Originally Posted by
Gibon2
*sigh*
First post: "presumably they chose the least expensive and inconvenient of several very expensive and inconvenient options"
Second post: "I'm sure the decision was made carefully after considering the pros and cons of all the options"
Thanks for the condescension, but I never suggested the decision had been made rashly or in haste. I said I wasn't sure I bought their excuse. If you read the linked article, it quotes KLM as saying:
(emphasis added)
I didn't (and still don't) buy this because clearly landing at another airport was possible, it would just (we presume) have been more expensive/inconvenient than returning to AMS. And by "more expensive/inconvenient", we mean "more expensive/inconvenient to KLM, not necessarily to the pax" (although as wiggy points out these are often one and the same). Hence the question in my second post, why would landing elsewhere in Mexico not be preferable? I expect there is probably a good commercial reason, but it's not that landing there was "not possible".
There are just a couple of airports in Mexico which are geared up to handle 747 main deck cargo. Outbound crew will be out of duty, MEX crew will be out of duty to pick up the aircraft, outbound flight to be cancelled or delayed for 12 hrs +, passengers to be accommodated or rebooked and many more reasons. People who doubt about this decision are obviously not an airline ops or flight crew...