remyontheroad

This just makes me think about hardstands to use in a pinch?
I can't remember the last time I've had one at JFK and don't fly much out of LGA, but the idea that it would be so hard to get pax off an aircraft that they'd divert to another airport seems pretty hard to believe to me.

readywhenyouare

MikeNYC1

I'm well aware of 767-400 operations at LGA. You made a blanket statement that LGA can handle a 767-400. I'm qualifying that statement by saying "yes, but only under certain conditions".

LGA could handle an 747-8i under certain conditions too, as long as it doesn't use the taxiways or gates, etc. My point is that just because an airport has received a certain aircraft in the past, doesn't mean it's the best diversion airport in emergency conditions.

FlyBitcoin

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n277sy

The aircraft did not hop on over to LGA once space opened up so it could be ready for its next day operation.
So, yes mechanical for any one of the reasons mentioned here makes a lot of sense.

Glad everyone arrived safely.

Proudelitist

The mechanical issue may not have been with your aircraft, but with one at the scheduled gate, meaning that aircraft would be there a long time and there were no other gates available.

ChiefNWA

A little birdie told me that 3834 diverted partly due to a mechanical and partly due to airport conditions/weather being an issue DUE TO the mechanical (hence why other flights landed with no issue). The mechanic issue made it so that it was unsafe to land in LGA given the airport's current condition, therefore they diverted to JFK.

Could've easily been a brake issue, hydraulics, flaps, thrust reversers, etc.

It's humorous how people assume the airline is out to get you. I assure you, it's no fun for the crew (nor is it cheap) to divert a flight and cancel the following leg. All to what, stick it to the customer?

BusTrav8yrs

Dang, could have earned an extra 10 MQM's on that flight.

adstockton

The 764 was literally designed to be able to fly into LGA

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2001-05...uardia-Airport

Often1

The notion that some front line agent working the Twitter account would have knowledge of or access to knowledge of and could then provide that in a meaningful manner is ludicrous.

This whole thread is yet another product of growing social media need to sensationalize the unsensational.

How about, "thanks to DL for getting me onto the ground safely."

BenA

readywhenyouare

Zorak

I will cop to being an ignorant layperson as to the merits of the discussion, but as a meta thing, "perfectly capable of handling" and "under the circumstances we prefer to have more buffer" seem like two different sets of considerations to me so I can understand how there could be a case for landing at JFK.

We also all know who would be practically soiling themselves with glee in the rush to second guess DL and the pilots if they had decided to land with known issues at LGA and had an overrun etc.

steve64

I can remember AA flying DC-10s at LGA. On top of normal weigh-n-balance planning, we had to watch the weight "footprint" and keep the weight more rearwards ... keep the weight on the mains where it was distributed across more wheels, keeping the 2 wheeled nose gear lighter than normal. The problem wasn't with landing, it was the taxiways. A special condition required to operate a specific aircraft at a specific airport.

Other aircraft types no doubt have some conditions to be met to be able to operate at LGA.
The fact that 767-400s, meeting whatever their conditions are, can (and indeed do) operate at LGA has absolutely zero relevance on whether or not a given E-175 can land there. If the E-175 has developed a mechanical issue that violates one of its "LGA conditions", then the plane is diverting, plain and simple. I'm not sure why we brought the 767-400 into the discussion.

Other points to ponder....

• Just because the "big" plane can do it doesn't mean that all smaller planes can do it too. Big plane also has bigger engines (more power), longer wing span, etc to compensate. A better comparison would be the power-to-weight ratio. I believe the 757 is still the winner here.
• LGA's 7000ft runways, while not the longest in the world, are not exactly the shortest either. What LGA does lack is over-run area. Going beyond the end of the runway and the short over-run has more serious implications here than at most airports.
• Crosswinds ?? The E-175 is a great airplane, but I've heard one of its shortcomings is in handling crosswind landings. I didn't take the time to study LGA's runway heading vs JFK's vs reported winds, but winter winds play havoc on airlines ops in more ways than one.

Dawgfan6291

possible but unlikely they would divert for this. Worst case they would hand stand park and deplane using steps and bus to the terminal.
An issue like this will 99.9% always be either runway contamination/performance issues or a MX issue and the pilot/company/ATC/MTC want the safety of the (much) longer runways at JFK/EWR.

On top of this, Delta has better MX options at JFK, namely free hangar space. LGA hangar space lives and dies on American having an open bay. While Delta technically doesn't have a hangar at JFK, JFK has plenty of empty hangars Delta can get ahold of as needed. (of course none of this has to do with the aircraft in question because it was DCI)


this isn't really an opinion thing. People are telling you facts. Airplanes with things like brake, flaps, hydros, T/Rs, landing gear.....etc issues are going to divert to JFK(or EWR) for the longer runway(s). The same thing happens at airport like DCA(goes to BWI or IAD), SNA/BUR/LGB (goes to LAX, jetBlue made this famous), MDW (goes to ORD) etc. etc.
No rational person thinks they have a problem slowing down the airplane and says "eh, I'll take a 7,000 foot runway over a 14,000 foot runway because the plane should be able to handle it"

So you can buy it......or ignore facts. *shrug*
wrong again.
exactly.
No human with a single functioning brain cell is going to land an airplane with braking issues on a runway that is 7,000ft long (and a city or water at the end) over one that is 12-14K long unless they absolutely have to. (ie, can't make it to JFK or EWR)
none of this has anything at all to do with the flight in question. Normal operations aren't the same as an aircraft with an issue.

As per normal, you are taking one small example and think the entire world of aviation revolves around that one little thing. A 767 taking off or preforming a RTO at LGA has literally nothing to do with a E75 coming in from Huston diverting to JFK. There are several factors that play into the captain making that decision and I can promise you, he certainly didn't think about what you are saying before making the call.
exactly. Its typical for braking issues to divert to JFK or EWR over LGA, especially in the winter. No one wants to do it.
No one is suggesting this. As per normal, you posted something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and when corrected multiple times by people who actually know what they are talking about, you are just doubling down and seeing what you want to see.

Any pilot worth anything is always going to pick the longer runway with more space over a shorter runway on a congested airfield if they have any kind of issue with stopping. A 767-400ER being able to operate out of LGA has nothing to do with the flight in question.
and you would be correct.

If you are in a car that is showing signs of the brakes having issues do you want 3 feet to stop or 50 feet? im guessing most votes will be for 50.

readywhenyouare