Back to Squawk list
  • 55

World's biggest passenger jet forced to land at small New York airport thanks to blizzard

Singapore Airlines A380 forced to land at Stewart Airport in NY state due to blizzard conditions in NYC. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

William Candee 25
Stewart's 11,800+ foot primary runway is longer than 4L/22R at JFK. Stewart is "small" only in the sense that its rural-ish location near NYC causes it to have limited passenger traffic. It used to be an Air Force Base.
wingbolt 6
If it’s big enough to be designated as an emergency landing site for the space shuttle I would think it’s big enough for the 380. If it diverted to Farmingdale it might have been worth the headline.
ehnf12 3
I agree with your point, I have been there multiple times. Despite the runway length however, it still feels like you are in the middle of nowhere.
Because you are! 😁
Chris B 2
Its as popular with airlines as Luton airport is in England. You just don't want to go there.
sharon bias 12
After the 1989 earthquake, the major Bay Area airports were closed until the runways could be inspected. Many planes were diverted to McClellan Air Park (Sacramento) because it has a very long runway from its Air Force days. It also has no commercial traffic and plenty of space to park a plane. I watched as JAL, Philippines, Singapore, Lufthansa and others landed. Most were 747's. My house is right under the final approach flight path, and I remember how colorful it was. McClellan was home to A-10's when it was active, so these big planes were a treat. Of course, McClellan had no interstructure to handle commercial passengers, so the folks just had to sit. Some planes were eventually released to fly to Sacramento International, a 5 mile flight. I think the passengers still had to disembark using stairs because Sacramento International was never meant to handle a 747. Still, passengers could clear customs, get food, and decide if they really wanted to rent a car and go to the Bay Area. The news accounts were grim. I think more than a few drove to Reno and tried their luck at the tables.
Wingrat 6
Secondary airport, adequate runway, safe landing,whining, sounds about normal for those not understanding the dangerous conditions at JFK. OMGosh passengers had to use a stairway. Probably the most dangerous part of the flight.
easyrider 4
Forced to land? just diverted....cnbc you are freaks.
I'm impressed the 380 got in there, I was at SWF yesterday working an aircraft I have responsibilities for. I left at 10:45 local time to drive 25 miles home which took me an hour 15 minutes, visibility and conditions were deteriorating rapidly, if I had known this plane was inbound I wouldn't have stayed to witness it as cool as that might have been.
flypilot12 3
I used to work for an FBO, and SWF is used to host the planes from the big UN gatherings, Formula 1 and NASCAR races, and race horses, all coming in on 747s, not to mention the AN-225 lands there on occasion. Small airport my ass.
patrick baker 3
is no big deal. I flew out of stewart on the 79th air force reserve wing and saw plenty big runways, taxiways, and parking areas, plus not so crowded. The a280 had just flown many hours, burned much fuel, and was at low gross weight, not needing anywhere near the full length, weather conditions permitting. This was slightly misleading headline, wouldn't you agree?
Well the 280 requires less runway than the 380...
joel wiley 1
280 is a 380 after taxes and airport fees I think
btweston 0
No, the headline pretty much described what happened. A long runway doesn’t make a big airport.
James Simms 2
SWF is where the Iranian Hostages flew into after their release in 1981. Took them to West Point after arriving in country. Army uses SWF as their airport for road games & their home opponents use it also.
stacey go 1
I remember watching the hostages disembark there through a fence along the road. Huge runway though, so not a "small" airport,there is a passenger terminal now....maybe they mean unsophisticated because they can't get sushi there? OR do they mean Small town? Totally adequate landing facility.
Gary Reilly 1
Possibly a publicity stunt... of course not, but you'd understand this if you remember SWF's half hearted attempt to become NY's 4th major airport after the base closed around 30 yrs ago
joel wiley 1
I can imagine the stairway in a snowstorm. Just hope they brought proper clothing.
chuck berlin 1
forget the runway length - the question what bothers me is why was this plane dispatched from FRA in the first place?At the time of departure conditions at JFK were bad and were only predicted to get worse!!. Trust me on this, I live on Long Island and it was horrible from about 5AM onwards.

as a passenger, SQ does this too often for me which is why I hesitate to fly them- they routinely land at JFK even though NYC has declared a "snow emergency" and the access roads in and out of he airport are closed!! The airport is technically open but the pax can't get out of the airport.

I sadly remember the 2002 incident SQ29 in TPE when they were the only company that allowed their planes to take off.

The only saving grace is unlike the above situations, this one probably cost SQ over $100K when you figure in double landing fees, the costs to reposition the aircraft, transporting pax and their luggage to NYC etc.

maybe they will think twice the next time!
Jim Anderson 1
Absurd headline. USAF bases C-5's there and Norwegian is flying nonstop to Edinburgh. Poukeepsie is no metropolis but you're at 30 minute metro North ride from Grand Central.
max daniel 2
The Metro North from Poughkeepsie to GCT takes almost 2 hours (1 hour and 50 min without delays)
Plus SWF is in NEWBURGH, about a 30 minute drive from Poughkeepsie. The closest Metro North Station is in Beacon, which is a 90 minute ride from GCT. I agree though the media has hyped up this story a bit much. SWF has always served as a diversion airport for the big three. 747s on diversion have periodically landed here in the past.
btweston 2
An 80 mile train ride in 30 minutes? Not in this country.
James Simms 1
The C-5's were retired five or so years ago "In November 2010, it was announced that the Air Force had selected Stewart ANGB as its "preferred base" for eight C-17 Globemaster III jet cargo aircraft slated to be operated by the Air National Guard for the Air Mobility Command, with the twelve C-5A Galaxy cargo aircraft operated by the 105 AW at the base to be retired and replaced by the C-17s. In March 2011, Air Force officials announced that the 105 AW had been chosen as the final basing decision for eight C-17 Globemaster III mobility aircraft. The 105 AW's first C-17, AF Ser. No. 05-0105, arrived in July 2011 and the wing commenced retiring their C-5 aircraft and transitioning to the C-17. This transition was completed in September 2012 with the departure of the wing's last C-5 aircraft."
USMC VMGR-452 (Yankee,s) w/KT-130's & USMC MALS-49 (Magicians) are also located @ Stewart ANGB.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.