Flights divert all the time, for a variety of reasons. However, this is definitely one of the more eye-catching diversions that we’ve seen in some time.
In this post:
American 787 flies from New York to Dallas in 12+ hours
This incident happened yesterday (March 31, 2025), and involves American flight AA167, scheduled to fly from New York (JFK) to Tokyo (HND). The flight was operated by an eight-year-old Boeing 787-9 with the registration code N829AN.
The flight was scheduled to depart at 10:37AM and arrive at 2PM the following day, with a total block time of 14hr23min. However, that’s not how this flight turned out. The flight took off more or less on schedule, at 10:59AM, and began its 6,772-mile trek.
Initially, the aircraft flew over North America, passing just south of Vancouver, and then started its crossing of the Pacific Ocean. However, just under seven hours after takeoff, the jet made a u-turn, and started flying east again.
The plane didn’t divert to Seattle, the nearest major airport in the United States. It also didn’t divert to New York, its origin. Instead, the plane diverted to Dallas (DFW). It touched down there at 10:12PM local time, 12hr13min after it took off. In total, the plane covered a distance of 6,656 miles, just under 100 miles short of the direct air distance between New York and Tokyo.
Passengers on that flight were put up in hotels near DFW for the night, given $12 meal vouchers (lol), and were rebooked on a replacement flight for the following day (today, April 1, 2025). They’re expected to arrive in Tokyo at 3:20PM on April 2, a little over 25 hours behind schedule.
What’s the logic for a diversion like this?
Logically, most people struggle with understanding a scenario like this. The jet was roughly half way to its destination. So what’s the logic for diverting to a completely different airport that isn’t the origin, the destination, or even the closest diversion point?
According to a Reddit user who was on the flight, shortly before the plane turned around, one of the pilots announced that there was a malfunction with the wings’ anti-freeze mechanism. So it didn’t pose an immediate risk to the flight (or else a diversion would’ve been made to the nearest point), but presumably this would’ve become a bigger issue later in the flight, or on subsequent flights.
So American did what airlines do more often than passengers would think. While it was obviously massively inconvenient for passengers, the plane was flown to American’s largest hub, as that gives the airline the most opportunity to regroup and recover its operation:
- DFW is a major maintenance base for the airline, so that the plane could be fixed there
- American presumably has the most spare aircraft and crews in DFW, to operate a replacement flight
- It’s easy for American to accommodate passengers at DFW with hotels and to provide customer service support, in terms of being properly staffed
So yeah, this was no doubt inconvenient, but I suspect American figured this was a better outcome than diverting to Seattle, for example. The airline probably wouldn’t have had a replacement crew there, maintenance would have been a lot more complicated, etc.
Bottom line
An American Boeing 787 operated a 12+ hour flight from New York to Dallas. The flight was supposed to fly to Tokyo, but around seven hours after takeoff, while over the Pacific Ocean, a maintenance issue arose. As a result, the plane needed to divert.
Clearly American wanted to focus on operational integrity as much as possible with this diversion, which explains why the airline chose to divert to its largest hub. You certainly don’t board a New York to Tokyo flight expecting that you’ll spend the night in Dallas.
What do you make of this American diversion?
San Francisco, Los Angeles ? Only Seattle?
none of which have anything that the other doesn't have.
Crews AND a replacement 787. DFW is likely the only city where AA can do that.
As mentioned yesterday, we hope for the new airline industry, all these CEO's retired and new blood comes in with new ideas.
Today in the UK, the CEO of Heathrow airport is under the govt grill, explaining why he chose to slep thru Friday night and deal with the airport closure Saturday morning. It looks to be a very large bill to payout. Inconvenience to passengers?
Honestly the whole plan makes sense. I am sort of surprise that they don't fly down to LAX, which has a maintenance base too. They should be able to locate crews and a spare 787-9s. Ultimately, AA's ops makes the calculation and DFW definitely has standby crew and plane.
However that $12 meal voucher is an insult to passengers. Let's be honest that $12 don't get you much these days. If you choose to...
Honestly the whole plan makes sense. I am sort of surprise that they don't fly down to LAX, which has a maintenance base too. They should be able to locate crews and a spare 787-9s. Ultimately, AA's ops makes the calculation and DFW definitely has standby crew and plane.
However that $12 meal voucher is an insult to passengers. Let's be honest that $12 don't get you much these days. If you choose to pass out meal vouchers, at least do $20. Given the long haul flights, $30 makes more sense. I hope the hotel stay will include breakfast too.
Other international airlines will usually set up a dinner buffet, as well as handing out breakfast coupons. AA looks bad with the $12 voucher.
I love how the passengers got to their room at 1am Dallas time with zero food all day….after they took off 18 hours earlier from NYC. American Airlines does not disappoint as the least friendly airline in the sky. The cruelty of cancelling the meal service on the diverted flight is mind boggling. I love how they then gave $12 in meal money, at an hour when every DFW food option was closed, as a...
I love how the passengers got to their room at 1am Dallas time with zero food all day….after they took off 18 hours earlier from NYC. American Airlines does not disappoint as the least friendly airline in the sky. The cruelty of cancelling the meal service on the diverted flight is mind boggling. I love how they then gave $12 in meal money, at an hour when every DFW food option was closed, as a sadistic joke. Clearly, the fair move would have been to provide meals service, divert to SeaTac, payup for a wet leased legAlaska technical reserve jet, and deliver the passengers to HND at a 6 hour delay.
I wonder what AA's justification was for canceling the meal service. A 14-hour scheduled flight would presumably have been catered for two meals. Since it wound up being a 12-plus hour flight, there was no reason not to serve both meals during the flight.
Just another reason to fly JAL instead of AA.
Why was the malfunction found when the plane was already over the Pacific Ocean? Get it together AA!
My wild guess is .....
The malfunction occurred while over the Pacific Ocean. They "found" the malfunction 2 seconds after the red warning light came one.
I think this is ridiculous and getting out of hand. The point of a diversion is not operational savings. It's safety. That means getting the plane down at the closest place that it's safe to land at, and then deal with the operational issues second. Of course there can be some discretion if there are multiple diversion points that are all about the same distance away, then choosing one that's a hub is okay. But...
I think this is ridiculous and getting out of hand. The point of a diversion is not operational savings. It's safety. That means getting the plane down at the closest place that it's safe to land at, and then deal with the operational issues second. Of course there can be some discretion if there are multiple diversion points that are all about the same distance away, then choosing one that's a hub is okay. But this is stretching that discretion to the extremes, tacking on hours of additional unnecessary flight time in an aircraft with a serious enough malfunction as to require a diversion in the first place.
I get not crossing the Pacific with malfunctioning hardware and turning back, even after hitting the half way mark. But there were plenty of diversion points that were closer, and the goal of landing as quickly as possible should not be relegated to a distant second over operational convenience. Otherwise, you might as well have just continued the flight if safety is really not that big of an issue.
Regarding this specifically being a de-icing issue, again, no one is asking them to fly all the way back to New York, or to divert to Anchorage even though it might have been closer. I'm sure at least one of the west coast airports would have had appropriate weather conditions and would have shortened the diversion by at least a few hours rather than flying all the way to Dallas.
By abusing this discretion and choosing operational convenience over safety, airlines are going to lose it altogether. One of these days, an airline will choose a long diversion over a shorter one, and a second failure will occur, potentially putting people's lives in jeopardy, and at that point, the FAA will take away that discretion and force stricter rules on choosing diversion points. Airlines will of course cry about it, but they'll have no one to blame but themselves if they keep forgetting what the main point of a diversion is.
Yes, it's all about safety. That's the precise reason they diverted.
The issue was with wing anti-ice system. Not safe to continue flight if the there's a chance of ice forming on the wings. However, it's perfectly safe to fly as long as you stay out of icing conditions. Enroute, ice won't be a problem as the super cold air doesn't hold much moisture, but descent for landing is another story.
Looks like for this flight, HND weather was not safe, DFW was.
At least the toilets were working unlike air India
Yeah, we can't service a 787 in Seattle.... SMH
Nope. Just Charleston.
Only $12 for meals for a 25 hour delay...
Well, they had meals on the flight to nowhere :)
Wouldn’t have been an issue if Seattle had been kept as an AA longhaul hub!
I hope the passengers were generously compensated although the $12 vouchers make me suspect not.
Probably could not continue in any known or forecast icing conditions... which meant not going further, and probably also eliminated a couple of diversion points. At that point, back to DFW would be the faster recovery anyway.
it sounds ridiculous, They produce airplanes that can be fixed in one place only, Sitting on the plane for 12 hours is not a pleasure. and $12 for food is good for a small sandwich.
It's not ridiculous when you engage your brain. SEA is an outstation that American only serves with single-aisle aircraft — who knows if they even have 787-capable parts or technicians available there? DFW may be inconvenient at first, but it also has the greatest availability of airplanes and crew.
There’s a point here, since Boeing is based in Seattle however your average person doesn’t understand diversions. I’m sure the crew explained.
Yeah, um, the Boeing plant is in Seattle. Probably could have fixed it faster than American!
Boeing doesn't have mechanics on standby for such minor issues. now strike the tail and need the rear pressure bulkhead replaced. sure, they can and are probably the only ones who can help. Even if Boeing could help and they diverted to SEA. the crew would be out of time and they would have to spend the night regardless
What's the policy for amounts on meal vouchers? I've had a Spirit flight cancelled on me in LAS and I got $36.
(Quick tip, if you're not hungry you can just load up your balance on Chick-fil-a with the vouchers for later)
Depends on the airline. Spirit did a study on basically what would it cost to get a sandwich and a bottle of water at each airport and did make some adjustments based on city. Used to be a flat $10 per meal. Sounds like Spirit gave you 3 meals worth (the agents/supervisors do have some discretion with that).
Why wouldn’t they just go to Tokyo and get a hand from their JAL friends? Also, the return flight was cancelled. Passengers likely accommodated on the later flight, flights next day, or JAL?
If the route closer to Japan involved flight into known icing conditions (FIKI) they would have been unable to continue further.
Thanks
If it was a wing anti-ice issue… it’s plausible that DFW was an available airport with non-icing conditions.
thank you.
It is very common w/ maintenance situations to divert where the risk of NOT having the non-functioning equipment is least.
and AA does not have spare aircraft in SEA. or JFK.
If they brought a new plane w/ a new crew to SEA, the crew probably could not be able to operate the flight until they have properly rested.
a diversion to DFW probably provided the fastest recovery whether some people understand how airlines actually operate or not.
AeroB13a would use this to support his snowflake ahh "iF It'S bOeINg i aIn'T GoINg" agenda.
@Mason
I think you misquoted him.
"If it ain't BA I ain't going."
"If it ain't LHR DEN I ain't going."
"If it ain't Skytrax it ain't a ranking."
"If it ain't AeroB13a you ain't set foot on BA".
"If it ain't Tim Dunn it ain't my alter ego."
This is the kind of customer unfriendly attitude permeating corporate thinking that got American to the position it is in today.
If I were a passenger on that flight I’d be loading up on fiber and taking a dump on Doug Parker’s front porch.
Doug Parker has been gone from AA for years.
So then what was the correct plan to go with if continuing to Tokyo was not possible
Land in Dallas
Immediate rebooking onto Netjets charters to Tokyo
Reimbursement of all costs including missed business deals.
Anchorage would have been closer, and they could have sent a plane from Dallas to pick up passengers there for the rest of the flight. But the meal vouchers probably cost more in Alaska.
How on earth would that be faster than just returning to DFW? Are you saying American should instantly deploy a replacement plane/crew from DTW while the original plane is on the way to Anchorage? That seems like wishful thinking and would likely have an overall higher disruptive impact on schedules.
Don't get me wrong, this situation blows, but ultimately the goal is to have the least disruption on flow as possible. To do that you...
How on earth would that be faster than just returning to DFW? Are you saying American should instantly deploy a replacement plane/crew from DTW while the original plane is on the way to Anchorage? That seems like wishful thinking and would likely have an overall higher disruptive impact on schedules.
Don't get me wrong, this situation blows, but ultimately the goal is to have the least disruption on flow as possible. To do that you need a new plane and *very likely* a new crew... hence the hubs.
You would probably have to rest the crew on the rescue flight to ANC still delaying the flight 24 hours. making the outcome the same for the customers. Plus it is more of a hassle for the airline since they would have to send a field trip of mechanics and parts to ANC. This is all assuming icing conditions did not exist at ANC
I would have thought LAX, being another decently sized hub of AA , be a better diversion point. But, the pilots know better!