Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other partners) - LH435 diverted to Newark

On 3 July LH 435 from ORD to MUC was diverted to Newark. It continued to MUC after four hours. Does anyone know why?
Flightaware shows that there were two other landing options, YUL and JFK:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH435/history

Amadeus shows the following flight data:

O'Hare International (ORD), Chicago, Illinois, USA 14:10 LEFT THE GATE
O'Hare International (ORD), Chicago, Illinois, USA 14:23 TOOK OFF
Newark Liberty Intl (EWR), New York, New Jersey, USA 18:41 AIRCRAFT LANDED
Newark Liberty Intl (EWR), New York, New Jersey, USA 18:50 ARRIVED
Newark Liberty Intl (EWR), New York, New Jersey, USA 22:27 LEFT THE GATE
Newark Liberty Intl (EWR), New York, New Jersey, USA 22:44 TOOK OFF
Franz Josef Strauss (MUC), Munich, Germany 05:29 ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL
Franz Josef Strauss (MUC), Munich, Germany 11:40 ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL
Franz Josef Strauss (MUC), Munich, Germany 11:42 AIRCRAFT LANDED
Franz Josef Strauss (MUC), Munich, Germany 11:51 ARRIVED


Planned Flight Information
Airport Arriving Day Departing Day Meal Elapsed Flying Time
O'Hare International (ORD), Chicago, Illinois, USA - - 14:10 Tuesday Yes 3h10min
Newark Liberty Intl (EWR), New York, New Jersey, USA 18:20 Tuesday 19:50 Tuesday Yes 8h10min
Franz Josef Strauss (MUC), Munich, Germany 10:00 Wednesday - - -

Probably they were looking for alternative airports while figuring out the emergency and filed flight plans for each, hence the various destinations.
Flightstats has a better overview:
http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=96761523&airlineCode=LH&flightNumber=435

Its interesting to see a ORD-MUC to come that close to NYC...normally all ORD-Europe flights head straight north and cross via halifax-greenland-island and I can't imagine ATC would have an emergency landing in NYC.

Probably they were looking for alternative airports while figuring out the emergency and filed flight plans for each, hence the various destinations.
Flightstats has a better overview:
http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?&id=96761523&airlineCode=LH&flightNumber=435

Its interesting to see a ORD-MUC to come that close to NYC...normally all ORD-Europe flights head straight north and cross via halifax-greenland-island and I can't imagine ATC would have an emergency landing in NYC.

I'd checked Flightstats before, but it only shows estimated arrival times, without listing the alternative airports.

ORD-MUC often heads north, but it's interesting that today it is taking a southern direction:
http://travel.flightexplorer.com/skylineglobe/flight.aspx?guid=79a8afe0-6568-4255-b624-1c2a0e9cc588&acid=DLH435
from http://travel.flightexplorer.com/trackFlight.aspx
(write DLH435, rather than LH435)

I'd checked Flightstats before, but it only shows estimated arrival times, without listing the alternative airports.

ORD-MUC often heads north, but it's interesting that today it is taking a southern direction:
http://travel.flightexplorer.com/skylineglobe/flight.aspx?guid=79a8afe0-6568-4255-b624-1c2a0e9cc588&acid=DLH435
from http://travel.flightexplorer.com/trackFlight.aspx
(write DLH435, rather than LH435)

:confused: It's flying over northern MI, ontario and QC as usual, although a tad bit south.

normally all ORD-Europe flights head straight north and cross via halifax-greenland-island... .

:confused: It's flying over northern MI, ontario and QC as usual, although a tad bit south.

Tonight it is flying very, very far from Greenland, will not fly over Iceland or even Ireland/England, and will enter Europe via France.

Coming back to the topic, we still don't know why the flight was diverted two days ago... :)

LH435 passes just over the northern tip of Maine, at least during the summer. There would be a seasonal change because the NAT tracks move north in the winter.

Could have been medical or mechanical. Going to EWR did two things. Made the flight domestic (in case they had to put the passengers up for the night, solved any immigration issues) and got them to a destination where they have maintenance and some extra crew just in case.

I was in EWR on 3 Jul, arriving from FRA, was surprised to see another LH A340... I can confirm from the ground agents that the ORD-MUC went tech - although nothing major

Going to EWR did two things. Made the flight domestic (in case they had to put the passengers up for the night, solved any immigration issues) and got them to a destination where they have maintenance and some extra crew just in case.

Seems a pretty sensible operational decision - sounds like whatever happened, they were able to fix the prob in EWR

LH435 passes just over the northern tip of Maine, at least during the summer. There would be a seasonal change because the NAT tracks move north in the winter.

Could have been medical or mechanical. Going to EWR did two things. Made the flight domestic (in case they had to put the passengers up for the night, solved any immigration issues) and got them to a destination where they have maintenance and some extra crew just in case.

Actually, there are immigration issues even so. Because passengers have officially departed the country once the aircraft takes off, they have to be readmitted to the country when they divert. I had this experience on a United flight ORD - HKG, which had an unscheduled fuel stop in Anchorage, followed by a mechanical failure. This resulted in an overnight in Anchorage, and we all had to go through passport control again in Anchorage. I don't recall what they did for non-visa-waiver passengers as it didn't apply to me, but they did have to do something special to manage it.

I don't recall what they did for non-visa-waiver passengers as it didn't apply to me, but they did have to do something special to manage it.

Well, non-visa-waiver pax obviously had a valid U.S. visa in their passports (even though it might have been single-entry), which should have been fully sufficient in this kind of situation.

Well, non-visa-waiver pax obviously had a valid U.S. visa in their passports (even though it might have been single-entry), which should have been fully sufficient in this kind of situation.

You are using common sense. Something that is not very prevailing wih US imigration officials.......:D:D:D:D

Cheers, S

Well, non-visa-waiver pax obviously had a valid U.S. visa in their passports (even though it might have been single-entry), which should have been fully sufficient in this kind of situation.

Not exactly, how about ORD transit passengers ?
for examply SEN close to HON with mileage earning route: MUC-ORD-HGK ?

this route does not make sense... why ? because there are no LH flights ORD-HGK which you can use for HON miles :)

tomek

Not exactly, how about ORD transit passengers ?


How do you think the got to ORD (which is in the USA) without a visa? Swimming and hiking? :rolleyes:

So much for common sense.

How do you think the got to ORD (which is in the USA) without a visa? Swimming and hiking? :rolleyes:

So much for common sense.

Just an example:
If you travel MUC-ORD-HGK and you do not leave ORD transit area you do not need visa.... -> just a transit.

Just an example:
If you travel MUC-ORD-HGK and you do not leave ORD transit area you do not need visa.... -> just a transit.

Huh?
There is no transit without immigration in the USA.
It does not exist.
At least not on my planet. :cool:
Which one are you from? :)

Huh?
There is no transit without immigration in the USA.
It does not exist.
At least not on my planet. :cool:
Which one are you from? :)

so... can't I just use ORD for transit without visa ?
...there must be a "transit visa"... so how about passenger with transit visa only ?

cheers
tomek

Just an example:
If you travel MUC-ORD-HGK and you do not leave ORD transit area you do not need visa.... -> just a transit.
OK, this is a real challenge for me... Been through ORD quite a few tenths of times within the last years, and this is the first time I ever hear something like that :confused: Probably, I don't pay too much attention to what's going on around me, but I've always had the impression that everyone must pass through immigration, regardless of destination or connection...:confused: Then again, I've never tried to fly from Europe to Asia through the US :o

...there must be a "transit visa"

Cute! Your really ARE from a different planet! :p

Please send your coordinates to Kiwi Flyer, as he'd certainly love to relocate to your solar system.
After all, he's one of those poor souls who really do suffer under the "transit" rules (aka mandatory immigration) of the current U.S. administration (the one in charge on our planet, that is.) ;)

OK, this is a real challenge for me... Been through ORD quite a few tenths of times within the last years, and this is the first time I ever hear something like that :confused: Probably, I don't pay too much attention to what's going on around me, but I've always had the impression that everyone must pass through immigration, regardless of destination or connection...:confused: Then again, I've never tried to fly from Europe to Asia through the US :o

You are right Gens...

http://poland.usembassy.gov/visas/nonimmigrant-visas/visas/niv_transit.html

the transit visa is required...

so... can't I just use ORD for transit without visa ?

Gee, you scared the living c**p out of me! Next time please, try to limit your examples to real life ones @:-)

Well, non-visa-waiver pax obviously had a valid U.S. visa in their passports (even though it might have been single-entry), which should have been fully sufficient in this kind of situation.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that they made them stay on the plane, or anything, but they did something special to keep track of them and make sure that they were back on the plane the next morning. There were a few people who did not get back on the plane in the morning. I don't know if they canceled their trips or re-routed.

There were a few people who did not get back on the plane in the morning.

Guantanamo. :cool:

Guantanamo. :cool:

:D ^

:D ^

Yep, all is good, they got the extra miles.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that they made them stay on the plane, or anything, but they did something special to keep track of them and make sure that they were back on the plane the next morning. There were a few people who did not get back on the plane in the morning. I don't know if they canceled their trips or re-routed.
I was once on a flight JFK-ZRH, that had to turn around after 45mins... i saw no control whatsoever when entering back to the US, nor did i notice any seperation visa vs. waiver or the like.
I also wondered back then what would happen to pax that left on the last day of their visa validity... overstay:confused:

my guess is they compared the pax-lists of next days flights to track all pax, sure cannot be based on the green waiver paper slips from the passport, as quite a few here experienced them being forgotten in their passports when leaving the US&A...

so... can't I just use ORD for transit without visa ?
...there must be a "transit visa"... so how about passenger with transit visa only ?

cheers
tomek

flysurfer is correct! You must go through immigration in the USA .. there is no "transit-by-pass" (anymore)!

I also wondered back then what would happen to pax that left on the last day of their visa validity... overstay:confused:


See post #21.

so... can't I just use ORD for transit without visa ?


no, the transit without visa program was suspended in 2003, link: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/visitors_us/iti_transit.xml

This is a bit OT but even pax travelling on an international connection on the same a/c must clear immigration in US, even if they are only allowed in a secure airside holding cell (eg NZ1/2 LHR-LAX-AKL vv).

Yep, all is good, they got the extra miles.

including 25 % execution bonus.

including 25 % execution bonus.

Yeah, but their miles will probably expire before they get out. :cool:

including 25 % execution bonus.

No executive bonus on US Airforce flights :D:D:D. And not an airline on which you want to attain FF status either :D

cheers, S

No executive bonus on US Airforce flights :D:D:D. And not an airline on which you want to attain FF status either :D

No worries, those flights are basically operated by PrivatAir.

No worries, those flights are basically operated by PrivatAir.

:D

This is a bit OT but even pax travelling on an international connection on the same a/c must clear immigration in US, even if they are only allowed in a secure airside holding cell (eg NZ1/2 LHR-LAX-AKL vv).

Colleague of mine got very angry with his TA, when being on a flight from Europe to Santo Domingo as he was not told that the plane, he was on, makes a stop in Puerto Rico....and of course let's go through immigration and back in the plane.....and the same hassle on the return trip.