Quantifying the cost of a diversion
 

Here we finally have a quantified cost of a diversion to the airline -- $188,000 (albeit for an air rage incident rather than a terrorism false alarm). Obviously this is just one very specific incident, but it gives you an idea of the approximate costs involved.

Can we ever hope that the airlines will try to recoup such costs from paranoid FAs, pilots, and/or FAMs when they force a diversion over a bottle of water?

Keep in mind that not one single "security" diversion since 9/11 has turned out to be an actual threat, IIRC. Every single one has been a false alarm. Multiply that by $188,000 and you have to ask, why do the airlines and passengers have to pay for the inconvenience and real financial costs rather than the airline employees and government employees who are repetedly crying wolf?

Is it really "better to be safe than smart"?

Would you rather be dead because some penny pincher decided NOT to divert?

No, I'd rather cockpit and cabin crews show enough intelligence to know that neither the word "bob" being written on a barf bag nor the presence of a passenger drinking from a bottle of water, nor a Japanese businessman (non-native english speaker) being confused about the precise definition of "suicide bomber" in a news article about the middle east are grounds for diverting an aircraft.

Emergency procedures and first-responders' valuable time should be saved for actual emergencies.

By that logic we'd never leave our homes. Of course, there are dangers at home too...

How many lives could be saved if the money wasted on diverted flights during the past year was used for road traffic safety?

Do you know most accidents happen within 5 miles of your home?

Stay away from your home and you'll be safer. ;)

IMO, Air Rage is an actual emergency and if the passenger is that out of control, a diversion is warranted. I have experienced a passenger going bezerk and it's frightening. He was difficult to subdue and assaulted two FAs and four passengers before we got him strapped into the seat.

Further, it appeared that he was having a bad reaction to whatever medication he was on, and I think that diverting to get him medical attention would have been a reasonable course of action.

188K is only a fraction of the cost -- landing fees and additional fuel. Here are some other costs that pop into my head:
- Costs of additional cops and other "security" costs to meet the terror threat upon landing -- 10's of thousands
- Additional cost for UK customs & immigration support to handle a flight they didn't expect for people they had already cleared to leave the country -- 10's of thousands
- UK MOD additional support for a diverted flight containing a "threat passenger" (could include tracking and analysis from air defense radars not normally used for commercial aviation) -- 100's of thousands
- Change in alert status of RAF interceptor aircraft -- 10's to 100's of thousands (if fighters actually launched or were on ramp alert)
- Additional cost of ground support equipment, crews, and consumables in Glascow not covered by landing fees -- 10's of thousands
- Cost of a planeload of missed connections -- 10's of thousands
- Additional operational costs such as: preflight briefings, crew rest requirements, accelerated scheduled maintenance on the aircraft, an additional flight plan creation & filing, etc -- 10's of thousands
- "Daisy chain" cost impacts resulting from a diverted aircraft and crew -- 10's of thousands

Intangibles:

- Increased risk to passengers & crew resulting from an unnecessary takeoff and landing at what presumably was an unfamiliar airfield. Can't put a pricetag on this other than the risks associated with this were certainly greater than being blown up by a terrorist on that flight.
- Disruption costs to other operations at Glasgow airport.

My rough guess is that this needless diversion cost at least a half million dollars.

I'll go out on a limb and assert that there's not a single FTer in the history of FT would would object for a nanosecond to a diversion caused by a real medical emergency.

I agree with you. If its a medical emergency, it better be diverted, but
not because someone had a bottle of WMD... err I mean water

Just to be clear -- I wasn't commenting on whether the diversion in the OP was appropriate or not. I was just pulling the $188,000 figure from it so we have a rough idea of how much a generic diversion costs.

Air rage (when the person cannot be adequately subdued) and medical emergencies sound like very legitimate reasons for diversions. Bottled water smuggled onboard by a passenger, a bathroom that none of the FAs can remember which of them locked, Middle Eastern guys playing around with their cellphones, and the dozens of other diversions we've had since 8/10 are a very, very different story.

Great list. Don't forget having to dump fuel, which happens in some cases like the Northwest AMS-India flight.

Agreed on most of the above.

But...

Legitimate cases where diverts must occur due to air rage or medical conditions that occur because, for example, the passenger somehow got blind drunk or high on drugs (in other words, their fault), those passengers should be slapped with a bill for the ENTIRE thing, and not be allowed to hide behind bankruptcy laws.

I hate to make it sound like an institution of a 'debtor's prison' of sorts, but when will people learn to take and accept responsibility for their own actions?

It should not fall on the airline, passengers, or taxpayers to have to pay for the idiotic and usually completely avoidable actions of a few idiots who should not be allowed to fly in airplanes anyway.

Sorry to sound like a rant, but I feel pretty strongly about this.

The decision not to divert does not mean that death would be a result for any passenger.

You missed the point.

The person(s) making the decision is on the plane. Therefore, if the threat is real, their lives are at risk. Nobody is going to trade their life for $188,000. What my proposal would do is to shift the current mentality that every single miniscule thing that happens out of the ordinary on a flight--no matter how obviously innocuous--necessitates a diversion. If the person truly thinks they're going to die, they will certainly still divert, so safety is not harmed in any way.

I am not suggesting that a "penny pincher" at the airline headquarters make the decision, since they don't stand to lose their life if they make a mistake.

We urgently need a way to make FAs, pilots, and FAMs consider the costs to the airline and passengers when they force unnecessary diversions. I think my suggestion of asking them to bear the cost is pretty reasonable. Perhaps this cost could be mitigated via an insurance mechanism, where these employees would purchase insurance policies that would cover their expenses if they force a false diversion. That way nobody is going to be bankrupted financially because of excess paranoia, but they'll at least know their insurance policy cost will be bumped up a bit each time they call a false diversion. (Kind of like your car insurance rate goes up a bit each time you get in an accident.)