HEADS UP! AF A-380 Diverting to Boston

**JHNA57** · 03-13-2010, 03:56 PM

Just a heads up to anyone in the Boston area. AF-006 missed its approach and is diverting to Boston as of 14:59

**Matt Molnar** · 03-13-2010, 06:32 PM

Good catch.

Definitely the first weather diversion for the AF A380, and I don't remember hearing about Emirates ever diverting. Can anyone confirm?

NLovis · 03-14-2010, 07:47 AM

Cant confirm but I would definitly say so since they were using 13L for arrivals and departures yesterday. If you missed you were outahere. 1st Iberia diverted after missing the mark, 3 BA flights diverted, 3rd Cathay.... LANDED :shock: The wind was so bad they closed the AOA for a little but but even after reopening the planes were moving so much we couldnt even bring a loader to it. It was horrible.

**hiss srq** · 03-14-2010, 10:41 PM

AFAIK EK never diverted with the 380 on US soil. If it crossed the Atlantic it landed at JFK.

NLovis · 03-15-2010, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by hiss srq

AFAIK EK never diverted with the 380 on US soil. If it crossed the Atlantic it landed at JFK.

Again they were using 13L during the storm. That runway isnt long enough for the A380. Especally with 50+ wind speeds. Sir that thing diverted hands down. not to mention it isnt wide enough either. Now if bay runway was still open I could see it landing at JFK.

**Matt Molnar** · 03-15-2010, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by NLovis

Originally Posted by hiss srq

AFAIK EK never diverted with the 380 on US soil. If it crossed the Atlantic it landed at JFK.

Again they were using 13L during the storm. That runway isnt long enough for the A380. Especally with 50+ wind speeds. Sir that thing diverted hands down. not to mention it isnt wide enough either. Now if bay runway was still open I could see it landing at JFK.

We're talking about Emirates, which no longer flies the A380 to JFK. I was asking if they ever diverted back when they did.

The A380 has landed on 13L before. It is plenty long enough. The longest runway at BOS, where AF diverted on Saturday, is only 83 ft longer than 13L.

**PhilDernerJr** · 03-15-2010, 08:28 AM

Matt is correct about that runway being ok to land on. The A380 is unable to land in the opposite direction, 31R, however. That's because of a shortage of space to turn-off at the end of the runway. 13L offers no problems.

NLovis · 03-15-2010, 10:49 AM

Ah ok. kinda wierd you can land on one side of a runway but not the other side.

**hiss srq** · 03-15-2010, 11:00 AM

Think about it. Think about the taxiway widths at the departure end of 31R verses the departure end of 13L. You can roll to 22R and make the turn off if anything when you land on 13 but there are all sorts of obstructions on the other side not to mention tightness of turns. A346's are restricted at JFK even.

NLovis · 03-15-2010, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Think about it. Think about the taxiway widths at the departure end of 31R verses the departure end of 13L. You can roll to 22R and make the turn off if anything when you land on 13 but there are all sorts of obstructions on the other side not to mention tightness of turns. A346's are restricted at JFK even.

Yea I know 340-600's are restricted so are 773's for that matter. what i was trying to say was why do they have it that way instead of it being the same all through? It puzzles me as to why they did that. Yea some turns are tight i've seen that.

**hiss srq** · 03-15-2010, 11:34 AM

Because it makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reengineer an airport that might see 3 or 4 of a type on a given day when the spotter luck is good. The A380 is an airplane that will see very limited routings in the world because of size, fleet number and relative lack of infastructure at most places. The A346 and 773 as well fall into that catagory. The 748 will be about the biggest most airports will ever build accomidations for in the forseeable future and even that airplane is going to see limited ability due to it's turn radius etc etc.... Realisticly the 772 and 744 will be the most common denominator in infastructure design. Those airplanes are very big and will mainly be flown into places that demand massive trunk capacity. The 777 in the 200 model form has a blueprint design for folding wingtips. AA was the only carrier that even considered it and as we know never bought it. Boeing designed the airplane to be able to do that so it could operate high density routes into LGA. That is also part of the reason that it is a 3 wheel bogey. So it could be supported spec wise on LGA's deck's. Look it up.

NLovis · 03-15-2010, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Because it makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reengineer an airport that might see 3 or 4 of a type on a given day when the spotter luck is good. The A380 is an airplane that will see very limited routings in the world because of size, fleet number and relative lack of infastructure at most places. The A346 and 773 as well fall into that catagory. The 748 will be about the biggest most airports will ever build accomidations for in the forseeable future and even that airplane is going to see limited ability due to it's turn radius etc etc.... Realisticly the 772 and 744 will be the most common denominator in infastructure design. Those airplanes are very big and will mainly be flown into places that demand massive trunk capacity. The 777 in the 200 model form has a blueprint design for folding wingtips. AA was the only carrier that even considered it and as we know never bought it. Boeing designed the airplane to be able to do that so it could operate high density routes into LGA. That is also part of the reason that it is a 3 wheel bogey. So it could be supported spec wise on LGA's deck's. Look it up.

You learn something new every day. Thanks for the lesson hiss :borat: