Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Not A Good Week For Westbound Tatl 757's Part 2  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10023 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

This is a continuation thread of part 1 which can be found here: Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Please feel free to rejoin the discussion in this thread. Enjoy the forums!  


Regards,

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1017 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

a major U.S newspaper has ran two articles on continental-United's 757 troubles

yesterday "Continental-United's 757 non-stop flights to Europe are now 1-stop"

and today they had an article about how the arline has considered adding an extra tank (on the belly of the 757), but nothing came of that.


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6844 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9912 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 1):
yesterday "Continental-United's 757 non-stop flights to Europe are now 1-stop"

and today they had an article about how the arline has considered adding an extra tank (on the belly of the 757), but nothing came of that.

Not sure how that works -- adding an extra tank to a 757. Has there been any carrier who has completed a mod for that?

Not sure if CO was the carrier who would have been interested in that. They declined to take aux tanks in their 739ERs.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1017 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 2):
Not sure how that works -- adding an extra tank to a 757. Has there been any carrier who has completed a mod for that?

Gordon Bethune toyed around with that idea first, not sure what Boeing and the FAA though about the idea.

very interesting article, google it...


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9803 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 2):
Not sure how that works -- adding an extra tank to a 757. Has there been any carrier who has completed a mod for that?

The USAF C-32s have them, at the aft end of the forward hold.

The challenges for normal pax service are that they add weight and take away cargo volume that is necessary in airline configuration.

CO looked at installing them at one point, but decided against it.

The extra weight of an aux tank can make a difference. On its A320s, B6 originally specified an aux tank, but then removed it because the extra weight was hurting range more than the extra fuel capacity was helping it.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9773 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
the extra weight was hurting range more than the extra fuel capacity was helping it.

Yeah, I would think it would be a no-go on UA (CO) 757s.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9768 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 1):
and today they had an article about how the arline has considered adding an extra tank (on the belly of the 757), but nothing came of that

Of course nothing came of it because it is a waste of weight, space and money for the routes they currently fly.   

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 2):
Not sure how that works -- adding an extra tank to a 757. Has there been any carrier who has completed a mod for that?

I recall seeing an executive configured 757 that said it had an aux tank.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9616 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 7):
Here's some of the news coverage over the past few days:

  

Of course, every single one of these articles presents the use of 757s as a boneheaded UA move to pinch pennies, not a way to expand service to cities and/or times where it might not otherwise be offered.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9564 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 7):
Here's some of the news coverage over the past few days:

Much of it making it seem as if UA doesn't care.  

Because the flights definitely weren't loaded into the schedule months ago, leaving no possibility of changing the aircraft type, and UA definitely didn't make sure that the flights could go nonstop with average winter winds, right?

What's UA supposed to do, commune with the weather to get it to cut the headwinds down?   

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6844 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9522 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):

What's UA supposed to do, commune with the weather to get it to cut the headwinds down?

Use larger aircraft that won't cause for diversions.....?

Amazing how many news stories are being printed up regarding this issue.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9503 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
  
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
  
Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
  

I think perhaps this topic has gotten a bit frustrating to some of us. 
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 10):
Use larger aircraft that won't cause for diversions.....?

Do you think they have some sort of moral responsibility to do this (or, realistically, to cancel flights, since they don't just have extra WBs sitting around), even if it would lose more money and/or cause more passenger inconvenience (in the case of canceled flights) than the fuel stop?


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9503 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
What's UA supposed to do, commune with the weather to get it to cut the headwinds down?

Mir,

This has been brewing long before the "winds of the century" became the excuse. The CO 757's have been diverting on the IAD service since the beginning of service last summer. The 757's can't make it to IAD with alternate fuel if the ceilings are low. They can't make IAD if there is a forecast for TStorms or ATC reroutes. These are year round events and UA has buried its head in the sand hoping this issue would go away. So now they have cooked up the lame wind excuse for their poor planning and research. These people should be removed from their duties for bungling the decision to put 757's beyond their range.

I don't know how much these guys need to see to realize their mistakes. I suspect they would never acknowledge their errors. They are earning those bonuses!  


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9439 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Do you think they have some sort of moral responsibility to do this (or, realistically, to cancel flights, since they don't just have extra WBs sitting around), even if it would lose more money and/or cause more passenger inconvenience (in the case of canceled flights) than the fuel stop?

I think it should be disclosed at the time of booking - just prior to pressing the "Pay" button - that x% of the time the flight needs to divert for fuel.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9440 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
Of course, every single one of these articles presents the use of 757s as a boneheaded UA move to pinch pennies, not a way to expand service to cities and/or times where it might not otherwise be offered.

For those who understand German, here's another example of that kind of "journalism":
http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,808844,00.html

It starts with a supposed quote saying "Sorry, we're out of fuel", speaks of "emergency landings" and features a render of a UA 787 to illustrate the story.  

Quoting N62NA (Reply 13):
I think it should be disclosed at the time of booking - just prior to pressing the "Pay" button - that x% of the time the flight needs to divert for fuel.

What good would that be? If your business trip is booked through an agent, you won't see that warning. Additionally, should the number be calculated from last month's numbers, from last year's or over the entire time tha flight has been operated? Should there be additional advice on the importance of headwinds?

[Edited 2012-01-12 15:14:32]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9425 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
This has been brewing long before the "winds of the century" became the excuse. The CO 757's have been diverting on the IAD service since the beginning of service last summer.

We're aware of that issue, but THIS thread sprang up in response to EWR flights requiring a stop. The IAD 757 service is relatively new, and it remains to be seen what UA might do in response to the frequent diversions. 757 service from EWR has been going on for around nearly a decade, and the recent spate of diversions IS a dramatic aberration from the norm. As other posters pointed out on a previous thread, even some WB planes have had to make stops. Let's not conflate and combine our 757 issues  


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6844 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9427 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):

Do you think they have some sort of moral responsibility to do this (or, realistically, to cancel flights, since they don't just have extra WBs sitting around), even if it would lose more money and/or cause more passenger inconvenience (in the case of canceled flights) than the fuel stop?

They actually do. The 762s are poorly utilized, the 763s operate some domestic routes (likely coming to EWR/IAD once reconfigured) and the 787s will be coming online later this year. If they don't have 'slack' now, they will be getting slack as early as later this year. IMHO, I think they are focused on other things regarding the merger and cross fleeting is taking a back seat at the moment. Had they planned a little better, this might not be as blown out of proportion as it currently is -- so far blown that the media is taking a stab at it.

N62NA posted a ton of articles and UA is not going to want to get a negative image out of this. The media isn't bashing DL, AA, or US -- just UNITED. Therefore, UA is going to have to take some responsibility for the ridiculous number of diversions over the last month.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):

Year round EWR can never get their act together with delays and IAD is just too far for the 757. For quite a few of these Euro destinations, the 757 is out of reach. Again, as said before not British Isles to EWR, but longer routings. UA needs to take some responsibility for this.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9412 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 10):
Use larger aircraft that won't cause for diversions.....?

Which are, of course, just hanging around, waiting to be used?

Quoting N62NA (Reply 13):
I think it should be disclosed at the time of booking - just prior to pressing the "Pay" button - that x% of the time the flight needs to divert for fuel.

We've already got the on-time statistics for that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9393 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 13):
I think it should be disclosed at the time of booking - just prior to pressing the "Pay" button - that x% of the time the flight needs to divert for fuel.

Flights already have on-time statistics. And it makes no difference if the delay is sitting at the gate, stopping for fuel, or holding at the destination. A delay is a delay.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9350 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 14):

What good would that be? If your business trip is booked through an agent, you won't see that warning.

It's up to your agent to relay that information to you (the customer).

Quoting aloges (Reply 14):
Additionally, should the number be calculated from last month's numbers, from last year's or over the entire time tha flight has been operated? Should there be additional advice on the importance of headwinds?

Yes to all?


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9348 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
We've already got the on-time statistics for that.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
Flights already have on-time statistics. And it makes no difference if the delay is sitting at the gate, stopping for fuel, or holding at the destination. A delay is a delay.

As you each know, the schedules are ridiculously padded to begin with. So we should all take those "on time statistics" with a big grain of salt.

But in this day and age - with information at everyone's fingertips - it's quite easy to also show a % of time that the flight had to make a stop for fuel.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9701 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9338 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 13):
I think it should be disclosed at the time of booking - just prior to pressing the "Pay" button - that x% of the time the flight needs to divert for fuel.

Flights already have on-time statistics. And it makes no difference if the delay is sitting at the gate, stopping for fuel, or holding at the destination. A delay is a delay.

I think stating the percentage of flights that arrives on time is far more valuable than indicating how often the plane diverts for fuel. Diverting for fuel is just one cause of delays. People care about if they arrive on time. A low percentage could reflect diversions for fuel or any other reason such as how painful SFO flow control can get during arrival banks or how congested northeast airports get.

However, I don't think UA's website currently indicate on time percentage when selecting flights.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9310 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 20):
As you each know, the schedules are ridiculously padded to begin with

So? A schedule, at it's most basic level, is the airline saying "we can get you here at this time" and on-time statistics is "here's how often we've been successful at that." What more do you need?

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 21):
Diverting for fuel is just one cause of delays. People care about if they arrive on time.

   What other disclaimers should the airlines add? "New York is a big and busy place so we'll probably have to wait"? Or how about "Minneapolis gets cold and snowy during the winter"?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9297 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 19):
Yes to all?

I'm afraid that this information would just be ignored along with the carrier's T&Cs/CoC...



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6101 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 21):
However, I don't think UA's website currently indicate on time percentage when selecting flights.

It does actually...UA gives you an on-time percentage and a cancellation rate....when you mouse over the flight details.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
25 Post contains images N62NA : But if we did have information on diverts, that would be enough for me and I never would have started that first thread on this topic a few days ago
26 Post contains images seabosdca : Most people don't care if their delay was caused by a fuel stop or some other reason. They just care that they're late. For what it's worth, the STR-
27 CODC10 : Right now, the 767-200ERs are loss-makers and UA is doing all it can to unload them this year. 787s are on the way. At the same time, the 767-322ERs i
28 AussieItaliano : I have mixed opinions about this issue. On one hand, I recognize that several of these routes wouldn't exist if they had to be flown with larger aircr
29 shaq : I think that some of you and the media are overreacting with this situation. I know that IAD TATL flying can be on the edge of 757 range, but Europe-E
30 darksnowynight : Sure. Dispatch will just call up the leftover widebody fairy and get right on that... ? No aircraft has been scheduled beyond its range. That would b
31 mcdu : In case you have missed this item in the earlier thread the 757 diverts to IAD from AMS and CDG are not being seen on just wind days. The airplane ma
32 aloges : Mon dieu. I should think that many people prefer a direct flight over a connection, even if there's a slightly bigger chance for a fuel diversion due
33 seabosdca : So everyone who makes a decision that ends up causing some complications under unexpected circumstances should be fired? I hope I never work for a bo
34 VV701 : Weather patterns impact different areas in different ways. In December 2010 LHR was closed for several days because of heavy snow and freezing weather
35 BY738 : most would still use these services from their local airports even if advertised as with a fuel stop, so they'll not be losing much sleep over it
36 Post contains images BRJ : The new CBS morning show (which I still have mixed feelings on) did a piece on this issue on either Tuesday or Wednesday this week. It focused solely
37 N62NA : I agree. It's interesting that so many engaged in the debate here won't acknowledge that.
38 TOMMY767 : UA by far is the biggest operator of 757s across the Atlantic. AA, DL, US don't even come close. Funny. That mindset only started about a year ago. B
39 Mir : Yeah, those routes should be able to take a 763. But remember how this thread started - a complaint about STR-EWR diverting. That's a route that prob
40 N62NA : I believe "struggling" was referring to if weather conditions aren't ideal, they'll have to make a fuel stop.
41 seabosdca : It's just not that easy. 6 of those 777 and 14 of the 763 are in domestic configuration. The 764 and 2-class 777 fleets are extremely heavily used, m
42 sunilgupta : Hardly a lame excuse... the FRA-IAD leg which I fly often is pushing 9+ hours these days... either the plates moved or the winds are a lot stronger.
43 rampart : Am I the only one who thinks it would be rather cool, novel, and exciting to have to make a tech stop in Halifax or Gander? Surely not in this crowd.
44 TOMMY767 : FORWARD THINKING: Adjust the economics of the 762. Less J seats, more Y seats with less pitch. It can be done.
45 United1 : Sure anything can be done...can it be done profitably? probably not with the 762s.
46 TOMMY767 : Again, only a belief since the merger. Before that the 762 was taken for what it was.
47 Post contains images lightsaber : Is the news so slow that the only thing they have to do is beat up UA? Don't they realize AA is the punching bag of 2012? But it is amazing what remov
48 Post contains images wn700driver : No, I Rampart, and you're not... Sometimes, I wonder where this site's priorities are.
49 United1 : No that's a belief I've held long before the merger....CO just didn't have a choice but to operate the aircraft with their limited fleet of wide body
50 daviation : I don't think I can add much to this thread, except to say that have flown on CO 757s from Europe, albeit LHR. Although I was at first disappointed th
51 Mir : It's still a bunch heavier than the 752. And now you really need to fill those Y seats with the fewer J seats, and you need to do it during the slow
52 Post contains images Schweigend : They should upgrade some of the struggling 757 routes. However, UA must think the widebodies they took from IAD-CDG/AMS service are making more money
53 Post contains images VV701 : Ah well. There you go. Open your big mouth and . . . As Dinah Washington sung back in my youth 'What a difference a day makes'. So please correct the
54 mcdu : No you are not weird. You are an enthusiast and as such you enjoy the odd stop and novelty. However, the family traveling to visit a dying relative,
55 mcdu : The problem is not everyone on the plane is just traveling to EWR or to IAD on the diverting airplanes. Most of the passengers were already making a
56 764flyer : Is this issue only effecting CO/UA and their 75s or is DL or other carriers running into this too? DL has some pretty long routes from southern/easter
57 Viscount724 : That's largeley irrelevant due to the Gulf Stream and other weather phenomena which have a major impact on the northern European climate. The proximi
58 darksnowynight : I'm sorry, but I did not catch the link you posted for that number. What I've heard around work is a much smaller number, and for a temporary period.
59 VV701 : Quite. Well not actually irrelevant. There was a direct and, in my view highly relevant comparison there. But I should have made my point rather more
60 mcg : Count me in! I think it would be interesting. How does the airline decide where to stop? I notice some flights seen to divert to BOS. To me BOS seems
61 mcdu : What temporary period are you referring to? When you factor in the number of diverts by CO 757's between AMS/CDG and IAD since the decision was made
62 richierich : For the record, I think the occasional diversion would be kind of fun as well! I'd love to get Gander or Halifax in my log book! But the point is, we
63 mcdu : It's 43 out of 1,000 if you count ALL the 757's flying. However, the diverts occur regularly in the IAD flying and some of the BCN, TXL to EWR flying
64 Mir : Because the shutting down of the main airport of the largest city in Europe is a much bigger deal than a couple of flights having to make tech stops.
65 VV701 : Thanks for the clarification. A "couple" is, of course, two. I had been under the impression that we had been talking about a considerably greater nu
66 Cubsrule : Why? It is unquestionably more direct than STR- CDG or AMS with a terminal change - NYC.
67 TOMMY767 : And this is what makes y'all aviation enthusiasts. The vast majority of flyers DO NOT want to have their plane diverted for any reason.
68 STT757 : Tommy I can recall discussions on here going back at least six years about how CO was unhappy with the CASM of the 762. The disadvantage became even
69 TOMMY767 : Perhaps they should have had the insight for that back in 1999-2000 when they ordered them??
70 Super80DFW : On a note related to the winds, but not the 757; myself and a fellow a.nutter and friend nonreved on American 71 which is AA's 763 on FRA-DFW last Tue
71 Mir : You could have twenty flights a day making fuel stops and it would still have less of an impact than having LHR shut down. -Mir
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Not A Good Week For Aviation. Small Plane Crash posted Sat Oct 16 2004 02:33:26 by MNeo
Not A Good Weekend For UK Flying. posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:58:44 by LHR380
Not A Good Day For Norwegian Air Shuttle posted Fri Oct 17 2008 07:25:11 by Scooter01
Not My Week For Flying! posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:35:29 by Pumaknight
Not A Good Day For Cessna's posted Sun Jan 6 2002 05:19:28 by AirCanadaGuy
Not Exactly Good PR For Delta posted Sat Jun 30 2007 14:14:06 by Jonvesi
Telecommunications Not Good For Aviation? posted Mon Feb 14 2005 00:34:03 by AirWillie6475
Good Weblinks For 757/767 Info posted Tue Nov 16 2004 03:11:49 by Jacobin777
Cheap ASS Airfares Are NOT Good For The Economy! posted Sat Oct 16 2004 05:09:38 by John
Not Good For US posted Thu Sep 9 2004 17:16:35 by Luv2fly