Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This action by the pilots seem risky. They had a technical issue and instead of landing in Newfoundland or USA airports it turned around and went all the way back to France.
That makes no sense, being so close to Canada, why didn't they land at the closest airport, going back across the Atlantic, does seem risky.
Eh it makes a lot of sense if the technical issue is judged to not cause any immediate danger. You only divert to an alternate if the crew feels they can't make it to the destination or back home. That clearly wasn't the case here.
What they made was a financial decision. Consider that in Newfoundland they are really only about halfway to Mexico City from Paris. They had three options:
(1) They could have continued to MEX which would have been the best option for the passengers, but also would have left their expensive airplane potentially stranded for some time in a foreign country while they would have had to fly in equipment and technicians to fix it there. That costs a lot of money..and would have a costly operational impact as well given the plane would be out of service in that time.
(2) They could have diverted to an airport in Canada or the NE U.S., but this could lead to the same issues as above, with some additional costs for having to pay for landing at another airport, taking up hangar space there, having to provide accommodation and alternative transportation for passengers and crew.
(3) Return to home base where you got equipment and technicians sitting ready to work, where you can easily schedule alternative service for the affected passengers and where the crew can be put back to work as soon as possible. Operationally, you'll always take this one in these circumstances if possible.
Eh it makes a lot of sense if the technical issue is judged to not cause any immediate danger. You only divert to an alternate if the crew feels they can't make it to the destination or back home. That clearly wasn't the case here.
What they made was a financial decision. Consider that in Newfoundland they are really only about halfway to Mexico City from Paris. They had three options:
(1) They could have continued to MEX which would have been the best option for the passengers, but also would have left their expensive airplane potentially stranded for some time in a foreign country while they would have had to fly in equipment and technicians to fix it there. That costs a lot of money..and would have a costly operational impact as well given the plane would be out of service in that time.
(2) They could have diverted to an airport in Canada or the NE U.S., but this could lead to the same issues as above, with some additional costs for having to pay for landing at another airport, taking up hangar space there, having to provide accommodation and alternative transportation for passengers and crew.
(3) Return to home base where you got equipment and technicians sitting ready to work, where you can easily schedule alternative service for the affected passengers and where the crew can be put back to work as soon as possible. Operationally, you'll always take this one in these circumstances if possible.
That makes no sense, being so close to Canada, why didn't they land at the closest airport, going back across the Atlantic, does seem risky.
You're second guessing judgment of pilots who have decades of experience under their belts.
If pilots obviously believed there was danger to plane and passengers they would have put in to land at nearest airport.
Obviously event was not of an urgent nature, and call was made to return plane to her home base. There as noted by another post everything required to diagnose and correct whatever ailed the plane can be had.
Having a plane where it's not supposed to be creates headaches and costs for an airline. Best avoided if possible unless truly warranted by situation at hand.
(2) They could have diverted to an airport in Canada or the NE U.S., but this could lead to the same issues as above, with some additional costs for having to pay for landing at another airport, taking up hangar space there, having to provide accommodation and alternative transportation for passengers and crew.
As for the passengers, landing in Canada or the US could also cause immigration or VISA issues for the passengers that may have been on the flight. For example, most Mexican Citizens, which could have very likely been on the flight need to have a VISA or eTA to enter Canada. Which they would have needed to acquire before their trip.
Return to home base where you got equipment and technicians sitting ready to work, where you can easily schedule alternative service for the affected passengers and where the crew can be put back to work as soon as possible. Operationally, you'll always take this one in these circumstances if possible.
This action by the pilots seem risky. They had a technical issue and instead of landing in Newfoundland or USA airports it turned around and went all the way back to France.
Seems crazy but the Pilot either followed protocol or direction from someone at a high level with the airline. I would be pissed if I were on that flight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
