Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Insane Headwinds Jan 25th: 7 Hours BOS-SFO  
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18653 times:

Some of the BOS-SFO flight times are reaching 7+ hours. That's really long for transcon -- but it makes sense since it's about 11 degrees here in NJ with the Canadian cold front coming through. Here are some examples:

BOS-SFO:
UA 1796, 7 hours: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...6/history/20130124/2250Z/KBOS/KSFO
UA 1057, 7 hours: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...7/history/20130124/2135Z/KBOS/KSFO
B6 633, DIVERTED 6hrs 7min to LAS: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/J...3/history/20130124/2119Z/KBOS/KLAS

EWR-SFO:
UA 1054, 6 hrs 36 min: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...4/history/20130125/0005Z/KEWR/KSFO

RDU-SFO:
UA 1629, 5hrs 51 min: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...9/history/20130124/1200Z/KRDU/KSFO

ATL-SEA:
DL 109, 4hrs 57 min: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/D...9/history/20130124/2250Z/KATL/KSEA

EWR-LAS:
UA 1284, 5hrs 45min: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...4/history/20130124/1550Z/KEWR/KLAS

Some crazy examples! See if you can find any others out there

PS: Is there a reason why some of these UA 737s on BOS-SFO are 7hrs flying time but the 757s are a little over 6hrs 30mins?


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18626 times:

So how much shorter were the eastbound flights then?

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7210 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18610 times:

Sounds nuts. Did they anticipate this and load more food on board? I'd be really hungry

Quoting tommy767 (Thread starter):
B6 633, DIVERTED 6hrs 7min to LAS: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/J.../KLAS

Did they not put enough gas in the plane in anticipation ?   

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/J...7/history/20130124/2212Z/KBOS/KPHX
Looks like flights to here in PHX were routed southerly today instead of northerly.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32613 posts, RR: 72
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18615 times:

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 1):

So how much shorter were the eastbound flights then?


I flew LAXMIA a few weeks ago with extreme tailwinds - 3 hours, 29 minutes take off to touchdown.

[Edited 2013-01-24 20:39:16]


a.
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18588 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Sounds nuts. Did they anticipate this and load more food on board? I'd be really hungry

Probably not but damn being on a UA 737 for 7 hours -- that has to be torture. Hopefully they still have food and drink after 6 hours!



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18517 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Thread starter):
Is there a reason why some of these UA 737s on BOS-SFO are 7hrs flying time but the 757s are a little over 6hrs 30mins?



From your post and links I don't find a 757 flying BOS-SFO, only 738/9. Could be the 73's are using more of an ECON speed while the more fuel capable 75'7 is simply running along at .82. In any event glad I am not on any of them as I've had my but in airplane seats for 13 hours already this week.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 756 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18426 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Did they anticipate this and load more food on board? I'd be really hungry
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 4):
Hopefully they still have food and drink after 6 hours!

Are you kidding? Do you think they would anticipate anything like this? Even if they did, do you think they would think through the implications to the customer? Of course not. They simply don't care.

Always pack snacks. Always pick up water in the terminal. Regardless of class of service.

Never depend on an airline to take care of you. The concept of service and hospitality left the airline business years ago.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18400 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Did they not put enough gas in the plane in anticipation ?  

Probably pushing to exceeding the MTOW of an A320 if they had a full load and full fuel. I recall from an earlier thread about strong winds that the fuel stop is planned from before departure as it is still the most economical option.

Quoting tommy767 (Thread starter):
PS: Is there a reason why some of these UA 737s on BOS-SFO are 7hrs flying time but the 757s are a little over 6hrs 30mins?

Difference in cruising speed I would think.

IIRC the 757 cruises at Mach 0.80 and the 737 cruises at Mach 0.78, may only be a few knots but it adds up over 2000 or so nm.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4191 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18340 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 7):
IRC the 757 cruises at Mach 0.80 and the 737 cruises at Mach 0.78, may only be a few knots but it adds up over 2000 or so nm.

That depends on the cost index they are flightplanned for. The 757 can cruise faster, but for the most part runs around at .78 or .79 just like the other fleets at my airline.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1304 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18300 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Thread starter):

The 737 and 757 planned on the same route?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18274 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Did they not put enough gas in the plane in anticipation ?

I'm sure they put on all the fuel they could. Wasn't enough.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18217 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 3):
I flew LAXMIA a few weeks ago with extreme tailwinds - 3 hours, 29 minutes take off to touchdown.

I was expecting this on LAX-MCO-LAX last week, but the jetstream has moved north and the southern US has almost no wind aloft. We had no speedy east bound flight nor did we have a slow west bound. On the east bound, the moving map said tail wind of about 30 mph most of the way. Nothing much.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18189 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 9):
The 737 and 757 planned on the same route?
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 5):
From your post and links I don't find a 757 flying BOS-SFO, only 738/9.

You both need to dig deeper  

BOS-SFO UA 297 757:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...7/history/20130124/1306Z/KBOS/KSFO

6 hrs 29 mins.

A half hour is a big difference. Is it really just a few numbers off on cruising speed?



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18069 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 12):
You both need to dig deeper

BOS-SFO UA 297 757:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...7/history/20130124/1306Z/KBOS/KSFO

6 hrs 29 mins.

A half hour is a big difference. Is it really just a few numbers off on cruising speed?


Does a 757 gain altitude and speed quicker (anyone)? Maybe explains part of the difference if so.

7 hours on BOS-SFO has to be pushing it on a 737-900 if it's near MTOW I would think? Of course it if wasn't a full or near full flight that greatly helps.



Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD. Return: US SJD-PHX, WN PHX-MDW-DSM
User currently offlineCaryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18028 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Thread starter):
ATL-SEA:
DL 109, 4hrs 57 min:


This one dosn't seem that bad, but it was a B-767 and maybe should have got along quicker. Looks like they left a half hour late and arrived a few minutes early.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 4):
Probably not but damn being on a UA 737 for 7 hours -- that has to be torture. Hopefully they still have food and drink after 6 hours!

I didn't think a B-737 in revenue service could stay in the air that long. I certainly wouldn't want to be there. I sometimes fly between SEA and MIA on AS B-737s and expect to be in the air 5 1/2 hours or so.
Thanks,   
Cary


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17789 times:

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 14):
I didn't think a B-737 in revenue service could stay in the air that long. I certainly wouldn't want to be there. I sometimes fly between SEA and MIA on AS B-737s and expect to be in the air 5 1/2 hours or so.
Thanks,
Cary

A point of correction: flight aware usually does a poor job of distinguishing a 739 or 738 with United. I believe the BOS-SFO routes are 738s, which happen to be listed at 739.

IMHO, I don't think the 739ER can do 7 hours in the air with full payload. I believe at the max it can do is 6hrs to 6hrs 30mins at the most.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17602 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15):
IMHO, I don't think the 739ER can do 7 hours in the air with full payload.

If "full payload" is a low-density configuration like UA's, it shouldn't have any trouble with 7 hours, but that's the limit.


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1911 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days ago) and read 17380 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 12):
A half hour is a big difference. Is it really just a few numbers off on cruising speed?

Yep. Even a couple hundredths faster makes the difference in the long run. The 757 has that little extra speed over a 737.


User currently offlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16931 times:

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 14):

I'm with you! I don't find DLs ATL-SEA to be that off at all. 4h57mins sounds about right..maybe a few mins more than average. Can't tell you how many times I've sat on a flight over 5hrs flying PDX-ATL.


User currently offlinewarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16431 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15):

Correct. BOS-SFO is primarily B752 and B738. No 739 has been scheduled westbound. Occasionally A319 westbound, rarely A320.

UA has previously scheduled a B739 eastbound SFO-BOS though.


User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

VX's BOS-SFO flights were also 7 hours. They downgauge the a/c to a A319 so they don't run into issues with needing to divert.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/V...7/history/20130124/2355Z/KBOS/KSFO . There are several days this month where this flight was on the verge of 7 hours which I'd still consider being that considering boarding, taxing times.

Here's an even longer VX BOS-SFO flight clocked @ 7.33: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/V...1/history/20130116/1335Z/KBOS/KSFO


User currently offlinecaljn From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15387 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 13):
Of course it if wasn't a full or near full flight that greatly helps.

I haven't been on a UA flight that wasn't full in years. Years!!

I also do the EWR-LAX run monthly and always dread it....need to gird myself just before boarding as those coach seats, even E+ are torture for 6 hours. Approaching 7 hours would be extremely unpleasant...the nonstop lavatory traffic in the aisles, the aroma and heat from all that humanity pervading the cabin. Ugh!


User currently offlineSRT75 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15113 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Thread starter):
B6 633, DIVERTED 6hrs 7min to LAS:

Um, I'm obviously missing something here . . .

LAS seems like a very out-of-the-way fuel stop for BOS-SFO. Why not SLC? DEN? Something more on the way?


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 754 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14745 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 12):
A half hour is a big difference. Is it really just a few numbers off on cruising speed

The general wag is 1 minute per hour per mach. So if the 757 is doing .82 and the 737 is doing .78 that is about 4 min per hour which over the course of 5 hours is 20 minutes. Also are these block times? The 757 might have gotten lucky and gotten right out at a dead time in BOS, gotten into SFO at a dead time so no vectors on arrival, didn't have to wait on a gate, etc. A lot of seemingly little things can add up in a hurry.


User currently offlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14236 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 3):
I flew LAXMIA a few weeks ago with extreme tailwinds - 3 hours, 29 minutes take off to touchdown.

Impressive!


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14407 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 16):

If "full payload" is a low-density configuration like UA's, it shouldn't have any trouble with 7 hours, but that's the limit.

I honestly don't think so. How is a UA 737 low density in even the least? A few years ago I saw on flight aware 739s diverting on CLE-LAX because of head wind.

Quoting DualQual (Reply 23):
The general wag is 1 minute per hour per mach. So if the 757 is doing .82 and the 737 is doing .78 that is about 4 min per hour which over the course of 5 hours is 20 minutes

ah, gotcha that makes sense. I never knew the 737s were that much slower than the 757.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13805 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 25):
How is a UA 737 low density in even the least?

167 or 173 passengers is low-density for a 737-900ER, which is certified for 215 passengers.

A Lion Air 737-900ER with all seats full couldn't stay in the air for seven hours. United's actually do it from time to time (like yesterday).


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13656 times:

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 22):
LAS seems like a very out-of-the-way fuel stop for BOS-SFO. Why not SLC? DEN? Something more on the way?

If the route you're going to fly to avoid winds takes you closer to LAS anyway, that's where it makes most sense to stop.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13397 times:

It was bad on Wednesday too.

ASA3 (DCA-SEA) took a southern routing flying over the KY-IN border, 6h05m in the air. My mother was none to happy about that.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...3/history/20130123/2335Z/KDCA/KSEA


User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13229 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Did they not put enough gas in the plane in anticipation ?

An A320 without ACT can carry 18,7t of fuel (without any payload consideration).
With an average fuel flow of about 2,5t/hour for both engines, it can hardly fly more than 6/6,5 hours with standard fuel reserves (a final reserve is about 1t on this type)...
So they probably put as much fuel as they could, considering a decent payload, and "planned" a diversion in LAS.

Cheers



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineflyer737sw From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12724 times:

I was looking at the winds yesterday via NOAA's site and the winds aloft at FL 380 was 150kts. The direction of the jet stream would have affected flights more on a northern course, heading west with the wind right on the nose. Would of been a good day flying easterly routes.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12585 times:

Well, it is the middle of winter here in the Northern Hemisphere. Having headwinds (westbound) in the 125-150 knot range is really not all that unusual.

User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12487 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 26):
A Lion Air 737-900ER with all seats full couldn't stay in the air for seven hours. United's actually do it from time to time (like yesterday).

they were 738s, not 739s. Again, I'm pretty sure a strong headwind on BOS-SFO with a 739 wouldn't make it without diverting



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3388 posts, RR: 7
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12264 times:

On the reverse my ORD-PHL flt last night had some nice tail winds and was in the air 15 minutes less than normal. That is a pretty big difference for a shorter stage flight.

User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 552 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11899 times:

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 22):
LAS seems like a very out-of-the-way fuel stop for BOS-SFO. Why not SLC? DEN? Something more on the way?

You may have heard that SLC was shut down for several hours yesterday due to an ice storm. The B6 flight in question landed at LAS just a little after SLC re-opened. The track of flightaware looks like they flew just south of DEN before turning toward LAS over southern Utah. It really doesn't look like LAS was too far off.



Happiness is rediscovering a forgotten L-1011 in your flight log.
User currently offlinerampbro From Canada, joined Nov 2012, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11411 times:

How do airlines mitigate the added costs associated with strong headwinds such as these? Is there a 1:1 with the savings of flying with a tailwind in the opposite direction? Or is it a 'grin and bear it' type of situation?

User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 554 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11274 times:

On the flipside looks like they're making great time eastbound. Look at VX 1358 - 4:32 SFO-BOS yesterday - sure beats 7h going the other way! Most EB flights are pushing (if not exceeding) 500 knots too.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/V...8/history/20130124/2105Z/KSFO/KBOS


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9503 posts, RR: 52
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11225 times:

Quoting rampbro (Reply 35):
How do airlines mitigate the added costs associated with strong headwinds such as these? Is there a 1:1 with the savings of flying with a tailwind in the opposite direction? Or is it a 'grin and bear it' type of situation?

High headwinds overall are added costs. The late arrivals into the west coast airports cause delays and missed connections. The early arrivals into the east coast airports cause gates to stack up, and some tarmac arrival delays. Overall, the total fuel burn is sometimes less. The headwinds cause a lot more fuel to be burned, but the tail winds make up for it. They fly longer routes to avoid headwinds, but in total when you add up the total round trip flight time, it tends to be less with some winds.

The real costs are when west coast arrivals are more than 15 minutes late. That forces missed connections. Fuel stops cause everyone to miss connections and subsequent delays. You can’t depart early to make up for an early east coast arrival, but you will depart late to make up for a long inbound flight. If flights only flew east west it wouldn’t be as bad, but airplanes are often routed BOS-SFO-LAX, which hurts west coast operations.

It’s just a cost of doing business.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineHighflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 673 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10989 times:

During the height of the annual mid-winter transcontinental jetstream battle one has to think of JetBlue and their range-challenged A320s.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...3/history/20130124/21192/KBOS/KSFO


User currently offlineidlewildchild From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4312 times:

Tell you what, 8 hrs 15 mins LHR-EWR on 27DEC in chronic turbulence was no picnic either. I was up front and can't imagine what it was like in the full Y cabin. Nightmare.

User currently offlineDalDC9Bos From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Hey Tommy,

I worked Ops at JFK for a couple years and these types of winter headwinds and the delays for westbound flights is very normal during the winter. My last flight JFK to SFO during the winter took more than 7.5 hours on the 757.

Jetblue and the airline that I worked for had diverts daily sometimes for our westbound transcons flights. The A319 can make the flight with these headwinds, but the A320 cannot. The usual divert city would be SLC or LAS. The decision on divert city is decided by company flight planning/dispatch before the flight leaves the gate and usually is along the original flight path. Most westbound transcons east coast to SFO or LAX fly near SLC and LAS and not a more northernly path.

Will


User currently offlinehaggisman From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Dunno if it's related but we flew on Alaska Airlines SEA -> LIH on Jan 24th and we were serenaded to the tune of a 6hr 20min flight with ugly moderate to heavy chop for most of the way. Normal average time is mid 5hr range.

It smoothed out on the last 90 mins or so, and they even found time to squeeze in the complimentary Mai tai's to soothe the frazzled nerves. Thanks AS!

Scotty



e pluribus Scotsman
User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1010 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

I remember USAirways decision to start parking the 757s used on the transcons and replacing them with A321s... FlyerTalk was lit up for MONTHS about all the west-bound diversions... even on USAviation pilots called it a "pig"..


xx
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...
AA Out Of BOS-SFO/AUA/STT posted Fri Jun 25 2010 19:23:59 by MAH4546
AA197 - BOS/SFO Aircraft Location posted Wed Feb 14 2007 20:18:36 by Farmenta
SK 943 Delayed Today 4 Hours 08/28/06 posted Mon Aug 28 2006 22:27:09 by BOAC911
BOS-SFO F Class For $1,000? posted Tue Mar 1 2005 19:35:26 by SNATH
Four And A Half Hours In SFO, What Do I Do? posted Sun Oct 24 2004 23:36:00 by FrontierCPT
Flying United 757 On Dec25 Bos/sfo What To Expect? posted Mon Dec 23 2002 06:47:56 by Aguimar01464
UA172 SFO-BOS, 777 Today posted Wed Apr 12 2006 23:01:14 by RandyWaldron
AA Diverting Many SFO Flights To SJC Today? posted Sun Dec 23 2012 15:08:45 by olddominion727
SFO Runways In Use Today? posted Fri Nov 30 2012 09:26:59 by brucek
DL A330 At SFO Today. posted Thu Nov 22 2012 23:04:42 by DocLightning