Edelweiss Airbus A340 returns to Zurich after centre landing gear fails to retract

Edelweiss flight WK34 was bound for Punta Cana on Saturday, 17 October 2026, when a landing-gear problem brought its journey to an abrupt halt. The centre gear on Airbus A340-300 HB-JMC had failed to retract normally after takeoff from Zurich. The crew turned back, jettisoned fuel over the Alps and landed safely. Yet the disruption had an unusual ending: the same four-engine aircraft later departed again and reached the Dominican Republic.

An Edelweiss spokesperson confirmed the centre-gear problem to Swiss media. AIRLIVE reported a cockpit indication that the landing gear doors were not closed, while The Aviation Herald, republished by Airportia, described an inability to retract the landing gear. Neither account identifies the precise failed component.

After departing runway 16, the crew halted the climb at around 8,000 feet and entered a holding pattern to assess the problem. The A340 subsequently climbed to about 22,000 feet before returning for a safe landing on Zurich’s runway 34 roughly 90 minutes after takeoff, according to The Aviation Herald. Returning was not simply a matter of turning around: a long-haul jet departing with fuel for an Atlantic crossing may be too heavy to land under normal weight limits immediately after departure.

Edelweiss said the aircraft jettisoned fuel above the Alps to reduce its weight before landing. This is a controlled option for suitably equipped long-haul aircraft; it is not, by itself, evidence that a crash was imminent. Swiss reporting placed the release over several Alpine areas, including the Jungfrau and Titlis regions. aeroTELEGRAPH also reported that the same jet continued its journey later that afternoon.

Unlike many other widebody types, the A340-300 has an additional centre landing-gear assembly beneath the fuselage, helping distribute its weight on the ground. A gear assembly that remains extended, or gear doors that fail to close properly, can produce excess drag and operational limitations. Zurich offered an opportunity to inspect the aircraft, although the available reports do not identify the repair or inspection work performed before it flew again.

Flightradar24’s WK34 history records a second departure by HB-JMC at 15:10 UTC, followed by an arrival in Punta Cana at 23:54 UTC. That flight completed the intended route with the same aircraft, albeit later than scheduled. Flight tracking does not establish the precise arrangements offered to passengers during the delay.

The incident highlights how a technical fault can force a long-haul return without necessarily grounding the aircraft for the rest of the day. For passengers, the documented outcome was a late arrival rather than a definitive cancellation. Any compensation claim would depend on the circumstances and actual delay on arrival.