Dal3834 diverted from LGA to JFK
Jan 29, 2019, 9:29 pm
#31
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 276
I never stated that choosing JFK over LGA was a bad decision. Please find that quote. All I said was that LGA was quite capable of handling an emergency landing. A rejected takeoff at v1 is one of the most demanding things you can ask of an aircraft. I used the 764 as an illustration to show that LGA isn't some inept airfield that some seem to think it is.
It's not "quite capable of handling", but rather, this is a much better option with much more buffer. Your example of a completely different - albeit much larger - plane rejecting takeoff instead of what actually happened in this scenario, a landing given potential equipment failure, might be factual but has not much to do with this.
I'm wondering if your style of discussion might be better received on a.net? Just a thought..
Jan 29, 2019, 9:38 pm
#32
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SEA
Programs: DL DM, Marriott Amb./LTP
Posts: 287
Sorry but I think you're missing the boat, again.
It's not "quite capable of handling", but rather, this is a much better option with much more buffer. Your example of a completely different - albeit much larger - plane rejecting takeoff instead of what actually happened in this scenario, a landing given potential equipment failure, might be factual but has not much to do with this.
I'm wondering if your style of discussion might be better received on a.net? Just a thought..
When was the last time a 767 was regularly scheduled at LGA, even on a one-off flight?
Jan 29, 2019, 10:06 pm
#33
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,942
He's not, he's just executing the next part of his playbook, which involves walking things back, moving the goalposts, and reframing things to narrow the focus, until his statements can be said to be technically true in a way that is devoid of the original context.
Jan 29, 2019, 10:07 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,374
Jan 29, 2019, 10:24 pm
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Programs: DL DM, SPG Plat
Posts: 696
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?
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?
I reviewed the flight path (no abnormalities-- they weren't circling or anything), and as much atc recordings as I could find (approach and tower comms seemed pretty normal).
So maybe the was an issue, but it seems at least as likely to me that this was operationally efficient for them. In any case, shouldn't they compensate passengers for the inconvenience?
After all, without status we'd have to pay a boatload to change terminals.
Jan 29, 2019, 10:39 pm
#36
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,942
I don't assume that screwing the passengers was.the intent. Aside from your birdie information it seems most likely to me that they wanted the ship at JFK for some reason, and rather than ferry it over, they decided to land it there with a load of non-connecting passengers.
I reviewed the flight path (no abnormalities-- they weren't circling or anything), and as much atc recordings as I could find (approach and tower comms seemed pretty normal).
So maybe the was an issue, but it seems at least as likely to me that this was operationally efficient for them. In any case, shouldn't they compensate passengers for the inconvenience?
After all, without status we'd have to pay a boatload to change terminals.
As to your second point, do we know that they didn't? I've lost track of whether anyone on this thread was actually on the flight. I would imagine claims for ground transportation costs etc. would be reimbursed but it would be interesting to hear from actual pax.
Jan 29, 2019, 11:10 pm
#37
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Programs: DL DM, SPG Plat
Posts: 696
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?
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?
It's possible they simply made a calculated decision, but even if it did turn out favorably for them from an operational standpoint I don't think we can necessarily conclude that's the only reason they did it.
As to your second point, do we know that they didn't? I've lost track of whether anyone on this thread was actually on the flight. I would imagine claims for ground transportation costs etc. would be reimbursed but it would be interesting to hear from actual pax.
As to your second point, do we know that they didn't? I've lost track of whether anyone on this thread was actually on the flight. I would imagine claims for ground transportation costs etc. would be reimbursed but it would be interesting to hear from actual pax.
They offered no compensation. My family member took a car at her own expense (to her final destination since this was simpler than coordinating a new meeting location driving across Queens etc).
As I've been replying tonight, I contacted Delta a second time and they finally offered a reasonable (generous) compensation. But that still took a lot of work. If I didn't do that, and I expect many didn't, I'd have paid for ground transportation out of pocket.
I'm still curious about what happened.
Jan 29, 2019, 11:55 pm
#38
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: DL Diamond 1.7MM, Starlux Insighter, Bonvoy Titanium, Hilton Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,947
A family member of mine was on the flight. Another family member was waiting for her at LGA. They only announced on the plane that they were going to JFK because there were no gates available at LGA.
They offered no compensation. My family member took a car at her own expense (to her final destination since this was simpler than coordinating a new meeting location driving across Queens etc).
As I've been replying tonight, I contacted Delta a second time and they finally offered a reasonable (generous) compensation. But that still took a lot of work. If I didn't do that, and I expect many didn't, I'd have paid for ground transportation out of pocket.
I'm still curious about what happened.
Jan 30, 2019, 12:49 am
#39
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,601
I never stated that choosing JFK over LGA was a bad decision. Please find that quote. All I said was that LGA was quite capable of handling an emergency landing. A rejected takeoff at v1 is one of the most demanding things you can ask of an aircraft. I used the 764 as an illustration to show that LGA isn't some inept airfield that some seem to think it is.
You are comparing apples to a 1944 Ford and getting upset that people are calling you out on it. Your 764 example has nothing to do with anything posted in this thread. Just because an airport can handle X doesn't mean it is the brightest idea to do A at that airport, much less do Z at that airport. An A320 can land on the Hudson without either engine working but I'm guessing you wont find many people at Delta who think all 320 ops in NYC should start using the Hudson as the main runway.
I’ll start the bidding with June 1999 ... departedflights.com pages show Delta 763s arriving from Cincinnati and Ft Lauderdale, both departing to Atlanta
Google turned up a 300ER and a 300 both in 2012. I'm sure there have been others after that.
I don't assume that screwing the passengers was.the intent. Aside from your birdie information it seems most likely to me that they wanted the ship at JFK for some reason, and rather than ferry it over, they decided to land it there with a load of non-connecting passengers.
I reviewed the flight path (no abnormalities-- they weren't circling or anything), and as much atc recordings as I could find (approach and tower comms seemed pretty normal).
So maybe the was an issue, but it seems at least as likely to me that this was operationally efficient for them. In any case, shouldn't they compensate passengers for the inconvenience?
After all, without status we'd have to pay a boatload to change terminals.
My guess is LGA was short of space due to the late hour of the night and/or the airplane had a mechanical issue that they thought was a quick fix that turned out to need more time. Its pretty normal for an issue to come up and maintenance give a ready time in the air, then once the airplane hits the ground the ready times gets pushed back. As advanced as airplanes have become, trouble shooting isn't perfect. Sometimes maintenance control thinks the issue will only take a few minutes to fix and once the mechanic gets into it the minutes turn to hours and can turn to days.
either way, it looks like the airplane did JFK-LGA-GRR the next day. That should hopefully put the idea that Delta just sent the plane to JFK for operational needs to bed.
Jan 30, 2019, 2:15 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,775
Jan 30, 2019, 2:46 am
#41
Join Date: Nov 2009
Programs: DL PM 1MM
Posts: 3,441
A family member of mine was on the flight. Another family member was waiting for her at LGA. They only announced on the plane that they were going to JFK because there were no gates available at LGA.
They offered no compensation. My family member took a car at her own expense (to her final destination since this was simpler than coordinating a new meeting location driving across Queens etc).
As I've been replying tonight, I contacted Delta a second time and they finally offered a reasonable (generous) compensation. But that still took a lot of work. If I didn't do that, and I expect many didn't, I'd have paid for ground transportation out of pocket.
I'm still curious about what happened.
Flightstats has the decision to divert to JFK taking place well into the IAH-JFK flight, more than two hours after departure.
Jan 30, 2019, 6:13 am
#42
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: TPA
Programs: DL Diamond, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,256
I don't assume that screwing the passengers was.the intent. Aside from your birdie information it seems most likely to me that they wanted the ship at JFK for some reason, and rather than ferry it over, they decided to land it there with a load of non-connecting passengers.
I reviewed the flight path (no abnormalities-- they weren't circling or anything), and as much atc recordings as I could find (approach and tower comms seemed pretty normal).
So maybe the was an issue, but it seems at least as likely to me that this was operationally efficient for them. In any case, shouldn't they compensate passengers for the inconvenience?
After all, without status we'd have to pay a boatload to change terminals.
Considering the plane sat around JFK overnight then flew to LGA the next day should put the nail in your 'operational efficiency' coffin.
The lack of compensation, whether that was anecdotally just you or the entire plane, is indeed wrong and should be rectified. I've been in a similar situation flying TPA-LGA with a diversion to JFK for a maintenance issue. We were all offered transportation to LGA, a reroute if connecting or a cab voucher due to the diversion (or offered to wait for the ferry to LGA that never left as the plane sat in JFK for 2 days).
Jan 30, 2019, 9:17 am
#43
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: PHX
Programs: Delta DM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, HHonrs Diamond
Posts: 1,336
Moreover, it ferried back to LGA at 1pm the next day, missing its scheduled LGA departure that morning. So the chances that this was purely operational makes even less sense once you see what happened to that aircraft.
Jan 31, 2019, 6:35 am
#44
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 865
I never stated that choosing JFK over LGA was a bad decision. Please find that quote. All I said was that LGA was quite capable of handling an emergency landing. A rejected takeoff at v1 is one of the most demanding things you can ask of an aircraft. I used the 764 as an illustration to show that LGA isn't some inept airfield that some seem to think it is.
When you have a mechanical issue you have reference material for most of the various possible issues. You recalculate expected landing distance with the problem or problems and make a decision on where you are going to land. If you have a sufficient margin to land with the problem at lga given current runway conditions and braking action you normally would land there. If not you go somewhere else.
Keep in mind that many problems can be compounded. A Delta 767 once landed at Madrid with Flaps in the 5 degree position, accumulator braking only, no NWS, overweight, limited ground spoilers and only one engine reverser. Their landing distance was very long!