Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A319/320, 737- Winter Headwinds From N.Y To L.A  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 942 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

During the winter season when the head-winds are particularly strong flying from say N.Y to California can get tight in a A319/320 and 737-700 due to strong headwinds... I remember JetBlue, Virgin and AirTran had a bunch of diversions a couple of years ago on flights from the East to the West Coast, due to "stronger than predicted winds" .. Even Alaska had to stop a couple of times.

How strong does the head-wind need to be to force a diversion on a narrow-body flying from East to West? I'm guessing over 100 knots on the nose?

I've heard airlines divert into SLC a few times. Looks like SLC is a favorite spot to stop for fuel. As a passenger i'd rather stop there than LAS or PHX

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinejetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2764 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
I've heard airlines divert into SLC a few times. Looks like SLC is a favorite spot to stop for fuel. As a passenger i'd rather stop there than LAS or PHX

Why does it matter? Gas 'n' go's do not take very long, especially for narrowbodies.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
How strong does the head-wind need to be to force a diversion on a narrow-body flying from East to West? I'm guessing over 100 knots on the nose?

Over 150 knots.

Here's a snapshot of the time of this post...

FL240: (24,000 feet)
http://gyazo.com/0c26d006a36e5334f1195eb2a757d6ec.png?1358235853

FL300: (30,000 feet)
http://gyazo.com/dcc28b0a31ef31fb3ea9e3c579710816.png?1358235818

FL360: (36,000 feet)
http://gyazo.com/cc2e9a7bd4045ab4b039f10a118f8d88.png?1358235834


This tool can be found here:

http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/winds/



No info
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

There are a lot of factors involved. If an airplane is not filled to capacity, then the need for a fuel stop goes away. Some airlines are willing to block seats to allow more payload available for fuel (assuming tanks aren’t full). Other airlines prefer a fuel stop and filling all the seats instead of bumping passengers.

As the previous poster pointed out, winds aren’t continuous. Airplane dispatchers will dispatch creative routes where the airplane will cover more ground distance to avoid the winds. A 737NG can fly over 7 hours with full tanks, but they would exceed MTOW to fill the tanks up with a full load of passengers, baggage and cargo along with fuel for an alternate. Flights into SFO see more diversions than LAX because of the need for fuel to cover an alternate (even though OAK and SJC are close alternates) because the weather is so often bad.

In 2003 the FAA increased passenger weights after the Air Midwest crash in Charlotte which caused a lot more fuel diversions and essentially ended AS operating 737-900s on transcon routes because there was less payload available for fuel.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2935 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Looks like SLC is a favorite spot to stop for fuel.

Is the high elevation of the field a factor with this? Saves time in descent and climb.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 3):
Is the high elevation of the field a factor with this? Saves time in descent and climb.

High altitude means worse take-off performance, and I think that would have a bigger effect than the small time saving. SLC is at 4227 feet. Compared to sea level that's 2 minutes extra climb time.

Fuel is king. If fuel is cheaper at SLC, even by a little, that's the place to go. Not to mention routing.

[Edited 2013-01-15 19:43:53]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2878 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
I've heard airlines divert into SLC a few times. Looks like SLC is a favorite spot to stop for fuel. As a passenger i'd rather stop there than LAS or PHX

It's not really a diversion....it's a scheduled fuel stop or "tech stop", which is scheduled before the aircraft even departs normally (based on my knowledge). I have been on a few flights that went into SLC (and were briefed by the captain that was going to be the case before departing JFK), we were back in the air within 30 minutes of touching down. You do not get out of the plane. You go to a hard stand, fuel up, go to the de-ice pad, get sprayed, and leave. There could be multiple factors, but I'm sure the price of fuel is a big one when you have to stop to take on more fuel just to complete the flight so cheaper is better at that point.



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Also, the 737-700 wouldn't have any issues, any time of year. It's the 737-800/900 that run into issues once in a blue moon....along with baby buses of course.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17053 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 6):
Also, the 737-700 wouldn't have any issues, any time of year. It's the 737-800/900 that run into issues once in a blue moon....along with baby buses of course.

Exactly. Doesnt both the 737-700 and A319 have longer range capabilities than their larger siblings?



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineglen From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 221 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 7):
Exactly. Doesnt both the 737-700 and A319 have longer range capabilities than their larger siblings?

For the same amount of fuel the range of the A319 is considerably better than on the A320 or A321, due to its lower weight.

Things look different if you want to transport the same high payload, for example the max possible load on a A319 (rounded figures):
DOW: 42t, MZFW: 58.5t, MTOW: 68t ; so you have a maximum payload of 16.5t and are then able to take 9.5t of fuel which gives a range of approx. 1750 NM without reserves.


A320:
DOW: 43.5t, MZFW: 61t, MTOW 73.5t ; so with the same payload of 16.5 t you are at a ZFW of 60t and 1t below MZFW and are able to take 13.5t of fuel - 4t more than the A319 and a range of approx. 2100 NM without reserves.

A321:
DOW 49t, MZFW: 71t, MTOW 83t ; so with the same payload of 16.5t you are at a ZFW of 65.5t and 5.5t below MZFW and are able to take 17.5t of fuel - 8t more than the A319 and considerable more than required to compensate the higher fuel burn of the A321, i.e. a range of approx. 2600 NM without reserves.

So for the same payload the A321 has longest range capability amongst the three, or is able to carry more payload for a given distance.



"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting glen (Reply 8):
So for the same payload the A321 has longest range capability amongst the three, or is able to carry more payload for a given distance.

That is true, but no airline operates its airplanes like that. The A321 would be loaded up with more passengers, baggage and cargo. So while at the same payload it has more range, when at a normal operational payload it has less range.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineglen From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 221 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 9):
That is true, but no airline operates its airplanes like that. The A321 would be loaded up with more passengers, baggage and cargo. So while at the same payload it has more range, when at a normal operational payload it has less range.

Sorry, my text was not very clear in this point - all I wanted to show was that not the A319 has best range when loaded.

May be I should have better left the comparison between the A319 and A320 at max payload, where the A320 is definitely best.

However even loaded up to MZFW, gives the A321 the possibility to load 12 t of fuel, which gives a range of little bit more than 1700 NM without reserves - not far off the A319. The A319 has only good range capabilities if there's not much payload, leaving room for more fuel - profitability would be the other question then...



"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting glen (Reply 10):


However even loaded up to MZFW, gives the A321 the possibility to load 12 t of fuel, which gives a range of little bit more than 1700 NM without reserves - not far off the A319. The A319 has only good range capabilities if there's not much payload, leaving room for more fuel - profitability would be the other question then...

True, although rarely are A320s or 737NGs loaded up to MZFW. You see that more often on regional jets where landing weight becomes a factor and on their short segments.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A319/320, 737- Winter Headwinds From N.Y To L.A
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
737 PSUs Recalled Due To Risk Of Falling On Pax posted Fri Sep 21 2012 18:45:01 by 1337Delta764
Question On A319/320 Refueling Power posted Wed Sep 19 2012 18:05:09 by jim
Rotation Difference Between A319/320 And B733/73NG posted Wed Jul 27 2011 17:26:53 by flaps30
737 Rudders-always Go To Side When Parked? posted Mon Jun 7 2010 09:27:41 by smartt1982
A319/320 Speed Reduction. posted Mon Nov 5 2007 20:44:02 by Brucek
A319/320 Specific Fuel Consumption posted Wed Aug 29 2007 04:53:29 by 0NEWAIR0
For The Pilots: Winter Ops From Short Runways... posted Sat Dec 10 2005 05:05:14 by John
A319 Vs 737/MD80 posted Sun Jul 31 2005 16:12:31 by SBE727
Questions On Some Differences Between B737 And A319/320 posted Wed Jun 8 2005 06:15:55 by DCAflyboy
Airbus A319/320 Question posted Sun Dec 12 2004 18:58:52 by Masonaries

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format