Printable View
NYCAviation:
Quote:
:arrow: Delta Grounds Three 767s, Stranding More Than 600 at JFK
Not goin’ anywhere for a while? Delta Air Lines grounded three Boeing 767 planes at New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport on Tuesday due to maintenance issues, stranding more than 600 passengers, local media reported on Wednesday.
Bunch of sensationalist news reporting about a bad day of mechanicals for DL.
Sorry Andy. :|
I didn't think it was too bad. When it rains, it pours, and I think pointing out a triple-crap day with coincidence of airline, airport and aircraft type makes for an interested read. If the article heavily bashed DL or expanded and more, I'd probably have edited it or not posted.
I am beginning to think these articles on mx issues is exactly like Andy said. Recently at IFP there was a mx issue, I shot the aircraft the following day and uploaded. I actually was considering putting something in the comment box about it but realized the airlines don't need this crap. If a story surfaces about negligence or somethinf fine but aircraft are like cars or any other machinery they go down from time to time and it's not always someone's fault and usually looks bad. We don't need to make it an worse. Andy is spot on here, sensationalist news reporting.
Hmmmmm 600 people stranded is sensational? You have an interesting definition of sensational Andy. This article points out once again of how Delta is using JFK for something their facilities cannot handle. If 3 767s went MX at another one of their hubs a replacement would be at hand faster then at JFK. All of Delta's planes at JFK are accounted for flights with nothing to spare.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc2aqg
Phil there really is no need to apologize, in fact you probably should follow up on the story about how Delta's utilization of JFK is far beyond the capacity they can handle while providing reasonable levels of customer service.
Nah, Andy certainly has a point that the media does sensationalize certain aircraft issues that are actually not that severe and with little actual aviation knowledge. As a regular member and friend, I like to address people's concerns or criticism. No biggie.
Working at JFK and hearing this Delta story, I thought "Wow, oh my God" because I know what it's like to be behind the helm of an airline when bad luck strikes and planes are just breaking down all around you. It is not that common of an event.
I think they should be judged on a case by case basis. This one I think would give people the wrong idea if it were published in mainstream news. But posted here, I think most people would be able to determine that it was a story about a crappy day at Delta, and not as one of those typical airline-complaint, "hate the airlines" articles. The difference being is that there was not much of any Delta bashing. Statement of facts, a single passenger quote and a photo of a DL 767 at JFK. So often we do see articles pop up in the mainstream media with just a single delay, or very common occurrences intended just to draw ire from people or sell a few more copies. This topic, I felt, was of interest to a less-than-common issue that came up. That's my opinion of course, and I hope that a majority of NYCA readers feel the same.
Just an FYI in case anyone is wondering, the "BNO News" articles posted here come from a news service that we pay for. Matt and I pick and choose which articles of theirs we like and we post them manually like any other writer submission, even editing or adding as we feel needed to apply to an enthusiasts' interests.
mx happens, and sometimes it really sucks when it happens all at once.
Your telling me if WN had three planes go down at once at LAS or LAX all those pax would be taken care of on the spot? They would have three planes just ready to take them? Or when AFs 380 went down at JFK how many pax were stranded? This thing happens and Delta is no better prepared than any other carrier if this happened. It's sensationilism and piling on an airline that people don't like.Quote:
All of Delta's planes at JFK are accounted for flights with nothing to spare.
Nick, not sure where you're getting that implication. If Delta didn't have any spare aircraft, then they didn't have any spare aircraft. It has nothing to do with other airlines.
I also thought Delta was one of the more liked airlines, so I wouldn't call it piling up on them. When many hundreds of people get stranded, I can understand it popping up in the news. It's what is said in the article that determines when it's sensationalism.
Really not sure what the debate is about anymore here, guys. Let's try not to get out of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
The answer to your question is yes when an airline has planes go down at a large hub with an MX base its fare easier for said airline to replace the broken plane. Delta does not have a large MX base at JFK like jetblue and AA does so when their operation goes down the effect is going to be far greater then if these 76s went down at ATL, simple as that. When 600 people get stuck because an airline...any airline's planes break down its worth reporting.
Now is a good time to use my own quote I use at work with steaming mad customers:
" Two space shuttles crashed. No other machine in the world of transportation has more people and money invested in its proper operation and design. Just goes to show that anything mechanical can and will have mechanical failures. It happens."
No one has 3 aircraft sitting around for spares, and if they did, it's terrible fleet utilization and the shareholders should be mighty angry.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that 600 people stranded isn't newsworthy, but 3 mechanicals in a short period really isn't - it's just bad luck. People on FT have been oversensationalizing this and DL maintenance as a result of this story and it's BS. In my opinion, the newsworthy piece is how were the pax treated and accomodated to get to their destinations.
I have to disagree with you there Tommy. Living near ATL I can tell you that DL keeps typically 1 hot spare of each type on the DL North ramp. You can usually see 1 MD-88, 1 738, 1-2 752s, 1 763A, 1763ER, 1 763ER ex-GF, and a 764ER, with the 777's and A330's being stored at the NWA hangars to the South (which are mostly for long layovers anyway), plus however many that are at the TOC in maintenance and are not operational. My point is that DL doesn't just have 3 767's sitting anywhere ready to go to replace aircraft that are in-service that have gone Mx - it's operationally inefficient. I think the assumption that DL would have fared any better at ATL is incorrect - it's just a news story because the press likes to harp on airlines (and DL in particular) in NY.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
And for the record, I've flown on 20+ Delta 767's of all types over the years and have only had one very minor mechanical delay for a burned out NAV bulb. It really is luck of the draw when it comes to mechanicals.
I agree that it's bad luck, but I'd consider it worthy for that very reason. There is no implication of fault by DL, I don't think, unless people are naturally inclined to look for any reason to do so. This type of thing happens here and there, but it is not a daily occurrence, and something that thousands of enthusiasts showed they wanted to read about it. Know what I mean?
Although I, too, would have loved to have been able to learn about pax accommodations and aircraft utilization with spares lying around. Also a fun part of the process!
It sucks when jets hard-break but it happens; they are machines, some of them fairly old, and break down, it happens no matter the carrier.
It's pretty unreasonable to expect an airline to have multiple spares of the same type sitting around in a "small hub" city just in case multiple aircraft break. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, it would be irresponsible to shareholders and would drive up costs for passengers for an airline to do this.
Sucks that 600 people were inconvenienced by this, but it's life; stuff breaks. As long as Delta wasn't negligent in ignoring required maintenance checks and was following specific tech order guidelines or industry standard procedures on maintenance checks, this sounds like just an unfortunate incident. Hopefully Delta was able to accommodate some of these passengers on other carriers, or offered the delayed travelers some sort of voucher or the like.
People can get up in arms about this, but what's the alternative, fly an unsafe jet? If this was a regular occurring issue from Delta, then I'd agree with some of the critics and the passengers may have more of a valid complaint (although the argument could be made that if they knew Delta consistently had mx issues, then why would they book with them)...