Lol at United or whatever company allowing someone who isn't booked on their flight to just traipse into another country

I wouldn't be shocked if this is covered in pilot 101 for the company

The airline (let alone the pilot) is not responsible for keeping "bad" people out of the country, that's LAX airport security and Japan customs' jobs. And this guy wasn't even "bad," he just got on the wrong plane.

People are rejected at customs all the time, and they are forced to board another flight back to their home country. The pilot would not care in the slightest about accidentally bringing another person into Japan. He would care a lot more about screwing over 150 other pax as well as likely delaying flights out of Tokyo.

My guess is he contacted the company and they instructed him to turn around based on their company policy or operating procedures, even though it didn't make sense.

The policy is probably there, as you said, for safety. Not like it is any safer flying back with him. Perhaps the airline would be fined for knowingly bringing a person into the wrong country.

You think we would be ok with a person that we didn’t know flying in from Iran?

My guess is that no country would care as long as the person came aboard accidentally and was from a country that didn't require visas prior to travel. Travelling to Japan doesn't require a visa, you just go through customs and they stamp a visa in your passport there. An Iranian citizen to the US would be a different story I suspect, but they would still likely just hold them at customs and deport them.

I could be wrong since when an aircraft has to divert to another country due to an emergency sometimes all the passengers get stuck on board for hours while the mess is sorted out. Maybe the same sort of thing happens if the pax numbers don't line up with what was filed prior to departure.

I also thought it could be a “saving face” cultural thing for a Japanese airline/pilot to bringing in a “known” security risk.

The pilot had to give this a lot of thought and consulted with officials. It wasn’t like he heard about the news and immediately pulled a u-turn. He knew he would have 150 others raging at him. I am sure a lot of people missed important events because of this.

THere has already been coverage of this case that revealed that even though the guy had a ticket on the united flight leaving around the same time, he didn't use the boarding pass for that flight to board; instead, he used a copy of his brother's boarding pass (his brother was on the ANA flight).

This raises the question of why the scanner didn't kick out an error when the same boarding pass was used twice.

What?

He knew he was on a different flight than his brother but got on the same flight?

Did the airline figure out he was unauthorized or did he volunteer the info?

So, his brother had his seat, yet he chose to sit in another seat?

Makes more sense why pilot turned around. Seemed like a dangerous scam potentially. The guy should be jailed and forced to pay restitution if what you are saying is accurate.

Here's a news story with details on the duplicate boarding pass:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=52024185

The story makes (slightly) more sense on how he was able to board another flight so easily.

Absolutely seems intentional using his brother’s boarding pass. Glad to know FBI is investigating.

I didn’t know airlines could be fined for this, but it does make sense. Perhaps the fine is larger for successfully transporting an unauthorized person.

Curious to know from OP the decision-making process. Can’t imagine the pilot deciding on his own accord.

Edit: Read that they put plane in security back at LAX. Treated this like a very situation. I don’t know if the US would allow a plane to enter with an unauthorized passenger. Perhaps Japan said “no go”.

Edit 2 from another site:
The series of events that led to the ANA staff allowing this passenger to fly is quite stunning. The ground staff scanned the boarding pass, the flight attendants verified the boarding pass at the door, the passenger was able to select a seat that wasn’t otherwise occupied, and the flight attendants did a seat count that apparently matched what was expected.

Nationals of 66 countries including the US do not require visas to enter Japan. It's enough to simply show up at the airport with a passport.

I think you’d be surprised. Lots of plane accidents result in nobody getting hurt or only minor injuries. Planes are crazy safe - even when something goes wrong.

I just read that there were no commercial passenger jet fatalities in 2017. Which is pretty insane considering the number of flights made.

There's no way the pilot made this decision on his own. That's a very expensive decision and I'm sure they had discussions over SATCOM before reversing course. I would have thought they'd continue and deal with it at the destination, perhaps simply detaining the passenger until putting him on a return flight. But, of course, I have no idea what other factors might be at play. I do know this wasn't a decision made lightly.

Thanks.

Does it change your opinion that one brother intentionally tried to board the wrong plane using another person's boarding pass? This wasn't an accident.

Do you think because it was a Japanese pilot on a Japanese airplane going to Japan that it was different? In that the airline would look terrible in helping to bring an unauthorized person to Japan.

Would we (the US) deal with this in the same manner if another country was doing the same (like Iran)?

And, do those "beedoop" machines do anything??? What about he pax count? How could this happen? Is the pilot 'responsible' for this?

Thank you.

Edit: You said 'expensive' decision. How much do you think? I think there was something like 240 passengers. You have their hotels, etc. What about the flight and fuel and labor wastage? I was guesstimating $250,000. Plus, there will be a fine. No clue how big it will be.

Edit 2: Does the pilot have the final say or was he told to GTFB (get the...) to LAX or lose his job? Did they discuss something like this for hours?

This seems to have been buried in the discussion about the stowaway. It was a serious question. I can understand a seal being damaged, but going missing is hard to believe. Perhaps a poor choice of words by the gate agent?

Sorry about that.

It does kind of sounds like the gate agent might have garbled this one. I've seen many damaged seals over the years, but I don't think I've ever had an entire door seal go missing, though I guess it is possible. Wish I could give a better answer.

I'd hate to be the hero on that flight. Imagine getting the death stare from 150 other people for 4 hours.

There was a plane crash on NYE in Costa Rica, killing everyone on board, including 10 Americans. Super tragic.

Thanks. Folllow up question: if a damaged seal isn't discovered at the gate, at what point would the pilots realize the cabin isn't pressurizing properly?

Good question, STinLA.

A damaged or missing seal would probably not prevent the cabin from pressurizing; it just creates the potential for a hell of a loud, annoying whine. During normal flight, the volume of pressurized air entering the cabin from the engines' compressors varies somewhat with the power setting and one or more outflow valves on the airplane modulate to maintain the proper psid (differential pressure). A missing or damaged door seal would just result in the outflow valve(s) being in a more closed position.

The air escaping as a result of the damaged or missing seal can be fairly noisy, which is often our first indication that there's a problem. It's not that we see problems with pressurization; it's that passengers and FAs complain about the noise during flight.

Quite often, with a damaged seal, there will be a certain psid range that produces a loud, shrill whine (think of the noise you could make as a kid, blowing air past a blade of grass held between your thumbs). As we climb higher, the psid increases and this sometimes causes even a damaged seal to seat more firmly, eliminating the noise.

So I'm caught in this northeast snowpocalypse craziness. Both yesterday and today JFK seemed to be operating normally yet EWR was shut down. So I had to take Uber from JFK to Newark and now I'm on my way back to JFK. Does it come down to longer runways at JFK?

No, it wouldn't be runway length. But with the strong winds, it might be that the crosswind component at Newark is too great. The main runways there are 4/22. I see that the current winds are 300° at 27 gusting to 37 knots. That's nearly a direct crosswind and I'd much prefer to land on runway 31L or 31R at JFK, pointing almost directly into the wind.

EWR does have a shorter runway (29) that could be used, but they couldn't handle the normal traffic flow to that single runway. Also, that runway doesn't have a precision approach, only an RNAV which has the plane joining the extended runway centerline only about two and a half miles from the runway.

Should the flight crew be allowed to put passengers like this in the well with the landing gear and drop them out of the plane on final?

United seems to have the knack to attract this type of passenger...

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Gerard_Finneran

Ground issue at Toronto Pearson causes a bump and small fire/explosion forcing evacuation...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...earson-airport

Includes video shot from the plane not on fire...

One was being towed and the other waiting to park - so it'll be interesting to see if the parking plane was holding in the wrong place or whether the towing person didn't have clearance to push back?

Best,
Pete

Kinda serious question that I think I already know the answer to:

Why is pilot experience tracked in hours of flight time? Wouldn't flight cycles (take-offs/landings) be a more meaningful metric?

If sex was measured by "flight time" I'd never make it to Captain