The problem with that too is they didn’t make it. Higher fuel burn and had to divert to MAN
I think "We going in the Hudson" qualified as declaring an emergency.
I can see it. The proactive response would have been, "Well if Southwest wants to land on the runway we are using for departures at an unknown time in the near future, we'd better get things turned around to keep this runway clear". The response I'd expect from most controllers I've met (not just from being aloof but quite the opposite in the "hell yeah push tin" kinda mindset they're usually in), however, is "Ok cool, so when Southwest is setting up for approach we'll launch what we got and get him down" then continue ops normal until the SWA landing. Which is what I guess happened, lol. If you think SWA 906 being on a 10-mile final launching guys was bad, imagine an A340 with a hydraulic failure and no center gear gliding down with ATC running a dual departure squeeze play with 2 RJs to with the A340 on like a 1/2-3/4 mile final as they cross the landing runway LOL. AARF thought it was the NEXT arrival for that carrier with the failure, so no trucks were alerted anyway until ATC asked why they stopped on the active runway. Then the ground handler hastly brought out a tug with a mostly empty gas tank so it died blocking the whole backside of a terminal for 20 mins on the way in. So, you know, can't always count on that stuff.
