Diversions after fire in JFK terminal
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.
Have to say that from having listened to some personal accounts over the years IMHO it's highly risky thinking diverting, especially somewhere well offline, will immediately get you the instant undivided attention of Ops staff and others back at base......I understand the logic behind thinking that but it's quite possible you, your flight deck colleagues and the cabin crew will end up as being "it" as far as the passengers are concerned for an undetermined period of time........
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have diverted several times with my single or twin aisle aircraft now and I find this turn back to Auckland completely stupid!!! It was maybe better for ops and beancounters but ANZ forgot why passengers pay a ticket : arrive at destination, or near, and on time, more or less.
Here ANZ didn’t care they Had PAX to NY. And what about the ones for the return flight ? I understand they must all be very angry!
Yes, an alternate is exactly for that !
FBW390
Here ANZ didn’t care they Had PAX to NY. And what about the ones for the return flight ? I understand they must all be very angry!
Yes, an alternate is exactly for that !
FBW390
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.
I would then suggest ANZ to cancel the concept of destination alternate , so they would spare fuel and make sure of no delay in the operations... diversion will be carried out only enroute and always back home. After all, the enroute airports diversion for emergencies are not so frequent.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would then suggest ANZ to cancel the concept of destination alternate , so they would spare fuel and make sure of no delay in the operations... diversion will be carried out only enroute and always back home. After all, the enroute airports diversion for emergencies are not so frequent.
ps i don’t think you can divert an international (non-Canada) flight to LGA unless it is an emergency
Last edited by CargoOne; 21st Feb 2023 at 23:44.
I have to say I find the decision curious. I get there are a lot of balls in the air but EWR is only 30 minutes from JFK and PHL is only 90 minutes. I hope ANZ does a serious and honest post mortem on this. I get decisions have to to be made in a short time frame.
Looking at the schedule the plane arrives at JFK @ 1740 and the return departs 2 hours later. Would they use the same plane to return? That seems a very tight turnaround.
It is 12 hours are the other end.
Flight time are 16 hours inbound and 18 hours outbound. What are the FDL's for such a flight?
The other part of the decision was they had about 8 hours to see what developed at JFK. Do you take the chance things will clear up?
Must have been interesting to be in the room while decisions were made. Does anyone know how long it took to make the decision.?
Looking at the schedule the plane arrives at JFK @ 1740 and the return departs 2 hours later. Would they use the same plane to return? That seems a very tight turnaround.
It is 12 hours are the other end.
Flight time are 16 hours inbound and 18 hours outbound. What are the FDL's for such a flight?
The other part of the decision was they had about 8 hours to see what developed at JFK. Do you take the chance things will clear up?
Must have been interesting to be in the room while decisions were made. Does anyone know how long it took to make the decision.?
Thread Starter
This flight (16 Feb) runs just three times a week. The previous outbound flight from Auckland to JFK, three days before (13 Feb), had also been cancelled, so the return to base was doubtless carrying a good few who had been displaced from that, and were having their second gross disruption. One would have thought some extra effort would now be made to get there, or as close as reasonable. Those passengers had, for the second time, now had their expensive New York hotel stays and other arrangements on arrival, invariably prepaid and unrecoverable nowadays, wasted again.
ANZ probably just alienated 250+ pax and their families. Golly. An RTB that ends up with an extended duty period to return to A seems like a less than optimal solution. There are dozens of airports ENR that ANZ could have lobbed into, rather than do a ground hog day repeat. Between spending more than 16 hrs to get to the starting point or going for another 3 after 8 and taking a rest at a best western and then moving along 24 hrs later would have seemed like a good use of heartbeats, cycles and CO2. Kiwis are pretty laid back, but.... wait, they are the ones that do the Haka thingy, top people with green rock things... don't like underarm bowlers... win yacht races...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Rockies
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe it’s appropriate to think about this in terms of the number of passengers whose flights would have been impacted if the plane continued vs. turned back. Forcing a customer to spend 16 hours in a coach seat is real physical abuse compared to cancelling someone’s flight three days in the future.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that they were several hours away, was it really impossible to get the new crew and plane to meet in an airport within kicking distance of JFK. It all sounds like a could not be bothered lets turn it around...
Simple view from a back seat passenger I accept.
Simple view from a back seat passenger I accept.
For a simple diversion (land, taxi to an empty ramp in a corner of the airport, sit there for x-many hours with the passengers remaining in their seats until the new crew arrives) it is not too difficult (probably). And obviously in a true emergency (serious aircraft problem, 9-11) one does what one has to do, both in the air and on the ground.
But if the passengers are going to leave the aircraft (just to stretch their legs, or go to a hotel, or catch ongoing domestic US flights), see paragraph one.
Now, if it were me personally running ANZ ops, I might have diverted to Chicago (closest airport where ANZ regularly provides service from Auckland and has at least a part-time gate and either employees or rented ground service providers on site) and assumed a small terminal fire would only cause a couple of hours delay.
Takes more than just aircraft crew to handle an airliner at an airport. Ground crew (customer service, baggage handlers - in the US, these are generally airline employees, not airport employees), fuel service (generally contracted per airport for cheapest price), gate assignment, possibly assigned landing slot (pre-arranged time/date appointment to use the airport). And for international flights (as this was) customs and immigration/security staff (who want to have manifests on all the passengers on board, well before landing).
For a simple diversion (land, taxi to an empty ramp in a corner of the airport, sit there for x-many hours with the passengers remaining in their seats until the new crew arrives) it is not too difficult (probably). And obviously in a true emergency (serious aircraft problem, 9-11) one does what one has to do, both in the air and on the ground.
But if the passengers are going to leave the aircraft (just to stretch their legs, or go to a hotel, or catch ongoing domestic US flights), see paragraph one.
Now, if it were me personally running ANZ ops, I might have diverted to Chicago (closest airport where ANZ regularly provides service from Auckland and has at least a part-time gate and either employees or rented ground service providers on site) and assumed a small terminal fire would only cause a couple of hours delay.
For a simple diversion (land, taxi to an empty ramp in a corner of the airport, sit there for x-many hours with the passengers remaining in their seats until the new crew arrives) it is not too difficult (probably). And obviously in a true emergency (serious aircraft problem, 9-11) one does what one has to do, both in the air and on the ground.
But if the passengers are going to leave the aircraft (just to stretch their legs, or go to a hotel, or catch ongoing domestic US flights), see paragraph one.
Now, if it were me personally running ANZ ops, I might have diverted to Chicago (closest airport where ANZ regularly provides service from Auckland and has at least a part-time gate and either employees or rented ground service providers on site) and assumed a small terminal fire would only cause a couple of hours delay.
Cost wise, cheaper to divert onwards. Disruption wise, a lower recovery period. Value? 250 grateful pax for the effort of the airline, rain, hail, shine, neither fire nor flood etc. Instead, the punters get the same pleasure again, if they are lucky. Given that the flight had been canned 3 days prior, the sensitivity to perception alone should have added weight to putting the pax proximate to their intended destination.
A lot of understanding from those who have done it , less from others .
Traditionally an airline ticket would take you from A to B , but no guarantee as to when .
As others implied . Flight plan diversions go out of the window when it's Commercial diversion decisions .
It does not have to be Long Haul , and in this case Ultra Long Haul [ whole set of other problems ] .
Highlands and Islands Ops , if you could not get into the Island , then back to Glasgow , no good diverting from Stornoway to Benbecula .
Moscow ops , back in the day an a/c was shuttling back and forth from Helsinki to Moscow .. Henceforth not getting into Moscow meant back to LHR .
Ops normally have the bigger picture , with Capt having overiding decision . i.e. PNR to base passed.
Last month a BBQ in NZ chatting with ANZ crews .. The JFK route is still learning , and ULH as said . 5 hrs ETOPs is used by ANZ , depressurisation fuel often needed . And if forecast winds poor on JFK-AKL , well ahead of the day , crews have to be deadheaded to Nandi in case the direct lobs in .
All in all , difficult challenges for Ops and Crew . Who over 50 yrs observations are professionals trying to do their best .
rgds condor .
Traditionally an airline ticket would take you from A to B , but no guarantee as to when .
As others implied . Flight plan diversions go out of the window when it's Commercial diversion decisions .
It does not have to be Long Haul , and in this case Ultra Long Haul [ whole set of other problems ] .
Highlands and Islands Ops , if you could not get into the Island , then back to Glasgow , no good diverting from Stornoway to Benbecula .
Moscow ops , back in the day an a/c was shuttling back and forth from Helsinki to Moscow .. Henceforth not getting into Moscow meant back to LHR .
Ops normally have the bigger picture , with Capt having overiding decision . i.e. PNR to base passed.
Last month a BBQ in NZ chatting with ANZ crews .. The JFK route is still learning , and ULH as said . 5 hrs ETOPs is used by ANZ , depressurisation fuel often needed . And if forecast winds poor on JFK-AKL , well ahead of the day , crews have to be deadheaded to Nandi in case the direct lobs in .
All in all , difficult challenges for Ops and Crew . Who over 50 yrs observations are professionals trying to do their best .
rgds condor .
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: stuttgart
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of understanding from those who have done it , less from others .
Traditionally an airline ticket would take you from A to B , but no guarantee as to when .
As others implied . Flight plan diversions go out of the window when it's Commercial diversion decisions .
It does not have to be Long Haul , and in this case Ultra Long Haul [ whole set of other problems ] .
Highlands and Islands Ops , if you could not get into the Island , then back to Glasgow , no good diverting from Stornoway to Benbecula .
Moscow ops , back in the day an a/c was shuttling back and forth from Helsinki to Moscow .. Henceforth not getting into Moscow meant back to LHR .
Ops normally have the bigger picture , with Capt having overiding decision . i.e. PNR to base passed.
Last month a BBQ in NZ chatting with ANZ crews .. The JFK route is still learning , and ULH as said . 5 hrs ETOPs is used by ANZ , depressurisation fuel often needed . And if forecast winds poor on JFK-AKL , well ahead of the day , crews have to be deadheaded to Nandi in case the direct lobs in .
All in all , difficult challenges for Ops and Crew . Who over 50 yrs observations are professionals trying to do their best .
rgds condor .
Traditionally an airline ticket would take you from A to B , but no guarantee as to when .
As others implied . Flight plan diversions go out of the window when it's Commercial diversion decisions .
It does not have to be Long Haul , and in this case Ultra Long Haul [ whole set of other problems ] .
Highlands and Islands Ops , if you could not get into the Island , then back to Glasgow , no good diverting from Stornoway to Benbecula .
Moscow ops , back in the day an a/c was shuttling back and forth from Helsinki to Moscow .. Henceforth not getting into Moscow meant back to LHR .
Ops normally have the bigger picture , with Capt having overiding decision . i.e. PNR to base passed.
Last month a BBQ in NZ chatting with ANZ crews .. The JFK route is still learning , and ULH as said . 5 hrs ETOPs is used by ANZ , depressurisation fuel often needed . And if forecast winds poor on JFK-AKL , well ahead of the day , crews have to be deadheaded to Nandi in case the direct lobs in .
All in all , difficult challenges for Ops and Crew . Who over 50 yrs observations are professionals trying to do their best .
rgds condor .
An observation - somewhere between 300 and 330 minutes ETOPS means that you can fly the most optimum routing between pretty much any two city pairs (it varies slightly between aircraft due to the differences in engine out cruise speed). 180 minute ETOPS means you can fly between any two city pairs, but the routing may not be optimal due to the need to stay within the necessary alternate distance.
