Air Greenland's Complicated Nuuk Airport Diversions

This may be a dumb question, but does Air Greenland need to operate this route this frequently in winter? There’s certainly government/business traffic year round, but there can’t be many tourists now and obviously challenging weather. To use a bad analogy, instead of trying to fly everyone directly into Aspen and dealing with a lot of diversions or return to origin, use Iceland as “Denver” and people can catch the short flight to Nuuk when the weather is better.

@ MP -- It's a great question, but I believe that this route isn't just about passengers, but also about cargo. This flight delivers all kinds of essential goods, from mail to medicine.

Ha, I knew I was overlooking something and that makes sense. I wonder if Kangerlussuaq gets a second life as an important cargo airport if these issues continue…

We had to divert GL1785 operated by Jettime back to CPH (via KEF for fuel stop) as well Yesterday, as there was snowfall reducing visibility to 2000m at Narsarsuaq
And most of the Airports on the West coast has been fogged in this Morning

That's a lot of operational difficulties for a small airline. I wonder are they able to operate profitably given how challenging the business can be?

Kangerlussaq has plenty of lodging as it was the principal airport for the A330 Greenland before Nuuk, so i dont buy it, futhermore Nassarsuaq is also capable of receiving the A330, so why not use these points instead of wasting time and fuel and fly back to Denmark?

@ Nikojas -- I'm not sure how the situation evolved, but Air Greenland was expecting a profit of roughly $7-10 million in 2024:
https://www.airgreenland.com/news/air-greenland-delivers-satisfactory-half-year-results/

Obviously more than anything, the airline is a vital link for Greenland, as this kind of service is needed. So the fact that the airline is turning a (mild) profit is quite impressive. These kinds of diversions can significantly eat into those margins, since the fuel bill for an A330-800neo can easily reach six figures.

@ Greenland ATC -- Hey, if you're actually an air traffic controller in Greenland, that's pretty darn cool. Thanks for reading!

@ Daniel -- Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I can't imagine that Air Greenland wants to light money on fire, and fly that far out of the way without a good reason. Keep in mind that back when Air Greenland used Kangerlussaq as the primary hub, there were many same day connecting flights on turboprops, so far from everyone was spending the night there.

It's also possible that the airport no longer has the ground equipment needed to handle the A330-800neo, given how much stuff was moved to Nuuk. Perhaps Greenland ATC can chime in as well.

I would say because of cargo. The same is true for many remote places, they rely on these flight because it is the only way in and out, especially in winter.

“That’s great, because Nuuk is the place in Greenland that most people want to visit, while the previous hub of Kangerlussuaq (SJF) was just used because of its runway length.”

This is incorrect, as was pointed out in comments to your previous post on the subject, and by Air Greenland’s own words:

“Ilulissat is Greenland’s tourist centre and attractive port of call for cruise ships.”

“Kangerlussuaq, also known as Søndre Strømfjord in Danish, is much more than a runway. It is the gateway to Greenland. Here, nature is right in front of you when you get off the plane. Kangerlussuaq is, among other things, the city where you most easily get close to the huge ice wall of the ice sheet.”

“As the largest city in Greenland, Nuuk is closely connected to the rest of Greenland. With a stopover in Nuuk, you can quickly move on to other popular destinations such as Ilulissat, Maniitsoq and Narsarsuaq. Although Nuuk has a lot to offer for first-time visitors, it is recommended to experience one of the smaller settlements, where you can get up close to the Greenlandic culture.”

@ MFK -- Good point, thank you for the correction. I updated the post.

As of right now (11 am Pacific, Jan 3) Air Greenland has a weather-related cancellation notice on their website saying that the runway in Nuuk is too slippery. https://www.airgreenland.com/data-pages/irr-settings/weather/

When Greenland becomes a US territory, all these issues will be resolved.

I think it's one of Greenland's essential connections? Even without tourists, you have people who need to travel for medical appointments since medical care is limited and often specialist appointments are done in Copenhagen instead.

With Greenland's strong connection to Copenhagen, I think it makes sense to build a robust network to connect those two cities, rather than relying on Iceland. Although Air Greenland is setting up a codeshare option in Summer of 2025 with Icelandair.

lol. As if.

I would rather be in CPH than the "Old Camp" as a bunch of people would end up there. The Hotel Kangerlussuaq (it is even open anymore?) isn't big enough for a full 330s worth of passengers.

In any case, this situation is somewhat temporary as when the new Ilulissat airport opens there will be two airports that can take A330s where people will actually want to stay.

The Aircraft and Crew are based at Copenhagen, and the maintenance is done by SAS at CPH, so they need the Aircraft back to base before the Crew times out or a technical issue arises that grounds the jet in Greenland.

Don’t forget that the new runway at Nuuk is only ILS Cat 1, i.e., pilots need to see the entire length of the runway at decision height. As others stated, the visibility was about 2000 meters, which is less than the 2200 meters runway length.

Needless to say that Cat 2 or even 3 landings would have been within limits - but upgrading the airport comes at a cost of several milllions ….

Does this situation explain the, two years ago described as ‘surprising’, choice of Air Greenland for a -800 in stead of a -900 version of the A330?

They won’t need to see the whole length of the Runway at DA/H.
They need 750m visibility to commence the approach and a pilot may not continue an approach below the Category I decision height ... unless at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) Elements of the approach light system;
(ii) The threshold;
(iii) The threshold markings;
(iv) The threshold lights;
(v) The threshold identification lights;
(vi) The visual glide slope indicator;
(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
(viii) The touchdown zone lights; or
(ix) Runway edge lights.

I don't know in quite what way but I imagine this has to be related. A leased Wamos Air A330-300 is operating Copenhagen-Nuuk flights with an Air Greenland flight number currently.
www.flightradar24.com/GRL3780

Regarding profitability, GLs fares are high. Like pre deregulation levels in the US. The airlines could fly half empty planes and still make huge profits back then. I'm guessing the same dynamic is at play here.

Note to GL: How about adding a sky pub?

1967.-worked in South Greenland We flew S A S DC8 Copenhagen to Kangerlussuaq then a Iceland Air D C 4 to Nassarsuaq .Only old buildings and a landing strip from the war. From here with an Saab helicopter to Narrsaq ( 3 pass. ) 13 months later return from Nanortalik to Julianehaab with an supply ship,got stuck in the pack ice.-Some of the crewe got out on an U S “Albatross “-The rest of us stuck in Julianehaab 3 weeks for connecting to Nassarsuaq with D C 4 flight.-after takeoff engine trouble.—Great memories.