DL 207 JFK-SFO today (July 11) diverted before departure?

Discussion in 'Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles' started by Morsel, Jul 11, 2011.  |  Print Topic

  1. Morsel
    Original Member

    Morsel Active Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    11
    Status Points:
    90
    Checking on the status of FL 207 today from JFK-SFO, it's showing "diverted" to MSP since well over an hour before scheduled departure time. Scheduled to depart MSP-SFO the minute it lands. Anyone on this flight or near the gate to know what's going on? Is this normal? (Called DL and they can't tell me any more.)

    The sinister part of me wonders if this is an ingenious ploy to work around the SFO traffic management. For comparison, there's a UA flight departing at the same time that's backed up an hour (for now).

    Might they actually fly the route to MSP and hope to just skip the stop by the time the get close? Or has my imagination gone totally crazy?

    Update: So the MSP-SFO leg has now been delayed until 6 am. Just called DL and they gave the unsatisfying answer of "it needs parts. And fuel. And re-crew. But mostly parts."

    So, sadly/gratefully, they're not as devious as I was thinking, but still a strange situation.
     
    jmrich1432, rwoman and NYBanker like this.
  2. NYBanker
    Original Member

    NYBanker Gold Member

    Messages:
    32,725
    Likes Received:
    191,901
    Status Points:
    20,020
    That's a creative idea.

    I don't know the vagaries of jockeying for position into arrival queues...but I've long suspected that skill of an airlines operations team was as important as, or more important that, the order in which the flights approach the field. Perhaps there is some negotiation with ATC?

    Anyone know further on this?
     
  3. MSPeconomist
    Original Member

    MSPeconomist Gold Member

    Messages:
    58,563
    Likes Received:
    98,528
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Could they be planning a stop to add fuel? It seems unlikely and I'm not aware of any obvious weather issues that would greatly impact fuel.
     
  4. Bay Pisco Shark
    Original Member

    Bay Pisco Shark Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Status Points:
    1,270
    It is a cold, windy and overcast summer evening. Probably quite an arrival backup - maybe too much for the fuel cushion of the plane (depending on headwinds flying westbound - they'd need 7+ hours of flight time fuel onboard to depart without having to schedule a stop).
     
  5. TravelerRob
    Original Member

    TravelerRob Silver Member

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    486
    Status Points:
    620
    Maybe so, but why schedule a stop in MSP when SLC is on the way and more "direct"?

    Seems odd they'd schedule the stop in MSP unless there is a part that is needed that SLC doesn't have.

    SLC I believe is also a 757 base so it's not a crew issue.

    -RM
     
  6. mersk862
    Original Member

    mersk862 Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    2,756
    Status Points:
    1,425
    Could be a FA crew issue though in that MSP is a PMNW crew base and SLC is a PMDL crew base.

    Also possible that the pilots (or FAs) were only good for enough time to get them to MSP, but not enough to get them the extra 90 minutes over to SLC.

    JFK-MSP-SFO is only 31 miles longer than the nonstop (29 more than SLC) so not much different in terms of extra time to fly...31 miles is about 4 minutes at cruise heading west.

    The parts issue could have occurred once on the ground in MSP. Also, it could have dealt with the ETOPS rating the plane has; I'm not sure if SLC has mechanics rated to do ETOPS work on 757s since that rarely goes through there, while they do pop into MSP (by basis of the NW 757 5600 fleet).
     
    TravelerRob and DeltaExpert like this.
  7. NYBanker
    Original Member

    NYBanker Gold Member

    Messages:
    32,725
    Likes Received:
    191,901
    Status Points:
    20,020
    This still baffles me. What part was so critical that a flight needed to pre-divert to msp ... But where the plane was safe enough to fly JFK-msp?

    If a part was needed, wouldn't they have it @ JFK? Dl has plenty of etops 757s there And if not at JFK, and it wasn't critical (which hopefully it wasn't, else they shouldn't have flown to msp!), couldn't the part have been ferried to SFO on a regular msp-SFO service?

     
    DeltaExpert likes this.
  8. I have been on a flight where the aircraft had something broken (crew phones, IIRC) that was not required for flight but had to be fixed in X amount of time. In that case (BDL-MSP) the plane's X amount of time to fix the phones expired around Detroit so we had a scheduled diversion to DTW, plane swap and then continue on to MSP.
     
    USAF_Pride, DeltaExpert and NYBanker like this.
  9. MSPeconomist
    Original Member

    MSPeconomist Gold Member

    Messages:
    58,563
    Likes Received:
    98,528
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Welcome to MP.

    That was a creative solution--faster than waiting in BDL for a plane from DTW to come and fetch you and probably easier to do the repair at a hub.
     
    DeltaExpert likes this.
  10. NYBanker
    Original Member

    NYBanker Gold Member

    Messages:
    32,725
    Likes Received:
    191,901
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Wow. I would not have guessed, but that does make sense.
     
    DeltaExpert likes this.
  11. Travel2Food
    Original Member

    Travel2Food Silver Member

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    374
    Status Points:
    535
    Likewise. For example, on an AA IAD-LAX flight one day we departed with a lav inop. Turned out a valve in the lav was leaking (which would have meant no lav water long before we got to LAX) so we diverted to ORD, the maintenance crew was waiting with a new lav WC assembly, repair was done in a little over an hour while we were allowed off the plane for 45 minutes. Only surprise was that we diverted to ORD instead of DFW.

    Also had this happen on a 757 where there was a flaps issue so we couldn't take full fuel load, necessitating an intermediate fueling stop.

    Much better than canceling the flights.
     
  12. It worked out really well - we were only on the ground for 45 minutes.

    Of course this was back when they actually had slack in the system. We arrived in DTW got off the plane, walked two gates to our new plane and were on our way. This was also back when load factors were a little lighter than they are now. While our flight from BDL-DTW was maybe 60% full the flight from DTW-MSP filled up completely with non-revs :)
     
  13. MSPeconomist
    Original Member

    MSPeconomist Gold Member

    Messages:
    58,563
    Likes Received:
    98,528
    Status Points:
    20,020
    No well-run airline is going to pay much attention to the nonrevs on board. What matters is getting the paying passengers, including those who have paid with miles, etc., to their destinations in a way that keeps them relatively happy and willing to buy more tickets on the airline.
     
  14. Oh I know - I just thought it was funny that all the empty middles were full on the second leg. I know DTW-MSP can be a tough commute for FAs so I am sure they jumped at the opportunity.
     
    MSPeconomist likes this.

Share This Page