Why go to JFK? Surely there would have been some chat between aircraft and ground as to what to do? Whoever would have to be looking after the passengers in JFK would surely have known that there was zero hotel accommodation and that going back to Florida would have been far better idea than dumping several hundred men women children and babies into a terminal building late at night with nothing to look after them. It might be a convenient place to get the brakes fixed, but surely that can't be the only consideration.
I suppose what I'm asking is, does a Captain's responsibility for the safety of passengers stop once they're on the ground, or does it extend to making sure that the bit of ground they're going to be dumped on isn't going to lead to medical problems (starving dehydrated babies, collapsed elderly, etc). Depending on who is on board, you could end with some serious consequences if there's literally nothing to support them. OK, JFK isn't quite as barren as the wilds of a Canadian wilderness winter, but when everything is closed a terminal building is an inhospitable place for frail people to be trapped in with no where else to go.
And if it comes to that, exactly how much attention was paid to rectifying the problem at Orlando? It does sound like it received comparatively little attention, perhaps the aviation equivalent of hitting it with a hammer that'll do. Getting it fixed properly in JFK might have been convenient for the pilots and ground crew, but piss poor for everyone else.
All in all, not a very impressive service offering. Three days Orlando to Gatwick is a shocking performance. Glad I've not flown BA for years. Last time was on delayed 777 to Japan, and it was filthy dirty. Never again.