JL 66 Returns to NRT
Nov 4, 2013, 9:51 pm
#2
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
Nov 4, 2013, 9:56 pm
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Nov 4, 2013, 11:02 pm
#4
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
Nov 4, 2013, 11:11 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Nov 4, 2013, 11:21 pm
#6
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
Cost isn't the only factor here. Who knows what else would fail after the brake and they are only 2 hours out. Returning to Tokyo is a better option especially if you take safety into account
Nov 5, 2013, 3:23 am
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
If safety was an issue, they should have diverted to CTS and..... they shouldn't have spent 2 hours circling mid-Pacific while they made up their mind.
Nov 5, 2013, 4:04 am
#8
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
It's a safety precaution, not an emergency. The well-trained pilots made a decision that has taken into account of all the factors to bring all passengers to SAN safely as soon as possible.
Last edited by JALPak; Nov 5, 2013 at 4:32 am
Nov 5, 2013, 4:33 am
#9
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
Official words from JAL
http://www.jal.com/cms/en/corp_00229.html
http://www.jal.com/cms/en/corp_00229.html
During flight, a part of the data converter repeater was failed. As the result, the cockpit indication of the brake temperature for the 2 tires out of total 8 main tires disappeared, so the return was decided. But the arrival time was beyond the operating hour (until 23:00) of Tokyo (Narita), the airplane landed safely at Tokyo (Haneda) approx. 7 hour after takeoff. JAL66 re-departed on the next day by another Boeing 787.
Nov 5, 2013, 10:39 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Nothing to do with safety or passenger convenience.
Nov 5, 2013, 12:49 pm
#11
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
Ultimately it's the captain who made the decision. And I disagree that has nothing to do with safety or passenger convenience. You are making accusation without any basis. So I will just agree to disagree with you as I see no point of continuing this discussion.
Nov 5, 2013, 2:09 pm
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
The captain said over the radio, "HQ has decided. We're returning to Narita." Not a matter of disagreement. I'm just telling you what the facts are.
Nov 5, 2013, 2:18 pm
#13
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The City of Angels, CA
Programs: Nothing current
Posts: 392
That's a mighty bold statement. Do you have some inside knowledge to back up your assessment?
The fact of the matter is that there was going to be a flight delay no matter what -- either with the original flight because of an ATB (which is what happened) or with the return flight, since the aircraft would have needed maintenance or replacement at SAN after landing. Isn't it reasonable to think that an ATB is least disruptive because of all of the additional infrastructure/resources (parts, maintenance staff, additional aircraft, etc.) available to JL in Japan vs. in SAN that would help to minimize the delay?
-S
The fact of the matter is that there was going to be a flight delay no matter what -- either with the original flight because of an ATB (which is what happened) or with the return flight, since the aircraft would have needed maintenance or replacement at SAN after landing. Isn't it reasonable to think that an ATB is least disruptive because of all of the additional infrastructure/resources (parts, maintenance staff, additional aircraft, etc.) available to JL in Japan vs. in SAN that would help to minimize the delay?
-S
Nov 5, 2013, 2:25 pm
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
That's a mighty bold statement. Do you have some inside knowledge to back up your assessment?
The fact of the matter is that there was going to be a flight delay no matter what -- either with the original flight because of an ATB (which is what happened) or with the return flight, since the aircraft would have needed maintenance or replacement at SAN after landing. Isn't it reasonable to think that an ATB is least disruptive because of all of the additional infrastructure/resources (parts, maintenance staff, additional aircraft, etc.) available to JL in Japan vs. in SAN that would help to minimize the delay?
-S
The fact of the matter is that there was going to be a flight delay no matter what -- either with the original flight because of an ATB (which is what happened) or with the return flight, since the aircraft would have needed maintenance or replacement at SAN after landing. Isn't it reasonable to think that an ATB is least disruptive because of all of the additional infrastructure/resources (parts, maintenance staff, additional aircraft, etc.) available to JL in Japan vs. in SAN that would help to minimize the delay?
-S
Nov 5, 2013, 2:29 pm
#15
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,382
You are only looking at this from a single roundtrip flight perspective. Ferrying an aircraft over will further inconvenience a lot more passengers on other routes as well. Even with a return to HND in this case, SAN-NRT has to be delayed for 2 days in a row.
