pack your own cushion and pray no one is sitting next to you. It might be fine on a 2 hour flight, but AA is obviously only slotting them on 3.5+ hour flights and even transcons. Combine that with no seatback TV's and you've got a miserable trip. Oh, and the bathrooms would be comically small, if it wasn't such an important feature.
I won't say that United is demonstrably better than AA so far (1.5 years), but it's been less bad in general. I only ever attain the lowest elite status, but so far no complaints for UA Silver vs. AA Gold.
Ride the orange line down to MDW and check out the canyon blue and orange...
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-03-18, 21:31
Sunny,
As a silver, do you ever get an upgrade?
An open seat next two you? It literally happens in under 1% of my flights.
sundance435
08-04-18, 17:28
Never an upgrade because there's always a bunch of people with higher status than me on the upgrade list - most of the routes I end up flying are usually pretty full (ORD-DCA, ORD-DEN, etc.), but there will occasionally be an open seat next to me. It gives me free econ+ within a few days of departure and there's usually open seats there. I've got a couple of flights to smaller airports this year, so I'm hoping maybe I can snag an upgrade on one.
I got a great deal on biz class on Lufthansa for a flight to the Middle East this year - looking forward to the upper deck on their 747-8, which is the most beautiful airliner flying right now, IMHO. Just recently flew British biz on a mileage award - upper deck on an A380. I love that plane, and there's really nothing else quite like it for the experience, but I would never pay money to fly British Airways. Their product is in a pretty sad state since I flew them last 10 years ago (seat and food were god awful). British FAs and pilots have always been and continue to be some of the best, though.
sundance435
08-04-18, 17:32
Ride the orange line down to MDW and check out the canyon blue and orange...
I don't mind Midway itself, but it's not in the best part of town and there's no way I'm riding the L unless the alternative is walking - and I'd still have to think about it. You can play the "what is that liquid on the seat" game to kill time, though...except 9/10 times it's piss. Everyone I know that flies Southwest loves it. Guys I know that could have top elite status on one of the Big 3 choose Southwest.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-04-18, 19:51
If you don't do international, or you company will pay for business overseas, Southwest is an interesting option. If you are trying to hit the GPU lottery on UA for upgrades, the only way to have a fighting chance is to bundle all your miles and get 1K status. 1K is now the ante level to get any real benefits, or really a chance at any benefits.
sundance435
08-05-18, 01:15
If you don't do international, or you company will pay for business overseas, Southwest is an interesting option. If you are trying to hit the GPU lottery on UA for upgrades, the only way to have a fighting chance is to bundle all your miles and get 1K status. 1K is now the ante level to get any real benefits, or really a chance at any benefits.
All of my international travel is for leisure. I tried to route myself to get Gold this year with a combo of work/pleasure, but I'll be short on EQDs. I'm old enough to remember the pre-EQD days when you could hit mid-level status with 2 trips if you did it right. Mileage runs are pretty much a thing of the past because of EQDs.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.