[email protected]

I have probably taken an American 737 from Dallas to Orange County 30 or 40 times.

On Sunday, the plane left Dallas on time and was, as always, a full flight . The flight proceeded normally and we began to descend somewhere around the Colorado River. The pilot pointed out the lights of Yuma, Palm Springs, and said we should be getting over Riverside in the next few minutes. Then the plane started to turn right and went into a holding pattern. The pilot announced that we were being diverted to LAX because "this plane" (his emphasis) is too heavy to land at Orange County in the rain. Since my wife was waiting for me at Orange County she knew it was indeed raining. This was a new one reason to divert to me.

The plane was one of the new 737s with LED interior lights. I was wondering if there is any difference in technical specifications, landing weight, runway requirements, or anything else between the newer 737s and the old ones? As I said, I have landed at Orange County many, many times on both ones, rain or shine. Once or twice in 30 years we have been diverted to LAX by fog, but that was not the issue Sunday. A few times we arrived after the curfew and went to LAX.

Of course, since LAX was not ready for us, it took a full hour to get a gate, pull up to the gate and for the luggage to arrive. Buses were provided to take the passengers to Orange County, but they would have arrived there after everything is closed!. I overheard others in first class talking with their business partners whom they were planning to meet at Orange County. Others indicated that their planes had landed from other carriers, rain or not.

Does anybody know what is really going on here? Are the new 737s different somehow?

JDiver

The weight the pilot was likely referring to the gross weight (including cargo, passengers and fuel), and operational weight, or MLW (maximum landing weight for those conditions, which sound like they were going to be exceeded) given the relatively short runway length, density altitude, noise abatement procedures and approach, landing (including breaking) requirements at that time with wet runway at SNA.

upinsmoke

About the only flights I've seen people being IDB'ed are DFW-SNA and ORD-SNA when it's raining in SNA, because the flights need to go out with less people and luggage. So yes, a fully loaded 738 is not legal to land at SNA under certain weather conditions.

IceTrojan

Did AA arrange for a bus to take pax to SNA? Taxi vouchers?

VickiSoCal

The Op said there was a bus. Whenever this has happened to us we prefer to arrange own transportation if possible. Usually I'm picking up so I'll just head to LAX or we'll cab home from there. Only real hassle is if yiu left car at SNA

CPRich

Different passenger load, different fuel load, different model, different interior, etc - all drive a different weight. Total weight and runway friction levels determine (mostly) whether a plane can land safely within its operational parameters.

I doubt the pilots and/or flight operations decided to divert to LAX just for fun, because it would improve operations, etc. Other flights being able to land don't affect the calculations on "that plane". If it was outside of the safe parameters, they diverted.

jerryss

I was on 1278 dfw-sna on Sunday.

In dfw the pilot told us that there was a chance that we would divert to lax if the rain got worse. His explained that it was because of the extra short runway.

Needless to say, there were a lot of concerned passengers for the entire 3 hour ride.

When we landed in sna, we hit the ground a bit hard, and stopped very quickly.

IceTrojan

Time to put the 405 below grade and extend the runway into the Main Street Lot!

Robt760

It's happened to me once, about 8 years ago,but not due to rain, but it was approximately 9:30pm. We were descending over Yorba Linda, then the decent stopped over I-91. The captain announced that due to the airplane configuration, we would have to land at LAX.

Somebody explained that the flaps configuration has to be per-programed into the flight system at a certain point, or they have to go around or divert.

Not a fun experience...having to wait for gate, staff, bus, baggage, and SNA is shut down by 11:30.

I would presume it's not common, but possible, depending on all of the factors that everybody has mentioned.

DenverBrian

Orange County citizens had every chance to rectify those pesky short runways by relocating to El Toro. That didn't go over very well.

One of the many tradeoffs of having super convenient airports in the middle of developed areas is that you usually are dealing with extra short runways. And that means that sometimes diversions will have to occur.

Often1

The alternative is to build a new huge airport in the middle of nowhere. Not something any carrier does lightly. Needless to say, either AA had to ferry the aircraft over to SNA (an expensive proposition) or cancel the frequency which the aircraft was scheduled to fly x SNA (an expensive proposition). Thus, not taken lightly.

It's all a binary decision. Land vs. no land. Not a policy or customer service issue at all.

Sounds as if AA handled it as well as could have been handled.

CPRich

Why ? Do you not believe SNA has a short runway? Or do you think the pilot shouldn't have provided the information he had?

JDiver

What, you want a pilot to endanger passenger safety by landing on a short (5,700 ft) runway under unfavorable conditions? Say you make it - pilot rusks ~150 lives and his / her license. Say you don't make it...

Image of American Airlines flight AA331 which crash landed overnight on a flight from Miami to Jamaica, just beyond the runway of Norman Manley International Airport, in Kingston Jamaica, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. More than 40 people were injured, at least 4 seriously, and there were no fatalities, according to officials, after the plane overshot the runway in Jamaica when it landed in heavy rain. (AP Photo/Lloyd Robinson)

C17PSGR

Keep in mind that's its very expensive for an aircraft to divert like this. AA had to charter buses at the last minute and then had to fly an empty aircraft from LAX to SNA.

If its not legal (think all the calculations that go into stopping an aircraft and then add extra margin of safety), then the pilot can't land. In that scenario, the dispatch folks are usually saying can't do it. Even if legal, the pilot can still say, it's too close of a call.

Lots of aircraft have run out of runway over the years ... no reason to take that chance.

FWAAA

From a cursory glance at the Boeing performance charts for a 738, 5,700 feet of runway is way more than enough when dry but at certain weights, not quite enough when wet.

To answer the OP's question, there is no difference between the early-delivered 738s (1999-02) and the more recent (2009-current) 738s in the area of landing field requirements.

Add in wind speed and direction, other pilots' reports of braking effectiveness, whether the AA plane was light or rather heavy, and I can't second-guess the captain. No pilot wants to command the next AA flight to run out of runway on a rainy night (like Kingston or Little Rock, among others). Safety first.