El-Al Flight Turned Around
 

ZeroHedge is reporting that an El Al flight from TLV to JFK has turned around over the Atlantic and is apparently heading back to Israel.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...s-mid-atlantic

Looking at 'Flight Aware', it's been following a very strange route, and not clear where it's heading right now (it's somewhere over France).
Considering this flight (to nowhere it seems) has been in the air for 8 hours now, I don't envy the passengers!

Anyway, this probably belongs here: EL AL Maintenance, Mechanical and Mishaps but we'll let the mod decide... :)

So let's assume for now that the story is accurate and the issue was just one out of four of the engines failed. They were just past France in the Atlantic - they could have diverted to LHR, they could have continued on to JFK, or they could have returned to TLV. Clearly it cant be such a bad problem since they decided to continue flying for five more hours back to TLV.

But now they've seriously inconvenienced the entire flight of passengers, making them at least 12 hours late, and probably 24 or more hours late. Had they continued on to JFK, none of the passengers would have been inconvenienceed, but the plane would probably have had to be ferried back to TLV for repairs if the issue could not be resolved at JFK. Even diverting to LHR would have meant less of an inconvenience to the passengers because they could presumably all be rebooked on other airlines to JFK (although I'm sure El Al would hate this option because they would have to pay out to other airlines for those flights).

What they did with today's 007 is outrageous.
The passengers come first. Period.
The fact that they flew the plane all the way back to TLV means it was perfectly safe to fly on to JFK. The return JFK flight (tonight's 002) was canceled as a result - meaning they could just as easily have ferried the aircraft empty back to TLV.
What a terrible decision on the part of LY management.
Horrendous.

All I can say is many a year ago I was on a TWA 747 to TLV (forget if it was CDG-TLV or JFK-TLV) either way the capt made an announcement that those who looked at the plane before boarding or out the window arent imagining anything, yes we are flying with 5 engines today 2 on 1 side and 3 on the other. Reason was TWA needed an engine for its plane in TLV and was given one or lent 1 whatever and now it was being ferried back.

So if TWA was able to do that why couldnt LY do it with whomever @ JFK, flight lands they put on a different engine and ferry the old one back on the flight back to TLV, if they wanted to fix it there rather then in NY

Ummmm folks...

A big difference is that on the way back to TLV there are a lot of places they could divert if the situation deteriorated. Above the Atlantic, not so much.

And at TLV they likely have anothe rplane to put the pax on. Even LHR-JFK would likely be challenging to reaccomodate that many pax. Plus you need a slot at LHR.

Well flying over Europe with 3 remaining engines and the ability to land in Europe if something further should happen sure beats flying over the Atlantic (and something happening). Yes there will be a ripple affect in terms of schedules but safety comes first. Im sure for every airline that would continue on with the flight there is another that would do the same thing as El Al and turn back.
(ie- on a AC flight from Montreal to Toronto- about an hour flight total- 30 minutes into the flight we turned around..its a decision thats made all the time).

Haaretz is reporting that El Al cheaped out by not landing in Europe (hotels for the passengers, replacement aircraft etc) but I think the real story is really the continuing occurrence of maintenance issues for their airplanes and that they are now going to be wet-leased some of their aircraft.

You can replace 'ElAl' with 'United'. Yep UA is having the same problems day in and day out. Same problem they run their planes to the bone and when something goes wrong no spare planes to be had. (UA had a problem the other day with its ORD-LHR flight which diverted to Goosebay, resulted in the pasengers flying to EWR and then to LHR). So LY is far from the only carrier that simply is looking for the cheapest way out of things

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...-barracks.html

Inconvenience on the ground
 

Can't complain because of the turn around. My kid was on the flight. He's comfy in a 5-Star hotel 15 min from the airport and will be on another flight tomorrow. My gripe is that once the 180 happened El Al gave no indicator online or anywhere else. It was only when my kid called on landing that I knew conclusively. Bad form El Al. Bad Form.

Are you saying the Goosebay thing highlights UA's cheapness or just their maintenance issues in general show the cheapness?

There's a 5 star hotel near the airport?

One man's 5-star is another man's 3-star, but the Crowne Plaza City Center is a solid hotel right on the train line at the mall, 15 minutes from the Terminal 3 station... There's also the Leonardo City Tower right at Tel Aviv Mercaz station (don't know if that's where they put them)

Well from what I understand there isnt much in the way of hotel rooms in Goose, so not Goose itself. But it was mentioned bringing down to EWR and then onward was cheaper for UA. And yes when I flew CO/UA after the merge and CO before they had very few widebodys , pushed them to the max and the older a plane gets the more problems that will pop up.

Its even worse then LY since many atime my plane went MX in a former hub of the other metal(eg a CO plane in SFO a former UA hub or a UA plane in a former CO hub). The carrier decided not to stock spare parts for both metals and only the parts that were for the planes of whatever that hub belonged to. So I was left hanging many a time @ SFO as we had to wait for a spare part to be flown in from LAX, then when it was put in did they know they needed another part a swell, that too had to come from LAX, with that most times the crew timed out and since SFO isnt a CO hub no reserve crews are on standby.

I mentioned why not pull out a spare UA metal plane and get us the heck out of here, answer once a flight is designated a CO flight it must remain that way. So much so that instead of puling a spare UA metal for the SFO-HNL flight they announced a 753 (plane was suppose to be a 764) will be leaving KOA shortly and arrive into SFO in 5+ hrs it will be serviced and then fly to HNL (of cause not everyone can get on alot less seats). This wasnt a rarity and to a large extent is still going on, all in the name to save the $$$ that stocking the spare parts for the other metal would cost in the others formers hub.

Point is LY is far from the only carrier today doing things that doesnt make sense for the passengers , but does for the carriers bottom line

I believe the ability to ferry a spare engine on the 747 wing was an option that customers had to request, and most of the 747-400 operators did not choose that option. Also it could only be done for Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce engines but not GE engines.

See http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...onJet#ID200620

Is it possible that due to some specific cargo or person on board there was a decision not to land in Europe?

sure but w/o any doubt it would have been alot more expensive to have diverted to an airport in Europe. Landing fees, having to outsource the work, hotels, putting folks onto other Carriers (OK they could have flown in an extra flight maybe) eventually flying the plane back to TLV anyways.

Just alot cheaper $$wise to probably just fly it back to TLV and replace the engine w/o having to pay another else to do it or for renting a spare engine an dthen having to fly it back there.

Either way they had to probably burn off the fuel, so why dump it when you can use it and fly back to TLV

But like UA Im sure what to do was based on what is our cheapest option