UA And The 757 Abuse

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:17 pm

And again, what has the impact been on misconnections? If it is negligible then this is a non-issue. And I'll defend a 100% diversion rate if it doesn't impact connections in any meaningful way.

But then you wouldn't have anything to complain about....

[Edited 2015-02-08 10:18:28]

yyz717 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:22 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 50):
And I'll defend a 100% diversion rate if it doesn't Impact connections in any meaningful way.

I will go further than that. I will defend a 100% diversion rate if it doesn't impact revenue or profit. UA is not in business on this route to create Berlin-New York cultural exchanges....they are in business to make the most profit possible on the Berlin-NYC route.

MIflyer12 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 27):
Quoting B747forever (Thread starter):
There is no other airline that regularly push a fleet beyond their limit and accepts diversion as part of the daily operation.

DL has trans-Atlantic 757 flights longer than any of UA's.

Can you cite data, as the OP has, to show DL has a comparable same rate of diversions with those TATL 757 ops? If you're thinking PSA-JFK, that is summer only.

bgm · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:26 pm

You seriously think that arriving 1-2 hours late will no impact on connections? Having a 60% diversion rate should tell you that the 757 is not the right aircraft for that route, at least in the winter months.

roseflyer · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:27 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 49):

I get the feeling that you find fuel stops so disturbing that UA should announce it to the world when booking and that nothing short of that will quench your frustration. What UA typically does is place on time percentage statistics directly on their website when booking travel. Unfortunately this ,mostly works for domestic flights and not international. If they place the on time statistics, then that should fit what you are saying. The EWR statics that UA publishes are quite bad. Whether it is an ATC delay or fuel stop, a delay is a delay.

The UA winter 757 routes are the worst for fuel stops, but I have seen fuel stops from many airlines.

skipness1E · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 49):
This is a yearly occurrence on their deeper European 757 TATLs. Nothing new for this year. I can bet you a $100 that you will see the same thing next winter on those 757 routes.

Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about this? This used to be the norm on many routes that were sold as non stop. The TriStar used to have trouble getting across the pond if it was heavily loaded!
A 45 minute splash and dash on a direct routing is still going to be much faster than changing planes via a hub now isn't it? So long as the market supports such a route with bums on seats it's a non story.

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:31 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 51):

The funny thing is, everyone who flies a TATL 757 deeper into Europe diverts. US diverts coming out of BRU and AMS. AA diverts coming out of CDG and MAD...

B747forever · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:33 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 54):
The UA winter 757 routes are the worst for fuel stops, but I have seen fuel stops from many airlines.

What airlines then? Some have already thrown up Openskies and AS which after checking their operations this winter show some token diversion, but not nearly as close to UAs numbers.

MesaFlyGuy · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:41 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 41):
Do you think it is okay when UA markets TXL-EWR as nonstop, but as data shows close to 60% diverted in January? Isnt that false marketing in your eyes?

No it's not. I see it as abnormally strong winds making it harder for some flights to reach their destination nonstop. But it's impossible for the airline to market flights in advance fully knowing that they're going to divert. Even if they did put "Risk of diversion" on their website, that's still marketing it as nonstop.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 46):
Well, if UA can still hold their own in a market by flying a 752 to the edge of its operating range causing regular winter diversions, then it proves they are making the correct gauge (and profit) decision.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 49):
UA isnt the only carrier flying TATL and facing those weather conditions. However UA has been the only carrier with so high diversion rates on several routes among all airlines flying TATL. That should tell you something.

It tells us that they're using a different type of plane. If it works for them, obviously it isn't as big of a deal as you make it sound. IF customers got off their flights upset-enough to never fly United again, they wouldn't be back and United wouldn't be flying the route because of that.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 49):
What cracks me up even more is members defending a route with a 60% diversion rate. UA would have actually been more correct in marketing their TXL-EWR as TXL-XXX-EWR this winter instead of a nonstop.

Almost half of the flights (just going my your metrics) make it nonstop. Why should they market EVERY flight as a one-stop when it could make it nonstop?

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 54):
I get the feeling that you find fuel stops so disturbing that UA should announce it to the world when booking and that nothing short of that will quench your frustration.

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 57):

It's a false argument. Who cares who diverts and how often? The issue is the impact on connections, and revenues. If there is no impact, then it's a total non-issue.

B747forever · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting bgm (Reply 53):
Having a 60% diversion rate should tell you that the 757 is not the right aircraft for that route, at least in the winter months.

I dont think there is a point in arguing anymore. Actually I am not so surprised that they expect such diversions rates, it is after all UA and their otherwise famous service. What else can you expect from the worst rated major US airline?

MesaFlyGuy · Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:47 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 60):
Actually I am not so surprised that they expect such diversions rates, it is after all UA and their otherwise famous service. What else can you expect from the worst rated major US airline?

Wait, I'm confused. How does their service effect their aircraft performance? Unless you/re saying that the weight from their service items is the reason that they're diverting so often...

seabosdca · Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:28 pm

This is a route that exists to serve O&D demand on both ends. I doubt there are all that many misconnects, and for O&D:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 36):
An unscheduled diversion on the only nonstop from Berlin to NYC is still less hassle and quicker than connecting through FRA or LHR etc.

FlyingSicilian · Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:46 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 60):
I dont think there is a point in arguing anymore. Actually I am not so surprised that they expect such diversions rates, it is after all UA and their otherwise famous service. What else can you expect from the worst rated major US airline?

Here is a novel concept for you...do not fly them, and let everyone else be. There is demand for the flight, people fly it, end of story.

Giant airplanes flying very long routes sometimes make tech stops too...it happens.

Sometimes weather happens and people are forced to divert...is that UNITED's fault also?

Don't fly the route if you don't like it. End of story.

ZuluTime · Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:46 pm

There is an assumption here that the commercial folks in UA scheduling these aircraft are aware of the issues which the operational folks are having in delivering that schedule reliably. I agree that anything like a 50% diversion rate is unacceptable, but I do wonder if anyone sufficiently senior in UA has recognised the diversion rate is so high, and therefore chooses to do something about it. It may well be that - until someone reads this thread on Monday morning - they're not aware of the problems which their airline is having. Certainly wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened, and I'm sure it won't be the last either.

SkyWest700 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:09 pm

Wow I haven't logged into this site in years took me forever to figure out my password, but 747forever, you are way off base here. I am a UA 757 pilot I have flown all those routes you mentioned and have a total of ZERO fuel stops this winter. I cross the Atlantic 5 times a month in the 757 and it does just fine. The winds this year have been very strong and you can't plan around them. The 757 only holds so much fuel, it doesn't matter how many people you restrict. And if you are suggesting that we pull people so we can fly higher, that doesn't work either as the winds are strong up to FL370. Also with every airline crossing the NAT tracks at the same time there is always the question of whether or not your optimum altitude will be available or even granted to you. So if we are going to need to stop anyway because there just isn't enough gas then why not fill the plane?

I agree the 757 is wrong for TXL, BCN, MAD, OSL, ARN, HAM and LIS. But we didn't have the aircraft to fly them without the 757 so we accepted the fuel stops. It was either that or don't fly them at all. So which would you prefer?

With the 787 taking over 767 routes you are going to see some of these destinations change aircraft very soon. And when they do I want you to come back to this thread and issue an apology to United employees for calling their airline unprofessional.

roseflyer · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:18 pm

Quoting ZuluTime (Reply 64):

There is an assumption here that the commercial folks in UA scheduling these aircraft are aware of the issues which the operational folks are having in delivering that schedule reliably. I agree that anything like a 50% diversion rate is unacceptable, but I do wonder if anyone sufficiently senior in UA has recognised the diversion rate is so high, and therefore chooses to do something about it. It may well be that - until someone reads this thread on Monday morning - they're not aware of the problems which their airline is having. Certainly wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened, and I'm sure it won't be the last either.

I can assure you that they realize it. United monitors reliability a few ways. They look at 0-15 minute delays, 15-120 minute delays, over 120 minute delays, cancellations, and arrival delays over 15 minutes. The DOT statistics for on time performance require arrival within 15 minutes of schedule. Flights that routinely exceed this are typically due to scheduling and a route cause is usually found. Departure delays and arrival delays are monitored and each department gets tagged with delays and has to explain them ( flight operations, maintenance, vendors, airport passenger operations, ATC, etc). These reports go up to the COO. United has the most fuel diversions out of any airline across the Atlantic and obviously United recognizes this but is willing to deal with it in favor of operating to smaller markets in Europe.

airportugal310 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:27 pm

Quoting SkyWest700 (Reply 65):

Good post. And agreed

Genuinely curious about LIS, though. Are you saying it should have a larger plane? I thought it was a 767 sometimes, but not sure if scheduled or a a sub. That was some years ago though

UALWN · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:33 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 38):
Given that a "gas and go" at a tech stop airport is a relatively easy and quick process, especially when it's expected and planned for, the delay time is minimal.

In February 2014 my BCN-EWR had to stop in Gander. We arrived 2.5 hours late, and, yes, I missed my connection to IAH. Many other people missed their connections.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 62):
This is a route that exists to serve O&D demand on both ends.

I don't know about the TXL route, but from my own experience I lot of people flying BCN-EWR connects on. And with a 50% completion record last month, I'm sure a lot of people were inconvenienced.

BoeingBear · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:35 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 32):
There still are a large chunk of held seats every day.

Are they not holding enough seats? Are the held seat counts still in the 40-70 range?

tommy767 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:41 pm

It's been a reoccuring problem since the CO days. I believe France or Germany issued a statement back in the late 2000s to advice passengers not to travel on Continental because of the unadvertised fuel stops. And for those who say it's not a problem, it absolutely is a problem -- especially for those with connections.

Maybe, just maybe with the 787s coming online and zero 763 retirements for the year we can see some of these 757s be gone off the long haul routes from EWR. I would be more excited to see them on routes domestically since the sUA 757s are rapidly disappearing and I despise the 739s.

SkyWest700 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:58 pm

Quoting Airportugal310 (Reply 67):

Quoting Airportugal310 (Reply 67):

Quoting SkyWest700 (Reply 65):

Good post. And agreed

Genuinely curious about LIS, though. Are you saying it should have a larger plane? I thought it was a 767 sometimes, but not sure if scheduled or a a sub. That was some years ago though

I'm not one to spill company info just stay tuned there are a lot of changes in fleet over the Atlantic starting this summer and I don't see why it won't last permanently. I don't know if the schedules have been updated yet or not but you might be able to find out what's changing by booking on United.com

CALMSP · Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:09 pm

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 71):

How is UA unprofessional?

Rara · Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Quoting dispatchguy (Reply 10):
If you are so upset over it - then dont fly it - problem solved.

Quoting moo (Reply 29):
If customers are paying to fly the route, what right do you have to complain about how UA runs it?

The average passenger doesn't read a.net. In all likelyhood people don't know that there's a high chance their flight will divert when they make the booking.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 51):
I will go further than that. I will defend a 100% diversion rate if it doesn't impact revenue or profit. UA is not in business on this route to create Berlin-New York cultural exchanges....they are in business to make the most profit possible on the Berlin-NYC route.

Fine, if they indicated as much when booking. If they sell you a non-stop to Berlin, knowing that there's a one-in-two chance it's not gonna be a non-stop after all, they're deceiving the flying public.

If they marketed their flight as a direct flight with a technical stop, and they had zero reduction in bookings or airfares, then alright.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 14):
The thing that comes to my mind though is that there should be demand for a 767 to all 4 markets listed there, thanks to the connections offered by partners.

TXL is in no state right now to handle connecting flights. The airport is operating at four times max capacity, it's a miracle that O&D traffic still works. The airport was never meant to function as a hub. Check-through baggage is sorted by hand, and I hear that the rate of baggage lost in connections approaches 100% these days.

tharanga · Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:37 pm

I think people are being unfair to the OP - the person has a point. At some point, the diversion rate becomes too high for an airline to make a good-faith claim that it's a non-stop flight. Not that United would likely voluntarily do this, but at some point, it would seem a fair practice to show warnings when booking winter time westbound flights, and to not sell itineraries with shorter connections.

NDiesel · Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:37 pm

Any chance we might see the EWR-OSL upgraded to a 763 this summer? Or is there too much competition already from the daily SK 330s and DY 788s?

On a sidenote, I've done the 752 rotation a few times and I absolutely love it. Both since it's a 757 and also because I prefer UA on the route. A fuel stop wouldn't bother me much.

jayunited · Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:48 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 57):
What airlines then? Some have already thrown up Openskies and AS which after checking their operations this winter show some token diversion, but not nearly as close to UAs numbers.

What other airline flies to all these secondary cities from the NYC area during the winter months? This is nothing new these diversions or tech stops date back to the sCO days and yet the flights still operate during the winter months meaning this is no secret if customers were so unhappy with having to make a tech stop they wouldn't choose to fly UA during the winter months. UA isn't deceiving anybody these tech stop have even made the news here in the U.S. but as long as customers continue to book with UA during the winter months these flights will continue to operate.

As some of the 3 class 763's are refurbished UA will start placing widebody aircraft on some of these routes starting later this year however it remains to be seen if the 763 will remain on some of these routes during the winter months.

Viscount724 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:02 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 27):
Quoting B747forever (Thread starter):
There is no other airline that regularly push a fleet beyond their limit and accepts diversion as part of the daily operation.

DL has trans-Atlantic 757 flights longer than any of UA's.

The only DL 757 route I can think of that's longer thanTXL-EWR is PSA-JFK and that's summer only when winds are less severe. You refer to "flights" plural. What other longer DL 757 routes longer than TXL-EWR are there?

PSA-JFK 3,590 nm
TXL-EWR 3,458 nm

NW once used the 757 on FRA-DTW (3.616 nm) but that didn't last more than 6 months or so if memory correct.

GRRECPGRR · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:15 pm

What is the code for the diversion? Are they for reasons other than technical stops for fuel? If UA is advertising non-stops and then stopping for fuel, its not a non-stop and that is false advertising. Whereas, if they are stating that there may be the need for a technical stop on certain stages, I don't see where they are doing anything wrong or abusing anything, including the pax.

Natflyer · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:32 pm

This winter has been really unusually bad on the N-ATL routes due to winds. Lots of bad wx in the US Northeast, UK, Scandinavia to boot.

And the 757 is not being abused. It doesn't care whether it makes an extra landing or not. Smile

In my DC-8 days, we flew from central Europe to the US quite a bit. On a day to day basis we had to drop down in SNN or YQX to refuel. Nobody complained. Sometimes the decision was made within 200nm from those airports.

[Edited 2015-02-08 14:36:25]

eastern747 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:38 pm

Let's just face it....UA is a lousy airline. They don't give a damn about their passengers. Diversions? Tell that to the misconnects who may not get to their destinations let alone with their bags. Those folks down in Willis Towers must be smokin crack at lunch. And yes, I understand it's been a rough year with weather and strong east bound winds. I worked with Eastern for 25 years, some of which in Control enter. These people just seem they aren't real airline people. IMHO

Viscount724 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:44 pm

Quoting GRRECPGRR (Reply 81):
What is the code for the diversion? Are they for reasons other than technical stops for fuel?

Medical emergency diversions are fairly common. A few UA 757 transatlantic medical diversions over the past year from the Transport Canada database. There were quite a few others involving other UA aircraft types.

January 26, 2014:
At approximately 0535Z, a United Airlines Boeing 757 200 (N14106/ UAL64) from Newark, NJ (KEWR) to Lisbon (LPPT) declared a medical emergency with NY Oceanic. Clearance was issued by NY to divert to St John's, NL (CYYT) and the aircraft descended to 10,000 feet. Medical assistance was requested and UAL64 landed at 0643Z without incident.

April 28, 2014:
A United Airlines Boeing 757 200 (UAL127) from Dublin (EIDW) to Washington, DC (KIAD) declared medical emergency. The aircraft diverted to Halifax, NS (CYHZ). Emergency medical services (EMS) requested at gate. Landed 1641Z. No impact on operations.

June 2, 2014:
At 0105Z, Halifax, NS (CYHZ) terminal control unit (TCU) advised a United Airlines Boeing 757 200 (N14120/ UAL23) from Newark, NJ (KEWR) to Dublin (EIDW) diverting to Halifax, NS (CYHZ) due medical emergency. UAL23 also requested emergency response services (ERS) on standby during landing as aircraft would be "heavy" on landing. Landed at 0127Z with ERS standing by - no operational impact. All agencies advised.

July 14, 2014:
At approximately 5945N42W, a United Airlines Boeing 757 200 (N48127/ UAL101) from Manchester (EGCC) to Washington, DC (KAID) requested to divert to Keflavik (BIKF) due to a medical emergency. Flight was cleared to FL300 and the given direct routing to 63/30 direct BIFK. No other traffic involved.

October 17, 2014:
A United Airlines Boeing 757 224 (N17128/ UAL126) from Washington, DC (KIAD) to Dublin (EIDW) eastbound at JANJO declared medical emergency. Flight requested and was diverted to Goose Bay, NL (CYYR). Aircraft landed safely at 0553Z.

ZuluTime · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:56 pm

I'll agree that this winter has been exceptionally bad versus the previous seasons for westbound winds. The real question is whether UA, having had this experience, makes changes. On flights from Europe, it will soon discover that the compensation payable to customers for delayed arrivals and missed connections under EU261 will be prohibitive and either force an increase in blocked seats to avoid fuel stops or deployment of a different aircraft like the 767 to avoid these issues.

32andBelow · Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:59 pm

What is the published UA to XX connection times at these airports? This is a setting you can adjust in RES systems and it will not book connections under a certain time.

dcaord · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:02 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 14):
The thing that comes to my mind though is that there should be demand for a 767 to all 4 markets listed there, thanks to the connections offered by partners.

You have to remember, airlines have limited airplanes in their fleet. could UA fill all the seats in a 767 on these routes, sure. Heck, they could probably fill a 777. BUT, you have to remember, they might have have available 67's to fly there or to yield the same or more revenue the 67's are making on their current routes. So, why not send a 757 there if they can fill every seat and make money? Better than not flying there at all, right......?

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:06 pm

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 71):

This will be interesting: pray tell, why are they so unprofessional, in your 13-15 year old view?

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 83):

Judging by my experiences on Eastern before it went out of business, those people didn't know much about running an airline either. Funny, United is still around and Eastern is in the dustbin of history. Maybe the "real airline people" at Eastern could have learned a lesson or two in how to actually survive in the airline business from the "folks down at Willis Tower..."

[Edited 2015-02-08 15:11:08]

holzmann · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:20 pm

You know if ALL of the B757 fans who have engineering competence, or better still B engineers themselves, spent as much time thinking about a 21st century version of the plane as they posted on here about its pending demise then there would be a replacement in the works by now.

Heck, go start a crowd-funding campaign! How much do we need? About $5 Billion US?

ukoverlander · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:28 pm

Interesting discussion. Unless I missed it I don't believe we've seen mentioned the delay times caused by a fuel stop on these routes. It'd be a very helpful addition to the discussion if anyone has details on the arrivals of these UA flights (relative to the expected arrival times).

lesfalls · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:31 pm

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 83):

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Quoting catiii (Reply 88):

I have traveled to many country's so don't think I don't know anything.

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:35 pm

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 91):

Great! That's awesome for you. Now please explain why you think the pilots are so unprofessional.

[Edited 2015-02-08 15:37:16]

texasaggie · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:41 pm

I am a bit shocked by the statements some people are making to the OP on this discussion board. It's meant for discussing -- not shutting people down and telling them to quit complaining when merely trying to discuss an operational topic.

I agree with the OP that it is a bit unprofessional. I just went to United.com and looked at booking flights TXL to destinations in the US. It is clearly shown as "nonstop" and the on-time performance link says the information is unavailable. The website offers you plenty of onward connections from EWR as well... one I saw to Buffalo was as little as 1.5 hrs, which is not possible with a tech stop and customs. I think it's stretching quite a bit for United to advertise this as non-stop and agree there should be a warning stating it is likely, not just possible, to get to your destination late or miss a connection due to fuel stops. Even if you're not missing a connection, you are still getting to your destination later than advertised and what you paid for.

Sure, people may still buy it. But not everyone is a savvy traveler. While the business cabin travelers may know and accept the usual stops in the winter, I'm sure there is more than a handful of people in the back who don't know what they're getting themselves into.

lesfalls · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:43 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 92):

The only thing I have against the UA pilots is that they claim that their better then UA. The stewardeses and customer service people are the ones who are unprofessional (and their CEO who doesn't care for his customers). I hope this answers your question (in a good way).

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting texasaggie (Reply 93):

So how is United (or AA, or US, or any TATL 757 operator that also makes tech stops) supposed to warn their customers that a tech stop is coming? Or domestic Airbus operators like B6 and VX that make tech stops westbound in the winter. It's like any other weather related delay, they can't forecast it until that day.

lesfalls · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:46 pm

Quoting texasaggie (Reply 93):

Totally agree with you. Even B747Forever left this discussion because people (majority)were just Denying whatever he's said

32andBelow · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:48 pm

It's not like these guys don't know they will need a tech stop. They probably just announce it to the passengers and rebook all misconnects as necessary. If it is a UA to UA connection it does not cost them anything. If you are traveling from the middle of Europe to the middle of the US and cannot afford to be there a few hours later than you had a bad plan to begin with. If the passengers don't like it then they will book off these flights in the future and the route will fail.

777-200 · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:49 pm

I agree with the original poster. It looks like on average the flights are 2-3 hours late getting into EWR when they make fuel stops. While this may not be a big deal for passengers connecting to places like ORD or ATL (Plenty of daily flights), it could be a leave some passengers stranded going to smaller cities.

50%+ of flights having to divert is a big deal, and UAL should at least let passengers know of the risk so they can plan accordingly.

catiii · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:50 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 97):

Obviously passengers aren't booking away from the route though as it hasn't gone anywhere...

texasaggie · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:52 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 95):

An easy way to do it would be to adjust the published arrival time during the periods of high risk for diversion to take into account a stop. Best case, as someone mentioned before, is you'd get in early. Worst case, you get in on time. Then readjust your published arrival time when the high risk season is over.

Or, they could market the flight as "direct" instead of "nonstop," which while I find still deceptive in general (knowing several airlines do this), is more truthful.

SkyWest700 · Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:00 am

Quoting 777-200 (Reply 99):

Look I see it every day......we don't know there is going to be a tech stop until a few hours before the flight we, as pilots, work with dispatch up to the last minute to make it non stop. Just a few weeks ago I over flew a fuel stop because we flew the plane at its optimum and shanwick and gander let us. We got to our re dispatch point with enough fuel to continue.

We can warn the Pax at booking and they will schedule a 4-5hr sit in EWR. Then we will not stop for gas and they will ask to get a standby seat on an earlier full flight. When they are denied a seat on the earlier flight they will get mad that they have to sit for 5hrs because we DIDNT stop for gas.

Or we can not warn the pax and the pax will get pissed when we stop and they miss their connection. It's a lose lose and it's always the airlines/pilots/FA/gate agents fault.

Bottom line is we don't have a better plane, but we will soon, so we do the best with what we have and try to please as many people as we can in the process.

lesfalls · Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:03 am

Quoting catiii (Reply 98):

Listen, if your trying to be correct in saying that UA is good then you're wrong. I have told you my answer. I give up and am leaving this foroum. This is just ridiculous .

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net