Returned to departing airport
Posted by dottm@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 304 comments
I was on a flight from Frankfurt to Austin today where the captain came on and announced they had a fault with the smoke detectors and it was unsafe to continue so we had to turn around. I’m confused as to why they returned to the origin airport and not the nearest airport if it was a safety issue?
dottm@reddit (OP)
What makes it even worse was I was supposed to fly LHR to AUS on Friday and it got cancelled for weather so this is the flight they put me on for the cancellation. Twice now I’ve had flight problems so hoping tomorrow is 3rd time lucky.
siriusserious@reddit
Don't forget to claim your compensation. You should get 700 Euros for your troubles.
lowlandder@reddit
If it’s cancelled due to weather, they won’t get anything
Resident-Suspect-266@reddit
NOT true. It’s only if it’s extraordinary weather they can decline. So snow is not sufficient reason, it has to be a lot of snow, with closed airports.
Trust me. I got 600 eur two days ago due to some snow in Northern Europe.
lowlandder@reddit
So it must have been something else then, because if your flight gets delayed because of weather conditions, the airline is exonerated. In your case it probably wasn’t a weather related issue
Resident-Suspect-266@reddit
You’re simply wrong. In the rules it is stated: « adverse weather conditions». Not only bad weather.
Of course the airlines are doing their best to not make this known, since it’s very expensive for them. But you should always ask for compensation unless the weather is terrible.
siriusserious@reddit
Second cancellation was a technical issue
videogames_@reddit
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/index_en.htm
If your flight departs from the EU to a non-EU country operated by an EU or a non-EU airline
I'd look into this for compensation.
dottm@reddit (OP)
I’ve never claimed compensation before but I’ll give it a try on this one. Is it easy enough to do or should I use one of those companies that claim it and take a cut?
The first cancellation was weather so I know I don’t get anything for that but my credit card (Visa infinate) says that they would cover food, lodging and travel so I’ve got that to try.
Second was a technical issue so I will try for company there.
Lots of firsts here so I’ll be a smarter man either way at the end.
bourbonandcustard@reddit
For both flights you can ask the airline for a reimbursement of your extra costs like hotel and food (send them your receipts). For the second flight you can also claim the €600 compensation. Claim directly with the airline first. If they refuse your claim, then you can try an ADR platform (alternative dispute resolution), or go to one of these many companies that claim on your behalf (flightright, AirHelp, etc.).
Kubrick_Fan@reddit
I...think you might be a gremlin
sonicandfffan@reddit
And even worse, when you finally do make it you’ll be in Texas.
atoddles@reddit
Dixon Dallas
aristo87@reddit
Sounds like you should've volunteered to do some smoke detectin'
conchita_puta@reddit
Scheisshansa
DenebianSlimeMolds@reddit
take notes and turn it into a screenplay, your choice: comedy, science fiction, romance, ground hog day
MrHouse-38@reddit
Oh please go on tell us how hard your life is travelling all over the world probably getting paid a ridiculous amount
bottom4topps@reddit
I ain’t ever gettin mad if we had to return to base or divert etc. it’s one of the rare times to quantify “my life is more important than X”
Conscious-Scratch841@reddit
Couldn’t they just stop in Dublin or Glasgow or did you have to go back to homebase?
Express-World-8473@reddit
Brother it's a sign.....
fly-guy@reddit
Maybe it's you.... ;) you're jinxed
koth442@reddit
What an absolute pain. Sorry to hear that.
TheVoicesSpeakToMe@reddit
4 hour flight to nowhere.
Phuftbucket@reddit
I sat next to a bloke on flight from Christmas Island (very remote Australian Island) to Perth. This bloke told me that on his first attempted journey to Christmas Island, he took the flight via the Cocos Keeling Islands (another remote Australian island). The flight to Cocos from Perth is around six hours and then an additional 90minutes to CI. He said that they couldn’t land on CI due to a thick fog so began circling for a couple of hours. They never were able to land so the flight continued on to Perth, another five hours away.
He spent about 15hrs of his life flying from Perth, to Perth..
LordRyloth@reddit
Wait, they had 5 hrs of fuel for a 90 min flight? I am so confused
Chuckolator@reddit
Need enough to make it to your diversion.
Purplesect0rs@reddit
Curious now, what is the longest alternate in the world. Or most remote airport to its nearest.
93perigee@reddit
I frequently send flights to Tahiti (NTAA) with Pago Pago listed as the alternate. That's a 1200NM diversion if you had to go... Plane often lands in Tahiti with over 5 hours of gas left in the tanks
doomiestdoomeddoomer@reddit
Surely that is also one of the heaviest landings then?
GregMilkedJack@reddit
It is, and don't call me Shirley.
CounterSimple3771@reddit
Over, Unger
TypeNegative@reddit
roger Roger
Chaxterium@reddit
What's our vector, Victor?
FlyByPC@reddit
We have clearance, Clarence.
alexxreyes@reddit
Cream?
93perigee@reddit
I take it black. Like my men.
Difficult-Implement9@reddit
Joey, you ever hang around the gymnasium?
alexxreyes@reddit
Cream?
Big_Classic_2149@reddit
We have clearance Clarence
omarsonmarz@reddit
over Rover
ntilley905@reddit
Not really, a lot of flights end up landing close to or at maximum landing weight no matter the route. I land near MLW on transcontinental US flights all the time when our alternate is less than a 20 minute flight away. On flights where they would need a lot of alternate fuel it would just restrict the payload that could be carried.
SeanBean-MustDie@reddit
My first guess would be McMurdo Station, Antartica but that’s pretty far too
classicalySarcastic@reddit
Just gotta have a little goddamn diversion fuel Arthur!
Open-Yellow-1507@reddit
I broke the goddamn landing gear
Substantial-Cookie36@reddit
He has a plan…
Chaxterium@reddit
Tahiti Arthur! Mangoes!
Zimmer_94@reddit
ORTHUR!
ArthurBurtonMorgan@reddit
I’ve heard this somewhere before…
CastelPlage@reddit
Why not Raro?
StormyJet@reddit
It's a magical place.
TinyDemon000@reddit
Perth's the most remote city on the planet so this guy's stories pretty funny in that respect. From A) most remote city to B) a middle of nowhere Pacific island but never making it.
LloydChristmas-RI@reddit
I think it might actually be Honolulu.
Plus-Outcome3388@reddit
Yes, it’s Honolulu. Still, Perth is pretty remote.
Plus-Outcome3388@reddit
Yes.
Baleful_Vulture@reddit
Probably Easter Island
FujitsuPolycom@reddit
Thanks for sending me down the Easter Island rabbit hole. I knew it was out there, but not that out there. Always incredible to me that humans populate/d places like that, so long ago, and still do.
andorraliechtenstein@reddit
That is correct.
M3g4d37h@reddit
i was thinking tristan da cunha but i think they lack a strip and all travel to there is by water.
basilect@reddit
St. Helena has an airport now. The closest airstrip is Ascension Island (700nm/1300km), but the closest civilian airport (and thus usable alternate) is Walvis Bay, Namibia at 1200nm/2300km.
MrFickless@reddit
Flights to Antarctica usually need to carry enough fuel to make the round trip. So, the alternate airport for the Antarctic airport is the origin airport.
Also a special mention about Concorde whenever it visited the pacific islands. It could only carry enough fuel to fly one-way. What the crews would do is to use point-of-no-return (PNR) procedures. The crew would continuously monitor the weather at the destination airport, if it looked like it wasn’t going to be anything other than perfect, they would turn around before the halfway point. Past the PNR point, they were committed.
Angles_Devils@reddit
Having done PNR calculations flying helicopters, it isn't a fun experience. It's always do it 3 times to make sure i had it right.
phire@reddit
I've heard that many of the jets flying to Antartica actually need keep the engines idling for the entire unloading/loading process, as they aren't certified to start with temps that low.
Which would mean they have far more fuel than just a diversion back to the origin. Unless they are planning on refuelling while the engines are running, they will need to depart with enough fuel to land, idle for 2 hours, depart, and make it back to their origin, with plenty of fuel left to divert.
I suspect the flights departing from Christchurch actually have enough fuel for a 90min diversion to Auckland if needed, because Wellington and Christchurch are often affected by the same weather.
MrFickless@reddit
From what I hear, it’s in case there’s an issue with the APU and it needs to be shut down. With no GSE over there to ground-start an engine, the aircraft would be stuck.
Keeping one engine running gives some level of redundancy.
Specialist_Reality96@reddit
Also likely keeps the deicing up and running not sure how much of a setup they have there, I assume they can handle the smaller stuff and helicopters.
vsae@reddit
A340, one of four engines is kept at idle and the Apu on top of that.
LupineChemist@reddit
Air Greenland has been diverting from Nuuk to Copenhagen recently for flights from....Copenhagen
wibble089@reddit
Saint Helena island is often said to be the remotest airport, because of the distance to the next land (2,000 km / 1,200 mi) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_Airport The flight from Johannesburg to Saint Helena makes a fuel stop in Walvis Bay , Namibia. The alternative airport to Saint Helena is Walvis Bay.
Any flight that doesn't land at Saint Helena has to return to Walvis Bay , so all of them have to carry enough fuel for the return leg (plus whatever they need to use over the island). The distance is 2250km (about 1400 miles).
However this is beaten by the airport on Easter Island , it's 2,336 miles (3,759 km) from Santiago, Chile (SCL), although the island isn't as "remote" as St Helena with other islands closer than 2000km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mataveri_International_Airport
GrynaiTaip@reddit
Flights from South Africa to Antarctic carry a fair bit of extra fuel, because the next closest airport is in South Africa.
Aishas_Star@reddit
Alternate airport would have been Geraldton or Learmonth I think. Would be weird to go back to Perth.
gibbo4053@reddit
The alternate for Christmas Island is usually Jakarta actually. I have seen a Virgin A320 divert to CGK on a PER-XCH sector several times. Although when a CCK-XCH flight can’t land, they tend to go straight back to home base in PER due to crew hours.
Aishas_Star@reddit
Correct. But it’s much harder to go outside of Aus as no one would have a visa or passport on them - inc crew
gibbo4053@reddit
Of course - they will only ever go for a CGK diversion if it’s just a gas’n’go. Does happen from time to time on the XCH/CCK triangle
Markd0ne@reddit
Fuel on remote islands is very expensive. They had fuel for a roundtrip at the beginning.
halfageplus7@reddit
this is correct. the term is: tankering
halfageplus7@reddit
Tankering is the practice of loading more fuel than required for a flight to save money on fuel. It's used in aviation and for transporting waste. In aviation How it works Airlines load extra fuel at the departure airport to avoid buying fuel at the destination airport. Why it's done Airlines can save money if fuel is cheaper at the departure airport.
basilect@reddit
You'd need fuel for a roundtrip plus alternate on the way back in that case. It's so much cheaper, in direct and opportunity cost, to ship fuel to remote islands than it is to keep it onboard in most cases.
andcirclejerk@reddit
If there was fog forecast, they required an alternate. Remote airfields like islands the operator can require an alternate by default, regardless of how good the weather.
I think Christmas Island is prone to fog and low cloud - it is surrounded by warm moist air and the field is elevated (i think maybe ~500ft), so the conditions at the field often trigger low cloud. I haven't been that way in a while it might be Cocos I'm thinking of.
Ivebeenfurthereven@reddit
Is there a reason not to fit ILS equipment? I don't know much about Cat II/III landings - I'm not a pilot - but that seems like a rapid investment
andcirclejerk@reddit
Not sure mate.
bettsdude@reddit
No the 90min was from one island to another the first flight was 6 hours to the first island
sonofnom@reddit
There are situations where airliners flying to remote destinations such as islands will carry enough fuel for the return trip as well simply due to the much higher fuel prices on the destination island.
Stypic1@reddit
15 hours of fuel isn’t it?
Nok1a_@reddit
Would been easier to fly to Jakarta and then swimg, fck me I be so annoyed if that happens to me
fando26@reddit
No you are correct. Has happened plenty of times with aircraft not getting in at cocos and diverting to Jakarta.
Nok1a_@reddit
I was trying to make a Joke, saying instead to flight straight to cocos, just fligh to Jakarta and then swimg to cocos, would take less time haha.
But yeah if the flight it's been cancelled, I would thought they would be diverted to the nearest airport if the airline have a base there so they could wait to the weather getting better, than going back and waste all that fuel on coming back again, but that's me to knowing a shit about how they do the things
Pastill@reddit
You can't just show up at airports you don't have landing slots at tho.
Nutarama@reddit
Pilot: “Hi guys, got a slot?” ATC: “No, you’re not on the guest list.” Pilot: “Awh shucks. I tried.”
Nok1a_@reddit
I know I was been ironic
intensenerd@reddit
Had to do similar once. SYD to SFO.
Got a bit less than halfway there and one of the passengers perished.
Nearly 10 hours of flight time to go from SYD to SYD.
RIP to that guy. It was a horrible day.
gefahr@reddit
If someone died on the 2nd half of the flight, I wonder if they'd turn around again.
Unrelated, your profile pic is a war crime. Got me you bastard.
steugicle@reddit
I think if someone was confirmed to be dead they should just proceed to the destination. There is nothing to be gained from returning, the person is dead!
LupineChemist@reddit
It will depend on the airline. My mom worked for NW and this was their procedure.
They would also specifically not divert if they were actually dead since it was going to be far more likely that they'd have someone who can help deal with it at the destination since they're traveling there for a reason.
sevomat@reddit
Yeah they usually just keep going. Carrie Fisher died on a flight from London to L..A. well into the second half.
NoGrapefruitToday@reddit
This is my understanding, as told to me by a flight attendant on a long int'l flight
Nutarama@reddit
Mostly I think it’s that customs really doesn’t like dealing with a plane showing up with a dead body. That’s an international investigation to determine if it’s homicide and if so investigate it. Either way the destination probably has to ship the corpse home for a funeral.
Right mess, and it’s worse if the deceased isn’t just a random vacationer. Random overweight dad dies from a heart attack, not a big deal. If they’re rich or famous or a politician or a military officer, it becomes a big deal because the conspiracies are going to start and people will want more answers.
As such it’s better if the plane just goes home and tries again tomorrow.
Phuftbucket@reddit
They refuel the aircraft at the first stop whether it be Cocos or CI, before continuing on to other island. The plane had stopped at Cocos prior to going and circling CI before returning to Perth.
Phil198603@reddit
That's not very efficient
fando26@reddit
Not sure what flight he was on but most aircraft that service those islands wouldn't be able to fly for 15 hours straight lol. Jakarta is used most of the time for an alternate airport.
Betanot@reddit
Small correction, Christmas Island (Kiritimati Island) is a part of the independent nation of Kiribati
basilect@reddit
Wrong Christmas Island.
Islands in that era were often named after the day in the religious calendar when they were discovered by Europeans, it just so happens that 2 different islands were sighted on December 25th of that year.
Betanot@reddit
Ahhh my mistake!
MKE_likes_it@reddit
Oof. I’ve done 7 hours from Heathrow to Heathrow (medical emergency). The guy lived but we wanted to kill him because it came out that he was told not to fly.
the_silent_redditor@reddit
I randomly was watching Flight Radar over Tasmania, and listening to the ATC.
There was awful visibility so there was a good 5 or 6 aircraft that had been circling and trying approaches. The occasional one would sneak through, and ATC were saying it was just down to luck and timing. One aircraft managed to put it down on their fifth approach!
Quite a few were bailing and going to Launceston.
The aircraft that has been circling the longest bailed after a fourth approach, and flew back to Sydney.
It touched down at the same place it left after like 6 hours haha.
well_shoothed@reddit
Soul crushing
heepofsheep@reddit
I wonder how many miles they earned for this. Do they get credit for the entire planned flight?
Legend13CNS@reddit
I don't know about all airlines, but this happened to me coming home from Christmas on a domestic US flight. I got credit for the turned-around flight and the one I was rebooked on the next morning.
Nutarama@reddit
As a pilot you get actual miles flown. So if you divert an extra 2000 miles, that’s an extra 2000 miles. If you have to divert and only go 500 instead of 1500, that’s a thousand less miles. Then you’ll get the miles from the retry flight if you still are legally able to do the retry. Airline might ground the flight long enough for a pilot reset if they have no extra pilots.
As a passenger you probably get some bonus reward miles for the inconvenience, the amount depending on how good you are at chatting up support and the staff. Might even be able to get a free flight voucher if you’re good.
Reasonable_Bobcat175@reddit
Christmas Island needs ILS approach
FudgeRubDown@reddit
Time Travel!
DaWolf85@reddit
I've dispatched 4-5h flights to nowhere a couple times. Crappy weather at the destination, circle a bit, come all the way back. Try the flight again the next day.
Had another one I diverted three times. While enroute, sent them straight to the alternate despite tons of gas because destination weather was way too low. Then it improved immediately so I diverted them back to the destination. Then it tanked again before they got there so they tried an approach, went missed, and diverted back to the alternate again. And that alternate was quite far, too... I still feel bad about that one.
DiverDownChunder@reddit
We are on a road to nowhere.
XSC@reddit
4 hours aint the worst but jeez I am getting anxious just thinking about this.
RespectMoiAuthoritah@reddit
wait till you hear about people who booked flights just for the plane rides. Like people legit just do same day round trip flights to experience the flying part.
No_Tap_1697@reddit
I just did it on Saturday had the day off said let’s go somewhere
Sythic_@reddit
At least if they took off where OP is from or somewhere nearby, they actually have trips like that to go see the Northern Lights.
1TLC1@reddit
I sat next to a guy who was doing a 13 hour one to Tokyo for miles. I'll pass.
Zeptocell@reddit
What exactly is the purpose? Like did he have to travel for his job, so he justified a flight to Tokyo for some reason, had his employer pay for it and then cashed in on the miles?
wambulancer@reddit
John Hodgman has a very funny book about it, called Medallion Status, the purpose is to get bumped up into another tier of airline carrier service which comes with tons of perks like drinks and first class priority and access to lounges in the airports.
Zeptocell@reddit
Alright, and is this for life, or on an annual basis?
Zestyclose-Ad-5305@reddit
Do you not travel by air or is this /s?
Zeptocell@reddit
I'm legitimately asking lol, I travel by air like once a year.
scottydg@reddit
There are tiers you have to hit per year to stay at your current level. I fell short of a tier by about 7k miles last year, so I got bumped down a level. Lifetime status is usually achieved by having so many years at such a status.
TheDrummerMB@reddit
lol at asking a question because you're clueless before sarcastically asking someone if they've flown before. Peak redditor
bombaer@reddit
I had a colleague missing a few business trips due to a accident he had. From then on he was moved to a pure desk-job.
He was just those trips short of gaining Lufthansa Senator status - could even have been a lifetime status thing.
Zeptocell@reddit
Damn, that sucks. Seems fair to me that you'd miss work if you have an accident :(
Preposturous@reddit
This is me. A few of my trips I took last year with my non-rev benefits were just for the plane ride. Find a round trip with the same aircraft, fly, get off the plane, back on the plane, and fly back home.
4lmightyyy@reddit
What exactly do you enjoy about it and how long does this take you per flight and trip?
Preposturous@reddit
Just being an aviation nerd, and wanting to kill time, I’ll fly to a city not too far away. Like maybe an hour each way.
Took off at like 1:30 one day, and was back home by 5pm. I found an aircraft that was going to and from my city on consecutive legs which made it quicker haha
But I like exploring airports, and just flying in general. Sightseeing is fun.
4lmightyyy@reddit
Thank you for the answer. Sounds fun if you could make a day trip to a city out of it.
I really enjoy looking out the window and having a great view, but if there isn't it's just trying to waste as much time as possible. Time goes slower for me up there. For me its too crowded in the cabin and I don't like this kind of AC or the settings of it in a plane. But I don't fly regularly and if I do it's most of the time long range.
Well, I would be lying if I wasn't expecting an answer like this in this sub, but I never thought about someone just boarding a plane for the sole reason of flying in a passenger aircraft instead of travelling to a destination. Have fun doing whatever makes you happy
TheKidLex@reddit
You are awesome
STXGregor@reddit
My panic attack is your pastime lol
Stoney3K@reddit
I can also imagine people doing that to keep their total flying miles up to remain eligible for premium membership programs.
outworlder@reddit
Interesting.
If you like it so much you should do like Noel Philips and have a YouTube channel 🙂
Preposturous@reddit
True! However all my trips are with the airline I work for so it would get boring rather quickly haha
outworlder@reddit
Yeah it's about the airline. If it's about the destinations, maybe not 🙂
Without_Portfolio@reddit
I would if there was something cool about the plane. My grandfather used to have a business selling to clients around the Caribbean and I loved to fly with him in the smaller prop planes. Landing at St Barts and St Martin was always a blast. Taking off from St Barts not so much lol.
RedShirt2901@reddit
Wasn't it used to be called "mileage runs"?
XSC@reddit
stahp
rofopp@reddit
Ok, so We were 4 hours out of PEK on the way to Toronto when a guy had a medical emergency. Somewhere over northern Siberia we turned around and went back to PEK. (Oddly, the medical emergency guy walked off the plane with everyone and was deeply chagrined). Crew timed out, nobody had a visa to get back into China and it was midnight on a National Holiday (October 1?). Magically, no one went through customs, they put us up in PEK airport hotel and we were on our way 17 hours later, once the crew was timed back in.
DankVectorz@reddit
Supposedly, once during a snowstorm over most of the NE, we had a Lufthansa who had to divert from EWR after a go around and went back to Frankfurt. Idk if it’s true but multiple people said it.
Hugh_Jainus69420@reddit
That's just an urban legend. Never happened.
DankVectorz@reddit
I heard it from the guy who supposedly worked it 🤷♂️
serrated_edge321@reddit
Might've been something related to too many airplanes needing to divert, especially if the bad weather extended down to DC. Maybe the US aircraft were given priority, and the Lufthansa ops people decided landing somewhere super far away was no better than going home. Or maybe there was some mechanical repair needed also that encouraged such a decision.
Baleful_Vulture@reddit
I call bullshit
MisterrTickle@reddit
Why would he have that much fuel on board?
DankVectorz@reddit
Because it would have been their planned alternate
MisterrTickle@reddit
There's a gazillion other airports that would have been closer.
DankVectorz@reddit
I’m just repeating what I was told, I wasn’t there
TheVoicesSpeakToMe@reddit
BOS or Philadelphia is usually the alternative for any NYC flights that divert. If they went back to FRA they would definitely have had to land for gas somewhere on the way back.
DankVectorz@reddit
Well in this case the wx at them was shit too
OkPatience677@reddit
I highly doubt they could make it back to Frankfurt after a go around in EWR. They usually divert to Philadelphia or Boston if they are passed a certain point over the Atlantic.
DenebianSlimeMolds@reddit
4 hour flight to nowhere.
Come on and fly
Takin' that flight to nowhere
We'll take that ride
Tin_Foil_Hat_Person@reddit
that would make a great band name
Dennisfromhawaii@reddit
I prefer the midnight train.
gonzorizzo@reddit
To Georgia?
PiperArrow@reddit
Really just to a simpler place and time.
TerribleMacaroon227@reddit
To anywhere
w0nderbrad@reddit
But only if there are soaring guitar solos that follow
devonhezter@reddit
Ouch
ptear@reddit
Forgot to turn off the stove
floopygoober@reddit
What people think will happen if they miss their flight
PainTrain412@reddit
They might be jumpy
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/s/YPxgybZHWk
DidSome1SayExMachina@reddit
The problem was with the smoke detectors in his house; he had to go fix them
Sharknado84@reddit
🤣😂🤣
chrisirmo@reddit
Generally the rules for flying across the ocean are different from those over land, where there are a lot more options for a diversion. With a smoke detector fault like that, odds are it's nothing so diverting back to the origin is fine and gives more options for either a quick repair or a replacement aircraft. If it had developed into something serious they could've quickly diverted to any airport between there and the origin. Over the ocean, it's a different story.
BoysLinuses@reddit
To clarify it's not just about being over land, it's more about flying within proximity to suitable airports. There's lots of land in Greenland and northern Canada that OP was planned to fly over. In those regions you might as well consider yourself flying over an ocean with a few small islands of population.
MisterrTickle@reddit
Thule is a pretty good airport. Even if it has been renamed to Pituffik Space Base.
Creepas5@reddit
Iqaluit on Baffin Island can handle up to 737's too and is long enough to potentially handle a 747 if truly needed.
dimonoid123@reddit
Iqaluit is the most northern city in the world with Amazon Prime delivery from what I remember. Totally makes sense.
LupineChemist@reddit
Iqaluit gets widebody conversions. Just recently there was an Air India 777 diverted there. The RCAF sent an A330 transport to take them the rest of the way.
Creepas5@reddit
777 landing in Iqaluit must have been quite a sight. I don't miss living there but I would have liked to have been around for that.
LupineChemist@reddit
Kangerlussuaq has the far better runway in Greenland.
Nuuk can supposedly handle widebodies now, but it's having....problems
skookumsloth@reddit
It’s a pretty crap airport for emergencies, because it’s got a challenging approach. Good surface (when it’s not under construction) but still has lots of terrain issues and can really only be approached from the west.
Cow_Launcher@reddit
Sure, but also consider what are the maintenance facilities arelike at any of the alternates.
For this airline, Frankfurt might be their home base with all their facilities. Better then to land there, get the pax on a new bird, and fix the broken one there.
Cheaper than landing elsewhere unexpextedly, deplaning, flying another aircraft in, etc, etc, etc. In fact, that might even be cheaper than going to the original destination!
Incidentally, I seem to remember that BA proceeded to destination with a 747 that had a faulty engine. They calculated that it was fine - and they were heading to Heathrow, so... but they got their asses handed to them for not turning back.
sodancool@reddit
About 6 years ago my family and I were heading back from Kawaii when about 2 and a half hours in we begin to circle back instead of proceeding LA because I guess we weren't exactly halfway from the nearest airport so we had to circle back to the nearest airport in Hawaii, that was a terrifying two hours for us all.
It was due to electrical smoke in the cockpit, there were a lottt of emergency vehicles waiting for us when we landed.
Boltsnouns@reddit
Had an in-flight emergency in July flying from Honolulu to SFO on a flight. Lost cabin pressure and had to descend quite rapidly. Didn't have enough fuel to finish the route at the lower altitude and had to return to HNL. Sucked cause it was a holiday weekend during some military exercise and there were no hotels on Oahu. We wound up forking out $3000 to stay two extra days.
sodancool@reddit
OH wow, that is absolutely terrifying and expensive. Does the airline not owe you compensation for something like that?? Glad that turned out to be a handled emergency.
potatochug@reddit
Absolutely. Plus, may as well burn that fuel returning to where is most convenient for passengers and the airline rather than dumping it over the ocean to end up somewhere else entirely.
miljon3@reddit
Most A350s can't dump fuel, most airlines have not opted to fit the system to their A350s, instead procedure is to just land heavy if it's an emergency.
potatochug@reddit
Okay. That IFE screen looks suspiciously retro to be on an A350 though.
miljon3@reddit
Everything is surprisingly retro on Lufthansa
BunsenMcBurnington@reddit
Do they need to dump fuel to lower weight or is it unsafe to land with heaps of fuel or..?
HelpImOutside@reddit
Yes, big airplanes typically won't land with a full tank of fuel.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2854/when-are-aircraft-required-to-dump-fuel-for-emergency-landings
ExplanationMotor2656@reddit
It makes you wonder about electric and hydrogen planes. Imagine taking a flight where the plane weighed the same when it landed as it did when it took off!
LupineChemist@reddit
They are designed so that Maximum takeoff and landing weight aren't different. Just different design constraints
ExplanationMotor2656@reddit
So electric planes would have fewer seats? Less cargo? The carrying capacity will be lower because it won't lose weight during flight.
LupineChemist@reddit
Or just add beefier gear and brakes.
bloodyedfur4@reddit
Pretty sure hydrogen planes use the hydrogen up
DM_Me_Summits_In_UAE@reddit
Didn’t realize they still need to dump in this day & age.
Several_Computer760@reddit
Do you think they're dumping the fuel out of the plane instead of consuming it? Serious question because they are not
OldSwarls@reddit
As I wrote above, the fuel dumping system is mostly optional but it exists.
So yeah, they might be dumping fuel out of the plane instead of consuming it.
DM_Me_Summits_In_UAE@reddit
Yeah I thought so, over the ocean if it’s an emergency. I even saw a few people commenting that in here.
OldSwarls@reddit
Well, in a lot of heavy aircraft the fuel dumping system is optional. It’s actually not that big of a deal to land overweight, you are just following a special procedure to limit the impact on the landing gear and most of the time an inspection is necessary afterwards.
So your gut feeling isn’t far from the truth.
abigailrose16@reddit
afaik the rules of physics remain stubbornly persistent
calcifer219@reddit
Well 4 hr flight to no where will burn that off
Sack_o_Bawlz@reddit
Wait why do they need to dump it?
Swotboy2000@reddit
Plane is too heavy to stop in time if the fuel tank is too fullz
LupineChemist@reddit
It can. Planes have to be able to land at MTOW, which is significantly higher than max landing weight. It's just VERY hard on the gear and brakes and requires an extensive inspection putting the airframe out of service for a bit so best to avoid it if you can.
Swotboy2000@reddit
And if you didn’t apply max breaking to the point of damaging the airframe? In that case, if can’t stop in time.
LupineChemist@reddit
This happens, normally everything is fine....just needs to be inspected.
But yes, if you don't apply enough brake to stop in time, you can't stop in time.
CptSandbag73@reddit
Worth pointing out that this is exacerbated by flying the approach too fast, and/or shifting the aim point resulting in a later touchdown.
But if you do your part to stay in the calculated approach envelope, and hit your brakes at the calculated speed, the jet will stop in the available distance every single time.
If outside of stabilized approach criteria, go around.
If touching down out of the landing zone, go around.
These two laws will prevent the vast majority of landing mishaps.
Sack_o_Bawlz@reddit
Thanks for the info
Novacc_Djocovid@reddit
Couldn’t they have landed in Reykjavik? Seems very close compared to the origin and if the chances are high that it‘s nothing, it would been better for everyone involved.
Chaxterium@reddit
From a passengers' perspective sure, Reykjavik would make sense. But from the airline's perspective it may not.
If there's no maintenance in Reyk that can fix it, the plane is now grounded and the passengers are stranded. Now they need to scramble to find a crew and a plane to pick up everyone in Reykjavik. Or they need to find hotel rooms for 200+ people. Either way it's a huge ordeal logistically.
Instead, flying back to the origin and having it fixed quickly is the much better option for everyone concerned. Yes it causes a significant delay for the passengers but the delay ends up being much shorter than landing at an airport with no maintenance.
If the diversion is due to something safety-related then yes, we'll land at the nearest suitable airport. If it's more regulatory in nature though, such as this example, then we have more flexibility in where we land.
A2Rhombus@reddit
Also, notably, a potential customs issue. You don't know if every single person on the flight is legally clear to enter any country besides the one they're flying to
Probably not a huge deal in Iceland, but I've heard some horror stories of people getting arrested because they diverted to a middle east country and they possessed something that was illegal there.
LupineChemist@reddit
Iceland is in the Schengen area so under the same external border as Germany.
But yeah, can be a consideration.
TheAlmightySnark@reddit
no mechanics if it isnt an outstation. no parts. no contracts with hotels and no backup plane. at home base you can line up a new crew and shove people in the next plane as fast as possible.
if a fire emergency would arise they would land at the nearest suitable airport obviously.
grptrt@reddit
The airline may not have an established presence for maintenance and for a non-emergency would prefer to utilize their own support staff at a hub. Also easier to get all the passengers on another aircraft from an airport they regularly fly out of.
Jabbathehutman@reddit
Also change of crew might be easier for the airline. They would have probably have to switch at that point because it’s a long haul flight
haarschmuck@reddit
This is known as ETOPS.
PainTrain412@reddit
I interned in an ops center for a large US airline. The things they’d let go of it was over land vs over the ocean where vastly different. There was a whole room of folks who took calls that basically consisted of “hey X is broken on this plane. Can we still fly it?” They’d either know immediately or consult the manuals and let them know if it needed grounded or not. Not just mechanical issues either. Broken TVs or faulty arm rests? Seats that don’t recline? No WIFI? That could cause the plane to be swapped on a long international flight because customers will rightfully bitch about that. Short domestic flight? You’ll need to live without the TV.
usernamewillendabrup@reddit
This should answer all of your questions.
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/why-dont-they-just-land-why-the-best-diversion-airport-may-not-be-the-closest/
Every-Progress-1117@reddit
This is the answer.
I was reminded of a story where an aircraft started having engine problems, the captain decided to divert to an airport where he *knew* there'd be maintenance...he was flying an A320, therefore *the* airport had to be Toulouse - there they had the best engineers. So the tale carries on that upon landing he was informed that Airbus don't make engines....
I've remembered it badly, but in the OP's case, Lufthansa have a major maintenance facility at Frankfurt. Looking at the map though, the closest airports were probably Edinburgh and Keflavik - neither of which would have been suitable for many reason.
anoverwhelmedbeing@reddit
But even then going all the way back to frankfurt still seems a bit off when they couldve taken a slightly different and shorter path to airports in cities in France, ireland and England. there were still so many better options even if Edinburgh wasn't one of them.
Every-Progress-1117@reddit
But no good if none of those places have maintenance facilities. Much better to go back to Frankfurt - I'm assuming this was a Lufthansa flight. Also there might be legal reasons; a stop in the UK might not be possible for some of the passengers (visa restrictions etc).
anoverwhelmedbeing@reddit
damn that s a bit frustrating
Caroao@reddit
that story is so ludicrous, I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or one of those "tales from the cockpit" facebook copy-pastas
Every-Progress-1117@reddit
Probably is, but the story has been repeated a number of times, maybe just as a demonstration of why you should or should not rely upon certain knowledge.
I can imagine a tale in a similar vein....let's not divert to Seattle, but rather to Boeing Field ...
freddie54@reddit
Interestingly aircraft checklists that require a diversion end with either “Land as soon as possible” or “Land at the nearest suitable airport” (or words to that effect). The first means just that - the nearest airport at which a safe landing can be made or if necessary an off airport landing. The second gives the PIC some discretion including continuing to the destination or returning to the origin. The availability of maintenance facilities is not generally a consideration.
Chaxterium@reddit
I agree with everything you said except that last sentence. If it's "land as soon as possible" then yes, maintenance facilities is not a consideration. If it's "land at the nearest suitable airport" then maintenance definitely enters the conversation.
Mendeth@reddit
Stornoway is also an option if available, but it tends to be a bit chilly and low on accommodation.
Every-Progress-1117@reddit
Barra - it has plenty of runways and space ;-)
goro_gamer@reddit
One of the most critical factor in extended diversion time operations is usually fire suppression time. If you've got fault in your cargo smoke detection to the point that it's degraded then you can't go beyond 60 minutes from a suitable diversion airfield (edto).
Makes most sense to head back to origin as edto is not required, maintainence will get it back up and running fastest and an alternate aircraft will most likely be possible to arrange from there.
Mrfrunzi@reddit
You almost made it to Island too. Pity.
Crazy__Donkey@reddit
could have been worse
Frogskin79@reddit
All I can hear is the chirp of a smoke detector. I think there's a joke in here somewhere. 😁
PintsOfGuinness_@reddit
Whoops forgot the plane keys
robass11@reddit
Had the same exact thing happen to wife and I in November’24. FRA-SFO, something about the Engine fire monitoring system was out or not working properly. We weren’t as far from FRA as you were (~1.5 hrs) and we circled over North Sea dumping fuel for 45 minutes then returned. They were able to get another 747 but it added ~9 hours to our travel time.
CySnark@reddit
Always wondered about fuel dumps and their effect on people/places below and the environment in general.
I would imagine altlitude, dump rate, weather, and other factors would play a role. Seeing those fire fighting planes in California gives me a laugh to think of the same process, but with fuel.
I recall a fuel dump over a city/town from a few years ago that was not received very well by the citizens.
UtterEast@reddit
I found out recently that modern cities will just discharge untreated raw sewage into nearby waterways if their system can't handle it/if flooding overtops holding ponds/tanks, etc. It might melt any polymer-based clothing or products I have on me, but I'd rather get hit by the Jet A rain than find myself swimming in the poopie.
FyreWulff@reddit
Yep, this does happen. My home city (Omaha, Nebraska) does this when our system is overwhelmed, there's been a very long project to separate the sewer and storm drain system to prevent having to do this in the future. However, nobody is swimming in the Missouri River here in the first place.
W1G0607@reddit
Fuel dumps are far less in volume and are dumped much higher. Also, fuel evaporates pretty quick. Not much reaches the ground.
Icy_Huckleberry_8049@reddit
Closet airport might not be the BEST airport.
They have lots of requirements to consider when diverting a flight. Is maintenance available, are there agents available that can help the passengers, do we serve that airport, can the plane be fueled there, etc.
It's NOT just the pilots that make the decision to divert. There are several different departments that are involved in making the decision.
If the sensors were not working, it wasn't a "land now" incident.
ArtemiOll@reddit
Hefty EU compensation coming your way, sweet!
dotter101@reddit
As many already stated going back to FRA makes sense from a maintenance standpoint as they have a major service center there, but almost as important in FRA it is easier for LH to have another plane or planes ready to get passenger to their destination
dottm@reddit (OP)
They only fly FRA to AUS 3 times a week and I thought they would just replace todays flight with an ad-hoc flight on another plane tomorrow but instead they booked everyone on different existing flights so flying to NYC then to AUS today
EquivalentPath2282@reddit
I hate it when that happens.
Kellykeli@reddit
There’s airports all along the route from where you guys turned around to the origin. It would be a lot easier for everyone if you guys returned to the origin; passengers won’t need to enter a country that they had not been expecting to enter and may not speak the language of or have the currency for, airline won’t need to pay to relocate crew and the aircraft afterwards.
If an issue emerges that threatened the airworthiness of the aircraft then the crew would absolutely find the nearest place to land. But like, you guys can make it back home with a faulty smoke detector. What, are you gonna pull over on the side of the freeway and call a tow truck while you’re 100 miles deep in a foreign country because your car’s oil change warning came on?
Tight_Strength_4856@reddit
The IFE looks really old.
dottm@reddit (OP)
It was awful! It had a 2 second delay on every touch of the screen
Tight_Strength_4856@reddit
Is it Lufthansa? It looks like an old IFE I had with BA on a 747 which didn't work for 14 HOURS!
dottm@reddit (OP)
Yup! Lufthansa! What’s worse is it crashed 3 times in the short journey as it was so had to keep getting reset
ObserverAtLarge@reddit
I flew on that exact same A330 (D-AIKR) twice last year, and I agree with you. The IFE was not great. The USB was under the armrest, and it was easy to activate the FA call or reading light thanks to those poorly placed controls. Don't forget that in order to use your own headset, you needed a two-prong adapter to get stereo audio.
Tight_Strength_4856@reddit
I'm sorry to hear that boss. I hope Lufthansa sort you out and you get a better plane.
MiamiHurricanes77@reddit
If I’m Not mistaken during Covid Korea had a flight like that to mimick you going on vacation to nowhere not sure how long it was but I remember it during Covid
mcaruso9999@reddit
Captain left his phone.
isuseriousbruh@reddit
They just ran out of fuel, so they turned around to refuel , tell them to put a little more in the tank next time
No_Information_7548@reddit
german Battle of Britain reenactment
No_Information_7548@reddit
London blitz reenactment
PicklesPlox@reddit
TIL Iceland in German is just Island which tickles a funny bone I didn't know I had
AFCMatt93@reddit
It's also simply Ísland in Icelandic. The two languages share a good number of words
Matiabcx@reddit
It’s island in slovak too
New-Arugula6709@reddit
Because it is cheaper to return to main base than land somewhere else.
Or, maybe, they dont have maintenance support on-route.
You were not in danger, and if something seriously happend, they would land asap on first opportunity.
Every-Abroad-847@reddit
Can confirm on both accounts. My dad was a pilot and got the call to fly an empty plane with a couple of maintenance guys and like 2 flight attendants to Iceland to grab some stranded passengers about a decade ago. They brought the empty plane and the old pilots and crew then continued the route to the states with the new plane while my dad and crew stayed on in Iceland with the broken plane. I think it was Munich to the states.
It was a major pain in the ass for the airline. They had to house the entire plane and provide food for the almost 20 hours they were stranded. My dad and the skeleton crew stayed behind with the broken plane and they got a great week long Icelandic vacation out of it since they had to fly in parts haha.
Depending on the severity of the issue, I’m sure the airline would have preferred to just turn around and go back to Germany and make the passengers deal with what to do from there and have regular maintenance guys at the home base with the parts fix whatever issue.
CleaningWindowsGuy@reddit
Crew hours? Maybe they just go home after.
CapPsychological8767@reddit
they likely have maintenance facilities (spares and hangar and people) at the departure airport, especially if it's their home base
tjw1276@reddit
lol, the original airport was where he left his bag with the weed in there, hence the code, ‘smoke detectors’!
SoaDMTGguy@reddit
I had this exact fault on a flight from Syracuse, NY to Denver, CO. We stopped in Chicago, a mechanic came and fixed it, and we carried on. I wonder why they didn’t stop in Iceland?
barkingcat@reddit
because no mechanic in their fleet in iceland?
your flight was likely able to stop in chicago because the airline had maintenance personnel and parts near by.
JezebelRoseErotica@reddit
It’s wild they carry enough gas to make it there and back. That’s a lot of weight difference between take off and landing. Around what like 50k pounds, 200 tons?
Aba85@reddit
They were 3.5 hrs into an almost 12 hr flight, probably even had to dump fuel to get down to max landing weight. The amount of spare fuel planes carry depends on route, estimated flight duration and general operating conditions, I’d expect this flight to carry around 1-2 hrs of extra flight duration. This plane probably took off with around 70-75 (metric) tonnes of fuel.
shhhhh_h@reddit
Wow direct Frankfurt to Austin oh how things have changed
Comfortable_Quit_216@reddit
Paris is Paris but "Island" lol
actionerror@reddit
r/mildlyinfuriating
le_gazman@reddit
Pilot left her straighteners on.
Mickyb1986@reddit
Well last summer on Heathrow to Houston flight we turned around at Canada landfall for engine trouble and flew all the way back to Heathrow because it was cheaper for BA. They do what’s best for their operations with the law.
rckid13@reddit
It creates a big customs headache to land in a country that you weren't intending to fly to. Passengers could potentially not be allowed off the plane for many hours. Unless it's a major safety issue everyone will ultimately have a better time if you either continue to the intended country, or return to the departure country.
ArctycDev@reddit
TBF they could have gone to the US. At that point it would be closer to go to somewhere like JFK at least, but then they'd need to find a way to get all those passengers on a new flight to texas, and perhaps that's a bigger headache, idk.
SadAbroad4@reddit
Forgot my wallet.
testthrowawayzz@reddit
hope you at least got miles (in addition to other legally required compensation) for this flight
Ayeele_@reddit
Well my logic thinks this, flight is still somewhat safe enough to continue and it needs to make it back to an airport with maintenance support. Not sure if those other airports enroute have the capabilities and even if they do, the contract process to pay whoever would be more of a hassle. Just what i think
Select_Cantaloupe_62@reddit
Passengers should get to vote on a liability waiver. "If the plane catches on fire and I burn to death, I pinky-promise I won't sue"
ZombiesAtKendall@reddit
Probably depends some on how severe the issue is. If there was an actual fire then they would land somewhere closer.
Going back to the same airport is probably for logistical purposes. Maintenance would be one. Another would be so they can get you on another flight. If they can’t fix the issue right away then they need to get everyone on another flight to Austin. Doesn’t make much sense to land somewhere where they can’t get everyone another flight if necessary.
Weird_Rooster_4307@reddit
Sorry… I forgot something at the airport and we had to go back
DefendTheStar88x@reddit
This would anger me so much, but the alternative of the plane experiencing an issue over the north Atlantic is worse.
AntiPinguin@reddit
I‘m just guessing the didn’t wanna fly over the ocean without smoke detectors. When you are that far from the closest airport you‘d want to k ow as soon as possible if there is any sign of fire or smoke. Over the mainland it’s not as critical because you can land pretty quickly if you have to.
It might also be a technical requirement needed to fly over the ocean but not the main land (could be there are two smoke detectors in the effected system and one being functional is enough except when flying over the ocean.
Landing somewhere that isn’t one of your airlines bases will cause a lot of problems for passengers and maintenance so if they can, they try to return.
ktrezzi@reddit
One of the worst things about flying for me is the waiting/idling time you have a passenger...I really feel your pain! :(
UnicornMilkyy@reddit
Is it dangerous for the plane to land with enough fuel to go to USA? Unless they dump it all?
fly-guy@reddit
Depends on the plane. Certain airplanes can't dump fuel and safely land with the same weight it took off (assuming the runway is long enough).
Chaxterium@reddit
All airplanes can safely land at the same weight they took off at provided, as you correctly mentioned, that the runway length is adequate.
Pretty much any aircraft that weighs more than 10,000 lbs will have a MLW that's lower than the MTOW. But most narrowbodies can't dump fuel. So in the event of a time-sensitive emergency we'll just land above the MLW. Some paperwork and an inspection is all that's needed.
m00f@reddit
It's bad to land over weight. Three things can happen to address this:
* Some types of aircraft can dump fuel https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=8qIyDjmXqc4&t=14s
* Planes spend time in the air burning fuel in flight before landing
* In an emergency planes can land in an over weight situation
magicfingahs@reddit
Took that same flight a few weeks ago. Magnolia is a pretty good movie and it kills 3 hours.
RAAFStupot@reddit
There is no emergency, so there's no requirement to land ASAP.
Original airport is the easiest place to reschedule passengers.
kamalaaharriss@reddit
wtf i just flew out of there lol weird
trying_to_adult_here@reddit
I bet that’s an ETOPS issue. Safe to continue over land, but there are different requirements for ETOPS flights (flights far overwater like crossing the Atlantic in a twin-engine aircraft). I don’t dispatch the A330 but on the A321 one INOP APU fire detection loop prohibits ETOPS flights in excess of 120 minutes. Not saying that’s exactly what failed, just that components that aren’t needed to be working for flights over land are needed for ETOPS flights so the plane could be safe to fly back to FRA but not to AUS.
If they can’t fly overwater, they might as well return you to their hub where they have more aircraft to try this flight again or can put you on other flights to the US. It’s probably easier to fix the plane at the hub too.
Naka7a92@reddit
I work with pilots and aviation staff quite often.
They return to the departing aiport because IT’S CHEAPER for them to fix whatever they need fixing. This often happens when they also have their own base at that airport.
The worst I’ve seen was an airplane that went from London to America, when they are about to land say 15-20 min away, they turn around and land back in London. (Yes, because of exactly that. )
So you can count yourself lucky, they don’t give a shit about passangers.
SkyHighExpress@reddit
Here is the reason when the aircraft returned. An emergency will usually warrant a diversion to the nearest suitable airport. A failure which is not an emergency is left to the discretion of the captain. Consider a single engine failure on a 747. If the reason for the failure can be determined to be contained (eg maybe oil pressure warning light asked for the engine to be shut down) then as the aircraft can safely fly with a further failure, it can continue to destination or even return. A lessor failure like a detector might not affect flight safety but it could ground the aircraft as seen by the Mel(minimum equipment list)
Simple failures can also ground the aircraft. For example let’s say the nav lights bulbs blow during the flight. The plane can safely fly but the Mel might not allow the aircraft to fly. If it is already flying, then that’s ok.
The choice of airfield is affected by three main reasons, accommodation for pax, easy of repair and also crew rest.
In this case, even if the plane had a simple fix and diverted to Iceland. The crew would quickly run out of hours to fly anywhere else and a long stop for rest will become necessary and hotels for pax. The plane is then out of service for much longer than if it returned to home base where alternative aircraft and crew are available
kunderthunt@reddit
I live in the flight path for planes landing at Burbank airport. Last Tuesday evening when the high winds were kicking off the fires, I saw a Southwest plane fly overhead from southwest towards northeast, try to take the \~45 degree turn north, start "skidding" and flying diagonally, then heard the engines rev to full power and it started gaining altitude. Looked it up later and it had come from Las Vegas, aborted that landing attempt, then flew back to Vegas.
mraviator9@reddit
I'm sorry you have to wait a little longer for that sweet Texas BBQ!
dsdvbguutres@reddit
Diverted to where the company has a maintenance facility that can address the issue
sand_eater@reddit
In the bright side, it looks like you should be able to very easily claim €600 compensation thanks to EU261. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-delay-compensation/
NoRepresentative1915@reddit
Had a cancelled flight with air france, the flight bevore mine returned, it took month and a lawyer to get the money. They try each and everything to not pay, like letting you wait in hotline 30 mins, or paying small amounts.
sand_eater@reddit
Ymmv, airlines have been compliant albeit slow in my experience
stillnotelf@reddit
I have a flight that did this! First we aborted takeoff because the luggage cargo bat door was loose. Then when we did takeoff a smoke smell filled the airplane immediately. They landed us with full fire emergency escort....then had us sit for 30 minutes before deplaning us and canceling the flight. Still less bad than your example
Hirsuitism@reddit
Not everyone might have transit visas for another country or be eligible for visa on arrival. Plus it might take longer for them to bring a spare airplane if it's not a common route.
oil_is_cheap@reddit
BA is known for returning airplanes to London when they have a technical issue even when the flight is above land in Greenland or Canada
c1884896@reddit
If they return and they book you the day after, do you get extra miles and flight segments for the two flights?
COV3RTSM@reddit
Think that’s bad? My flight home from a 7 month deployment to Afghanistan was turned back 3 times. It was a jaunt from one base to another to get the actual flight home. The 3rd time was 20 minutes before half way. Had to spend 2 extra nights in that shithole.
CommunicationNo3626@reddit
Typically the airlines prefer to return to the original airport because that’s where they have their own engineers/mechanics based at to fix the issue as quickly as possible
nursescaneatme@reddit
Could be the home airport for the airline. If so, they have repair facilities there and other planes waiting.
PoopyMcFartButt@reddit
Damn you almost made it back to the Island too. Now you’ll never stop the smoke monster
nyuszy@reddit
Tell me one thing, did people start smoking in the lavatories on the way back to Frankfurt?
dottm@reddit (OP)
I don’t smoke but I felt the urge when they announced we were returning. The air hostesses just started throwing all the snacks and drinks that were clearly meant for the remainder of the flight.
triple7freak1@reddit
r/wellthatsucks