Yesterday, the AM Delta flight BOS -LAX landed at MCI before continuing to LAX. Today an AA A321 BOS-LAX shows as diverting to MS P while over Michigan. So declaring a diversion so far in advance would likely be a planned technical stop for fuel, not a medical or a mechanical. What's going on...bad jet stream coupled with rainstorms in California?

Yes AA 211 diverted for fuel

Seems to be more common lately than you think.

For instance:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa338

Diversion to MCI twice and STL once just this past week.

The MSP diversion today diverted to DEN yesterday:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa211

The AM DL BOS-LAX flight diverted to LAS a few days earlier:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl1707

Then all the following diverted either on 13th or 14th:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa1161
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa1884
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa241

I would say weather is the main culpult as all of them seems to be planned tech stops rather than medical/mechanical diversion. IIRC such diversions are fairly common going westbound transcon in the winter due to the stronger headwinds.

Very strong headwinds the last few days which are causing a few fuel stops.

Coming into SFO yesterday I saw winds of 240/188 at FL360. No way I was going lower as there were several reports of severe turbulence and one of extreme (aircraft lost 2000’) in the upper 20’s. So I’m guessing that some the east coast jets would need s fuel stop... especially because CA weather would require an alternate

ABQ saw at least two yesterday; AA252 IAD-LAX and AA1602 BDL-LAX. Both are 737-800's and both fuel stops were set up well in advance.

AA 1161 BOS LAX now planning for MSP pit stop.

Yes. This happens quite frequently. In addition to the mainline examples given, regional airlines frequently need to stop on "half-con" flights, if you will. For example, United Express flies EWR-SAT and Delta Connection flies LGA-IAH. Both of these frequently need to stop somewhere along the way (MEM, BNA, whatever) to get more fuel, especially if the destination requires an alternate.

My personal record for a trans-con flight is SAN-EWR in four hours and fifteen minutes, equating to a ground speed of +/- 570 mph/912 kph. January, 2002, a Continental red-eye flight: as we taxiied out for take-off, the captain told us to expect some turbulence, but also, as he put it, "some incredible tailwinds! I know most of you will want to sleep, but if you do get up, be aware that it could hit at any moment, and to keep your seatbelt fastened, obviously!"

The return PIT-SAN took nearly five and a half hours, equating to a ground speed of +/- 383 mph/613 kph. I don't know how else to explain it, but, it even felt like we were going slower. I could just sense the power of the wind, like trying to walk in a hurricane. No diversions, no real turbulence, and no issues - but it felt metaphorically like a "slow boat to China".

Occasionally I will see British Airways arriving at SAN via the eastbound-over-Mission-Valley approach to runway 27, indicating that it is arriving from the north approach pattern, This indicates that winds across the most direct flight path are too strong, and more favorable conditions require an out-of-the-way-but-still-shorter-time-wise route, sometimes over Vancouver BC! And if I remember correctly, the non-stop SIN-EWR flight always flies east to take advantage of winds, never heading west unless absolutely a necessity.

mm320cap wrote:

Coming into SFO yesterday I saw winds of 240/188 at FL360.

Just did MCO-PDX on Tuesday in 6+30. Looking at the track log our over ground speed from the Colorado Nebraska border west was <400mph.

American calls the pit stop for AA1161 BOS-LAX in MSP a "Redirection" rather than a diversion. I agree than a planned technical stop is not actually a diversion.

BOS to LAX by way of MSP, yes I would call that a "redirection".

Alaska 1357 BOS-SFO stopped at SLC and BOI this week for fuel.

BOS-PSP inaugural blocked 7h01m last night, with 1 missed approach (winds). A friend had two tech stops this week BOS-LGB, one in DEN, another in PHX, the later being unplanned. BOS-PHX blocked 6h 53m alone. Said it had to do with headwinds and wx at destination airport and necessary alternates, thus requiring extra fuel.

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

in other countries except Canada and Russia those would be international flights

RobertS975 wrote:

American calls the pit stop for AA1161 BOS-LAX in MSP a "Redirection" rather than a diversion.

That is a foolish conceit on AA's part.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of diversion
1 : the act or an instance of diverting or straying from a course, activity, or use : DEVIATION
Bad weather forced the diversion of several flights.

If the stop wasn't on the scheduled (and sold) route it was a diversion.

NYC/BOS Transcon stopping for fuel is not that rare if headwinds are strong. I have been on more than one JetBlue A320 from JFK to Cali and we had to stop for fuel.

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Yes, in many cases, 737s and A320s can manage flights that long, though the 737-800 seems to be a bit better than the A320 (73Gs and 319s don't generally have range issues), but when winds are very strong like the last few days, even the more capable versions will need a fuel stop on a transcon flight especially when an alternate airport is required.

Even the less "range-capable" 737-900 can fly westbound transcons; I know because I flew a bundle of them. There's one in a 739 EWR-SEA that remains strong in my memory as it ended in an unforecast CatIII approach to 19L (full load, too).

FlyHossD wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Yes, in many cases, 737s and A320s can manage flights that long, though the 737-800 seems to be a bit better than the A320 (73Gs and 319s don't generally have range issues), but when winds are very strong like the last few days, even the more capable versions will need a fuel stop on a transcon flight especially when an alternate airport is required.

Even the less "range-capable" 737-900 can fly westbound transcons; I know because I flew a bundle of them. There's one in a 739 EWR-SEA that remains strong in my memory as it ended in an unforecast CatIII approach to 19L (full load, too).

Chuska wrote:

BOS to LAX by way of MSP, yes I would call that a "redirection".

Sometimes, it makes sense to take a route that isn't a straight line in order to escape the worst winds; this may have been a case of staying north of the jetstream as long as possible.

FlyHossD wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Yes, in many cases, 737s and A320s can manage flights that long, though the 737-800 seems to be a bit better than the A320 (73Gs and 319s don't generally have range issues), but when winds are very strong like the last few days, even the more capable versions will need a fuel stop on a transcon flight especially when an alternate airport is required.

Even the less "range-capable" 737-900 can fly westbound transcons; I know because I flew a bundle of them. There's one in a 739 EWR-SEA that remains strong in my memory as it ended in an unforecast CatIII approach to 19L (full load, too).

Chuska wrote:

BOS to LAX by way of MSP, yes I would call that a "redirection".

Sometimes, it makes sense to take a route that isn't a straight line in order to escape the worst winds; this may have been a case of staying north of the jetstream as long as possible.[/quote]

FlyHossD wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Yes, in many cases, 737s and A320s can manage flights that long, though the 737-800 seems to be a bit better than the A320 (73Gs and 319s don't generally have range issues), but when winds are very strong like the last few days, even the more capable versions will need a fuel stop on a transcon flight especially when an alternate airport is required.

Even the less "range-capable" 737-900 can fly westbound transcons; I know because I flew a bundle of them. There's one in a 739 EWR-SEA that remains strong in my memory as it ended in an unforecast CatIII approach to 19L (full load, too).

Chuska wrote:

BOS to LAX by way of MSP, yes I would call that a "redirection".

Sometimes, it makes sense to take a route that isn't a straight line in order to escape the worst winds; this may have been a case of staying north of the jetstream as long as possible.

Only so much you can glean from seatback IFE, but just from BOS to DTW last Friday it was saying we had a headwind of 207 mph (180 kts) at around FL350.
And then the flight from DTW to PDX stayed between 130-160 mph headwind nearly the whole flight.

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

What? You left out the god-almighty 757 on this list?

But more seriously, 737s and 320s are perfectly capable of doing transcon. They've been flying them for years, and is one of the reason why 757 is nowhere as important as it once was.

On a side note, as somebody else mentioned, there are not many countries with 6-7 hrs domestic flight anyway (PER-East Coast Australia is around 2000mi, as is URC-CAN or PVG). Nor there are many major international routes that are that long (It's either longer and thus necessitate the use of a widebody, or shorter and thus, can easily be done on a 737/320).

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Well...not really, hence the diversions. These flights dont generally take 6-7 hours.

It’s amazing what the winds can do. A UA 733 I was on years ago did an ORD-BIL-SEA redirect, in December. The following March I flew on a sister 733 that did ORD-SJC nonstop with a full pax load.

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

Unless you configure A321 premium heavy with only 102 seats. I suppose AA A321 transcons don’t need fuel diversions even under these conditions.

On a related topic (though obviously not a transcon) the Skywest UA* MSN-SFO westbound flight seems to have run without diversion the past few weeks. The only exception is that it operated MSN-DEN-SFO a few days ago but with an E170 rather than an E75L and I don't think the E170 has anywhere near the legs. At 1772 miles I think MSN-SFO is the longest E75 route and there were questions when it was announced if it would need to divert now and then with strong winter headwinds. So far apparently not, though we don't know if they have had to suffer weight restrictions.

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

So you'd pay for the extra crew, fuel, mtx, and capex costs 360 days a year for something that only benefits you the other five days a year?

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

Those Airbus aircraft just don't have proper range to be doing westbound transcon flights. B6 seems to have quite frequent fuel diversions to SLC on their transcon flights.

lavalampluva wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

Those Airbus aircraft just don't have proper range to be doing westbound transcon flights. B6 seems to have quite frequent fuel diversions to SLC on their transcon flights.

It has the range it’s just that the wind exposes the fuel volume issue the A320 has. The sharklet A320s help out on bad wind days they too sometimes have to divert.

The 737 does have to divert at times also but not nearly as frequent.

MIflyer12 wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

American calls the pit stop for AA1161 BOS-LAX in MSP a "Redirection" rather than a diversion.

That is a foolish conceit on AA's part.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of diversion
1 : the act or an instance of diverting or straying from a course, activity, or use : DEVIATION
Bad weather forced the diversion of several flights.

If the stop wasn't on the scheduled (and sold) route it was a diversion.

For what it's worth, AA.com actually says "diverted". The only place I see a reference to redirection is on Google.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KBOS/KSTL - was on the ground for over 3 hours in STL. Was it something else? It doesn't take 3 hours to refuel.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KEWR/KSTL - EWR-PHX isn't nearly as long as BOS-LAX, would that have been a refueling diversion too?

This is pretty normal, especially in winter. I was on a CO flight from EWR to SNA on a 737-700 where the planned flight time of 5h41min ended up being 6h55mins due to a very strong headwind. We then diverted to LAS for fuel.

When the winds are strong, what do they do with the 737s and 320s on their way to Hawaii? Do they tell some passengers they will have to go on a later flight?

Chuska wrote:

BOS to LAX by way of MSP, yes I would call that a "redirection".

It's not that out of the way; only adds 48 miles to the total distance.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=bos-lax,+bos-msp-lax

Probably unrelated, but I figure since we're discussing diversions I might as well ask here. Any idea why DL94 NGO-DTW stopped in SEA for an hour today before continuing on to DTW?

FWIW, DL 1707 (a B738) made BOS-LAX nonstop with a flight time of 6:30. The routing was a fairly northerly one, upper the UP of Michigan. And DL's 757 ETOPS version have obviously had no issues out of JFK or BOS to LAX.

MrBretz wrote:

When the winds are strong, what do they do with the 737s and 320s on their way to Hawaii? Do they tell some passengers they will have to go on a later flight?

They generally go down to northern Cali from Seattle/Portland and do a tech stop for fuel then launch towards the islands.

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

And *737s

Either way, makes no sense to run those birds you've mentioned for a tiny percentage of times this happens for every flight flown.

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

You do realize that, even despite the occasional diversion, it is still far cheaper to run smaller aircraft on these routes, right?

They would be wasting a ton of capacity if they ran heavies. The reason these routes fly 320s and 737s is because of demand. And the 757 is on its way out, unlikely that they're going to ramp up it's usage on transcons.

knope2001 wrote:

On a related topic (though obviously not a transcon) the Skywest UA* MSN-SFO westbound flight seems to have run without diversion the past few weeks. The only exception is that it operated MSN-DEN-SFO a few days ago but with an E170 rather than an E75L and I don't think the E170 has anywhere near the legs. At 1772 miles I think MSN-SFO is the longest E75 route and there were questions when it was announced if it would need to divert now and then with strong winter headwinds. So far apparently not, though we don't know if they have had to suffer weight restrictions.

SkyWest does not operate any E170s, they are all of the 175 variant.

FlyHossD wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Yes, in many cases, 737s and A320s can manage flights that long, though the 737-800 seems to be a bit better than the A320 (73Gs and 319s don't generally have range issues), but when winds are very strong like the last few days, even the more capable versions will need a fuel stop on a transcon flight especially when an alternate airport is required.

Even the less "range-capable" 737-900 can fly westbound transcons; I know because I flew a bundle of them. There's one in a 739 EWR-SEA that remains strong in my memory as it ended in an unforecast CatIII approach to 19L (full load, too).

Chuska wrote:

BOS to LAX by way of MSP, yes I would call that a "redirection".

Sometimes, it makes sense to take a route that isn't a straight line in order to escape the worst winds; this may have been a case of staying north of the jetstream as long as possible.

Definitely true: winds (and weather in general) play a big factor in routing. Also, congested NE airspace often means aircraft are routed northwest out of BOS and NYC, then west once around the border with Canada. For example, the “hylnd” departure, which is often given to aircraft headed to CA out of BOS, heads aircraft over New Hampshire. These routings also make flying over Minnesota much more common from NE cities when headed to SoCal...

[threeid][/threeid]

ONONONONONON wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

So you'd pay for the extra crew, fuel, mtx, and capex costs 360 days a year for something that only benefits you the other five days a year?

If the weather is known so prior sure, but if not of course not. Forecasting continues to improve. You could always swap so in advance , however weather is always an unpredictable animal.

Deploying heavies on short routes is about the least efficient thing an airline could do. The heavies don't even have superior CASM on short routes. Old DC-8 or Il-62 could easily handle these without diverting for fuel.

I had to reposition an aircraft the other day from JAX to CMH, at 33,000 we had a wind from 220 degrees at 172 knots! Pretty substantial, especially at lower altitudes like 33.

Scarebus34 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

On a related topic (though obviously not a transcon) the Skywest UA* MSN-SFO westbound flight seems to have run without diversion the past few weeks. The only exception is that it operated MSN-DEN-SFO a few days ago but with an E170 rather than an E75L and I don't think the E170 has anywhere near the legs. At 1772 miles I think MSN-SFO is the longest E75 route and there were questions when it was announced if it would need to divert now and then with strong winter headwinds. So far apparently not, though we don't know if they have had to suffer weight restrictions.

SkyWest does not operate any E170s, they are all of the 175 variant.

There's actually no such aircraft as the E175. It's the E170-200. It's just a slightly larger 170.

I worked BUF-LAX-BUF yesterday. Flight time was 5 hours 37 minutes going and 3 hours 46 minutes returning. We arrived into BUF exactly 1 hour early.

Cheers,
Drew MCO

Flyer732 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

On a related topic (though obviously not a transcon) the Skywest UA* MSN-SFO westbound flight seems to have run without diversion the past few weeks. The only exception is that it operated MSN-DEN-SFO a few days ago but with an E170 rather than an E75L and I don't think the E170 has anywhere near the legs. At 1772 miles I think MSN-SFO is the longest E75 route and there were questions when it was announced if it would need to divert now and then with strong winter headwinds. So far apparently not, though we don't know if they have had to suffer weight restrictions.

SkyWest does not operate any E170s, they are all of the 175 variant.

There's actually no such aircraft as the E175. It's the E170-200. It's just a slightly larger 170.

That’s correct. However, Skywest doesn’t operate the -100, smaller variant.