AA FLT#194 diverted to STL due to unruly passenger
 

Hi all,

I heard the news about AA FLT#194 has diverted to STL due to unruly passenger, but they removed him from the flight. The flight will continue to London.

https://www.azfamily.com/news/flight-from-phoenix-to-london-diverted-to-st-louis-due/article_f7ba83ec-be3d-11e9-87e0-5b1a6f3b42f6.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=ema il&utm_campaign=user-share

An annoyance for the other ruly passengers, especially those with connections... The AA T3 -> T5 change can't come soon enough!

Flight aware shows the flight turning SE towards STL from NE Missouri. It almost looks like ORD was the same distance diversion wise. Wonder why they wouldn’t fly to their hub instead.

If I understand flightaware correctly they managed diversion, removing pax and continuation with only a 1.5h delay. So well done to AA and good choice to use STL
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...3802dd742b.png

It looks like the turn(decision) was made over Milan, Missouri. That is 298miles/479KM from Chicago. Distance to St. Louis is 178miles/278km.
For reference Des Moines, DSM is 95miles

I think the StL choice was made - close and the traffic at STl these days is bare bones -easy in -

Also, Missouri takes their Law Enforcement Serious - compared to Chicago



2019 cities: ATH, CLT, DCA, DFW, DSM, FLL, IAH, LAS, LHR, LIT, MIA, MSP, ORD, STL, YWG, YYZ

STL was a bit closer to their diversion point than ORD was, however, it's farther from LHR, so an interesting compromise in terms of getting the unruly pax off quickly versus total trip time. DSM was closer still, but runway length or other facilities may have been a factor in terms of resuming the flight to LHR. It was on the ground at STL for almost an hour and a half.

Great Circle Mapper

ETA: FLL88 beat me to it...

These decisions are made by Operations based on the facts immediately available. If an aircraft is diverted for an "unruly" passenger and STL was selected, it was likely a significantly unruly passenger. Both Ops and the Captain are well aware of the distance and flight time to all nearby diversion points.

Besides, I am not sure why a hub vs. non-hub matters for this purpose. So long as the runways can handle the aircraft and, secondarily, AA has a presence, the task here was about law enforcement removing a passenger, presumably taking on some fuel, and departing.

Likely the most time-consuming function here was law enforcement taking appropriate witness statements so that the unruly passenger can be dealt with on the ground.

wonder if they will charge the "unruly" passenger for the cost of diversion?
probably not, but they should...

Landing and takeoff slots at ORD are tightly controlled, whereas (as other posters have mentioned) STL has very little traffic these days.

There's also the matter of where to park the plane while the passenger is deplaned and additional fuel added. ORD has major construction at the eastern end of the field where the International carrier hardstands usually are. Depending on how many planes were parked over there (I usually spot at least one Etihad bird), there may not have been room, and the area around T3 is already congested enough without adding a 772 to the mix.

~178 miles is about the perfect distance to an airport from cruise altitude to just drop right in. You could almost go from cruise to landing without turning if you were lined up with the runway, lol.

Must have been amazing to see a commercial heavy at STL. When is the last time they saw one? A TW 762? :D

DSM has two 9,000 foot runways. Probably long enough for a 777. However, I would guess that there is just more infrastructure, law enforcement, etc. at STL.

According to Wikipedia, AA flew STL-London through 2003:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lo...tional_Airport

Tell that to David Dao... :eek: