• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:38 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 12):
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?

And at that point we need to remember that on a sector of that length, the flight is already irretrievably tardy with those headwinds anyway. A fuel stop, if planned smartly enough with regard to weight considerations at the front end of the trip, will not be as time-costly as we would like to think here.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
Whilst I understand your sarcasm, I also understand N62NA's comments as well. I

I don't. There are technological barriers at work here. If a fuel is stop is "unacceptable", then so is the trip, by definition.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
Unless, of course, they have filled the tanks to the brim



Why do you assume that is even possible? When an aircraft is loaded to MTOW (very generously assuming that the runway and takeoff conditions work for that much), that is not the same as MZFW. You can 'brim' the tanks if you like, but you are not going to avoid a serious payload hit to make that happen. At that point, there is no reason for the trip.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
and still wont have enough in which case they should plan ahead and substute a plane that can make the journey for this period.

With one of the 744ERs they have lying around? 757s do these routes for two reasons. First, what everyone else has said. They do a good job getting people to smaller locations non-stop. Second, they are available. If not for these routes, AA, UA,& DL would all almost certainly have far fewer 757s in their respective fleets, as there is only so much one can do with a surplus 757 when one has a fleet full of MD88s, 738s, A32x, etc. And if not for the 757s, these routes simply wouldn't have been made available. These routes represent a somewhat profitable second lease on life for the 757 as much as anything else. It's a very symbiotic relationship.

Unless Airbus totally and uncompromisably comes through on their promises for the A321NEO, (which I think there is a good chance they will), these routes will die along-side the 757s, as there is no other realistic way to make them happen.

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):

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

More likely this thread shows that some customers have contempt for science and math. As I and many others who actually work in this industry have said, without the 757, these routes just don't fly (no pun intended).

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
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

What does that have to do with anything? Unless you were referring to the right wing of the 757, where the Single Point refueling receptacle happens to be located, I'm not seeing the relevance of that statement.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 18):

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  

Better make it the A380HGW, just to be sure! And better get on Airbus to develop and start selling the A380HGW while we're on the subject!

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 39):

I certainly see where you are coming from, and I do feel that the airline in question should treat these delays the same as they would with any other tech or gate call in terms of PAX compensation. And I do feel that they should move hell and earth to get folks back on track as fast as they can. And I can say that in most cases, that is how it's handled. I personally wouldn't fly again with an airline that had this happen and treated my problem as an "oh well..."

But I also think it's unrealistic to the point of silliness to have the expectation that flights will go off without a hitch 100% of the time. I think it's more realistic to be happy we have these thin routings available and as crash free as they are these days in the first place. But alas, I just work here,  

FWIW, if it makes you feel any better, Kayak is very, very transparent about the timeliness statistics for the flights listed for sale there. I would guess that other travel aggregators are much the same.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 2164
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:39 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 12):
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.

Airlines are responsible for their own average pax and bag weights. Sounds like EY needs to adjust their average weights. It's not up to any other carrier to set EY's avg weights.
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
 
David_itl
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:45 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 48):
choosing to use an aircraft type that can barely complete the advertised routing in ideal weather.

How many times have aircraft diverted for fuel in normal conditions?
 
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 10:49 pm

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 50):
But I also think it's unrealistic to the point of silliness to have the expectation that flights will go off without a hitch 100% of the time.

I agree with that statement completely.

Perhaps I should have clarified better, but my biggest frustration isn't with the airlines, but rather the attitude some posters have shown towards the average passenger - that he/she should have known better; not booked a tight connection; should feel lucky to have a non-stop to begin with, so a delay should be taken with a smile; etc.

Quoting polot (Reply 49):
How do you know that the passengers are not getting any form of compensation?

I don't, but...

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 50):
I certainly see where you are coming from, and I do feel that the airline in question should treat these delays the same as they would with any other tech or gate call in terms of PAX compensation.

I'm also sure they would treat the delays like any other, and I've never seen compensation of any sort for a delay due to tech reasons, unless the issue forced an overnight stay. Last week, for instance, I had a 2.5 hour delay on UA because an aircraft went tech, and we had to wait for a different inbound plane. Do you think they offered anything?
 
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 10:50 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 48):
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.

A delay is a delay. Anytime you book a flight there is a chance of a delay, why doesn't really make that much of a difference. Is it also false advertising to not point out the risk of weather delays in, say, Minneapolis during the winter?

And, for the sake of argument, how much time is lost on a fuel stop versus a connection? I'd wager that in most cases a tech stop still grades out better than connecting.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 52):
How many times have aircraft diverted for fuel in normal conditions?

Basically never.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 53):
I'm also sure they would treat the delays like any other, and I've never seen compensation of any sort for a delay due to tech reasons, unless the issue forced an overnight stay. Last week, for instance, I had a 2.5 hour delay on UA because an aircraft went tech, and we had to wait for a different inbound plane. Do you think they offered anything?

Depends on the airline, agent, and circumstances. I have been offered compensation due to a 3 hour delay for tech reasons (on WN).
 
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 10:53 pm

Quoting david_itl (Reply 52):
How many times have aircraft diverted for fuel in normal conditions?

Didn't say they did. "Barely completing" is, indeed completing.
 
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 10:56 pm

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

So an airline could schedule a CRJ-200 from JFK to LAX, market it and price it as a non-stop, and then have a tech stop every single day, and that wouldn't bother you in the least?

Come. There has to be a point where this is false advertising. I'm not saying this example is at that point, but people have to concede that there is a limit.

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 46):
In-route fuel stops happen on US transcon flights!

Indeed. Try a transcon on B6 in the winter, going into the wind. Too often for comfort I think, so they and their customers will be happy when B6 gets some longer ranged airframes.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 41):
The public has no idea what a 757 is, let alone that EWR-Stuttgart is pushing it's range to near the limit.

Exactly.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 17):
The flights are also priced quite competitively.

They might be priced even more competitively if they had to be marketed with the disclaimer that in the past, 15% of flights going westbound have required tech stops, or whatever the rate might be (not saying it's that bad; just making up a number to illustrate the point)
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:00 pm

Quoting tharanga (Reply 57):

They might be priced even more competitively if they had to be marketed with the disclaimer that in the past, 15% of flights going westbound have required tech stops, or whatever the rate might be (not saying it's that bad; just making up a number to illustrate the point)

They almost certainly wouldn't be. At 15% failure rate, a given route is long since dropped, completely without regard to pricing.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
VC10er
Posts: 4222
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:01 pm

Just curious...is it known sometimes (or everytime) due to winds that day that your 757 TATL flight will have to make a stop for fuel? If so, during the pilots initial announcements they can say "unfortunately due to headwinds across the Atlantic we will have to stop (or may have to stop) in Halifax (or Gander) for refueling."

Or, do they just take off and then break the news midway over the pond that a stop will be required?

Last, do they actually take off not realizing their flight will have to stop for fuel until they look at the fuel gauge and say "oops, looks like we may have to stop for fuel and pick up some cheese Combo's when we get to Canada"

I would MUCH prefer to know before the door closes if a stop will be necessary!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7201
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:05 pm

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 2):
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!
Quoting mcdu (Reply 9):
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.

Some airline like AA is much more restrained about using 757 to Europe then Continental. It seems every other CAL flight to Europe is a 757. It way beyond the "secondary" cities and being used as 2nd, third, fourth and sometimes fifth flights from Newark to a particular European destination. Still using 4 757 from Newark to LHR, really why not turn all Washington and Chicago flights to 757's. Those cities customers wouldn;t stand for it. Way too many 757. IF a 757 could fly nonstop from Houston to London would Houstonians put up with a skinny plane ? No way they want a Texas sized airplane, only 777 need apply for IAH to LHR.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:08 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 59):

Just curious...is it known sometimes (or everytime) due to winds that day that your 757 TATL flight will have to make a stop for fuel? If so, during the pilots initial announcements they can say "unfortunately due to headwinds across the Atlantic we will have to stop (or may have to stop) in Halifax (or Gander) for refueling."

It happened aboard a CO flight I flew a few years back. They made the announcement as we were turning base to final. As others have said about other fuel stops, it was very, very quick.

I also had the same occur on an AS flight from DFW - SEA a few years back when SEA was below minima and we were out of time for holding. It was about the same, only we didn't know town we'd landed at until we were actually on the ground. Again, very fast back out again.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 60):

Some airline like AA is much more restrained about using 757 to Europe then Continental. It seems every other CAL flight to Europe is a 757. It way beyond the "secondary" cities and being used as 2nd, third, fourth and sometimes fifth flights from Newark to a particular European destination.

CO has/had a far smaller ratio of twin aisle aircraft to 757s than AA. It's a difficult comparison to make, therefore.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 60):

Still using 4 757 from Newark to LHR, really why not turn all Washington and Chicago flights to 757's. Those cities customers wouldn;t stand for it.

They won't stand for it because it isn't physically possible to make those trips on a 757 with a useful load. As many have pointed out, NYC area is about the edge of useful range with a profitable load.

edited for elaboration.

[Edited 2012-01-07 15:12:49]
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
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 11:09 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34):
Sure. So easy. An do tell, what would they do with the original itinerary that swapped 762 was going to cover originally?

I never said it was so easy. They could have scheduled a tail swap a day or so ahead of time if possible. It appears in this case it was not possible. Their 762's fly shorter routes than the 75' was supposed to be on. For instance they could have swapped CO56 EWR-CDG which was on a 762 for the STR flight, a 757 wouldn't have near as much trouble making the route to CDG as it would STR. The inbound comes in from GVA around noon so there wouldn't have been any delays due to the swap either.
It's Time To Fly
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4435
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:18 pm

Quoting david_itl (Reply 52):
How many times have aircraft diverted for fuel in normal conditions?

These are "normal" conditions - for Winter.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6441
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:24 pm

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 47):
These can't be planned for. Prevailing winds in winter are no surprise to the airlines, but they are to the average passenger.

Trust me ... the winds of the last 7 days ARE a surprise to the airlines.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 41):
So far it's 4 times in less than a 7 day period

And in 25 years of flying the Atlantic, I have never seen sustained 185kt winds right on the beak for 5 hours!

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 48):
It's borderline false advertising to sell the advantages of a non-stop, knowing that it may not happen if there is wind.

Or medical emergency, or mechanical issues, or contaminated runways, or a large low over eastern North America requiring a 500 nm alternate .... all of which are more likely than the winds we have seen over the last week!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6441
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:28 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 63):
These are "normal" conditions - for Winter.

Not even close.

However, if there is a history of the airplane type not being capable of the route, the airline is well aware of it. They don't want to stop either, it pretty well eliminates the very tight margins on which these flights fly. And ... if that becomes the case, and the route really is a "long, thin" route, they will just cancel it, and route you through a hub on a code-share partner.

It would appear to me, the B757 being offered, is offered on a route that would otherwise not fly.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
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 11:30 pm

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
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.


Wow man, I don't even know what to say.



How do you convert fuel stop due to weather into contempt for customers?




If they had contempt for the customers, they'd DROP the route entirely and let their customers route themselves through FRA, AMS, etc.

Because they evidently still find it worthwhile to serve their customers who need to go in and out of Stuttgart from North America, they keep the route operating with the only airplane that can do it profitably.

Where you say they "CHOOSE the option of do nothing" [sic], they have actually made the choice to stop for gas because the airplane will RUN OUT OF GAS before it gets to Newark if they do not. The whole 757 argument has been argued to death already, they obviously are not going to put a larger airplane on some of these routes and fly them all year at a loss just for fun because a few days each winter, the flight lands late because they stopped for gas.

They also don't have spare widebodies sitting around all over the place to substitute a 757 with. If they did, they'd have to make that decision at least 18 hours before departure from the European city, before the jet even leaves EWR.

To those of you who think it would be simple to just find an extra 767-200 that wasn't doing anything in the next DAY in the middle of the afternoon at EWR, and send it on a STR out-and-back, I remind you to consider the big picture.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4435
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:40 pm

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 66):
To those of you who think it would be simple to just find an extra 767-200 that wasn't doing anything in the next DAY in the middle of the afternoon at EWR, and send it on a STR out-and-back, I remind you to consider the big picture.

I don't think anyone on here has suggested that UA just press a "spare" 762 into service.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 65):
Not even close.

However, if there is a history of the airplane type not being capable of the route, the airline is well aware of it. They don't want to stop either, it pretty well eliminates the very tight margins on which these flights fly. And ... if that becomes the case, and the route really is a "long, thin" route, they will just cancel it, and route you through a hub on a code-share partner.

It would appear to me, the B757 being offered, is offered on a route that would otherwise not fly.

I acknowledge that you have actual experience that I don't. However, it is really not all that unheard of for TATL 757s to have to make fuel stops - "unusually" high winds notwithstanding.

The suggestions made here - perhaps notifying the pax when they make their reservation that it may be necessary to make an unscheduled fuel stop - would be helpful, IMO.
 
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 11:42 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 60):
really why not turn all Washington and Chicago flights to 757's. Those cities customers wouldn;t stand for it. Way too many 757.

Your argument is nonsensical and devoid of facts.

They would absolutely fly transatlantic on a 757 if it were the best option for their schedule and wallet.

If they wanted a flight that left ORD for Europe at 9PM and it was a 757, I think you'd find very few people would take a 6PM flight to the same city just because it's on a larger airplane if the seat layout is the same.


Quoting jfk777 (Reply 60):
IF a 757 could fly nonstop from Houston to London would Houstonians put up with a skinny plane ? No way they want a Texas sized airplane, only 777 need apply for IAH to LHR.

What is a Texas sized airplane?

Where I used to work, I flew a Texas sized airplane with 50 seats all the way to Toronto sometimes. We also had Texas sized 50 seaters going to California and Idaho!

What is a Texas size plane?

They have a 777 on IAH-NRT. Now with the merge though, they've got United's 747-400s available.

Do you think they will put the 747-400 on IAH-NRT for the Texans?


Seriously, I'm waiting for an answer.
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:46 pm

Should airlines have to issue some sort of disclaimer for all of the other issues such as delays because of congestion at airports such as ORD and LHR. And for those of you who say that delays at these airports are unplanned, and that airlines couldn't possibly know about them in advance, I think that the airlines have just as much reason to know that flights to these airports can be severely delayed as they can know that a fuel stop will be required.

Despite what some people may think on this thread, I think that the average passenger knows that there is a chance that their flight may not arrive at the gate on-time. Whether it be because of a fuel-stop, an airport-related delay, or whatever else, people know that we don't live in a perfect world, and not every flight will arrive on time.

I don't think that there is false advertising except in cases where they know that there will have to be a fuel stop under normal conditions. In the case of STR-EWR, the past week has been extreme conditions. If the 752 can make it westbound on most days with above-average headwinds in winter (as opposed to extreme and unusual), then there's no issue.
Third Runway - LHR, Second Runway - LGW, Build Them Both!!!
 
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 11:54 pm

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 14):
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.

That is why FA's are such an unreliable source of information. Do you believe the passengers that were flying 777s between AMS and CDG to IAD think that they are just happy to have UA 757's now doing those flights? The same passenger on CDG to IAD can board an A380 or a B777 on AF and take the same flight NON-STOP. Much like the flight they THOUGHT they were buying on UA/CO. The 757 is the wrong airplane to fly those flights but nothing will be done of the issue until the airline pulls out of the route due to lack of profitability from the stop.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 31):
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.

The number I heard around UA was that the CO 757's are stopping on average of 10% of the time. This supposedly is creating political issues with the French and the lack of reliability of the UA service. I certainly hope someone takes the company to task for these ridiculous stops. The 757 is the WRONG airplane for these routes. Winds blow in the winter and they stop. Thunderstorms form in the summer and they stop. It is not JUST a winter thing. These airplanes don't have the endurance to fly these routes. Bad decision by someone that is probably getting a bonus......
 
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 11:57 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 67):
I don't think anyone on here has suggested that UA just press a "spare" 762 into service.
Quoting united319 (Reply 62):
For instance they could have swapped CO56 EWR-CDG which was on a 762 for the STR flight, a 757 wouldn't have near as much trouble making the route to CDG as it would STR. The inbound comes in from GVA around noon so there wouldn't have been any delays due to the swap either.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:58 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 5):
Quoting grimey (Reply 2):
Any idea where they diverted to?

Gander 3 times and Halifax once....

Not only YQX and YHZ. A few others noticed in Transport Canada daily occurrence reports over the past month (all 757s), all due to "fuel considerations":

UA69 ARN-EWR January 6 diverted to ALB (Albany NY), just 124 nm short of EWR. They requested the diversion when over northern Quebec, with about 1000 miles to go..

UA125 AMS-IAD December 17 also diverted to ALB.

UA131 CDG-IAD December 12 diverted to BOS.
 
dc9northwest
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:33 am

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

Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:59 pm

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):

UAL 153 Stuttgart-EWR diverted for fuel:

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

Not acceptable.

Well... people will still fly the route, so I guess it is acceptable after all!

Quoting N62NA (Reply 67):
The suggestions made here - perhaps notifying the pax when they make their reservation that it may be necessary to make an unscheduled fuel stop - would be helpful, IMO.

Yes. Put one of these warnings for every flight: "a technical or emergency stop might be necessary on this flight, subject to conditions; in fact the flight might get cancelled, or might leave the next day". Add one of these too when booking a flight for January of 2013: "due to the fact that the world might end, this flight might not operate at all"

The airline is responsible for rebooking its passengers if connections are missed, etc. They have responsibilities.
 
avionpg
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:05 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:03 am

The crew informing passengers if there is a fuel stop depends on airline and crew to when to announce it.
I was on a CX 744 going LAX-HKG winter of 2009 and due to winds the plane did a dash and go for fuel in TPE we missed connected to our next flight in HKG as we had a 2 hour connection. The captain informed the pax before departure that we would make the stop in TPE. Aircraft left late also as the crew had to work the new flight plan and figure and redo all there calculations. After the announcement you could hear the passengers grumble a little bit about the delay but everyone just dealt with it. LA-HK route is more and less max range of 744 so if weather isn't perfect you don't make it to HK either. On arrival to HKG CX ground staff where on hand with reroute, hotel room vouchers, food vouchers or any other assistance that passenger required.

so it all depends on the airline and also the hope they are prepared to assist the passengers on arrival makes all the difference if these stop and go fuel stop will cause the airline bad pr or not.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:12 am

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
Not acceptable.

The alternative is cutting many of those flights because they cannot support much more than a 757.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 17):

The flights are also priced quite competitively.
I think the reason is that these B757 are all fully depreciated.

No, hardly at all. Fares are based entirely on supply and demand. Demand may be reduced by cruddy old aircraft but fares are low because right now is the low season and most of the 757 routes are to cities with weaker demand.
 
tharanga
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:15 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 64):

And in 25 years of flying the Atlantic, I have never seen sustained 185kt winds right on the beak for 5 hours!
Quoting longhauler (Reply 64):

Trust me ... the winds of the last 7 days ARE a surprise to the airlines.

THIS is what makes these events acceptable. That this is really a freak weather occurence.

If you need a tech stop because of weather that's say, outside three standard deviations of the mean for that season, then well, that's fine.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 70):
The number I heard around UA was that the CO 757's are stopping on average of 10% of the time.

Somebody should be able to get the correct percentage together - all the required information is public. 10% is too much to swallow unless the weather is truly freakish, I think, but I'm not trusting that number (so we'd also need the numbers for previous years).
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2736
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:18 am

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
( 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)

I'm neither American nor "ultra right wing" and I disagree with your point. Oh dear, there goes another grossly overgeneralised worldview.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 18):
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  

Ha! Agreed!

But let's see - a 757 nonstop with fairly decent AVOD that occasionally has to make a fuel diversion versus a domestic transfer to a tatty old LH744 or KL 744 with no AVOD. Hmmmm
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:22 am

Quoting chopchop767 (Reply 37):
I'm wondering though if UA will even continue to utilize these birds to cross the Atlantic?

Absolutely. CO built a nice, profitable niche business flying people from EWR to secondary European cities before the merger. That didn't fit the PMUA business model, but the new airline is half CO and will certainly keep it going.

Quoting chopchop767 (Reply 37):
With all the fuel stops, maybe it would be better to book via FRA/MUC/BRU

Suit yourself... I'll take the very remote possibility of a tech stop rather than a guaranteed connection where I have to deplane.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 47):
a plane that requires near-perfect weather to make it non-stop,

Hyperbole. These diversions will only happen a few days out of each winter. It's more accurate to say it's nonstop except in the worst weather.

Quoting united319 (Reply 62):
For instance they could have swapped CO56 EWR-CDG which was on a 762 for the STR flight

And probably had to bump or downgrade, and thus compensate, 10 or more BF passengers? I bet the tech stop was the better choice.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 67):
perhaps notifying the pax when they make their reservation that it may be necessary to make an unscheduled fuel stop - would be helpful, IMO.

Should we notify them of every type of delay? Maintenance, weather, and ATC delays are all much more common than these fuel stops.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:28 am

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.

Not privileged, but perhaps understanding given the horrendous weather.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 41):
So far it's 4 times in less than a 7 day period. We'll see what the rest of the Winter is like.

If the weather is as bad as people have been discussing the past week, then it's understandable.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 47):
If the airline can publish a schedule, and collect payment, they ought to be able to uphold it.

Ok, so for example:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 46):
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.

I guess US should drop the LAX-PHL route, too. Or do a disclaimer when people are booking it. Or whatever....

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 50):
Unless Airbus totally and uncompromisably comes through on their promises for the A321NEO, (which I think there is a good chance they will), these routes will die along-side the 757s, as there is no other realistic way to make them happen.

Unless those 763ER's in fleets start cascading down when bumped by 787's and A350's. Hopefully...

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 61):
It happened aboard a CO flight I flew a few years back. They made the announcement as we were turning base to final. As others have said about other fuel stops, it was very, very quick.

That seems a little lame to me. It should be announced as soon as they know, imho. If they can say "Mt Rainier is off to our left" then they can say "We'll be starting a decent soon for a quick refuel at XYZ".

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 61):
I also had the same occur on an AS flight from DFW - SEA a few years back when SEA was below minima and we were out of time for holding. It was about the same, only we didn't know town we'd landed at until we were actually on the ground. Again, very fast back out again.

Again, lame. It just seems reasonable to let people know what is going on, but again, some flight crews are probably less customer oriented than others.

Quoting united319 (Reply 62):
I never said it was so easy. They could have scheduled a tail swap a day or so ahead of time if possible. It appears in this case it was not possible. Their 762's fly shorter routes than the 75' was supposed to be on. For instance they could have swapped CO56 EWR-CDG which was on a 762 for the STR flight, a 757 wouldn't have near as much trouble making the route to CDG as it would STR. The inbound comes in from GVA around noon so there wouldn't have been any delays due to the swap either.

I think, at the end of the day, it is probably better for UA (or whomever) to take the hit on the STR-EWR route for a week than to start messing up hundreds of other people's itineraries/seating preferences that otherwise would not be affected. I feel a little bad for the inconvenience to the folks diverting, but why cause issues across multiple lines of flying and with hundreds or even thousands of passengers when you can isolate the problem in this manner? Just my opinion.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 64):
And in 25 years of flying the Atlantic, I have never seen sustained 185kt winds right on the beak for 5 hours!

Thank you!

Quoting N62NA (Reply 67):
I acknowledge that you have actual experience that I don't. However, it is really not all that unheard of for TATL 757s to have to make fuel stops - "unusually" high winds notwithstanding.

Can you quantify "not all that unheard of..." in a manner that we can understand? In other words, real numbers? That would put it in perspective, I would think.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 70):
Bad decision by someone that is probably getting a bonus......

Oh please....That has become such an overused sentiment that it is almost comical. People are busting their butts every day to make things work for the customer and for the company - is that a problem for you?

-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.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:31 am

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

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

Not acceptable.

Gimme a break. The last week has seen insane headwinds for westbound TATL flights and as others have pointed out, 757s haven't been the only planes that have had to divert for fuel. Stuff like this happens from time to time and the crews of these flights are making the right (and very obvious) call to play it safe and divert when necessary. I'm sure there are probably loads of pax heading the other way across the pond who are upset that they arrived at their European destinations an hour or so early too...

Nobody freaks out when flights have to divert or cancel because an Icelandic volcano erupts disrupting TATL flights...this might not rank quite as high on the "freak occurrence" scale, but it's still an unusual situation and the flight crews/airlines have to do whatever is in the interests of safety to deal with it. Hardly a cause for going on a narrow-body twins across the Atlantic witch-hunt. Thousands of 757s have made similar flights in the last several years with no problems whatsoever.
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
mcg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:39 am

Quoting maddog888 (Reply 13):
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 don't see the contempt.

UA is providing non-stop service from some smaller European cities. Without the 757, these cities would never have this service. Occasionally the 757 requires a fuel stop. Without the 757 these passengers would always (i.e 365 days per year) have to connect in a European hub (perhaps LHR, AMS, FRA, ZRH). Most days of the year the 757 service provides significantly faster travel to the US. A few days of the year it's only slightly faster as the fuel stop will generally result in slightly faster travel time than a connection.

Where's the contempt? I see an airline providing it's customers with a better option. I suppose those passengers concerned about the fuel stop could simply book a connection.
 
Archer
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:07 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:41 am

I flew CO to Shannon and back from DUB in November.
I don't really see a lot of difference in the coach product.
757 seems as comfortable as any other. CO has good IFE
for my taste. Moving map is what I use and read a magazine
most of the time.
I do prefer the 767's due to their seating arrangements.
Normally we use US. My magazine is always the latest in
IFE!
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4435
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:47 am

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 71):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 67):
I don't think anyone on here has suggested that UA just press a "spare" 762 into service.
Quoting united319 (Reply 62):
For instance they could have swapped CO56 EWR-CDG which was on a 762 for the STR flight, a 757 wouldn't have near as much trouble making the route to CDG as it would STR. The inbound comes in from GVA around noon so there wouldn't have been any delays due to the swap either.

He said "swap" - which is different from subbing in a spare.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79):
Can you quantify "not all that unheard of..." in a manner that we can understand? In other words, real numbers? That would put it in perspective, I would think.

Are you new to a.net? If you are, then I guess you've missed the many topics on here that have discussed TATL westbound 757s having to make fuel stops.
 
tharanga
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:49 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 78):
These diversions will only happen a few days out of each winter. It's more accurate to say it's nonstop except in the worst weather.

Would somebody please put a number on what they consider to be acceptable?

Suppose you take the average headwind over the track, for every single winter day, over the last 30 years. Take all those data points, and sort them by magnitude.

What would you expect the scheduled aircraft to be able to handle? Not from an operational point of view, but from the point of view of truthful advertising.

I hope we can all agree that the aircraft should have the legs to make it, in the 50th percentile weather condition. If it does not, I think the airline is doing something unacceptable.

We can probably agree that it's OK if the aircraft couldn't make it in the 99.9th percentile case. That's a freak occurrence.

But somewhere in between, this goes from being OK to not OK.
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:51 am

The 757 does seem a little out of its range, but it is winter.

Did Concorde ever have to make unscheduled fuel stops in winter due to winds?
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:53 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 83):
Are you new to a.net? If you are, then I guess you've missed the many topics on here that have discussed TATL westbound 757s having to make fuel stops.

"Many threads" doesn't count as quantification.

The actual numbers are on the order of 5-10 days/winter for the very longest routes and hardly ever for the others. (Of course, we hear about every single one on a.net.) That's why this is such a ridiculous thing to get exercised about and declare "unacceptable."

I think much of it comes from people who don't like the idea of narrowbodies flying TATL in the first place. Back in the '90s, EI's new high-density, low-MTOW A330s had similar occasional trouble on DUB-ORD. That didn't seem to arouse the same ire.
 
mcg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:57 am

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 47):
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.

In the summer DFW is subject to closure due to thunderstorms. It happens a couple times each year, should the airlines make a special disclosure on all DFW flights that the flight might be delayed by the weather? Thunderstorms in Dallas probably impact more folks than wind over the North Atlantic as closure of DFW would impact hundreds of flights.

I guess the question is where do you draw the line?
 
tharanga
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:02 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
I think much of it comes from people who don't like the idea of narrowbodies flying TATL in the first place.

I am NOT in that group. If my seat is comfortable, I don't care if it's a widebody or narrowbody. But I do expect the airline to schedule an aircraft that is going to have the legs most of the time, where most is perhaps 95% of winter days.
 
nws2002
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:14 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 32):
They could. Do they have a spare 767-200ER that they could put on the route? That's the more important question.
Quoting united319 (Reply 62):
d a tail swap a day or so ahead of time if possible. It appears in this case it was not possible. Their 762's fly shorter routes than the 75' was supposed to be on. For instance they could have swapped CO56 EWR-CDG which was on a 762 for the STR flight, a 757 wouldn't have near as much trouble making the route to CDG as it would STR.

The 762 actually has one less seat than the 752 and a much higher percentage of business class seats. Also the 762 is not lie-flat business class like the 752. Swapping in a 762 in not as easy as it appears, there are no spares and stealing it from another route would require reaccomodating higher-yielding business class passengers.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 70):
That is why FA's are such an unreliable source of information.

FWIW, I've worked as a FA at CO (now UA) for the last 6 years. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a passenger complain about flying a 752 across the Atlantic and the complaints are usually related to tech stops. In fact I've heard more complaints about the 762 because of the lack of AVOD and now no lie-flat seats.
 
USAIRWAYS321
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:31 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:18 am

Quoting mcg (Reply 87):
In the summer DFW is subject to closure due to thunderstorms. It happens a couple times each year, should the airlines make a special disclosure on all DFW flights that the flight might be delayed by the weather? Thunderstorms in Dallas probably impact more folks than wind over the North Atlantic as closure of DFW would impact hundreds of flights.

For one, I specifically said I was not in favor of requiring a disclosure. Secondly, that's not the same issue. Obviously, weather causes far more delays in places like DFW than it does on these 757 TATL flights, but that's not what we're talking about. The issue is airlines selling these flights as non-stop, and then failing to operate the flights with aircraft capable of going non-stop if anything remotely out of the ordinary comes up.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:19 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 83):
Are you new to a.net? If you are, then I guess you've missed the many topics on here that have discussed TATL westbound 757s having to make fuel stops.

Not as new as you, but thanks for asking.

I was asking for facts, not hyperbole or anecdotal evidence. In absence of that, I'm not sure why we even are discussing this as "unacceptable"?

When we travel from SEA to CA/AZ/NV, we sometimes fly AS (always nonstop) and sometimes fly WN (almost always a stop). When I choose the WN flights, I choose one-stop, same-plane service. Frankly, it is hardly an inconvenience and much preferred over flying through SFO/SLC/DEN to me. However, I accept that there are those who would prefer to fly through a hub for scheduling reasons, etc. My point is that the threat of an occasional tech stop may be preferred by the vast majority of the people flying these routes than the alternative, which is to connect/change planes elsewhere. Maybe someone should ask them?

-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.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18820
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:32 am

   This reminds me of the B6 TCON fuel stop threads. A *far* bigger deal was made of them here on a.net than impacted the real world. The 752 has been able to open up new routes that otherwise wouldn't be economical TATL.

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 4):
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?

~4,200nm range for the 752. Could the 762ER on the route? On an annual basis with less profit. With airlines trying to dig themselves out of a hole, they should go for the most economical metal.

Per links in this thread, a 767 costs about $700/hr more than a 752.    So unless there is a magic way to create another ~$8k in revenue per round trip, there is no way to switch between the two types if the demand just isn't there.

I used an old a.net thread for the flight costs.

Boeing 757/767 Trip Cost? (by DfwRevolution Jul 23 2004 in Tech Ops)

It simply wouldn't be acceptable to spend another ~$2.5million per year on a route! Actually, with today's fuel prices, that might be another $4M! We're not talking pennies. A 767 is a far more expensive plane to fly than the 757. But wait... the 757 is far more expensive to fly than the 738. I will *really* be surprised if the 738MAX doesn't fly TATL. The same is true of the A32XNEO competition.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
I think much of it comes from people who don't like the idea of narrowbodies flying TATL in the first place.

   If they do not like narrowbody TATL, do not fly the type. However, those people are in for a rude awakening with the CS100 (all J) or A320NEO family or 737MAX start going TATL. Customers demand fragmentation.
There will still be widebodies flying TATL. So those that prefer big planes will have that option.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):
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 expected during the winter. As long as the aircraft isn't going deep into fuel reserves, a fuel stop is 'acceptable.'

Quoting gkirk (Reply 18):
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

During winter ICN will see quite a few TPAC widebodies for fuel stops on scheduled non-stops. I like how it is a big deal with the 752 but not a 744. For example, TI's 744s always seemed to be stopping in ICN on the LAX-BKK route during the winter.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 84):
I hope we can all agree that the aircraft should have the legs to make it, in the 50th percentile weather condition. If it does not, I think the airline is doing something unacceptable.

We can probably agree that it's OK if the aircraft couldn't make it in the 99.9th percentile case. That's a freak occurrence.

That depends on the economics. Anything above ~8% passengers wouldn't accept. Anything below 2% and customers wouldn't notice. So it would be somewhere in that range.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:46 am

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 90):
The issue is airlines selling these flights as non-stop, and then failing to operate the flights with aircraft capable of going non-stop if anything remotely out of the ordinary comes up.

But that statement could include any aircraft on any route at anytime, not just a 757 Talt
 
AR385
Posts: 6929
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:51 am

Quoting united319 (Reply 62):
Their 762's fly shorter routes than the 75' was supposed to be on.

Sure. But not really. The 762 are CO´s (or UAL) whatever, aircraft of choice for their deep South America routes due to their high yield capacity and long range. Especially this time of year. So. How is a "swapped" 757 going to fly from IAH to GIG, GRU or EZE nonstop? What about your goldmine up-front? Sorry, airlines are in the business to make money, and if 8 times out of 365 every year their less yielding 757s have to stop on a known non-stop, well so be it.

The public wants low fares, but they also want IFE, good food, non-stop flights all the time, free drinks, convenience, great pitch, recline, flowers in the bathroom, fantastic FAs. Well, now, you can´t have your cake and eat it too.
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:57 am

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 89):
The 762 actually has one less seat than the 752 and a much higher percentage of business class seats. Also the 762 is not lie-flat business class like the 752. Swapping in a 762 in not as easy as it appears, there are no spares and stealing it from another route would require reaccomodating higher-yielding business class passengers.

If I'm correctly getting it, CO originally ordered their 762s specifically configured for premium-heavy routes knowing that would limit seat count to 167 chairs.
http://www.seatexpert.com/seatmap/13...al_Boeing_767-200_(International)/


If they had chosen, they could have configured their 762s the same as USAirways with 203 chairs. http://www.seatexpert.com/seatmap/34...ys_Boeing_767-200_(International)/

Many of us wonder why UA doesn't simply "fix" the problem and use the frames. I'm sure there's an answer that even simple minds like mine can understand.
 
nws2002
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:19 am

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 95):
Many of us wonder why UA doesn't simply "fix" the problem and use the frames. I'm sure there's an answer that even simple minds like mine can understand.

The simple answer is that the 762 trip cost and cost per seat mile is higher than the 752. In order to support the 762 a route must have premium demand, which most of the secondary European markets do not. Even if you loaded them with more economy seats, the 762s would still not be competitive with the 752. The future of the 762 fleet is in question with the UA merger and the availability of 763s.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Topic Author
Posts: 4435
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:31 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 86):
"Many threads" doesn't count as quantification.

The actual numbers are on the order of 5-10 days/winter for the very longest routes and hardly ever for the others.

He asked:

Can you quantify "not all that unheard of..." in a manner that we can understand?


And my reply addressed his request:

...the many topics on here that have discussed TATL westbound 757s having to make fuel stops.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 88):
I do expect the airline to schedule an aircraft that is going to have the legs most of the time, where most is perhaps 95% of winter days.

Quite reasonable.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 90):
The issue is airlines selling these flights as non-stop, and then failing to operate the flights with aircraft capable of going non-stop if anything remotely out of the ordinary comes up.

Yes, that's the issue. We have so many smart people here on a.net (I am being sincere) that I am a bit surprised at all the tangents some people are posting that don't address the actual issue.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:42 am

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 14):
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.

Hopefully once the 787 becomes more common, these thin routes will be very comfortable -- and stylish!
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

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

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:44 am

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 90):
The issue is airlines selling these flights as non-stop, and then failing to operate the flights with aircraft capable of going non-stop if anything remotely out of the ordinary comes up.

Hence, AY's, FI's and GL's method of getting 752s across the Atlantic makes even more sense.
  • 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