Diversions after fire in JFK terminal
Psychophysiological entity
What happened in 1911?
But I still think we're not being told. The decisions to mosey back from whence they came seems oddly universal.That expression sticks in my mind from an American in the early 60's, flying something with a lot of engines, was defeated by NW European weather. His laconic reply to ATC was, I guess we'll mosey back to Texas.
But the return crew already in JFK didn't necessarily need a couple of days rest if the flight, for example, had diverted to Philadelphia, 130 miles away by domestic flight which were all still running, or even by taxi. The outbound crew in New York could have positioned down, possibly with just 24 hours delay.
Furthermore, the flight was carrying a full deadhead tech/cabin crew (as ops were reminded by the pilots). Presumably them ending up back at base has caused a further major dislocation to a return flight at some stage.
Furthermore, the flight was carrying a full deadhead tech/cabin crew (as ops were reminded by the pilots). Presumably them ending up back at base has caused a further major dislocation to a return flight at some stage.
My idea on these stories (ANZ and ITA flights, ex Alitalia) is that they were not carrying just boxes and goods, but people, with whom "a contract" (tickets) was signed to be carried from a departure airport to a destination one. Unless critical safety issues aroused during the trip, I find the "end of this story" very embarassing for the carriers and a legitimate anger from all the passengers was more than justified and logical. The "internal reasons" put ahead by those airlines are like a "cover laid on a hole"... with the "cover" much worse than the "hole". Once in a while, any commercial enterprise faces business risks... this was one of these... but those carriers "kicked the ball outside the 'out' line", saving "few peanuts " but destroying the trust of many people, with logical consequences on their future "fidelity".That says a lot on the "internal culture" of those enterprises, being their mission a "people business".
Last edited by capricorn23; 19th Feb 2023 at 10:16.
People have to make quick decisions based on the data that is available to them at the moment.
Sometimes - often with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight - those decisions are not perhaps the best. But you have to work with what you have available at the time - not the information you wish you had available.
Sometimes - often with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight - those decisions are not perhaps the best. But you have to work with what you have available at the time - not the information you wish you had available.
Thread Starter
People have to make quick decisions based on the data that is available to them at the moment.
Sometimes - often with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight - those decisions are not perhaps the best. But you have to work with what you have available at the time - not the information you wish you had available.
Sometimes - often with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight - those decisions are not perhaps the best. But you have to work with what you have available at the time - not the information you wish you had available.
Just to be frank, in my 40+ years of aviation and 20k+ hours as a pilot, I never heard such a sillness as "the airplane will sit idle on the ground at the alternate airport for 2-3 days"... com'on... that's ridiculous... we are not talking of "third world" airports, neither of exceptional adverse weather like typhoon, hurricane and similar stuff. The only excuse I might find is relevant to the max. Duty times of the outbound crew ( the flight time only is in the region of 17-18 hrs.) as it might position from the original destination to an alternate airport... but those might be easily Newark and La Guardia, so here no problem. For more distant alternates (e.g. Boston) the break for the crew after the positioning flight and before their duty flight might cost not more than 8-10 hrs. as a delay. Of course, the company coordination of all this should be quite effective. And that's not a rarity in the long haul operations.
Last edited by capricorn23; 19th Feb 2023 at 22:20.
When you have a perfectly serviceable aircraft and the destination airport is unexpected closed, planned alternates don't hold as much meaning.
Alternates are usually intended for 'land at nearest suitable airport' purposes - basically no other choice but put the aircraft on the ground as soon as practical.
When you have a perfectly serviceable aircraft and the destination airport is unexpected closed, planned alternates don't hold as much meaning.
When you have a perfectly serviceable aircraft and the destination airport is unexpected closed, planned alternates don't hold as much meaning.
You are confusing diversions with alternates.
OK, fair enough - but at the time they learned of the closure of the destination airport, they are in the middle of the Pacific. If they were closer to the North American mainland, a diversion to somewhere in North America would make sense. As it was, they were closer to home than they were to the primary alternates.
OK, fair enough - but at the time they learned of the closure of the destination airport, they are in the middle of the Pacific. If they were closer to the North American mainland, a diversion to somewhere in North America would make sense. As it was, they were closer to home than they were to the primary alternates.
Yes, "Planned alternates are exactly for problems at the destination airport. Weather, closed runways etc.", and obviously become of increasing importance as you approach destination and your options reduce since your diversion footprint is becoming more limited, typically by fuel.
OTOH if you learn that your destination is closed when you are several hours away AFAIK there's never been a requirement to slavishly plod on to any one of your filed alternates (either destination alternate or en-route alternate). In that situation to some extent pre-flight planning, including choice of alternates, that was often done simply to satisfy legal fuel requirements at the original destination, all goes in the bin and you start considering all other options.
Which this was. I would think that a planned alternate somewhere near the original destination would be preferable to having the plane end up half way around the world from it's original schedule. Not to mention the replacement crew that got left behind in New York and subsequent flights planned for that equipment and personnel. All which could have been solved with a few cab/bus rides had LGA or somplace in New Jersey been used for the diversion.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which this was. I would think that a planned alternate somewhere near the original destination would be preferable to having the plane end up half way around the world from it's original schedule. Not to mention the replacement crew that got left behind in New York and subsequent flights planned for that equipment and personnel. All which could have been solved with a few cab/bus rides had LGA or somplace in New Jersey been used for the diversion.
There is no reason why the Port Authority does not have a back plan in their pocket ready for exactly the kind of situation they faced here. It would include diverting a select number of long range inbound flights to SWF, processing passengers through immigration and customs, and bussing them south to NYC, about a 90 minute ride to Manhattan. Any flight still reasonably close to their origin could return, and perhaps some other flights could be diverted to EWR, BOS or PHL. There are 11 gates at Terminal 1. I don't know how many total flight operations occur out of there on a daily basis, but it has to be possible to have a backup plan that could handle it.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a typical story of long haul (ULH in this instance). Solution to land at Philly, EWR etc would suit most of the passengers on this particular flight better but the implications to the whole network will be there for a good 7 if not 14 days, with a good probability of making literally thousands of passengers unhappy. There is a general rule to try to isolate the problem where it is and carry on. One missed round trip (with airplane and crew in position) is way much better than a cascade of delays and cancellations. Same applies to rebookings - no ticketed pax will be denied boarding in AKL next day just because you have a full load of pax from yesterday's return awaiting their flight.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a typical story of long haul (ULH in this instance). Solution to land at Philly, EWR etc would suit most of the passengers on this particular flight better but the implications to the whole network will be there for a good 7 if not 14 days, with a good probability of making literally thousands of passengers unhappy. There is a general rule to try to isolate the problem where it is and carry on. One missed round trip (with airplane and crew in position) is way much better than a cascade of delays and cancellations. Same applies to rebookings - no ticketed pax will be denied boarding in AKL next day just because you have a full load of pax from yesterday's return awaiting their flight.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what about the full load of passengers sitting in NY awaiting a flight to AKL where there is no aircraft now? Do they spread those passengers on either empty seats available for the next few day or re-book them on another carrier? I guess the real question is when will the airline industry get to using AI to help figure this all out. It's much more complicated than the average traveler realizes.
Which this was. I would think that a planned alternate somewhere near the original destination would be preferable to having the plane end up half way around the world from it's original schedule. Not to mention the replacement crew that got left behind in New York and subsequent flights planned for that equipment and personnel. All which could have been solved with a few cab/bus rides had LGA or somplace in New Jersey been used for the diversion.
How long did the JFK terminal end up being closed for? Does anyone know?
The "commercial message" sent to the pax on board and those waiting to depart JFK back to Auckland has been: "we, the company, don't care about all of you but we do for all our future passengers"... that is all those still sitting unaware at home. I think that could have originated by a panicking atmosphere at the company OCC. I am sure they will earn a mention in the Guinnes Book of Records next edition.
Last edited by capricorn23; 21st Feb 2023 at 10:30.
Thread Starter
One of the downsides of a return to base is that, whereas if you divert en-route all the Ops team are scrambling to get accommodation, onward flights, relief crews, etc to move you on, go back to base and it's not their problem any more, over to Reservations, back of the queue, no seats for the next three days, just squeeze you in wherever.