Not all flights go as planned, and sometimes issues arise, necessitating a diversion. Once in a while we’ll see a ”flight to nowhere,” whereby a plane has to return to its origin. However, this has to be one of the most extreme versions of this that I’ve seen.
Continue reading: ANA Boeing 787 U-Turns Over Arctic Ocean, Returns To Japan After 14 Hours
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Unless it was a dire emergency with a "Mayday" or even just a "Pan-Pan", better to return to home base than getting stuck somewhere like Anchorage. At least the aircraft is at home where it can undergo repairs, a fresh aircraft and crew can take the passengers to their destination and if needed be, passengers would be able to return home or accommodations can simply be arranged.
The logistics of diverting somewhere remote or even just an outstation would be a mess. From getting in another aircraft and crew, repairs to the faulty aircraft, accommodations, etc.
Diverting to Alaska would be a logistic nightmare in this case given that passengers would have to spend a lot of time on the ground, and a good number of them were probably ineligible to enter the US as they lacked a valid visa or ESTA.
I remember a while ago when an ANA flight to Chicago diverted to Anchorage. Talking to the crew they were very thankful it was a US bound plane already due to the visa/ESTA situation in the US.
On a flight like this where they're catered for about the same length of flight, do they just continue the service flow and have a pre-landing meal, etc? First world problems, I know
That's just awful but I get why they made the call. Much easier to deal with repairs and equipment/crew replacement/rebookings from their main base. Also no passengers getting caught up in immigration hell if it lands in the wrong country and no extra long diversion required to get on the ground quickly if the situation worsened during flight.
Probably the second meal right before landing.
I mean the aircraft was still secure, so it shouldn't have affected the service. It was practically a normal flight for the pilots while at the same time giving extra attention to the oil levels in case any any faulty indicators or abnormalities pop up.
I've always wondered, if you're eligible to enter a country that an international flight diverted to, will you actually be allowed off or is the airline obligated/required to deliver you to your ticketed destination?
It's not a realistic routing, but for this thought exercise, if you're an American citizen with an itinerary of HND-FRA-JFK and the plane diverted to ANC on the HND-FRA leg, can you get off and on your own dime get an ANC-LAX-JFK ticket or similar?
I don't think so but this does applies for a EU261 compensation, so I would prefer it above Miles.
@Jinxed_K
I asked CX about this before. It comes down to traffic rights. I believe Japan and the US have an open-sky agreement, so NH supposedly will not violate the traffic rights to let you off at ANC for a non-emergency reason. However, say if it happened on an FRA-HND flight with the diversion point still being ANC, and likely ANA does not have traffic rights between Germany and the US, it cannot let you get off at ANC unless you have a medical emergency.
When they took off the passengers thought they’d be having bratwurst and beer for lunch, but instead ended up having kung pao chicken and Chinese beer for dinner. Lol
I didn’t think this was all that unusual. I was on a Singapore Airlines flight from SIN to SEA that turned back to SIN over Japan due to mechanical issue; total flight time was 12 hours SIN -SiN. No one ever reported on that. Maybe I’m just unlucky
I once was on a FRA-JFK flight that diverted to Newark. They would not let passengers off. We sat for maybe 3 hours then flew EWR-JFK.
On the plus side, if you've gotta spend a lot of time in an airplane, at least it's ANA (and apparently a fairly empty flight at that).
Why didn't they just divert to ANC? They have the facilities there to take care of the issue.
And I think a huge issue is the lack of diversion points at this stage of the flight and absolutely awful ground conditions.
I cannot imagine having to ditch in that frozen world.
And again if I had to be stuck on a journey like this ANA is not a bad deal.
Correct! However, the scheduled return and presumably canceled flight from Frankfurt to Tokyo qualifies for EU261 compensation.
Can passengers request mileage credit for these flights? They certainly earned it.
PRG-LHR diverted to STN.
After a bit of arguing they allowed those of us without checked bags to get off at STN. Who knows how long before they got to LHR.
Check out United 613 on the 16th. Lagos to IAD, diverted to Dakar, DSS, due to a passenger going into labor. Dropped her off and then decided to fly back to Lagos. Enroute to Lagos they had another medical emergency but continued to Lagos. Rumor is this passenger died. It had to be a rough flight for the crew only to end up back where they started from. The flight completed its LOS/IAD leg on the 18th as UAL613D.
On our last trip to Japan, flying on LH, we flew west to east, over China. Clear day and great views.
Coming back, we flew west to east, again, due to winds. I highly recommend this routing. Absolutely spectacular views north of Canada. Oh, and we flew over Greenland, without a Chinese or Russian ship in sight.
And I have first world question. Will the passengers get their miles/points for that flight?
" Oh, and we flew over Greenland, without a Chinese or Russian ship in sight."
Quality 🙂
Unfortunately not. I should of got extra miles from DEL to LHR since it has to avoid Pakistan and Iran airspace
Fair play. But any emergency nonetheless. Could be a medical emergency, smoke, much more serious engine issues, a slow decompression, etc.
Sorry Mike, i was just having a little fun. I understand your point. If I ran the FAA I would establish three levels of emergencies. With Level 1 indicating a return to field or enroute landing was needed , but special handling or emergency equipment was not needed. Level 2 would be a medical emergency or a mechanical issue that has been resolved but a landing is necessary. Level 3 would be an emergency requiring an immediate landing like an uncontained fire, structural damage or perhaps missing crew meals. If I had to guess what happened to the JAL flight it would be that they had an issue with their APU and not one of their engines, but that’s just a guess. If that was the case, in my new system, that would be a level two emergency . BTW there would be no more PANS!
Seems like continuing would have been no higher risk than returning- not like Siberia and Alaska have a surplus of 787-suitable diversion airports, and this way everybody wasted their time / fuel / efforts...