Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

flightradar24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 204 posts

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#151

Post by mmirate »

Reason077 wrote: post #147
joering2 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster. Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane. And no…

As explained by omegant in the post above, lives were not at risk here. The risk was to the aircraft: if it had been delayed on the ground at SJU for any reason, it might not have be able to depart before the storm hit and would likely have suffered severe damage.

Normally I would think that

> hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock

would refer to the aircraft ... except that's a nearly 1-order-of-magnitude overestimate of it's value (a single $100M, not multiple).

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#152

Post by _jal »

joering2 wrote: post #139
digi_owl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now i wonder who in Delta management were willing to put the plane, never mind the crew, on the line for this flight. It if was totaled by the hurricane it would not have looked good on the company books.

Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster. Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane. And no…

Every situation is going to look different. But if I found out a company I was invested in had an opportunity to save lives at a reasonable risk[1] and chose not to due to concerns about whiny shareholders and PR, I'd dump them and write comments about their shitty morals on message boards.

[1] Whatever that means. And I have no personal opinion about the risk involved in what Delta did, because I'm not qualified to form one.

Edited to add: it is nice to be able to applaud an airline for a change. Yay, Delta.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#153

Post by flukus »

ars wrote: post #32

I'm wondering about the ground crew willing to stay in the airport to help this flight get going - and then having to get to a shelter in the middle of a hurricane.

I'm glad someone bought this up, it's the first thing that came to mind for me. Even if they are safe in the airport, I'm sure there were more important things they could be doing like securing their home or buying food and water.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#154

Post by mmirate »

adventured wrote: post #79
jordache wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why? the hurricane is predictable in its movement and moves at a snail's pace relative to the plane. The pilots I'm sure had radar data inside the cockpit It's not rocket science.

You must be a professional pilot. Yes, I bet that's it. Plus, flying into and out of hurricanes isn't rocket science (and everybody knows that rocket science is really difficult and dangerous), so, easy stuff.

> You must be a professional pilot. Yes, I bet that's it.

I won't claim one way or the other, but let's presume that this person is a professional pilot. Does that not make their opinion/analysis more valuable, rather than explaining it away?

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#155

Post by sixdimensional »

lisper wrote: post #13
sixdimensional wrote: post #2

Wow, this is really incredible. The flight path out of Puerto Rico is nearly perfectly optimal to avoid the weather. I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making? Bravo.

> I wonder, is this a good (and incredibly positive) example of what quality real-time/near-real-time data can do for decision-making? Yes. Obviously.

I guess what I was trying to say was, what planning was done beyond the heroic measures and decisions made by the pilots and supporting infrastructure people? I was curious as to whether this was pure bravery with an informed decision support based on data, or simply pure bravery with a little bit of luck. I am always trying to find positive examples of how data is used for good, to save lives, etc. The more we know about how we can use data for good, the more we can try to do good with data...

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#156

Post by tempestn »

joering2 wrote: post #139
digi_owl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now i wonder who in Delta management were willing to put the plane, never mind the crew, on the line for this flight. It if was totaled by the hurricane it would not have looked good on the company books.

Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster. Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane. And no…

Given that lives were not in fact at significant risk, it's conceivable to me that they considered the amount of free publicity this would likely get. Given that, and the relatively small chance of serious damage or loss of the plane, and it could be a decision with positive financial expected value.

Plus, of course, there is the humanitarian benefit.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#157

Post by cc439 »

hnaccy wrote: post #142
cc439 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that definition is that "prehistoric" is a lot more recent than people realize in the Americas.

Interestingly the Klamath people have an oral history of the eruption of Mount Mazama and formation of Crater Lake over 7000 years ago.

That's incredibly interesting. Does it line up with the geographical record?

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#159

Post by tempestn »

hueving wrote: post #131
zymhan wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any source for your claims?

The planes regularly face 300 MPH+ winds in normal flight because of their speed.

That's not evidence that an additional 180MPH would be harmless. For one thing, those 300MPH winds are normally only in one direction.

Re: Delta Goes Big, Then Goes Home

#160

Post by cucuuc »

hueving wrote: post #130
bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History already means recorded. Anything before records exist is called prehistoric.

No, "prehistoric" is the time period before written records. If we only started paying attention to hurricanes in the gulf 200 years ago, that doesn't mean 1805 was prehistoric.

S/he didn't make this up. History is the study of the past trough written records.

The word has been since overloaded to be the study of the past. Which is fine, except that leaves no reason for the word pre-history

Post reply on HN