eng3

I would say typically no. It depends on the scenario. If you are diverted for long enough where they deplane everyone into the terminal anyways, then you may be able to make the case. However, many times, the diversion is for a short stop, for example to refuel, and they keep everyone on board so there is no opportunity to deplane.

gcashin

In this case airline Ops would have requested approval from CBP.

Generally for a pre-cleared transborder flight, they'd have a few options:
- Wait out the weather and refuel if needed before continuing to planned destination
- Refuel and return to origin airport (common in short haul situations if there isn't a desirable alternate)
- Request CBP approval to disembark at a different airport (your example)

In your case, WS would have requested and received approval to disembark at LAX rather than PSP. Given that WS had operations at LAX, that was likely the preferred approach for the airline anyway. Becomes more difficult if a flight gets diverted to a base where the airline doesn't operate.

coplatsat

They have let me do it a number of times when we were headed to IAH but were diverted to SAT (my final destination). If I had checked bags, they would stay in the cargo bay and arrive with the original ITN. They would call me when the bags arrived, and I would go pick them up. (Domestic Itn)

elbejt2

Was diverted to Fort Wayne, IN last week. Let us get off the plane but no bags. If passengers got a rental car and drove to Chicago, they would have had to pick up bags at ORD. After landing at ORD, renting a car would have been 30 minutes quicker but we would have had to pick up bags the next day...

eeebee

One more data point... Twice in the last couple of years I've been flying to IAH and we had to divert to DFW due to a full ground stop in Houston. Both times, we parked at a gate to refuel, and they allowed passengers whose final destination was DFW to deplane, with the caveat that any checked bags would continue on to Houston.

grapegrower

Was waiting for a flight in FSD a month or so ago when a UA flight from somewhere in Florida to ORD was diverted due to weather.
All were allowed to deplane and huge lines formed for rebooking connections.
UA made multiple announcements that pax could not terminate their flight in Sioux Falls.

wcalvert

I was flying PTY-TGU on Copa and then TGU-IAH on Continental reward ticket.

We were diverted from TGU to SAP and 3 of us somehow managed to sweet talk Copa into letting us get off as I saw a CO plane pulling up to the gate and knew that they only flew to Houston from SAP.

They managed to get some stairs and a golf cart and drove us to the terminal. The CO desk called the US, got our tickets changed, and we made the flight by 15 minutes. IIRC I got an upgrade because I had the CO credit card and it was the first weekend that you could get upgrades on reward tickets.

Made it home almost an hour before I was scheduled.

omghaxcode

My mom was on a SEA-DTW-ORD flight with DL and was diverted to ORD for a medical emergency. They held them at a gate for an hour but she wasn't allowed off. She had no luggage but they refused. Yes they were at a gate w/ skybridge.

emcampbe

Let me answer the OP using the specific example of 582 yesterday. No, we weren't allowed to deplane. Never even parked at a gate.

I was on this flight, with wife and 2 and a half year old. Flight status, once the diversion was scheduled, initially showed us landing at around 6:30 or 6:40, then scheduled to depart at 7:05. Once we landed, it was clear that wasn't going to happen. A few minutes after landing, pilot came on and announced there was no gate for us, and we needed to wait. A little later the announcement was that we needed to wait as there were a few other aircraft in line waiting for fuel as well, so clearly we weren't the only diversion. Flight status actually shows us landing at 7:21 - that is pretty spot on for the time we actually got to the stand where they re-fueled us - but we actualy landed aroiund 6:30 - 40, and showed a departure at 7:39 I think - which is completely wrong. I don't know what happened then, but we stayed where we were until about 8:15 or so, which is when we taxi'd out for take off to ORD.

IMO, crew did their best, but I'm not sure why there wasn't enough fuel in the 737 to complete the short flight. Yes, there was weather, but almost 100% sure it was known before take off - I definitely saw the line of weather on the map as soon as I could after take off. Nothing odd about the flight prior to the diversion announcement - which came maybe halfway through the flight, maybe a little longer. Weather system wasn't much further then Chicago, so I suspect we should have been able to fly around...I've seen other, even short domestic routes, take longer routings than we wuld have had to to avoid weather.

Bumps, yes, but I've seen my fair share as a frequent flyer, definitely worse than this. I was in row 1 next to my daughter, wife was in 5. They served drinks to us in the first row, when they were serving the second the pilot came on and announced he had asked crew to sit down, too, but they didn't for a while. That happens too, and the plan was clearly to make it to Chicago. Once we announced the diversion, the seat belt sign came off...I suspect due to the fact we were flying south away from the weather, rather then straight west and over it to get to ORD.

I wouldn't actually call this a weather delay, I'd call it a failure on the captain's part to prepare properly and have the right amount of fuel loaded, given the weather. Very lucky to be upgraded to F in this flight...we were planning on dinner during our 2 and half hour connection in ORD (which we only made by running, and because that flight was also delayed an hour). We got snacks from the basket, but by the time we left STL, there was nothing left. Pour souls in Y didn't even get served a snack until well after we were in STL...maybe 7:45 or so. That part, didn't seem to be well-handled.

As for the OPs question though, about getting off, even with the low enough chance of a diversion, much less where you happen to be going, STL is not even near the map of a typical YYZ-ORD flight. I'm actually surprised we didn't go anywhere closer - Ft. Wayne owuld have been on the other side of the storm too, but I'd think Peroria or Springfield would have been better choices, but what do I know?

It was a disappointing day of travel being on this flight yesterday. Though I counted back to my last diversion - about 11 years ago, so maybe I was due for it? On the other hand, most important thing is all were safe.

theflyingguyblog

I stand corrected about the designation part, however it wasn't clear about whether the plane went to the gate or sat on the tarmac. If they were planning to sit on the tarmac, then it would really be a case by case basis whether they wanted to get a gate and deplane. If they were to deplane, then people obviously wouldn't have to get on for the leg to Chicago. Since it was an international flight, they probably would not deplane since customs and immigration for an unplanned stop would not be easy. And since the stop was only two hours instead of 3 (at which point the airline would be required to allow people to get off), the airline would likely not let people deplane.

theflyingguyblog

Yes, however the circumstances are much different for an international flight. Customs and immigration would be required, and therefore the airline would probably make everyone stay on board until the final destination of Chicago. I'm sure allowing people to deplane would be much more common for domestic flights like you mentioned.

theflyingguyblog

This airliners.net thread. http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=704785

Also this thread. https://www.quora.com/If-a-flight-is...-can-I-get-off

Maybe consensus was a bit too strong of a word to use, but it seemed as though most people said they could not deplane, at least on international flights like OP mentioned

LarryJ

The problem on a very short flight like YYZ-ORD is that you're limited by your landing weight. You can't take so much extra fuel that you'll be too heavy to land if you don't receive significant airborne delays. You can only take fuel up to your landing weight limit plus the planned fuel burn. Anything over that makes you illegal to depart.

For example, a 737-900ER has a max landing weight limit of 157,300 pounds. If your planned fuel burn is only 4,000 pounds then your max takeoff weight is restricted to 161,300 even though the airplane is capable of taking off at 187,700 pounds. That's 26,400 pounds of additional fuel that the airplane could carry if it were planning on a longer flight.

I've had a several flights over the years where we were planned for a longer weather avoidance route but by the time we actually got there the weather had moved or dissipated and we were able to fly a much more direct route. The result was that we were too heavy to land and had to descend early and hold to burn off the excess weight.

Once airborne, if you receive delays in excess of your holding fuel then it's often a good idea to divert early so you can be refueled and ready to depart again. No reason to spend a long time in a hold, even if you have the fuel to do so, if you don't have an expectation of being able to reach the destination when the hold is lifted.

kale73

I don't think so. According to GoogleŽ Maps, it's 95.5 road miles from DEN to COS (terminal to terminal). If you can drive it in 40 minutes, you're averaging over 140 mph.

I suspect any CSP officer who pulled you over at that speed would just take your license and shoot it.

BigFlyer

My guess as to the reason consent is required - a Canadian airline employee told me that sometimes US CBP will allow a passenger to board, and then arrest that person upon arrival in the US (as they can't arrest the person in Canada.) If the plane lets people off at an alternate airport, the arrest would be frustrated.