“Folks, this is your captain speaking. I’m sorry to say, we unfortunately need to divert, as we realized the plane we’ve been flying across the Atlantic all night isn’t actually authorized to land at our destination airport…” That’s gotta be awkward, but that’s basically what happened, per a fascinating scoop by @xJonNYC.
In this post:
Naples-bound American 787 diverts to Rome
American operates a seasonal daily flight between Philadelphia (PHL) and Naples (NAP), AA780, operated by a Boeing 787-8. On Monday, June 2, 2025, the airline needed to swap in a 787-9 instead, with the registration code N837AN. There are all kinds of operational reasons that could cause an aircraft swap, and it wasn’t supposed to be an issue, since it’s just a slightly larger variant.
The flight departed Philadelphia more or less on schedule, at 7:42PM. The eight hour flight operated more or less as usual, until the aircraft started its descent.
At that point, the crew changed course, and instead flew toward Rome (FCO), located 124 miles away. The weather in Naples was perfectly nice, and no other flights diverted. So, what was the issue?
Well, apparently the Boeing 787-9 wasn’t authorized to land in Naples, per the airport authority, and as reported by @xJonNYC. Man, talk about a rough reason for a diversion.
Why would a 787-8 be allowed, but not a 787-9? While the difference between the jets is marginal, clearly this exceeded some airport or operational limit, perhaps given the airport’s challenging terrain. Regardless of what the exact reason was, we know that the plane not being authorized was the cause of this.
American’s Italian 787-8 & 787-9 switcheroo
With a Naples-bound Boeing 787-9 in Rome, how did American recover from this situation? Well, the airline acted fast, and seemed to handle this pretty well. American operates a seasonal daily Rome to Chicago flight with a Boeing 787-8, so American swapped in the Boeing 787-9 for that flight, so that it could free up the 787-8 with the registration code N880BJ to instead operate the Naples flight.
However, this was a bit complicated, given maximum duty hours for crews. American didn’t have a practical way to then fly the 787-8 to Naples the same day, after the diversion. So the crew overnighted there, and then flew to Naples the following day. On June 4, American operated a 38-minute 787-8 flight from Rome to Naples, and then the same afternoon, that plane continued from Naples to Philadelphia.
It’s not entirely clear if the passengers on the original transatlantic flight were put in hotels in Rome and then flown on that repositioning flight, or if they got to Naples the same day (via train, other airline, etc.).
Bottom line
An American flight from Philadelphia to Naples was “upgraded” from a 787-8 to a 787-9 at the last minute. However, unbeknownst to the airline, the 787-9 wasn’t actually authorized to land in Naples. As a result, the flight had to divert to Rome. American then swapped a 787-8 that was supposed to fly from Rome to Chicago with the 787-9 that had to divert, which minimized the disruptions.
Man, what a rough mistake to make. I wonder if this should’ve been obvious to American’s operations folks, or if it was due to some very specific condition (like specific weather factors).
What do you make of this American 787 diversion incident?
I think this could've been caused by the NAP ATC muleheadedness. There is simply not that big difference between the two types of aircraft. It is possible NAP ATC has never seen a B-787-9 aircraft do they had no idea if it was legal to land or not - so they decided no. Just imagine, if it was dispatched with a 787-9, should there be any performance issue, the flight planning computer would have thrown all kinds of warnings - but no signable flight plan. JM$.03
How would this go unnoticed when submitting the flight plan to ATC for approval ?
I didn’t think it would be possible to obtain clearance for takeoff for a plane which is not suitable for landing at the destination airport.
Probably a weight or gate configuration issue that the FAA/Euro ATC would not know about. Might be on the data sheet or NOTAM for the airport, knowing Naples it might not be.
I'd just ask for a free train ticket and be done. Probably faster that waiting for another flight. To catch a domestic flight you'd have to go through customs anyway.
Putting everyone on a train might be cheaper than paying for overnight hotel plus meals for all the passengers. I'd totally have asked for that.
So do you really think the air traffic controllers in Philadelphia have any idea of what the operational requirements are to land in Naples? This problem begins and ends with American’s flight planning system.
A JetBlue flight with mint is nice.
Maybe the mistaken 789 from FCO to ORD now has more biz class due to the larger aircraft and some were surprised with an upgrade
Excuse me, but why dont you know why? I read the article to find out why. I already knew that it did. I expected you had contacts that knew stuff. This so typical of the lazy "journalism" the writes and writes and writes to fill space for the adverts without providing the basic how/who/why/when answers begged by the heading of the article. What a waste of time!
"What a waste of time!" Yes, your post is that.
Da fuq
You forgot to take your prescription, didn´t you?
Did they fly Nonqualified-ETOPS airplane on ETOPS route to HI some couple years back!
They need to get their Sh..... together!!!
Yes they did get put up in a hotel. I was at the Park Marriott and one of the staff asked if I was with that group
Google searches (no guarantee of accuracy):
Naples runway 8,622 feet
787-8 takeoff distance: 9,400 feet (so load limitations applied?)
787-9 takeoff distance: 11,800 feet
If it's an issue of runway length & aircraft model specifications, needless to say that can be disastrous. I hope the FAA is aware of this incident & investigates the AA safety culture or lack there of.
Typo?
Did you mean the FAA safety culture or lack thereof.
Besides FAA doesn't go after Boeing until two of them crashes.
It's not runway issue.
Naples runway full length is 2,600m, but only 2,000m is available for landing.
2,600m is more than enough for any widebody to takeoff for US East Coast.
2,000m can also land any B787, B777, A330, A350.
Weather is said to be on the calm side here.
There you go. Also weight and gate restrictions maybe
It’s probably just that NAP can’t handle a plane longer than a 788 or similar (e.g. 763). Looks like a small apron so that’s my guess.
Ooooof by dispatch, not really something the pilots would know about. Dispatch and operations should’ve known better.
I guess I'm giving the pilots too much credit. I should hope they'd know the specifications/parameters/load of the equipment they're flying as well as the same for their destinations & alternates just for the redundancy that might be the last chance to correct a potential catastrophic error such as this.
Seems like I'm incrementally losing faith in the airlines, aircraft manufacturers as well as their so-called regulators ....
@bossa
I think they know it's not a problem landing there.
They never need to think of the return flight. Union rules.
Wow. AA is of its own league in terms of shittiness. I hope the passengers get compensated properly but I am guessing ec261 doesn't apply here so AA will probably pay far less...
It definitely does apply to pax who were terminating their journey in the EU (which will be more or less all of them, NAP isn't a oneworld hub), this was clearly within airline's control.
No, EU261 is not applicable at all. EU261 does not apply on a flight to the EU on a non-EU carrier.
This literally happened on a United flight 2 years ago. Source: was on the plane when we started noticing on our phones / the TV screens that we were suddenly landing at FCO.
EC261 can be enforced if the flight was marketed by an EU carrier eg BA. The European Court of Justice ruled that.
BA is a UK airline. The UK is not in the EU.
Interesting observation, so UK has uk261 but would that cover if the flight is code shared as ba flight but the flight doesn't involve UK at all? I assume this flight is not coded as ba flight because of the flight pattern, but just a theoretical practice
124 mile diversion with lots of trains to the destination is better than a lot of diversions.
Spot on
DL uses a 763ER (JFK) and a 332 (ATL) and UA uses a 763ER (EWR).
maybe those 767s would have come in handy after all
God no. They were hanger queens. Good riddance.
DL and UA manage to make them work. Their cancellation and delay rates for 767s doesn't seem to be any worse than other fleets
I really like this version of Tim Dunn. He's showing his wisdom since he came back. He has a lot of knowledge, and I much appreciate his insights.
... and ya'll go to Naples, perhaps not by a diverted flight...the food is the BEST, the culture is amazing; it's just great.
Really @LAXLonghorn?
He's still full of fluff. Or you're his LAX alter ego?
Of course they can make the 763 work. It's not like customers have a choice. I bet if they'd brought back the 707 they would have made it work. If Delta didn't retire their very capable 777, they would have also made 777 work.
Now the 763 itself isn't that bad to fly in. It's only the Delta One seats that...
Really @LAXLonghorn?
He's still full of fluff. Or you're his LAX alter ego?
Of course they can make the 763 work. It's not like customers have a choice. I bet if they'd brought back the 707 they would have made it work. If Delta didn't retire their very capable 777, they would have also made 777 work.
Now the 763 itself isn't that bad to fly in. It's only the Delta One seats that are vastly inferior. UA did a fantastic job on Polaris and the economy cabin are slightly less dense.
Look through the fluff. Tim might have some knowledge but he completely lacks wisdom. And he can get away by misleading those without knowledge.
Eskimo, you conveniently forget one very important fact about Mr Tim Dunn, the fact remains that Tim is a real gentleman.
You might not care for what he posts. You may consider his posts to be, in your opinion, lacking “Knowledge and wisdom”. However, perhaps rather than simply sniping at him from the comfort of your retreat, you might like to give us all the benefit of your “Knowledge and wisdom”, yes?
well, no. the 777s couldn't work at NAP.
It is ironic that DL manages to use not just the 767 but also the 332 at NAP.
and if the 789 can't operate at NAP, then any version of the 777 cannot work either.
and the 359 is now capable of flying everything even the 777LR did - let alone the 777-200ER. and do it with 25% less fuel burn. Airbus has built a beast...
well, no. the 777s couldn't work at NAP.
It is ironic that DL manages to use not just the 767 but also the 332 at NAP.
and if the 789 can't operate at NAP, then any version of the 777 cannot work either.
and the 359 is now capable of flying everything even the 777LR did - let alone the 777-200ER. and do it with 25% less fuel burn. Airbus has built a beast of a plane in the 350 family. but AA cancelled its orders and UA keeps kicking theirs down the road.
btw, I like the rumors that AA is kicking around a 787-10 order to replace their 777-200ER fleet which I think is a brilliant idea.
Tim you're still doing it.
No one said anything about flying 777 to NAP.
> Hanger queens
Yeah, you're a "hanger" [sic] queen.
Next time I put my A/C on the closet hanger I'll imagine you in a dress right next to it.
Learn English. Hangar and hanger and hunger and idiot are different words.
Ehud, one must forgive Mitch, if he is a product of the American education system. For that system adopted the Webster (American English) dictionary. Many words are not the real Oxford English Dictionary spelling …. Labor instead of Labour. Tire instead of Tyre, when referring to the inflatable portion of a vehicle road wheel, etc.
One must try to simply smile at unfortunate misuse of the English language.
just as with Brazil, the US grew far beyond its mother.
We get to use our language as we see fit.
Dropping unnecessary vowels is a good thing....
dropping the wrong airplanes (or trying to) in the wrong airports is quite another.
That is all very well Tim, however, who is prepared to rename the U.S. abomination, ‘American Language’?
Air treaty limitations?
Airport requirement to have a test flight to the airport to check fit?
Naples has a short runway. The 787-8 has a shorter takeoff distance than the 787-9.
We’ve got to eliminate hour restrictions. They make sense for truckers. Not for any other position.
At large law firms and investment banks people stay up 40 hours straight to close multi billion dollar transactions.
The idea that flight crew need to rest after only a fraction of that time is preposterous.
Please, be my guest & be the 1st to book a seat on the 1st of such unrestricted flights, if you even arrive at your destination to enjoy that distinction !
If the duty cycle was 2 pilots take off, then the flight is 1 pilot with 1 pilot resting until landing, I'd be fine with that.
The vast majority of an international flight the pilots are doing absolutely nothing.
That same nothing/boredom leads to inattentiveness/dozing.... 'holes in the Swiss cheese'
Typical flying hours of boredom marked by seconds of sheer terror ! ... lol
40 hours... Only 40 hrs? Shucks that's nothing. My ex when they were going through their surgical rotation, stayed up 240 hours to practice their cuttings and stitchings.
It is impossible for a human to remain awake for 10 days straight. They would die. It may feel like 10 days, but it ain’t 10 days.
It doesn't make sense to you because you've obviously never done major airline flying. You're simply ignorant to what circadian disruptions, long flight duty periods, and extended periods of boredom followed by rapid decision making does to the human physiology. Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad that this will be as close as you get to aviation safety policy making.
As Justin mentioned, surgeons are also operating on very little sleep. Surgical errors are extremely rare. Airplane flying is mostly automated.
Surgical errors are not "extremely rare", dear boy. The trainee surgeon culture has changed in most civilized countries to reflect the indisputable fact that operating while exhausted is as risky as operating after at the legal alcohol limit for driving. Enormously long shifts with little rest, equating the speed at which one operates with being "good", and tolerance of Prima Donna asshole behaviour in the OR are all going the way of the dodo.
Anyone...
Surgical errors are not "extremely rare", dear boy. The trainee surgeon culture has changed in most civilized countries to reflect the indisputable fact that operating while exhausted is as risky as operating after at the legal alcohol limit for driving. Enormously long shifts with little rest, equating the speed at which one operates with being "good", and tolerance of Prima Donna asshole behaviour in the OR are all going the way of the dodo.
Anyone putting in a forty hour stretch to finish a deal is absolutely kidding themselves if they think they're doing a good job after about fourteen hours has elapsed. You can't do your best work on autopilot. Mistakes become easier to make and easier to miss. In the case of lawyers & investment bankers, it's only money. With a surgeon it's one patient. With airline crews it's hundreds of passengers, plus potentially more people on the ground. If you had any experience in the real world you'd already know these things.
A simple Google search says there are about 4000 surgical errors in the US.
I think you're confusing surgeons with ER doctors.
Exactly, I want whoever is landing my plane with 250 people in the back to be well rested, even if it adds $5 0r $10 dollars to my ticket.
Nah, I prefer my airplane pilots to be fully rested, but thanks for your input.
Somehow I don’t think the FAA would approve the use of whatever stimulants certain investment lawyers, bankers and consultants use to keep those hours and maintain their performance.
It's a good thing you don't work for any safety agency. You're really comparing pilots to drug-fueled finance bros?
And all of you completely misses the point.
We need to remove humans from the controls entirely.
The main cause of fatal accidents are human error.
Since we can't even get self-drive cars right, it'll be some time before we have autonomous operations in three dimensions.
NO! Eskimo, it is you who has completely missed the point by suggesting the removal of human interaction with aircraft control systems.
Please allow me to remind you of the consequences when Boeing tried to do just that with the 737Max.
You are a very fine example of the Dunning - Krugger experience effect
Although not identical, allegedly ( do we really know the truth ? ) ... It reminds me a few years ago when, AA ( you guessed it ! ) flew an non ETOPS rated A320 from LAX to Hawaii, I believe after some sort of aircraft/gate SNAFU. That was truly frightening and you'd think the airline would have since corrected these types of dispatch issues whether they be aircraft or destination specific.
I'm sure...
Although not identical, allegedly ( do we really know the truth ? ) ... It reminds me a few years ago when, AA ( you guessed it ! ) flew an non ETOPS rated A320 from LAX to Hawaii, I believe after some sort of aircraft/gate SNAFU. That was truly frightening and you'd think the airline would have since corrected these types of dispatch issues whether they be aircraft or destination specific.
I'm sure this latest incident wasn't ETOPS related as I assume the -9 flew as a scheduled revenue service back to the US and all those twin ops trans-Atlantic flights must be classified as ETOPS anyways.