Narrative:

Visual approach xxr; our vapp was 125kts and we checked in with tower and were informed traffic landing xy (intersecting runway) will go behind us. We see the aircraft; aircraft Y doing s-turns. The TCAS in our airplane showed they were 100' below us when we were around 700'. Tower was being quite standoffish about how the spacing was developing. At this point; aircraft Y asked how the spacing looked. Tower said 'it should work' and aircraft Y started doing more s-turns as it crossed the river at an estimated 500'. As they made their turn back to the runway they appeared to be at the same altitude as us and their airplane wasn't moving in relation to us; the telltale sign of being on converging courses. At 200' I called for and initiated the go-around. Aircraft Y landed below us. We resequenced back for xxr. When we checked in with tower; we heard them telling another [company] plane that s-turns were recommended for landing behind company on xxr. On the TCAS; they were 200' below us. Tower told us that they will resequence if needed. At 400';they initiated their go-around and we landed xxr.ATC advised of conflicting traffic then the crew initiated the go-around. Tight spacing from ATC on intersecting runways and our abnormally low vref of 120 kts; maybe not expected by ATC.there is a big risk running these intersecting arrivals. If both planes go-around; they will be on a collision course airborne with no time to react. Tower should be sending planes around by 500-1000' so that if one plane is instructed to go-around and the other one is beginning its own go-around; there will be a conflict. By having one go-around early; this is prevented.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: E145 Captain reported a go around due to conflicting traffic landing on an intersecting runway.

Narrative: Visual approach XXR; our Vapp was 125kts and we checked in with tower and were informed traffic landing XY (intersecting runway) will go behind us. We see the aircraft; Aircraft Y doing S-turns. The TCAS in our airplane showed they were 100' below us when we were around 700'. Tower was being quite standoffish about how the spacing was developing. At this point; Aircraft Y asked how the spacing looked. Tower said 'It should work' and Aircraft Y started doing more S-turns as it crossed the river at an estimated 500'. As they made their turn back to the runway they appeared to be at the same altitude as us and their airplane wasn't moving in relation to us; the telltale sign of being on converging courses. At 200' I called for and initiated the go-around. Aircraft Y landed below us. We resequenced back for XXR. When we checked in with tower; we heard them telling another [company] plane that s-turns were recommended for landing behind company on XXR. On the TCAS; they were 200' below us. Tower told us that they will resequence if needed. At 400';they initiated their go-around and we landed XXR.ATC advised of conflicting traffic then the crew initiated the go-around. Tight spacing from ATC on intersecting runways and our abnormally low Vref of 120 kts; maybe not expected by ATC.There is a big risk running these intersecting arrivals. If both planes go-around; they will be on a collision course airborne with no time to react. Tower should be sending planes around by 500-1000' so that if one plane is instructed to go-around and the other one is beginning its own go-around; there will be a conflict. By having one go-around early; this is prevented.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.