NZFF

Shalom and greetings all my pals,

Just came across this news item that puzzles, baffles, and confounds me. My question arises from this news item is that why didn't both Air New Zealand and Korean Air make diversion to PANC considering the fact they are so near Alaska instead of going back to cross Pacific ocean again to return to their airports of departure???????

Strange!!! I would make diversion to nearby Alaska instead of going back to cross Pacific ocean to return to airport of departure.

https://www.key.aero/article/16-hour-fl ... e=hs_email

Regards,

Aharon

I've seen some responses to this where suggestion is mainly commercial/$$$ reasons in that there are no prior/pre-arranged service or support arrangements at an airport like PANC (in your example) and so better to return home and reschedule for a future flight. Also as JFK was closed in this case even if they diverted some where close to NY would be a cost associated w ferrying pax to wherever they did manage to land, and worst case an empty return all the way back from the US to NZ

Deeknow,

Well if it is up to me as Air New Zealand pilot, I would have gone to either PANC just for refueling or KLAX which has plenty of Air New Zealand support presence to land and wait one hour until KJFK fixed its computers and then take off for final destination in NY instead of flying ALL THE WAY across VAST Pacific ocean back to New Zealand which means two things: passengers are gonna be upset that they are not in NY for vacation OR not able to catch connecting flights to Europe or Canada AND the passengers in KJFK are gonna be upset that there will be no plane for them to fly to New Zealand for vacation.

I still think it is BAD decision to fly ALL WAY across vast Pacific ocean back to New Zealand.

Regards,

Aharon

Aharon wrote:Well if it is up to me as Air New Zealand pilot, I would have ....

what makes you think it was ever up to the Pilot, especially given it wasn't an emergency? I'd bet it was a pre-arranged commercial instruction