View Full Version : AF 773 at MAN
AlphaWhiskyRomeo
25th Jul 2006, 12:27
I'm assuming the Air France 773 that landed into MAN around 1200 local was a medical emergency as it's leaving for LAX after 90 minutes on the ground.
Never ceases to amaze me how much such a divert must cost an airline to presumably burn some fuel off, pay landing/handling fees at MAN (???), re-fuel and then continue to LAX. (Not forgetting any costs for a delayed schedule and crew which might go our of hours).
Evanelpus
25th Jul 2006, 13:56
It was AF062 and the a/c was F-GSQL for the spotters out there.
gazza007
25th Jul 2006, 14:02
Decided to join after viewing forum for 2 years.....
Departure at 14:08 06L.
Have Pictures but not allowed to post attachments????
gazza - read 'Forum Rules' at top of forum.
AlphaWhiskyRomeo
26th Jul 2006, 06:00
Ringway Reports is calling the stop an "operational" stop rather than "technical" or "medical". - Does this mean it was topping up fuel for the long flight to LAX? I can't imagine it - especially as the aircraft was airborne for 2 hours out of CDG or so before landing at MAN.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
26th Jul 2006, 06:37
AWR... your profile doesn't say much about you but I'm assuming you are not an aviation professional and may not be familiar with such events. Diversions for medical emergencies are not uncommon and it would obviously be preferable to pop into somewhere in the UK rather than spend hours over the Atlantic with a sick passenger.
ATC and the airlines go to great lengths to assist in such cases. One could argue that launching a lifeboat to rescue a kid on a surfboard is a huge waste of resources but it's good to know that for some organisations human life is still valuable.
gazza007
26th Jul 2006, 09:27
Cheers BOAC missed that
AlphaWhiskyRomeo
26th Jul 2006, 15:15
AWR... your profile doesn't say much about you but I'm assuming you are not an aviation professional and may not be familiar with such events. Diversions for medical emergencies are not uncommon and it would obviously be preferable to pop into somewhere in the UK rather than spend hours over the Atlantic with a sick passenger.
ATC and the airlines go to great lengths to assist in such cases. One could argue that launching a lifeboat to rescue a kid on a surfboard is a huge waste of resources but it's good to know that for some organisations human life is still valuable.
I think you've misunderstood me - I am very aware how common medical diversions are and have no problems why airlines do it.
My point of the post is firstly trying to confirm if the divert was indeed for medical reasons; and my later comment was simply my amzement how expensive such a divert must be. I am certainly not implying that an aircraft shouldn't divert. - I am quite sure there are less serious on-board illnesses that Airline Crew/Ops decide don't need diverts which we never hear about.
And without boasting, I would class myself as an industry professional of sorts - though I'm not crew or ATC.