EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1059 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.
FedExHeavy From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 226 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1034 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!
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1031 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.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1019 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.
737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 364 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1012 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.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1009 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!
N960AS From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 466 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1002 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.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 990 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!
N960AS From Switzerland, joined Apr 2000, 466 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 986 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.