Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AS Flights From BUR-SMF?  
User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

While I was browsing through Alaska's website, I noticed something very peculiar about today's BUR-PDX and BUR-SEA flights. Except for the first flight of the morning, every single flight has been forced to stop in SMF! And, Alaska does not have any scheduled service from BUR-SMF. What the heck is up with this?? My only thought is that they are out of fuel at Burbank and the planes have to be refueled in Sacramento. But even at that, it sounds a bit far fetched.

Does anyone have any ideas???  Confused

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFedExHeavy From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1347 times:

Maybe because of load factor, they thought it would be prudent to make another stop at SMF to bring up the capacity of the aircraft? I've seen them do this with flights out of SNA to SEA or PDX every once and a while, they leave SNA and then stop at BUR then up to the Seattle or Portland, or vice versa.
Have a nice day! Smile/happy/getting dizzy
FedExHeavy



So far this is the oldest I've been.
User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1344 times:

I don't think that is the case, because there wouldn't be any pax to pick up at SMF. When I first noticed it this morning, I thought that perhaps a SMF-SEA flight was cancelled and they were picking up passengers. But, there have been no SMF-SEA or SMF-PDX flights cancelled today.

The only thing I can figure is that they are picking up fuel at SMF. But still, I can't understand why they would need extra fuel. There are headwinds flying north today, but the 734s, MD80s and 73Gs they fly on that route have more than ample range.


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1332 times:

One other thing I thought of...

Could runway length at BUR be an issue? Is it possible that MGTOW is limiting the amount of fuel they can carry out of BUR, thus necessitating a stop to pick up more fuel later in the flight? It does appear that northbound flights are experiencing very strong headwinds today.


User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 375 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1325 times:

We have winds from the north today at about 10kts and the flights out of BUR were especially full. The winds force us to use runway 33 or take a tail wind on runway 15. Either way we were about 10,000lbs. overweight. The options were to bump 50 people or bump fuel. Today fligts 407, 511 to SEA and 441 to PDX all made fuel stops in SMF (yesterday flight 511 also made the stop). Alaska wasn't the only one affected by the winds. United bumped passengers on thier flights to Denver and I think American's flight to DFW stoped in PHX to refuel.


Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1322 times:

Thanks for info!

My uncle is currently en route to Portland on AS flight 419 (hence my curiosity about the situation at BUR). But, according to trip.com flight tracker, his flight has already passed way to the east of SMF, so I guess he's not going to have to stop. He has a tight connection at PDX, so I'm sure this is good news to him!


User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 375 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1320 times:

419 only had 66 passengers, it went non-stop.


Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineN960AS From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 466 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1315 times:

Yeah, it must be winds. It was rather windy at my house this morning, and then at school, which is a lot closer to BUR it was really crazy.

This happened to me be back in '96 I think, going to Portland for Thanksgiving, but the flight stopped in Oakland for fuel.

I came into BUR Saturday night on a very late AS400 from PDX, because of all the problems in SEA that day. The flight was scheduled to leave PDX at 7.55pm, then they told us 10.36, but we got underway a little after 9.30.


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Funny you should mention it...my uncle was also on flight 400 last Saturday! He had intended to get a rental car upon arrival, but of course by the time he arrived, everything was closed.

Of course, it could have been worse. According to the gate agent my uncle talked to, they did an equipment swap on flight 400. Apparently, the original inbound plane from SNA wasn't going to get to PDX until 2:00 AM!


User currently offlineN960AS From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 466 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

Oh hmm...that must have been why they changed it from 1036 to around a 915 departure time. Do you know what seat he was in on flight 400, maybe I sat by him. Yup, BUR sure was quite when we landed.

Yeah, the plane came as AS235 from SFO, I guess the did change it from SNA. I know things were so messed up that day, looking at the boards at PDX it was such a mess, I remember the flight I took up, 441, supposed to get in a 2.43pm was getting in after 8pm that night, what a mess.

Two issues with AS. 1-Where are the timetables? Is this a cost cutting thing? 2-Whats with changing flight numbers, in June the afternoon BUR-PDX flight was 478, then it was 489 in Sep, now its 441. Can't we keep the same flight number? It was always 583 in mid90's, oh well.


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 And UA To Cut As Many As 65 Flights From ORD posted Thu Jan 22 2004 06:21:18 by GalvanAir777
Early Morning Flights From BUR posted Mon Feb 12 2007 20:56:40 by ZChannel
Its Offical, Express Jet Flights From FAT posted Tue Feb 6 2007 07:15:57 by QXatFAT
77W Flights From/To BKK (All Carriers) posted Tue Jan 30 2007 18:35:46 by BOEING747400
F70/100 Flights From LON Airports posted Mon Jan 22 2007 13:14:27 by Richardw
Flights From LGW To Paris, Why Arn't There Any? posted Sat Jan 20 2007 17:00:43 by Christopherwoo
OW Operating Flights From DAL To MCI? posted Fri Jan 19 2007 23:00:00 by NCTRNL
As Seen From The Tail Camera! posted Mon Jan 15 2007 08:57:54 by Mattnrsa
Iberia Flights From MAD To GIB posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:19:26 by Nickllhill
ThomsonFly - More New Scheduled Flights From Luton posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:43:58 by Gilesdavies