Dal3834 diverted from LGA to JFK

Old Jan 28, 19, 9:45 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Programs: DL DM, SPG Plat
Posts: 696
Dal3834 diverted from LGA to JFK

Apparently they told pax that they "would have to wait longer at LGA than JFK for a gate"

...!
stevekstevek is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 9:51 pm
  #2  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Programs: DL DM, SPG Plat
Posts: 696
Delta on Twitter: Hi Steve, I am showing that DL 3834 landed in JFK due to a mechanical issue that needed to be addressed. As LGA no longer had gate space, the continuation from JFK to LGA was canceled.

Me: What kind of mechanical issue would cause them to have to land at an airport 10 miles from the destination?

Delta: Regretfully, I do not have the specifics.

stevekstevek is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 10:08 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: DL DM, AA PP
Posts: 1,331
Is it possible that the mechanical issue had to do with the airport rather than the plane? For example, a jet bridge was broken at LGA which would have stranded DL 3834 without another available gate to dock at? I imagine that there are certain times at LGA where there are no spare gates available at all.
rucksack is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 10:13 pm
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Programs: DL DM, SPG Plat
Posts: 696
Originally Posted by rucksack View Post
Is it possible that the mechanical issue had to do with the airport rather than the plane? For example, a jet bridge was broken at LGA which would have stranded DL 3834 without another available gate to dock at?
I'm pretty sure they have more than one gate which can handle an e175. I suppose they don't have any connections, but they have up to 76pax, each of who could have family waiting for them at LGA.
stevekstevek is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 10:14 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta PM, Hyatt Discoverist, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by stevekstevek View Post
Delta on Twitter: Hi Steve, I am showing that DL 3834 landed in JFK due to a mechanical issue that needed to be addressed. As LGA no longer had gate space, the continuation from JFK to LGA was canceled.

Me: What kind of mechanical issue would cause them to have to land at an airport 10 miles from the destination?

Delta: Regretfully, I do not have the specifics.

Hydraulics, flaps, overweight basically anything that requires a longer runway. LGA has a short, narrow runway. Its common for airlines to divert to JFK if they think they need some extra pavement to stop.

SJC ORD LDR, wds17, BenA and 6 others like this.
jrkmsp is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 10:21 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: DL DM, AA PP
Posts: 1,331
Originally Posted by stevekstevek View Post
I'm pretty sure they have more than one gate which can handle an e175. I suppose they don't have any connections, but they have up to 76pax, each of who could have family waiting for them at LGA.
I'm sure they have multiple gates that could handle an e175, but at a busy time of day, they may all be occupied back-to-back. At any rate, @jrkmsp's explanation seems more likely.

Regarding landing at the wrong airport, it's definitely an inconvenience, but to me it seems like a much more reasonable option than delaying the flight further and wasting fuel hopping from JFK to LGA.
jrkmsp likes this.
rucksack is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 10:21 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Programs: DL DM, SPG Plat
Posts: 696
Originally Posted by jrkmsp View Post


Hydraulics, flaps, overweight basically anything that requires a longer runway. LGA has a short, narrow runway. Its common for airlines to divert to JFK if they think they need some extra pavement to stop.

I don't buy it. It's an e175, flying from Houston. Not a heavy pax load. LGA isn't that short for a regional to land (need a lot less to land than takeoff). Sounds like they were congested at LGA, and it was easier to dump their pax at JFK.
stevekstevek is offline  
Old Jan 28, 19, 11:29 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 159
Is it possible that the maintenance the aircraft required would be more easily serviced at JFK? Maybe an issue was discovered inflight and dispatch figured "might as well put the plane somewhere they can fix it".
dblumenhoff is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 12:21 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 350
Landing a aircraft at the wrong airport is a huge cost for the airline. They don’t do it because gates are occupied. Jfk is just as gate restricted as LGA. You also now have a crew at the wrong airport and a outbound flight you have to cancel. It’s a very expensive decision.
Why would they go to JFK? Thrust reverser issues, brake issues, flap issues, slat issues, NWS issues, trim issues Navigation equipment issues ect... There are many possible reasons.
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 1:04 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbant, SPG Gold
Posts: 26,867
Originally Posted by jrkmsp View Post


Hydraulics, flaps, overweight — basically anything that requires a longer runway. LGA has a short, narrow runway. It’s common for airlines to divert to JFK if they think they need some extra pavement to stop.


LGA can handle a 767-400. That 767-400 must be capable of safely rejecting a takeoff on the runway at LGA. I don't think there would have been any issue with an E175 running off the end of the runway...
enviroian likes this.
readywhenyouare is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 6:15 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CT
Programs: DL DM 2MM, MR LTT, Hilton D, Hertz PC. National Emerald Exec, UA Silver(thanks to Marriott)
Posts: 2,026
Happened to me a few months ago. Flight was 2 hrs delayed for weather. Delta had to pay for a taxi from JFK to LGA so I could pick up my car.

It was land at JFK or not at all because "no available gates"
rucksack likes this.
BusTrav8yrs is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 6:41 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,192
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post


LGA can handle a 767-400. That 767-400 must be capable of safely rejecting a takeoff on the runway at LGA. I don't think there would have been any issue with an E175 running off the end of the runway...
Runway friction - or lack of it - is a factor in landings. It's typical for Boeing's performance charts (as an example) to cite both dry and wet runways.
3Cforme is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 6:45 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta PM, Hyatt Discoverist, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post


LGA can handle a 767-400. That 767-400 must be capable of safely rejecting a takeoff on the runway at LGA. I don't think there would have been any issue with an E175 running off the end of the runway...
You may think this, but youd be wrong. Here are two examples of flights that diverted from LGA to JFK. When there are problems with, for example, flaps and the landing is going to be over speed, you go for an airport with longer runways.

Delta jet makes emergency landing at JFK airport

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pix11.c...ng-at-jfk/amp/

The reality is, when you think youre going to have an issue slowing down, you look for the longest runway you can find.
wrp96, gooselee and MikeNYC1 like this.
jrkmsp is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 6:46 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Programs: DL DM
Posts: 351
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post


LGA can handle a 767-400. That 767-400 must be capable of safely rejecting a takeoff on the runway at LGA. I don't think there would have been any issue with an E175 running off the end of the runway...
If there's any question about the stopping ability of the aircraft, it's always the captain's prerogative to find the longest runway available within reasonable proximity. When there's an aircraft mechanical issue that may affect safety, passenger connections become an afterthought. Why would a pilot decide to continue to LGA if JFK is a viable option, DL has a MX base there, and they have a runway over 14,000'?

Edit: Saying LGA "can handle a 767-400" isn't telling the whole story. Sure, a lightly loaded 764 could get in an out of LGA with no mechanical issues. However, a 767-400, at MTOW on a warm day, needs 11,000' for a balanced field takeoff. And you bet if that 767 took off, had a mechanical issue and had to return for an overweight landing, it wasn't going to come back to LGA.
HDQDD and jrkmsp like this.

Last edited by MikeNYC1; Jan 29, 19 at 6:54 am
MikeNYC1 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 19, 7:12 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM(segs)/MM, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by stevekstevek View Post


I don't buy it. It's an e175, flying from Houston. Not a heavy pax load. LGA isn't that short for a regional to land (need a lot less to land than takeoff). Sounds like they were congested at LGA, and it was easier to dump their pax at JFK.
If there was some issue with flaps, hydraulics, brakes, or even just an indication that there *may* be a problem with these, you look for the safest place to land. A 14500ft runway has far more room for potential braking problems to be worked out than a 7000ft one does. Passenger convenience takes a back seat to safely landing the airplane.

Worked in system control for many years. I can't ever recall an airplane diverting to another airport just because a gate wasn't immediately available. We don't have the whole story here, but LGA has other considerations (curfew, lack of ramp space to hold) so perhaps LGA tower wouldn't let them land? Of course, there's also the whole Gov't shutdown thing going on that LGA has been in the center of. Unknown how or if that could be an issue.

DL says it was a mechanical issue, so far, there doesn't seem to be any reason to refute that. Without any contrary evidence, I'll take DL's reason over the reason allegedly said by "they".
bubbashow, wrp96 and The Situation like this.
HDQDD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: