Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DualQual
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:56 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
packmedic wrote:

Does BOS have 787-trained mechanics? Does BOS have 787 pilots? Is there gate space for a 787 at BOS? Is there a spare plane (with a crew) that could continue the flight from BOS?

Without this, BOS doesn't make sense. They'd have to ferry a replacement plane to BOS (adding more hours), ferry a crew, send 787 mechanics from a maintenance base, and other logistical issues vs diverting to an airport where they have crew, aircraft, and mechanics trained. If the issue wasn't urgent, then they can choose where the most appropriate divert airport is


Yes, Yes, and Absolutely..... BUT lets talk about this ferrying thing.... You think its a better and safer idea to turn around almost on-top of Boston 180 degrees and fly backwards for 3+ hours in a plane where something obviously didn't seem right or actually went wrong because they didn't want to fly it over the North Atlantic,, AND keep flying it for the 3+ hours in a backwards direction than they were originally headed with the Pax on board the aircraft INSTEAD of doing what would have been an almost immediate decent and easy straight in approach to a multitude of runways of their choosing and support on the ground followed by having the pax de-planed and waiting safely and comfortably in a warm clean terminal for their new plane to arrive ?


Because clearly safety wasn’t an issue. There is much you don’t understand grasshopper.....it is never cut and dry.


Let me guess, you’re basing BOS being the best option on all 0 of your hours in command of an aircraft or in airline ops.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:27 am

Sometimes the opinions on here are so uninformed, it's painful to read.

Yes, guy sitting in your underwear in your mom's basement, I'm sure you know more about diverting aircraft than the airline. Give it a rest.
 
User avatar
Boeing757rb211
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:24 am

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:42 pm

DualQual wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:

Yes, Yes, and Absolutely..... BUT lets talk about this ferrying thing.... You think its a better and safer idea to turn around almost on-top of Boston 180 degrees and fly backwards for 3+ hours in a plane where something obviously didn't seem right or actually went wrong because they didn't want to fly it over the North Atlantic,, AND keep flying it for the 3+ hours in a backwards direction than they were originally headed with the Pax on board the aircraft INSTEAD of doing what would have been an almost immediate decent and easy straight in approach to a multitude of runways of their choosing and support on the ground followed by having the pax de-planed and waiting safely and comfortably in a warm clean terminal for their new plane to arrive ?


Because clearly safety wasn’t an issue. There is much you don’t understand grasshopper.....it is never cut and dry.


Let me guess, you’re basing BOS being the best option on all 0 of your hours in command of an aircraft or in airline ops.


If anyone is going to be putting anything in my mouth, it will be myself, dont dont try shoving words in there that never came out in the first place..... i said, and was trying to make a point of,,, Since BOS is also quite large and supports several airlines operating the 787's... WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE diverted there instead of what looks like an insane 180 degree turn in the opposite direction for 3+ hours. So just in case any of that also wasn't clear,,, i NEVER said it would have been the best option, because SHOCKER,,, i DO NOT work in Flight Planning / Airline Ops..... BUT i do know a fair bit about aviation from flying around randomly because i can and and my hours of flying to get my license so i'm not stupid either. As i'm sure many people on here do who either just love aviation or from working in their respective fields within it, So again never said it was the best option,,, it might seem like a better option to ME, but like you so clearly pointed out i dont work in Flight Planning or Ops,, hence my not just saying "Well that was stupid and a waste of time,, should have gone to Boston, end of story Period...."This is supposed to be a forum where people i believe help each-other understand things that are going on, sometimes very specifically,,, and that's what i was doing,, Conversing in a forum, (Asking, questioning, wondering,, thinking and learning) for,, wouldn't ya know it,,, Aviation and related matters. :banghead:
 
DualQual
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:18 am

Boeing757rb211 wrote:
DualQual wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Because clearly safety wasn’t an issue. There is much you don’t understand grasshopper.....it is never cut and dry.


Let me guess, you’re basing BOS being the best option on all 0 of your hours in command of an aircraft or in airline ops.


If anyone is going to be putting anything in my mouth, it will be myself, dont dont try shoving words in there that never came out in the first place..... i said, and was trying to make a point of,,, Since BOS is also quite large and supports several airlines operating the 787's... WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE diverted there instead of what looks like an insane 180 degree turn in the opposite direction for 3+ hours. So just in case any of that also wasn't clear,,, i NEVER said it would have been the best option, because SHOCKER,,, i DO NOT work in Flight Planning / Airline Ops..... BUT i do know a fair bit about aviation from flying around randomly because i can and and my hours of flying to get my license so i'm not stupid either. As i'm sure many people on here do who either just love aviation or from working in their respective fields within it, So again never said it was the best option,,, it might seem like a better option to ME, but like you so clearly pointed out i dont work in Flight Planning or Ops,, hence my not just saying "Well that was stupid and a waste of time,, should have gone to Boston, end of story Period...."This is supposed to be a forum where people i believe help each-other understand things that are going on, sometimes very specifically,,, and that's what i was doing,, Conversing in a forum, (Asking, questioning, wondering,, thinking and learning) for,, wouldn't ya know it,,, Aviation and related matters. :banghead:


It’s been answered multiple times by multiple knowledgeable people why BOS was not a great divert point. So let’s go through this step by step.

1) They had some sort of issue that did not allow them to enter ETOPS airspace.
2) Said issue was not a safety of flight issue that required an immediate landing.
3) BOS is not an AA 787 base, nor does AA likely have any maintenance at BOS that is 787 capable
4) Diverting to BOS, while closer in time may cost more time since there are no parts that AA has access to, and no crew readily available
5) The aircraft may have been overweight for a landing at BOS. As it was not an emergency you now have brought a needless overweight landing into the equation which has it’s own considerations
5A) I don’t know what AA’s fuel dump policy is but as no emergency needed to be declared, dumping fuel may not be warranted.
5B) Keeping said fuel in the tanks to burn opens up a lot of options
6) Apparently the weather was bad at ORD so ORD was no longer a suitable option
7) DFW was apparently the closest divert option where maintenance and crews were going to be available in the shortest amount of time
7A) See 5B to see why DFW was now an option
8) If it took 12 hours to get a crew that is probably much faster than had they gone to BOS where parts would have to be transported to, along with the personnel to change said parts, along with a new crew to fly the plane if the original crew times out or is still in crew rest waiting for the repair
9) Just because 787s go to BOS doesn’t mean AA has access to those parts or people that have to know how to change the parts
10) Once on the ground people need to be either re-accommodated or sent to a hotel, perhaps hotel availability and the ability to reroute out of BOS was limited

So off the top of my head those are just some of the reasons why a place like BOS got knocked out. No parts, no maintenance, no crews, possibly overweight, BOS may not be an authorized airport for AA’s 787s in their op-specs for a non emergency.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
_AA_777_MAN
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 1:58 am

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:20 am

ScottB wrote:
JetAwayDrew wrote:
This is bizarre. The 787’s are based at ORD, so you’d think a replacement aircraft wouldn’t have been hard to come by there ... so odd.


Even if there's a spare available at ORD, it's going to be tough to scare up a crew at 0400, not to mention finding ramp staff to transfer the bags and maintenance to do the ETOPS checks on the replacement aircraft. The crew for the diverted flight wouldn't have had duty time available to continue to LHR. DFW is pretty busy at 0530 so there'd be plenty of staff around, but cancelling the replacement flight seems to be about par for the course for the AA customer experience.



Oh yea because the busiest airport in the world is not busy at 0530? :roll:
And I've worked in AA's biggest hangar at ORD hangar 1, it is a 24 hour operation you wouldn't have to look hard to find any mechanics.
 
User avatar
Boeing757rb211
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:24 am

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:31 am

DualQual wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
DualQual wrote:

Let me guess, you’re basing BOS being the best option on all 0 of your hours in command of an aircraft or in airline ops.


If anyone is going to be putting anything in my mouth, it will be myself, dont dont try shoving words in there that never came out in the first place..... i said, and was trying to make a point of,,, Since BOS is also quite large and supports several airlines operating the 787's... WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE diverted there instead of what looks like an insane 180 degree turn in the opposite direction for 3+ hours. So just in case any of that also wasn't clear,,, i NEVER said it would have been the best option, because SHOCKER,,, i DO NOT work in Flight Planning / Airline Ops..... BUT i do know a fair bit about aviation from flying around randomly because i can and and my hours of flying to get my license so i'm not stupid either. As i'm sure many people on here do who either just love aviation or from working in their respective fields within it, So again never said it was the best option,,, it might seem like a better option to ME, but like you so clearly pointed out i dont work in Flight Planning or Ops,, hence my not just saying "Well that was stupid and a waste of time,, should have gone to Boston, end of story Period...."This is supposed to be a forum where people i believe help each-other understand things that are going on, sometimes very specifically,,, and that's what i was doing,, Conversing in a forum, (Asking, questioning, wondering,, thinking and learning) for,, wouldn't ya know it,,, Aviation and related matters. :banghead:


It’s been answered multiple times by multiple knowledgeable people why BOS was not a great divert point. So let’s go through this step by step.

1) They had some sort of issue that did not allow them to enter ETOPS airspace.
2) Said issue was not a safety of flight issue that required an immediate landing.
3) BOS is not an AA 787 base, nor does AA likely have any maintenance at BOS that is 787 capable
4) Diverting to BOS, while closer in time may cost more time since there are no parts that AA has access to, and no crew readily available
5) The aircraft may have been overweight for a landing at BOS. As it was not an emergency you now have brought a needless overweight landing into the equation which has it’s own considerations
5A) I don’t know what AA’s fuel dump policy is but as no emergency needed to be declared, dumping fuel may not be warranted.
5B) Keeping said fuel in the tanks to burn opens up a lot of options
6) Apparently the weather was bad at ORD so ORD was no longer a suitable option
7) DFW was apparently the closest divert option where maintenance and crews were going to be available in the shortest amount of time
7A) See 5B to see why DFW was now an option
8) If it took 12 hours to get a crew that is probably much faster than had they gone to BOS where parts would have to be transported to, along with the personnel to change said parts, along with a new crew to fly the plane if the original crew times out or is still in crew rest waiting for the repair
9) Just because 787s go to BOS doesn’t mean AA has access to those parts or people that have to know how to change the parts
10) Once on the ground people need to be either re-accommodated or sent to a hotel, perhaps hotel availability and the ability to reroute out of BOS was limited

So off the top of my head those are just some of the reasons why a place like BOS got knocked out. No parts, no maintenance, no crews, possibly overweight, BOS may not be an authorized airport for AA’s 787s in their op-specs for a non emergency.


And i dont need you to "Aviation-splain" how bullet points or previous answers work. I have worked in it, and still fly currently so i'm not clueless. I Also tried to counter most of those points,, because i still dont believe it makes sense, That doesn't mean i'm saying that its wrong, or that it indeed does not make sense,, i just does not seem to makes sense, and until im satisfied with an answer or explanation, or solution to why what happened makes more sense than a 30 min decent and approach into BOS would have been Better? There's also no need to respond because i'm clearly not going to get what im looking for or what make sense TO ME... from you. So i will just continue to follow the thread and see if anything new comes up, and that's that. If i get my defining explanation, great,,, if not than i guess i will deal with it,,, without having other people insist i'm saying things i'm not and that i'm wrong.
 
DualQual
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:31 pm

Boeing757rb211 wrote:
DualQual wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:

If anyone is going to be putting anything in my mouth, it will be myself, dont dont try shoving words in there that never came out in the first place..... i said, and was trying to make a point of,,, Since BOS is also quite large and supports several airlines operating the 787's... WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE diverted there instead of what looks like an insane 180 degree turn in the opposite direction for 3+ hours. So just in case any of that also wasn't clear,,, i NEVER said it would have been the best option, because SHOCKER,,, i DO NOT work in Flight Planning / Airline Ops..... BUT i do know a fair bit about aviation from flying around randomly because i can and and my hours of flying to get my license so i'm not stupid either. As i'm sure many people on here do who either just love aviation or from working in their respective fields within it, So again never said it was the best option,,, it might seem like a better option to ME, but like you so clearly pointed out i dont work in Flight Planning or Ops,, hence my not just saying "Well that was stupid and a waste of time,, should have gone to Boston, end of story Period...."This is supposed to be a forum where people i believe help each-other understand things that are going on, sometimes very specifically,,, and that's what i was doing,, Conversing in a forum, (Asking, questioning, wondering,, thinking and learning) for,, wouldn't ya know it,,, Aviation and related matters. :banghead:


It’s been answered multiple times by multiple knowledgeable people why BOS was not a great divert point. So let’s go through this step by step.

1) They had some sort of issue that did not allow them to enter ETOPS airspace.
2) Said issue was not a safety of flight issue that required an immediate landing.
3) BOS is not an AA 787 base, nor does AA likely have any maintenance at BOS that is 787 capable
4) Diverting to BOS, while closer in time may cost more time since there are no parts that AA has access to, and no crew readily available
5) The aircraft may have been overweight for a landing at BOS. As it was not an emergency you now have brought a needless overweight landing into the equation which has it’s own considerations
5A) I don’t know what AA’s fuel dump policy is but as no emergency needed to be declared, dumping fuel may not be warranted.
5B) Keeping said fuel in the tanks to burn opens up a lot of options
6) Apparently the weather was bad at ORD so ORD was no longer a suitable option
7) DFW was apparently the closest divert option where maintenance and crews were going to be available in the shortest amount of time
7A) See 5B to see why DFW was now an option
8) If it took 12 hours to get a crew that is probably much faster than had they gone to BOS where parts would have to be transported to, along with the personnel to change said parts, along with a new crew to fly the plane if the original crew times out or is still in crew rest waiting for the repair
9) Just because 787s go to BOS doesn’t mean AA has access to those parts or people that have to know how to change the parts
10) Once on the ground people need to be either re-accommodated or sent to a hotel, perhaps hotel availability and the ability to reroute out of BOS was limited

So off the top of my head those are just some of the reasons why a place like BOS got knocked out. No parts, no maintenance, no crews, possibly overweight, BOS may not be an authorized airport for AA’s 787s in their op-specs for a non emergency.


And i dont need you to "Aviation-splain" how bullet points or previous answers work. I have worked in it, and still fly currently so i'm not clueless. I Also tried to counter most of those points,, because i still dont believe it makes sense, That doesn't mean i'm saying that its wrong, or that it indeed does not make sense,, i just does not seem to makes sense, and until im satisfied with an answer or explanation, or solution to why what happened makes more sense than a 30 min decent and approach into BOS would have been Better? There's also no need to respond because i'm clearly not going to get what im looking for or what make sense TO ME... from you. So i will just continue to follow the thread and see if anything new comes up, and that's that. If i get my defining explanation, great,,, if not than i guess i will deal with it,,, without having other people insist i'm saying things i'm not and that i'm wrong.


You seem to enjoy contradicting yourself in your own reply. You want explanations. You get them. You don’t accept them because they don’t seem to fit whatever idea you’ve latched on to. You claim they don’t make sense and at the same time said they do. So what is it? You claimed earlier that in your opinion it would have been safer to go to BOS. You’ve had it spelled out why it wasn’t, because safety was not in jeopardy, and you refuse to accept qualified explanations. You claim you’re here to discuss and learn. Yet when provided with explanations you don’t want to hear it. So why bother?
There's no known cure for stupid
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:01 pm

Tikchik wrote:
How are EQM's calculated for something like this?


Elite miles are calculated based on the ticketed distance of each leg, not what is actually flown. The only way you would get extra miles in this case is if these pax deboarded and got reissued a ticket that was DFW-LHR. I'd imagine they get nothing for the ORD-DFW flight either way.
 
max999
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:09 pm

DualQual wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
DualQual wrote:

Let me guess, you’re basing BOS being the best option on all 0 of your hours in command of an aircraft or in airline ops.


If anyone is going to be putting anything in my mouth, it will be myself, dont dont try shoving words in there that never came out in the first place..... i said, and was trying to make a point of,,, Since BOS is also quite large and supports several airlines operating the 787's... WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE diverted there instead of what looks like an insane 180 degree turn in the opposite direction for 3+ hours. So just in case any of that also wasn't clear,,, i NEVER said it would have been the best option, because SHOCKER,,, i DO NOT work in Flight Planning / Airline Ops..... BUT i do know a fair bit about aviation from flying around randomly because i can and and my hours of flying to get my license so i'm not stupid either. As i'm sure many people on here do who either just love aviation or from working in their respective fields within it, So again never said it was the best option,,, it might seem like a better option to ME, but like you so clearly pointed out i dont work in Flight Planning or Ops,, hence my not just saying "Well that was stupid and a waste of time,, should have gone to Boston, end of story Period...."This is supposed to be a forum where people i believe help each-other understand things that are going on, sometimes very specifically,,, and that's what i was doing,, Conversing in a forum, (Asking, questioning, wondering,, thinking and learning) for,, wouldn't ya know it,,, Aviation and related matters. :banghead:


It’s been answered multiple times by multiple knowledgeable people why BOS was not a great divert point. So let’s go through this step by step.

1) They had some sort of issue that did not allow them to enter ETOPS airspace.
2) Said issue was not a safety of flight issue that required an immediate landing.
3) BOS is not an AA 787 base, nor does AA likely have any maintenance at BOS that is 787 capable
4) Diverting to BOS, while closer in time may cost more time since there are no parts that AA has access to, and no crew readily available
5) The aircraft may have been overweight for a landing at BOS. As it was not an emergency you now have brought a needless overweight landing into the equation which has it’s own considerations
5A) I don’t know what AA’s fuel dump policy is but as no emergency needed to be declared, dumping fuel may not be warranted.
5B) Keeping said fuel in the tanks to burn opens up a lot of options
6) Apparently the weather was bad at ORD so ORD was no longer a suitable option
7) DFW was apparently the closest divert option where maintenance and crews were going to be available in the shortest amount of time
7A) See 5B to see why DFW was now an option
8) If it took 12 hours to get a crew that is probably much faster than had they gone to BOS where parts would have to be transported to, along with the personnel to change said parts, along with a new crew to fly the plane if the original crew times out or is still in crew rest waiting for the repair
9) Just because 787s go to BOS doesn’t mean AA has access to those parts or people that have to know how to change the parts
10) Once on the ground people need to be either re-accommodated or sent to a hotel, perhaps hotel availability and the ability to reroute out of BOS was limited

So off the top of my head those are just some of the reasons why a place like BOS got knocked out. No parts, no maintenance, no crews, possibly overweight, BOS may not be an authorized airport for AA’s 787s in their op-specs for a non emergency.


Most of the ten points you listed are for the convenience of the airline and NOT for the convenience of the customers.

To get the passenger to their destination quickly, I think it would have been best to divert to JFK. AA / BA have a large number of flights to LHR. I also understand they offer two daytime flights to LHR everyday... Which would have been good timing to get the passengers to London if they landed at JFK early in the morning. This solution would require the airline to take the passenger's perspective when making decisions.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
DualQual
Posts: 714
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:46 pm

max999 wrote:
DualQual wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:

If anyone is going to be putting anything in my mouth, it will be myself, dont dont try shoving words in there that never came out in the first place..... i said, and was trying to make a point of,,, Since BOS is also quite large and supports several airlines operating the 787's... WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE diverted there instead of what looks like an insane 180 degree turn in the opposite direction for 3+ hours. So just in case any of that also wasn't clear,,, i NEVER said it would have been the best option, because SHOCKER,,, i DO NOT work in Flight Planning / Airline Ops..... BUT i do know a fair bit about aviation from flying around randomly because i can and and my hours of flying to get my license so i'm not stupid either. As i'm sure many people on here do who either just love aviation or from working in their respective fields within it, So again never said it was the best option,,, it might seem like a better option to ME, but like you so clearly pointed out i dont work in Flight Planning or Ops,, hence my not just saying "Well that was stupid and a waste of time,, should have gone to Boston, end of story Period...."This is supposed to be a forum where people i believe help each-other understand things that are going on, sometimes very specifically,,, and that's what i was doing,, Conversing in a forum, (Asking, questioning, wondering,, thinking and learning) for,, wouldn't ya know it,,, Aviation and related matters. :banghead:


It’s been answered multiple times by multiple knowledgeable people why BOS was not a great divert point. So let’s go through this step by step.

1) They had some sort of issue that did not allow them to enter ETOPS airspace.
2) Said issue was not a safety of flight issue that required an immediate landing.
3) BOS is not an AA 787 base, nor does AA likely have any maintenance at BOS that is 787 capable
4) Diverting to BOS, while closer in time may cost more time since there are no parts that AA has access to, and no crew readily available
5) The aircraft may have been overweight for a landing at BOS. As it was not an emergency you now have brought a needless overweight landing into the equation which has it’s own considerations
5A) I don’t know what AA’s fuel dump policy is but as no emergency needed to be declared, dumping fuel may not be warranted.
5B) Keeping said fuel in the tanks to burn opens up a lot of options
6) Apparently the weather was bad at ORD so ORD was no longer a suitable option
7) DFW was apparently the closest divert option where maintenance and crews were going to be available in the shortest amount of time
7A) See 5B to see why DFW was now an option
8) If it took 12 hours to get a crew that is probably much faster than had they gone to BOS where parts would have to be transported to, along with the personnel to change said parts, along with a new crew to fly the plane if the original crew times out or is still in crew rest waiting for the repair
9) Just because 787s go to BOS doesn’t mean AA has access to those parts or people that have to know how to change the parts
10) Once on the ground people need to be either re-accommodated or sent to a hotel, perhaps hotel availability and the ability to reroute out of BOS was limited

So off the top of my head those are just some of the reasons why a place like BOS got knocked out. No parts, no maintenance, no crews, possibly overweight, BOS may not be an authorized airport for AA’s 787s in their op-specs for a non emergency.


Most of the ten points you listed are for the convenience of the airline and NOT for the convenience of the customers.

To get the passenger to their destination quickly, I think it would have been best to divert to JFK. AA / BA have a large number of flights to LHR. I also understand they offer two daytime flights to LHR everyday... Which would have been good timing to get the passengers to London if they landed at JFK early in the morning. This solution would require the airline to take the passenger's perspective when making decisions.


I’ll spot you JFK as a better alternative. However, is the 787 a regular for AA at JFK? I’m asking because I don’t know. If it’s not, again, you have an airplane now broken where there are no parts and/or anyone to fix it, nor anyone to fly it. So while it may have helped one plane load of people, you’ve screwed multiple follow on plane loads with a broke airplane out of position to get fixed as quickly as possible. That would have follow on consequences for thousands of passengers. Also, airports are listed in the op specs for the airline for each fleet. Is JFK an authorized alternate at AA for the 787? IOW, if it’s not an emergency can a 787 go there for anything other than a gas and go? Again, I don’t know. But if it’s not listed as anything other than a refueling or emergency alternate than it’s a non starter with something that needs to be fixed. Finally, would they have been overweight at JFK?

So there’s a lot of things that go into the decision. For whatever reason, DFW was the best compromise in this situation since apparently ORD was unsuitable to return to.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
max999
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

Re: AA98 ORD-LHR Diverts To... DFW?

Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:14 pm

DualQual wrote:
max999 wrote:
DualQual wrote:

It’s been answered multiple times by multiple knowledgeable people why BOS was not a great divert point. So let’s go through this step by step.

1) They had some sort of issue that did not allow them to enter ETOPS airspace.
2) Said issue was not a safety of flight issue that required an immediate landing.
3) BOS is not an AA 787 base, nor does AA likely have any maintenance at BOS that is 787 capable
4) Diverting to BOS, while closer in time may cost more time since there are no parts that AA has access to, and no crew readily available
5) The aircraft may have been overweight for a landing at BOS. As it was not an emergency you now have brought a needless overweight landing into the equation which has it’s own considerations
5A) I don’t know what AA’s fuel dump policy is but as no emergency needed to be declared, dumping fuel may not be warranted.
5B) Keeping said fuel in the tanks to burn opens up a lot of options
6) Apparently the weather was bad at ORD so ORD was no longer a suitable option
7) DFW was apparently the closest divert option where maintenance and crews were going to be available in the shortest amount of time
7A) See 5B to see why DFW was now an option
8) If it took 12 hours to get a crew that is probably much faster than had they gone to BOS where parts would have to be transported to, along with the personnel to change said parts, along with a new crew to fly the plane if the original crew times out or is still in crew rest waiting for the repair
9) Just because 787s go to BOS doesn’t mean AA has access to those parts or people that have to know how to change the parts
10) Once on the ground people need to be either re-accommodated or sent to a hotel, perhaps hotel availability and the ability to reroute out of BOS was limited

So off the top of my head those are just some of the reasons why a place like BOS got knocked out. No parts, no maintenance, no crews, possibly overweight, BOS may not be an authorized airport for AA’s 787s in their op-specs for a non emergency.


Most of the ten points you listed are for the convenience of the airline and NOT for the convenience of the customers.

To get the passenger to their destination quickly, I think it would have been best to divert to JFK. AA / BA have a large number of flights to LHR. I also understand they offer two daytime flights to LHR everyday... Which would have been good timing to get the passengers to London if they landed at JFK early in the morning. This solution would require the airline to take the passenger's perspective when making decisions.


I’ll spot you JFK as a better alternative. However, is the 787 a regular for AA at JFK? I’m asking because I don’t know. If it’s not, again, you have an airplane now broken where there are no parts and/or anyone to fix it, nor anyone to fly it. So while it may have helped one plane load of people, you’ve screwed multiple follow on plane loads with a broke airplane out of position to get fixed as quickly as possible. That would have follow on consequences for thousands of passengers. Also, airports are listed in the op specs for the airline for each fleet. Is JFK an authorized alternate at AA for the 787? IOW, if it’s not an emergency can a 787 go there for anything other than a gas and go? Again, I don’t know. But if it’s not listed as anything other than a refueling or emergency alternate than it’s a non starter with something that needs to be fixed. Finally, would they have been overweight at JFK?

So there’s a lot of things that go into the decision. For whatever reason, DFW was the best compromise in this situation since apparently ORD was unsuitable to return to.


I understand many things go into a decision like this. But I believe AA does not seriously take the customer into consideration into making those decisions. Rather they make decisions based on what's most convenient and cheapest for the airline instead.

I have two concrete examples that backs up my feeling AA is very cheap when it comes to reaccomodation.

1) recently, AA changed its reaccomodation policy so passengers with no status can only be reaccomdated on AA flights. I understand the policy does not allow for exceptions and is very strict.
2) in late September, AA passengers were stuck in Lima for 3 days after a series of problems. I'm very surprised the passengers were stuck for that long if it AA didn't try hard enough to reaccomodate passengers on other flights. Or AA was sticking to its guns when it came to the policy in point #1
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos