KLM passengers enjoy 12-hour flight to nowhere

[Gibon2]

Worse things can certainly happen, but I have to say I'm glad I wasn't on this flight. A KLM 747 combi turned around six hours into its 12-hour flight to Mexico City, when it was already over the coast of Canada, and flew all the way back to Amsterdam. The reason? Volcanic cloud from Popocatepetl, an active volcano near Mexico City. Apparently, the 28 horses carried as cargo made a diversion to a North American airport impractical:

https://www.traveller.com.au/klm-fli...-around-h1k4uz

Diversions are always inconvenient and often frustrating, but there is something particularly dispiriting about getting off a long flight back where you started (especially when that place is AMS in winter). I'm not sure I buy KLM's excuse: presumably they chose the least expensive and inconvenient of several very expensive and inconvenient options, but if the volcano problem had emerged a couple of hours later into the flight, they would have had to land somewhere in North America, horses be damned.

[Sobelena]

And I thought my 5 hour flight back to departure point was bad enough!

[FlightDetent]

Was there a danger of the horses being put to sleep after landing on US territory without a Vet authorization?

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by Gibon2

I'm not sure I buy KLM's excuse: presumably they chose the least expensive and inconvenient of several very expensive and inconvenient options,

Well err, yes..least inconvenient sounds reasonable to me...This won't have been a knee jerk reaction, I rather suspect the crew would have spoken to "Mission control" and talked and thought long and hard about this. Whatever they said I wonder if the options available when the destination closed was go back to "base", where there was a demonstrable capability to handle the horses, both from a health and admin point of view...or lob into Canada or the States at fairly short notice and risk subjecting horses/passengers to whatever procedures they would have put in place.

if the volcano problem had emerged a couple of hours later into the flight, they would have had to land somewhere in North America, horses be damned.

Correct - but it didn't, so they didn't, so the horses weren't..

FWIW this sort of thing happens - for example recently a Chile bound Air France flight (no horses on board but plenty of passengers) returned to it's point of departure, Paris, from well well out over the Atlantic when the destination closed due to civil unrest.

[WHBM]

I would think the Netherlands regulator might look closely at the flight planning and the Alternates selected, if those alternates were not capable of handling the aircraft load.

[homonculus]

It is likely the horses were valuable as we dont spend money transporting £300 nags that way. Although a US or Canadian landing was possible for tech issues, it may well have resulted in the horses being impounded or put down due to lack of paperwork. Say they were polo ponies and the result was the total loss of a team - the financial loss would be in the millions. Unfortunate outcome for the passengers but no real choice. Of course, all total speculation

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by WHBM

I would think the Netherlands regulator might look closely at the flight planning and the Alternates selected, if those alternates were not capable of handling the aircraft load.

It sounds like this was non-urgent diversion/change of destination where were there probably all sorts of factors that needed considering ( for example consequences of the crew going out of hours, getting replacement crew to the aircraft..passenger convenience - accommodation/ease of onwards travel/passengers/horses ability to e.g; enter a state other than Mexico, such as the States, Canada at all) etc etc etc..

Sometimes diverting to your legal, legit, all above board flight planned alternate can turn into an absolute administrative nightmare for crew and passengers once you are on the ground...been there , seen that, got the T-shirt.

But yes, I'm sure the "Netherland regulator" will be all over the flight planning...

[CargoOne]

It sounds like the best possible decision made. Horses were obviously racing or breeding purpose, those are expensive. Having first hand experience with moving life stock, landing anywhere outside the country of destination can turn into nightmare. I feel sorry for pax who had to endure a 12 hours flight for nothing but chances are it was still less delay and hassle than landing US or Canada where crew will be out of duty and half of passengers cannot go out due to visa requirements.

[Auxtank]

Originally Posted by wiggy

Correct - but it didn't, so they didn't, so the horses weren't..

I feel sorry for the poor bloody horses - wandering to an fro all over the skies, fearing damnation - eternal or otherwise.

[b1lanc]

Were there other diversion due to the volcanic ash? Had to be more than one flight headed to Mexico City.

[Gibon2]

From the linked article (which may or may not be accurate):

It also became apparent that scores of other aircraft continued to operate in and around Mexico over the timeframe. For example, Iberia's Thursday service from Madrid to Mexico City landed without incident.

As wiggy says, I'm sure the decision was made carefully after considering the pros and cons of all the options. But I'm curious as to why landing at another airport in Mexico would not have been preferable. Crew issues? Lack of horse-handling facilities?

[misd-agin]

Originally Posted by Gibon2

From the linked article (which may or may not be accurate):



As wiggy says, I'm sure the decision was made carefully after considering the pros and cons of all the options. But I'm curious as to why landing at another airport in Mexico would not have been preferable. Crew issues? Lack of horse-handling facilities?

First post - I'm not sure I buy KLM's excuse:

Self correcting after four hrs. Whew, that was a close call.

I'd stick with "I'm sure the decision was made carefully." The people making the decision to divert an airplane 4-6 hrs aren't taking the decision lightly. Wide body diversions are a big deal at an airline. Narrow body flights, on relatively short flights, isn't as big a deal.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by wiggy

Sometimes diverting to your legal, legit, all above board flight planned alternate can turn into an absolute administrative nightmare for crew and passengers once you are on the ground...

Then that's ops incompetence, saying because it's legal that's fine, even though it's not agreed with handling agents or whatever so it's going to be a nightmare. The sort of thing that airline A is OK at arranging in advance, airline B less so.

[Ancient Mariner]

And what happens to the pax landing in the US without visa? Knowing the immigration over there I'd rather be returned to Hell.
Per

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by WHBM

Then that's ops incompetence, saying because it's legal that's fine, even though it's not agreed with handling agents or whatever so it's going to be a nightmare. The sort of thing that airline A is OK at arranging in advance, airline B less so.

To answer that without outing myself the long winded admin/paperwork chase> out of hours incident I alluded to happened after a diversion to one of the filed alternates, which itself was a major international airport where we had (fortunately) support from our own company ground staff because it was one of our on-line stations....however we and the passengers were not where we were supposed to be........now throw in the inability to do a quick fuel and go due to continued carp weather ...now chuck in crew going out of hours..then..chuck in factors such as being well outside Europe/Schengen zone, so we are into Visas/ESTAs...

Hindsite is a wonderful thing, so with the benefit of that I’d say regardless of how good you think your airline is IMHO anything is possible, especially if obvious pragmatic solutions can be deemed impossible at the spur of the moment by local officials in some countries..


So I’m not about to knock KLM for what they did.....

[Gibon2]

First post - I'm not sure I buy KLM's excuse:

Self correcting after four hrs. Whew, that was a close call.

*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:

"Landing at another airport was not possible because of the visa requirement for passengers and because there were also horses on board," KLM said.

(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".

[CargoOne]

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...

[staircase]

I wonder who paid the bill?

Aeroplane and load back where it started, and yet KLM in for 12 hours flying.

Looks like the only people to make money out of this will be the lawyers.

[BRUpax]

Looks like the only people to make money out of this will be the lawyers.

Yep, sue the volcano!

[Emma Royds]

Originally Posted by WHBM

Then that's ops incompetence, saying because it's legal that's fine, even though it's not agreed with handling agents or whatever so it's going to be a nightmare. The sort of thing that airline A is OK at arranging in advance, airline B less so.

It’s simply not feasible for airlines to always provide the same degree of resources and manpower at alternates, compared to what is in place at destination airfields. Having scores of dedicated staff effectively sat on standby, waiting for a wide body aircraft to possibly divert is simply not feasible, especially given how irregular diversions actually are. If your alternate airfield is a company destination, then that will help significantly but it still may not be an easy process. If your alternate is off the company route network, then it can be a hit or a miss as to how efficient things run on the ground.

At least in the six hours in this situation, KLM would have had plenty of time to arrange alternative travel plans or book hotels as appropriate, so that there were some arrangements already in place when they landed back at AMS. Undoubtably inconvenient to end up back where you started but far easier for KLM to manage and arguably a more comfortable experience for the pax and horses on board. Diverting to somewhere with not enough hotel rooms can soon turn into a social media disaster if pax are stuck on board or in a terminal for hours with nowhere to go to. Diverting due to volcanic ash would not normally be a ‘splash and dash’ diversion, so a prolonged period on the ground would probably have been factored into any diversion, with all the logistical challenges that go with that and diverting a Jumbo.