• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4436
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:38 pm

UAL 153 Stuttgart-EWR diverted for fuel:

January 2, 3, 6 and today the 7th.

Not acceptable.
 
grimey
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:48 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:44 pm

I take it has got something to do with the strong winds we got in the last week, see the following topic:

US To Europe Flights Arriving Very Early (by TWA1985 Jan 4 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Any idea where they diverted to?
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:45 pm

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
UAL 153 Stuttgart-EWR diverted for fuel:

January 2, 3, 6 and today the 7th.

Not acceptable.

Correct, not acceptable! Every flight from here on out should be flown with a 777-200LR for the range, just in case the winds are stronger then usual (like they are in winter) Of course I am joking, but it's about as serious as your statement! This stuff happens, and if you think about it, if it happens 10 times in the year, that's still pretty good!
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
Airontario
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:49 pm

Quoting grimey (Reply 2):
Any idea where they diverted to?

According to FlightAware, it's been YQX and YHZ.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL153
 
User avatar
GSPFlyer
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:15 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:50 pm

I think the OP meant it is unacceptable that they have this route flown on an aircraft that is near its maximum range, to the point where there is little "wiggle room." Great Circle distance is 3,936 mi, isn't a 757's maximum range ~4,000 mi? Could they use a 767-200ER on the route?

I'm assuming that these diversions were due to winds... Were any other flights affected?
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:50 pm

Quoting grimey (Reply 2):
Any idea where they diverted to?

Gander 3 times and Halifax once....

The flight times from STR-Gander were around 7 hours with another 2:45 from Gander-EWR it's no wonder they diverted.

Gotta love the wind  Smile

[Edited 2012-01-07 09:52:35]
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
goboeing
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:51 pm

No?

Then what?

Because it seems to me that it's either a 757-200 nonstop and have it stop for gas about 5-10 times out of 365 days, or just drop the route and send the people through a European hub since it probably wouldn't support a bigger airplane.

What, exactly, would you do differently if you were in charge?

Keep in mind the "gas'n go" procedure is like a race car pit stop as far as coordination these days. It's not some 2 hour ordeal.

[Edited 2012-01-07 20:54:45 by SA7700]
 
DLD9S
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:25 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:52 pm

I highly doubt any airlines would drop a widebody on this route in the near future.

I wonder if the people of STR and NYC would rather make the occasional fuel stop when the weather is bad in the winter, or give up the nonstop because the only plane an airline is willing to put on the route is a 757?
717 727 737 747 757 767 777 DC9 DC10 M80 M90 M11 L10 AB6 333 340 319 320 321 ARJ CRJ EM2 EMJ SF3 146 100 BE1...
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:59 pm

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
UAL 153 Stuttgart-EWR diverted for fuel:

January 2, 3, 6 and today the 7th.

Not acceptable

I flew LH from FRA to DFW on Wednesday and the flight time was just over 11 hours. That was by far the longest fight I have ever been on on this sector (one that I have flown dozens of times). Headwinds were brutal and a very southerly route was flown.

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 8):
Keep in mind the "gas'n go" procedure is like a race car pit stop as far as coordination these days. It's not some 2 hour ordeal.

Nonsense. Even though the refueling itself may not take that long, the extraneous approach and departure along with the refueling time add quite a bit of a delay.

I, personally, wouldn't even consider flying 752s TATL if avoidable. I've done it once on CO (to BCN) and it was miserable. Never again.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:03 pm

The CO 757's stop quite a bit more than 5-10 times a year. It is the wrong plane for the route. The 757 just doesn't have the legs to fly those 9 hour segments.
 
slinky09
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:07 pm

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 11):
I, personally, wouldn't even consider flying 752s TATL if avoidable. I've done it once on CO (to BCN) and it was miserable. Never again.

Me neither, both for the lack of range and poor comfort levels / generally inferior inflight product. I remain surprised that TATL 757s make any money ...
 
nws2002
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:10 pm

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 13):
Me neither, both for the lack of range and poor comfort levels / generally inferior inflight product. I remain surprised that TATL 757s make any money ..

Have you ever been on an ex-CO 757? They have AVOD nose-to-tail and an excellent lie-flat business class seat. The BusinessFirst service and CO as a whole have been given awards many times.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8689
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:19 pm

Weird stuff happens. There was a week where EY's ORD-AUH stopped six nights in a row in KWI for fuel because a US domestic carrier that provides a lot of feed at ORD were giving EY an average per-pax weight and the average ORD-AUH carries heavier hand luggage than the average domestic pax for the feeder airline, so the extra (say) 10kg multiplied by 100 (say) connecting pax made the aircraft 1000 kg (ish) heavier than it said on the loadsheet, pushing fuel burn a couple of % over planned; on a long flight (average is about 13h40m), they were getting in trouble and couldn't initially identify the problem, which is why it happened more than once.

In the STR-EWR case, it looks more straightforward, exceptionally tough headwinds = splash n dash in Canada. But there are a lot of factors at work in any long haul operation (as the EY example illustrates). Lots of men and women with slide rules and calculators and historical trends work very hard to bring it all together, and they succeed 99% of the time. CO / UA's tech stop itself only adds an hour to the scheduled arrival time; a couple of pax lost in the duty free can cause that. I fail to see the problem. Would we rather have no STR-EWR at all? Is six tech stops in KWI "unacceptable" as well? Would we rather have no ORD-AUH?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
maddog888
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:24 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:23 pm

Whilst I understand your sarcasm, I also understand N62NA's comments as well. It is not as if it hasn't been known all this week that there are exceptionally strong head winds E to W TATL this week that will considerably lengthen flight times. If the airline CHOOSES to operate a 757 TATL, then they should make sure that they load enough fuel to cover the extended flight times. Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period. Instead predictably the company CHOOSES the option of do nothing and so have to make a fuel stop when it turns out that the flight will fall short.

This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers. A situation that will only change when passengers vote with their feet - something they seem astonishingly reluctant to do.

J

( I do realize that this will not be a popular viewpoint for the ultra right wing americans on this forum. Feel free to flame me all you like, it just rolls of my back)

[Edited 2012-01-07 13:32:32 by SA7700]
 
crosswinds21
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:46 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:31 pm

I recently flew a CO 757 TATL. I was talking to a FA and she told me that she mostly flies these thin European routes. I jokingly made a comment to the effect of "well it must be a pain to fly these narrowbodies on such long flights." She said that actually, the passengers virtually never complain because they're just so happy to have a nonstop flight to the USA from their city.

So...before anyone here says that these occasional fuel stops are unacceptable, consider that if it weren't for the 757s, many European cities would not have any nonstop flights to the USA to begin with.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6443
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:34 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Instead predictably the company CHOOSES the option of do nothing and so have to make a fuel stop when it turns out that the flight will fall short.

This "choice" would have been made long before the passengers even got to the airport. This is not as haphazard as one would think. If the winds are beyond the capability of the aircraft, there is not much one can do. Either leave passengers or cargo behind, or make a planned fuel stop en-route. The best choice is normally stopping en-route.

And these things are not just caused by en-route winds .... I have even seen a requirement to stop simply because the runway conditions on departure do not allow a normal take off weight, or weather at destination requires a far alternate.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:42 pm

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
Not acceptable.

It's a free market. No one is forcing you to fly a nonstop TATL 757. If you'd rather, you can always book through FRA, CDG, or LHR and fly a widebody on the TATL legs.

The 757 is for those of us who would rather fly thin routes nonstop, even with the slight risk of a fuel stop on the windiest winter days.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:50 pm

The flights are also priced quite competitively.
I think the reason is that these B757 are all fully depreciated.
The aircraft (I flew HAM-EWK in October) is not the best to fly in, but inflight entertainment is OK, actually it was better than on the brand new A380 of Lufthansa I flew back. The B757 went west with on average 750km/h over ground and I was pretty worried we would make a fuel stop, because I had a connection. In the end, we made it, but I guess it was narrow (flight time was roundabout 9 hours).
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
gkirk
Posts: 23392
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:52 pm

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
UAL 153 Stuttgart-EWR diverted for fuel:

January 2, 3, 6 and today the 7th.

Not acceptable.

A KLM B747-400 MEX-AMS diverted for fuel at GLA a few days ago. This is unacceptable. KLM definitely require a fleet of 100 A380s now  

[Edited 2012-01-07 10:52:42]
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
anstar
Posts: 3151
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:53 pm

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
UAL 153 Stuttgart-EWR diverted for fuel:

January 2, 3, 6 and today the 7th.

Not acceptable.

What? You would prefer them to ditch in the Atlantic?

Or not even operate the route non stop?

Not Acceptable on applies to your attitude.
 
mikect
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 4:27 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:58 pm

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 11):
I, personally, wouldn't even consider flying 752s TATL if avoidable. I've done it once on CO (to BCN) and it was miserable. Never again.

I'm curious what made it so miserable for you. I've only flown TATL once on a 757, on NW from BDL-AMS, and compared to what CO/UA has been flying, it didn't have much going for it. Old interiors, beat-up seats, and in my case, a duct-taped safety card to the ceiling to try to prevent the ice cold air from blowing on an older woman sitting next to me. That being said, I found it to be no more or less comfortable than anything else. In fact I think I preferred it over a UA 747 in about the same condition all the way to SYD. Less people, quicker boarding times and better service.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period.

I wouldn't think it's nearly that simple. They probably wouldn't know until just hours before the flight. And it's not like there are widebodies just sitting around. Even if they did sub a plane for fuel considerations, what would happen to the flight the 777 was supposed to fly? Personally, I'd risk an hour or two delay with a fuel stop (and the aviation geek in me would hope for one - never been to Gander), then the alternative option which is to have less service to less cities.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4436
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:16 pm

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 6):
I think the OP meant it is unacceptable that they have this route flown on an aircraft that is near its maximum range, to the point where there is little "wiggle room."

Precisely.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Whilst I understand your sarcasm, I also understand N62NA's comments as well. It is not as if it hasn't been known all this week that there are exceptionally strong head winds E to W TATL this week that will considerably lengthen flight times. If the airline CHOOSES to operate a 757 TATL, then they should make sure that they load enough fuel to cover the extended flight times. Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period. Instead predictably the company CHOOSES the option of do nothing and so have to make a fuel stop when it turns out that the flight will fall short.

This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers. A situation

Correct.

[Edited 2012-01-07 11:20:47]
 
tharanga
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:26 pm

Well, there must be some point where tech stops are too frequent. If a tech stop was required 360/365 days a year, then people would rightfully say that marketing the flight as a non-stop is fraudulent. Or, you could do it seasonally, too - if it was ok all summer, but going wrong 90% of the time in winter, you still have a problem.

We're nowhere near that point here, but I wonder where that point is.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:39 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 26):
This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers. A situation

Correct.

I don't understand whre "contempt" comes into play? People prefer nonstops. UACO offers a nonstop. If theres an occasional issue due to weather, sobeit. I think if they really had contempt for the customer, they'd pull the AVOD and lie-flats, strip the nonstops, and make everyone fly through a big hub with hundreds of other people. Is that better?

When I was growing up I spent my summers in Anchorage, AK. I would ride the bus around during the day, but what sucked was that no matter where you wanted to go in this sprawling city, you had to change buses downtown. There wasn't a direct option between different points in the city, even though growth was happening away from the "core". Was that better than direct options? Personally, my time is not infinite on this planet - I'd prefer not wasting if I don't have to.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4646
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:58 pm

Yes lets all moan and blame the aircraft! I mean I can't believe that BOAC had to fuel stop with the Comet across the Atlantic at first, as did Pan Am when the winds were not favourable. Then the B747-100 had to do the same from West Coast to Europe in winter on occasion, B747-200s had to do it on some flights from Asia to Europe. So when the B757 came along opening up routes that could not sustain larger aircraft, occasionallly it had to stop for fuel. Indeed when ETOPs was granted on the Atlantic, the Bangor fuel stop to Florida from the UK was very common before the market grew to support the B767-300.
This is about snobbery I think, that a "real" airline operates an "inferior" narrow body in a marginal market that can't support a larger aircraft and on a few days a year has to fuel stop.
Still it's good to moan, whinge, complain etc
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:03 pm

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 6):
Great Circle distance is 3,936 mi, isn't a 757's maximum range ~4,000 mi? Could they use a 767-200ER on the route?

Could the route support a 762 ? That's the real question.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 18):
This is simply a case of scheduling a non-stop knowing that some times of the year a fuel stop will be made. If a larger, heavier more expensive aircraft were required to make the route 100% of the time, the route would likely be canceled.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
This "choice" would have been made long before the passengers even got to the airport. This is not as haphazard as one would think. If the winds are beyond the capability of the aircraft, there is not much one can do. Either leave passengers or cargo behind, or make a planned fuel stop en-route. The best choice is normally stopping en-route.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 20):
And these things are not just caused by en-route winds .... I have even seen a requirement to stop simply because the runway conditions on departure do not allow a normal take off weight, or weather at destination requires a far alternate.

People of A.net : Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about because he does it for a living ! Unlike almost all of you.

Quoting MikeCT (Reply 25):
I'm curious what made it so miserable for you.
Quoting nws2002 (Reply 14):
Have you ever been on an ex-CO 757? They have AVOD nose-to-tail and an excellent lie-flat business class seat. The BusinessFirst service and CO as a whole have been given awards many times.

nws2002 is exactly right, CO have received several awards for their JF service. And I too am curious as to why aaexecplat was so miserable. Let me tell you, I've done TATL on DC-8s/707s/VC10s with NO IFE other than a good book and/or a decent armrest conversation. I cannot recall any one of them being miserable EXCEPT for one time on AC856 when the lads behind me played gin rummy all the way over.

In fact, in regards to IFE, I think for the airlines they're a pain in the ass, push the electrical load too high, cause the FAs to act as IFE troubleshooters (not their job, really, not much can be done mid-flight), and basically if you want to be a mouth-breather for seven hours staring at a video screen, go ahead, but please never speak to me. Because you likely won't be able to say anything intelligent.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers. A situation that will only change when passengers vote with their feet - something they seem astonishingly reluctant to do.

Where's the contempt ? The airlines are offering STR, HAM, etc, 2nd-tier cities (at best), n/s service to North America with a right-sized aircraft. These markets will not support a 762/763/332/333 in the current economic situation. Maybe one day they will, but not now. No 752 service with occasional diversions to YQX, no nonstop service. It's that simple, there's no contempt at all. I believe, however, there are unrealistic service expectations evident.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22680
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:18 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period. Instead predictably the company CHOOSES the option of do nothing and so have to make a fuel stop when it turns out that the flight will fall short.

So, where are all those spare planes and crews going to come from?

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):

This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers. A situation that will only change when passengers vote with their feet - something they seem astonishingly reluctant to do.

This is just another symptom that shows how consumers expect cheap flights on convenient routings and will complain bitterly if everything doesn't go perfectly.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):

( I do realize that this will not be a popular viewpoint for the ultra right wing americans on this forum. Feel free to flame me all you like, it just rolls of my back)

Must we resort to this? I'm sure you wouldn't like it if others referred to "ultra socialist Europeans" or some such nonsense.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
united319
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:07 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:25 pm

If at all possible they could have done a tail swap to a 767-200. With EWR being the Trans-Atlantic gateway airport for CO, it seems it would have been a practical swap to do. Ironically their 752's seat 175 while the 762's seat 174 so there wouldn't have been oversale issues. I know that there is a lot that goes into Tail Swaps like mx routing, crew availability, etc. IIRC most airlines (definitely CO and UA) cross-utilize flight-deck crews between the 767 and 757 due to the cominality so you wouldn't have needed to swap the flight-deck crews and the number of F/A's onboard legally would have been the same. Perhaps something they didn't see necessary to do.
It's Time To Fly
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:27 pm

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 3):
This stuff happens, and if you think about it, if it happens 10 times in the year, that's still pretty good!

Right. It is "acceptable" to the airline. So, people got delayed by 90 minutes. It's actually pretty benign. The rest of the year, it works.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:28 pm

757s aren't the only ones diverting. US786 (FCO-CLT), which is flown by a 762, diverted to BGR three times within the last week or so.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 753, 762, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
User avatar
LOWS
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:40 pm

Maybe they could add some small print to the effect of:

"Due to high headwinds, this flight may require a technical stop for additional fuel. While we will make every effort to achieve an on-time arrival, it is possible that shorter connections may me missed. Any missed connections will be dealt with according to the conditions of carriage and we will make every effort to accommodate you on the next routing to your destination."
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:47 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 35):
"Due to high headwinds, this flight may require a technical stop for additional fuel. While we will make every effort to achieve an on-time arrival, it is possible that shorter connections may me missed. Any missed connections will be dealt with according to the conditions of carriage and we will make every effort to accommodate you on the next routing to your destination."

We don't know the completion factor for these 757 flights. Any flight with a bad on-time rate should feature such a warning. These are not a unique situation... and may be better than peer flights, for all we know.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:54 pm

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 6):
Could they use a 767-200ER on the route?

They could. Do they have a spare 767-200ER that they could put on the route? That's the more important question.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period.

Again, where is the substitute plane going to come from? Remember, if you're going to pull a 767-200 from somewhere to cover STR-EWR, the route you pull it from is going to have to be replaced. And then that route will have to take a fuel stop, more likely than not.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers.

Contempt for their customers by offering them a nonstop flight that otherwise wouldn't exist? Even if it does have to make a fuel stop on occasion?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
RamblinMan
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:57 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:56 pm

This thread is ridiculous. A fuel stop is just one of many things that could end up happening, and the result is a minor delay much like any other technical issue that could arise at any given time. If you would rather connect through LHR or something and avoid 757s feel free to do so, but I guarantee that in the long-run you will wind up with more problems and delays that way.

A little common sense might keep you from booking a tight connection following a wb 757 flight in winter.
 
AR385
Posts: 6929
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:03 pm

Quoting united319 (Reply 32):
f at all possible they could have done a tail swap to a 767-200. With EWR being the Trans-Atlantic gateway airport for CO, it seems it would have been a practical swap to do.

Sure. So easy. An do tell, what would they do with the original itinerary that swapped 762 was going to cover originally?

When AR started doing MEX-EZE nonstop, the flight left at 17:30 during the summer. If the temperature at time of departure exceeded a certain number, the flight would have to stop at LIM. Yes, the mighty 747-200B couldn´t make it. It happened 2 or 3 times a month fom June to August.

However, you would be warned at check in, sometimes they would even call you at home and would offer to reschedule you for another day. The two times it happened to me, I still took the flight. Sure, they could have moved the departure time from 17:30 to 20:30, I guess, but that´s another issue. Who knows what AR´s requirements were. In those years their 747 fleet had a fairly high utilisation rate.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 35):
Maybe they could add some small print to the effect of:

"Due to high headwinds, this flight may require a technical stop for additional fuel. While we will make every effort to achieve an on-time arrival, it is possible that shorter connections may me missed. Any missed connections will be dealt with according to the conditions of carriage and we will make every effort to accommodate you on the next routing to your destination."

But diversions happen for a variety of reasons, not all of which are related to a/c performance. I've been on a diverted flight, YSJ-YYZ, had to make an emergency landing in YUL due to infant stopped breathing. Perhaps on the ground 15-16 mins, then on our way. Has to have been one of the quickest descents I've ever been on. Big steep r.h. turn then S-turns all the way to near final to YUL. Pretty dramatic.

I remember quite well, little fellow was across aisle from me, francophone mother, no FA spoke French (CP Air), but there was a doctor. O2 mask sized for adults, no good, so he ripped the face mask off and impaled a paper water cup base onto the hose and fed O2 to the baby. Good thinking. Doctor went along in the ambulance to the hospital. All in all it went well, I missed my connection but so what ? A life was saved.   
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:10 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 17):
Whilst I understand your sarcasm, I also understand N62NA's comments as well. It is not as if it hasn't been known all this week that there are exceptionally strong head winds E to W TATL this week that will considerably lengthen flight times. If the airline CHOOSES to operate a 757 TATL, then they should make sure that they load enough fuel to cover the extended flight times. Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period. Instead predictably the company CHOOSES the option of do nothing and so have to make a fuel stop when it turns out that the flight will fall short.

This is just another symptom that shows how big companies have only contempt for their customers. A situation that will only change when passengers vote with their feet - something they seem astonishingly reluctant to do.



While you do make a valid point, most airlines don't in this day and age have spare aircraft sitting around waiting to be used or spare crews waiting to go. That would be very costly and this is why you don't have "the proper equipment" for these flights available.

Nobody will flame you for your comments BTW as you have logical arguments. For the record, you could fly with another carrier for your journey, personally I would prefer to fly with somebody other than UA.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
chopchop767
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:16 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:36 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 16):

The only time I've crossed the Atlantic on a 757 was PHL to BRU and that flight was far far FAR cheaper than the normal FRA/MUC to IAD. I have to admit, though, even with an entire row to myself, it wasn't the most comfortable plane ride. Then again, it was pretty bumpy the whole way over.

I'm wondering though if UA will even continue to utilize these birds to cross the Atlantic? Having flown on UA for years to get to Europe, it seems like no matter where you were going, you were always connected through FRA or MUC. IAD clearly seems to push the limit, but does EWR generate enough demand for non-stops on a 757; as opposed utilizing Star Alliance hubs?

With all the fuel stops, maybe it would be better to book via FRA/MUC/BRU...
this year: nap, lgw, fra, dub, fco, add, jib, muc, iad, sea, dca, bos, cdg, ist, bah, prg, ord, hsv, cmn
 
tharanga
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:45 pm

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 33):


A little common sense might keep you from booking a tight connection following a wb 757 flight in winter.

It's wholly unreasonable to label that as 'common sense' for the general public. The public is going to assume the airline is scheduling an aircraft for the route that can actually make the trip. And the public is absolutely correct in assuming that.

Again, 5 times, in a winter with unusual winds, is not a big deal. But there has to be a point where marketing a flight as non-stop is false advertising.
 
USAIRWAYS321
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:31 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:59 pm

Here's the problem, from my point of view. Folks on A.net are experienced enough to understand the reasons and probabilities for a delay like this, so we can sit here and say all day that the small chance of a fuel diversion is worth taking the N/S and not messing with the hassle of a connection.

However, the average passenger probably isn't aware of these factors, and certainly isn't presented with this information from the airline. They aren't given the full spectrum of information required to properly weigh the pros and cons of taking their chances to take a long, thin N/S. The airlines sell tickets without any disclosure that the 757 is stretched to the max on these routes, and that there is a very real chance of a diversion, and delay.

I'm not necessarily saying that the airlines need to put up a warning upon booking, since the diversions are definitely infrequent in the grand scheme of things, but we can't sit here and act like the average passenger is unreasonable to complain, or be upset, if their flight requires a fuel stop. They were never told it would be a possibility. Airlines are proud to advertise reliability, efficiency, and desirable routings, and then are too often quick to throw up their hands, say "it's out of our control," and act like the passenger is in the wrong for complaining when something goes awry.

That contempt for the passenger is on display in this thread by many posters - the passenger just paid good money for the advertised non-stop flight, and many of you think that he or she should then feel privileged to endure a diversion just because they may not have had a N/S without the 757.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22680
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:13 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 39):
However, the average passenger probably isn't aware of these factors, and certainly isn't presented with this information from the airline. They aren't given the full spectrum of information required to properly weigh the pros and cons of taking their chances to take a long, thin N/S. The airlines sell tickets without any disclosure that the 757 is stretched to the max on these routes, and that there is a very real chance of a diversion, and delay.

They also don't state that there could be a medical issue, a diversion due to rowdy pax, a mechanical issue, etc.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 39):
I'm not necessarily saying that the airlines need to put up a warning upon booking, since the diversions are definitely infrequent in the grand scheme of things, but we can't sit here and act like the average passenger is unreasonable to complain, or be upset, if their flight requires a fuel stop. They were never told it would be a possibility. Airlines are proud to advertise reliability, efficiency, and desirable routings, and then are too often quick to throw up their hands, say "it's out of our control," and act like the passenger is in the wrong for complaining when something goes awry.

So the winds are under the airline's control?

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 39):
That contempt for the passenger is on display in this thread by many posters - the passenger just paid good money for the advertised non-stop flight, and many of you think that he or she should then feel privileged to endure a diversion just because they may not have had a N/S without the 757.

The pax paid for what is said in the terms of carriage, and no where in there does it give a 100% guarantee that a non-stop will not divert.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4436
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:13 pm

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 33):
A little common sense might keep you from booking a tight connection following a wb 757 flight in winter.

The public has no idea what a 757 is, let alone that EWR-Stuttgart is pushing it's range to near the limit.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 38):
Again, 5 times, in a winter with unusual winds, is not a big deal. But there has to be a point where marketing a flight as non-stop is false advertising.

So far it's 4 times in less than a 7 day period. We'll see what the rest of the Winter is like.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 39):
However, the average passenger probably isn't aware of these factors, and certainly isn't presented with this information from the airline. They aren't given the full spectrum of information required to properly weigh the pros and cons of taking their chances to take a long, thin N/S. The airlines sell tickets without any disclosure that the 757 is stretched to the max on these routes, and that there is a very real chance of a diversion, and delay.

Yes.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:15 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 39):
the passenger just paid good money for the advertised non-stop flight, and many of you think that he or she should then feel privileged to endure a diversion just because they may not have had a N/S without the 757.

It's just a delay. Not something that has to be "endured" any differently from any other delay. Delays happen thousands of times per day.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:27 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):

It's just a delay. Not something that has to be "endured" any differently from any other delay. Delays happen thousands of times per day.

  
It is a 90 min delay, hardly earth shattering. I have experienced delays longer than that without even having the pleasure of being diverted briefly. Yes, people sometimes miss connections and it sucks, but airlines do have experience with that kind of stuff and know how to deal with it...
 
mikect
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 4:27 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:29 pm

I can't seem to quote on my phone, but what Flighty said above makes sense. How is an hour or two delay due to a fuel stop caused by winds any different than an hour or two delay on the ground because an airport is restricted to single runway ops due to winds? No one says anything when that happens.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:29 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
It's just a delay. Not something that has to be "endured" any differently from any other delay. Delays happen thousands of times per day.

Exactly right. There is no difference flying several thousand miles and then stopping for fuel, being delayed at the gate because of a technical fault, or returning to the gate for fuel before leaving.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Posts: 2964
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:29 pm

In-route fuel stops happen on US transcon flights! Why such a big deal about TATL fuel stops? On a US flight from PHL to LAX in a A320 or A321 a couple of years ago, we ended up doing a "splash and dash" at FSD due to severe headwinds. It was truly a splash n dash too, about 15-20 minutes on the ramp fueling, no one was allowed off the plane, passengers were asked to remain seated and belted in, and we had one of the highest speed taxis back to the runway and a uber-short take-off roll that I've ever experienced.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
 
USAIRWAYS321
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:31 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:31 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
They also don't state that there could be a medical issue, a diversion due to rowdy pax, a mechanical issue, etc.

These can't be planned for. Prevailing winds in winter are no surprise to the airlines, but they are to the average passenger.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
So the winds are under the airline's control?

Of course not.    The airline can plan for winds, though. Again, this possibility - that CAN be predicted to an extent - is not a surprise to the airlines. They choose to run the route with a plane that requires near-perfect weather to make it non-stop, but they don't make this fact known to the passenger.

Like I said before, I don't have a better solution, since these issues are infrequent in the big picture, but I have a problem with acting as if the average passenger should have known better, and doesn't have a right to be upset if their flight diverts.

If the airline can publish a schedule, and collect payment, they ought to be able to uphold it. Let's say you paid a premium (and a premium is certainly charged for a N/S over a connection) to have, for instance, your new bedroom set to be delivered quicker than normal. Now say the furniture store knew, but didn't tell you, that their supply chain was stretched to the max, and your order had a real chance to be delayed. Wouldn't you be upset when the furniture arrived late, and upon complaining, the store told you they would be keeping your full payment, and that you should have known better?
 
USAIRWAYS321
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:31 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:36 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
Exactly right. There is no difference flying several thousand miles and then stopping for fuel, being delayed at the gate because of a technical fault, or returning to the gate for fuel before leaving.

There certainly is a difference between a mechanical delay, and a delay resulting in the airline choosing to use an aircraft type that can barely complete the advertised routing in ideal weather. It's borderline false advertising to sell the advantages of a non-stop, knowing that it may not happen if there is wind.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Not A Good Week For Westbound TATL 757's Part 1

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:37 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 47):
If the airline can publish a schedule, and collect payment, they ought to be able to uphold it. Let's say you paid a premium (and a premium is certainly charged for a N/S over a connection) to have, for instance, your new bedroom set to be delivered quicker than normal. Now say the furniture store knew, but didn't tell you, that their supply chain was stretched to the max, and your order had a real chance to be delayed. Wouldn't you be upset when the furniture arrived late, and upon complaining, the store told you they would be keeping your full payment, and that you should have known better?

How do you know that the passengers are not getting any form of compensation?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos