Malpensa v Linate - technical diversion
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
Malpensa v Linate - technical diversion
I see BA570 diverted to Malpensa from Linate due to a technical issue
Would this be because it was felt the engineers available at Malpensa were better able to resolve the problem?
Would this be because it was felt the engineers available at Malpensa were better able to resolve the problem?
Last edited by scottishpoet; Oct 21, 2018 at 4:59 am
#2
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Maastricht, unless I'm out.
Programs: BAEC, Flying Blue, Eurostar, Miles&Smiles
Posts: 320
I think your 'from' and 'to' are the wrong way round.
Assume you meant into Malpensa not Linate? If so would imagine its just more flight options at Malpensa than at little Linate.
Assume you meant into Malpensa not Linate? If so would imagine its just more flight options at Malpensa than at little Linate.
#3
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,556
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Very much doubt that dispatchers working with ATC make diversion decisions based on rerouting alternatives.
An aircraft at takeoff is almost certainly too heavy to land back at a smaller airport. The longer the runway the less time it has to spend in the air and the less fuel it has to dump (a last resort for emergencies). Thus, diverting to a longer runway will always be a priority if all other factors are at least equal.
An aircraft at takeoff is almost certainly too heavy to land back at a smaller airport. The longer the runway the less time it has to spend in the air and the less fuel it has to dump (a last resort for emergencies). Thus, diverting to a longer runway will always be a priority if all other factors are at least equal.
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
I would assume the fuel used from LHR to Linate and Malpensa would be roughly the same so I doubt the reason for the diversion to Malpensa was it being too fuel heavy toward the end of the flight
#9
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
Very much doubt that dispatchers working with ATC make diversion decisions based on rerouting alternatives.
An aircraft at takeoff is almost certainly too heavy to land back at a smaller airport. The longer the runway the less time it has to spend in the air and the less fuel it has to dump (a last resort for emergencies). Thus, diverting to a longer runway will always be a priority if all other factors are at least equal.
An aircraft at takeoff is almost certainly too heavy to land back at a smaller airport. The longer the runway the less time it has to spend in the air and the less fuel it has to dump (a last resort for emergencies). Thus, diverting to a longer runway will always be a priority if all other factors are at least equal.
A320s can’t dump fuel.
In the event of a failure affecting landing performance there are a big set of tables which give the new landing distance required. There’s a strong possibility that Linate would be too short for some of these failures especially as there is pretty much normally a tailwind at Linate.
Last edited by Jumbodriver; Oct 21, 2018 at 7:18 am
#11
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,169
Was it a technical issue with the plane, or a situation such as fog? MXP isn't as affected by it as LIN, for instance.
From an engineering point of view, both airports are now outsourced. I think in both cases the line maintenance is provided by Alitalia; their engineers are usually quite good. MXP also has the advantage of a fully-equipped hangar, owned and used by Lufthansa Technik, where they do Line and service checks on EasyJet and various carriers; I don't know, however, if BA has any agreement there with LHT besides the usual spares sharing system.
From an engineering point of view, both airports are now outsourced. I think in both cases the line maintenance is provided by Alitalia; their engineers are usually quite good. MXP also has the advantage of a fully-equipped hangar, owned and used by Lufthansa Technik, where they do Line and service checks on EasyJet and various carriers; I don't know, however, if BA has any agreement there with LHT besides the usual spares sharing system.
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
according to thebasource it was a technical diversion
return flight was cancelled, aircraft may still be on the ground in Milan but is scheduled to go to reykjavik tomorrow morning
return flight was cancelled, aircraft may still be on the ground in Milan but is scheduled to go to reykjavik tomorrow morning
#13
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,149
#14
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,085
Really? Why would that be? What about other Airbus aircraft?
Sorry to batter your with questions.
I can totally understand why they'd divert from Linate. It is in the middle of a large housing development and very close to downtown. MXP is miles from anywhere and has long runways. If there was a problem, the one runway was bocked, Linate would close. It would have no option.
#15
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301