Quoting mcg (Reply 98): (I'm not a pilot) Wouldn't fuel to get to an alternate always be required? It would seem like it's always possible the planned destination is closed. Is fuel required to deal with a 'missed approach' (i.e. a landing that's not completed, perhaps due to weather or some other airport issue).

If the weather shows any indication of causing problems on arrival, there's almost always going to be an alternate required under the FARs. If not, the pilot/dispatcher will then likely decide to include some additional contingency fuel for the possibility of a missed approach or holding.

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 100): Quoting mcg (Reply 98): (I'm not a pilot) Wouldn't fuel to get to an alternate always be required? It would seem like it's always possible the planned destination is closed. Is fuel required to deal with a 'missed approach' (i.e. a landing that's not completed, perhaps due to weather or some other airport issue). If the weather shows any indication of causing problems on arrival, there's almost always going to be an alternate required under the FARs. If not, the pilot/dispatcher will then likely decide to include some additional contingency fuel for the possibility of a missed approach or holding.

Correct. Aviation weather forecasts are pretty darn good these days (Delta even has their own in-house meteorology team) and when the destination is forecast to be outside alternate minimums, you don't need an alternate. (unless you're international)

It doesn't make financial sense to haul around extra fuel for an alternate if you don't need one.

For an airline the size of Allegiant (based on number of daily departures and fleet), there seems to be a lot of emergency landings. It would be interesting to see statistics comparing the number of emergencies experienced at Allegiant percentage wise relative to other airlines. It's conceivable that an airline with several hundred aircraft and thousands of daily departures could on average have some sort of mechanical related emergency landing on a daily basis just based on the sheer volume of flights they operate. For an airline the size of Allegiant, there seems to be a lot of these issues on a regular basis. Just my observation.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 101): It doesn't make financial sense to haul around extra fuel for an alternate if you don't need one.

The issue is and has long been the size of the contingency. I think it's a fair statement that if you fly to a destination normally, don't circle, and arrive right on the edge of your (allegedly never-to-be-touched) reserve, to the point that you can't take a 20 minute delay while the airport is temporarily-closed, you don't have enough contingency. I have said this over and over: at any moment, your destination could close. If that puts you immediately on the brink of a fuel emergency, if flying to the nearest-suitable (even if not weather-likely) is going to cause you to land on fumes, giving you one chance to get the landing right, you don't have enough contingency. One accident at the destination should not result in multiple other airliners coming near to crashing from fuel exhaustion. It just shouldn't. The bean counters are cutting it too close, and the result eventually is going to be an accident that puts a major airline in a liability position far beyond its insurance limits, because jury after jury is going to be outraged at the callousness of airline management (and, apparently, management pilots). When the actual subpoenaed memos and charts and statistics from the airlines come out and are given the light of day in court, jury after jury is going to hammer the airline with punitive damages that will boggle the mind. There's too much finger-crossing on fuel these days, and I don't give a damn about the additional fuel that's gonna be burned hauling around an extra half-hour of contingency fuel here or there.

A congressional investigation of this issue, where Congress can subpoena the data and documents from the airlines, might be a good thing because it can get at the true facts, instead of the stupid PR-spun denials that we currently hear when the media asks about it. I guarantee you that there are a bunch of hand-wringing memos and emails from folks within the airlines' safety structure which are presently given a blind eye by the airlines and the FAA. If those saw the light of day, the practices would just plain be different than they are today, fuel savings be damned. This is exactly the kind of issue that everyone knows about, but it's going to take a serious accident, and the ensuing lawsuits, to force a change. Much better for Congress (or the FAA) to get to the bottom of it before a tragedy.

[Edited 2015-08-04 03:53:40]

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 103): The bean counters are cutting it too close, and the result eventually is going to be an accident that puts a major airline in a liability position far beyond its insurance limits, because jury after jury is going to be outraged at the callousness of airline management (and, apparently, management pilots).

It's easy for the people making such decisions to not give a damn about peoples' lives when they're not the ones greeting the people whose lives are at stake, helping them find solutions when their flights are cancelled, shaking their hands, etc.

Yet another reason to turn airlines into workers' cooperatives.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 103): I have said this over and over: at any moment, your destination could close. If that puts you immediately on the brink of a fuel emergency, if flying to the nearest-suitable (even if not weather-likely) is going to cause you to land on fumes, giving you one chance to get the landing right, you don't have enough contingency. One accident at the destination should not result in multiple other airliners coming near to crashing from fuel exhaustion. It just shouldn't. The bean counters are cutting it too close,

I understood your comment and I agree with it. Of course any field can close at any time. (Well, multiple runways then it's a case of nuclear attack scenario)... But still (not a pilot) I agree with that. It should always be possible to reach an alternate (but perhaps using contingency fuel rather than planned alternate fuel).

We don't have confirmation on the fuel load of this Allegiant airplane do we? I still theorize that they had plenty of fuel to make GFK, but chose to negotiate strongly with FAR tower because they wanted their customers in on time.

We don't have clarity on whether or not they had contingency fuel. And whether or not they would use it in this case, which is a borderline case. Sure the runway was closed, but it was a paperwork issue, not an actual broken runway. Was it worth going into contingency fuel? Maybe they had a 10 minute delay on departure that invalidated a perfectly good flight plan into FAR, and the pilots were trying to make up time, and just had too much invested.

Would it be their fault, YES, but still it would be understandable.

[Edited 2015-08-04 07:33:58]

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 100): Quoting mcg (Reply 98): (I'm not a pilot) Wouldn't fuel to get to an alternate always be required? It would seem like it's always possible the planned destination is closed. Is fuel required to deal with a 'missed approach' (i.e. a landing that's not completed, perhaps due to weather or some other airport issue). If the weather shows any indication of causing problems on arrival, there's almost always going to be an alternate required under the FARs. If not, the pilot/dispatcher will then likely decide to include some additional contingency fuel for the possibility of a missed approach or holding.

So if it's a beautiful summer day in (let's say) Denver, a commercial airliner can legally depart on a flight to Denver without fuel for a unplanned diversion? That seems just a bit aggressive to me.

Thanks for the info.

Quoting mcg (Reply 106): So if it's a beautiful summer day in (let's say) Denver, a commercial airliner can legally depart on a flight to Denver without fuel for a unplanned diversion?

Yes. If there are no weather issues, then the aircraft can be dispatched with trip fuel plus 45 minutes to be compliant with FAA regs.

Quoting mcg (Reply 106): So if it's a beautiful summer day in (let's say) Denver, a commercial airliner can legally depart on a flight to Denver without fuel for a unplanned diversion? That seems just a bit aggressive to me.

That's correct. It's not aggressive because you're going to have some amount of contingency fuel and if you're enroute to Denver and the airport closes or something, you have the rest of the trip fuel to divert enroute.

And as always you're going to have your 45 minutes of reserve fuel for emergencies.

[Edited 2015-08-04 08:51:52]

Quoting BerenErchamion (Reply 104): It's easy for the people making such decisions to not give a damn about peoples' lives when they're not the ones greeting the people whose lives are at stake, helping them find solutions when their flights are cancelled, shaking their hands, etc. Yet another reason to turn airlines into workers' cooperatives.

Speak for your own airline  

The other thing about alternates and emergency landing airports is that a carrier can plan an alternate (destination or takeoff) to an airport that has basically no services and the airline has 0 intention of ever going there. If in the event they have to the alternate will have a runway that can accommodate the arrival. Many times these paper alternates are very close.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 110): Many times these paper alternates are very close.

So you're saying they have unofficial alternates even if they do not plan an official alternate?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 111): So you're saying they have unofficial alternates even if they do not plan an official alternate?

Sort of...? It's a way of reducing the alternate fuel load when it's required but likely won't be used. This is particularly prevalent on international flights where an alternate is always required. Delta Dispatch likes to use Dobbins AFB just a few miles from ATL as their international ATL alternate because it requires the least amount of fuel. They *could* land at Dobbins but when things are good in ATL and you aren't planning to use it anyway, use the closest acceptable airport. That's what's called a Paper Alternate.

On days where ATL is marginal, the paper alternate is changed to a real alternate. Birmingham, Macon, Charlotte, Greenville, Augusta, etc.

There are all kinds of funky rules and standard procedures like paper alternates that are perfectly legal and safe but also the most economical.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 112): On days where ATL is marginal, the paper alternate is changed to a real alternate. Birmingham, Macon, Charlotte, Greenville, Augusta, etc. There are all kinds of funky rules and standard procedures like paper alternates that are perfectly legal and safe but also the most economical.

Right. At my employer we'll be coming back on a scheduled cargo flight, let's say BRU-JFK, and if JFK is bright and sunny we'll list EWR as an alternate. If JFK has some weather going on, we'll choose something more realistic like BOS.

One thing that's important to understand is that dispatchers are nearly as disconnected from the "bean counters" as the pilots. A dispatcher is a certificated airman just like a pilot, in fact the dispatch written exam is largely identical to the ATP written exam. Under 121 regs, the dispatcher is sharing operational control with the captain of the flight, so they have a direct duty to keep that flight safe.

My perspective as someone who sits in the back (my son is an air transport pilot) is that riding 20-30 year old MD80’s and 757’s pre-owned by carriers such as Aeromexico, Alaska (shoddy maintenance came home to roost on 1/31/2000 over the Pacific), BIA, Air Tanzania, Thompson, Britannia, Korean, Aero Republica Colombia, Kulula, Compagnie Africaine and Jetsgo etc., (on and on) would not be my first choice. Of course, 99.5% of the flying public does not know any of this and nervous flyer’s do not want to know. All they care about is price and whether there is a baggage fee. Someday, one of those JT8D-219’s is going to have a failure at MTOW on a short runway and who knows? Can it happen to an AA or DL S80? Of course. But I know where "I will" non-rev or purchase a ticket. Living in PHX, I'm also aware of a few IWA>PHX diverts. I do believe that the Allegiant crews are excellent and no less qualified or skilled than other U.S. carriers operating the same equipment. It’s management that creates the process within which the crews operate. It’s getting to be a long summer in PHX. Grouchiness sets in. In the mood to vent. Fly safe. I love reading this board.

I have never seen any statistical connection between the safety/performance history of aircraft and its provenance in terms of who used to own it, when flown by a major American carrier after a transfer to that carrier's certificate. No matter where those aircraft came from, if a US carrier decided to buy them and transition them to its certificate, they are going to have to have undergone substantial inspection and repair.

Sure, we have anecdotal evidence of things like rotor cracks painted over, etc., when things come over from second-world countries, but the maint process eventually ferrets these out.

And one advantage to a 20-year-old frame is that the typical failure modes have been shaken-out and well-defined. I would argue that the unknowns of a new type are more of a threat (and harder to diagnose) than a good-ol MD80, where a company's experienced A&Ps can see a symptom and diagnose and repair the thing quickly and effectively.

Vis a vis Allegiant, one perhaps valid concern is that pilots face a mish-mash of cockpit systems on these things, as they aren't standardized, IIRC, when they are brought on the certificate from a foreign carrier. This is a potential human-factors issue, depending on how many different variations of radar, FMC, etc., there are in a particular fleet. DL, meanwhile, is transitioning to a new, standard cockpit on all the MD80s. The IS&S thing didn't work out, but somebody else's FMC, etc., is coming aboard.

Quoting kparke777 (Reply 114):

WJcandee is spot on when it comes to your analysis. Their prior past have nothing to do with their current maintenance programs or the reliability of each individual aircraft. Besides human factor issues of different layouts in the cockpit, each aircraft goes under the same maintenance program. Remember, each aircraft would have had to have had a thorough and relatively complete maintenance history before being put Into service with G4, or any other US airline.

Airline crews and the aircraft themselves are certified (including aircraft performance limitations) to loose an engine at V1 and continue to fly, so your situation of being at MTOW, on a short runway and not having enough single engine performance is a scenario that will never really happen. You can bash G4 all you like, but remember the things that happen at G4, for the most part happen to every airline and 95% of it never hits the press. Just remember, Delta balled one up in LGA and landed on a taxiway in Atlanta. Southwest had metal fatigue issues, landing at wrong airports and headstrong Captains that didn't want to go around (hint LGA) and AA has sent a few of their planes off the end of runways too. So this notion that G4 is a very unsafe airline is just false. However, they clearly can do a lot more to clean up their act, and there are safeguards in place at the moment that will very likely prevent anything catastrophic from happening, and I'm talking about the pilots. No crewmember would take an unsafe plane or put their lives, or yours at risk.

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 113): One thing that's important to understand is that dispatchers are nearly as disconnected from the "bean counters" as the pilots. A dispatcher is a certificated airman just like a pilot, in fact the dispatch written exam is largely identical to the ATP written exam. Under 121 regs, the dispatcher is sharing operational control with the captain of the flight, so they have a direct duty to keep that flight safe.

I never knew this. I love learning new things (to me) about this industry.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 116): No crewmember would take an unsafe plane or put their lives, or yours at risk.

NO crewmember? Please. The "headstrong captain" that refuses to go around? He or she is putting his or her and OUR lives at risk. Every crash caused by that thinking--poor CRM, arrogance or simply failing under pressure puts lives at risk. Don't be so revering of the pilot to think "Nah, they'd never do something like X and put their own lives at risk". Let's talk about AA 1420, as one that just immediately comes to mind.

For the record, I have a great deal of respect for pilots--they do something I'd love to do, but would be terrible at doing. By and large, they are highly skilled and I believe do take their job and responsibility extraordinarily seriously. But absolutes like "No crewmember would..." is exactly how crashes like AA 1420 happen in the first place.

I will not fly G4 and I advise everyone I know not to as well. Here is my reasoning:

When United was hastily repainting/re seating Ex Ted 320s back to mainline they went almost exclusively 757s in PHX for a period. To me it seemed the 757s were always down on MX. Several a day it seemed. Delta 757s (some were even older than the oldest UA 75) rarely had issues at PHX. I made a sarcastic comment to a TIMCO mechanic about it. (TIMCO had mx contracts with UA at PHX at the time and maybe even DL. Both have since brought in their own MX post mergers with CO and NW respectively). TIMCO guy laughed and said that it was evident that UA was not being as proactive with mx as they could but said the airplanes were safe. Then he made the comment about working on G4 airplanes at IWA. He said they were obviously cutting corners there in his opinion and he said he would not ever board one of their planes. -that was enough for me but it did not stop there.

I can remember a series of events that caused Allegiant to make the local Phoenix news after that. Particularly an emergency landing in FLG. I worked at PHX for for close to ten years and I witnessed things like a gear up landing (ameriflight), to a WN plane rolling off a gate, and the occasional airplane down for MX for a week. For how many flights G4 has at IWA they simply were in the news to much from their IWA ops alone when I lived in the area in my opinion.

The only individuals that I know personally that have ever had to evacuate an airplane were on an G4 flight. (Flight 142 IWA-ICT May of 2014)

Not to long ago I crunched some numbers about aircraft ownership for myself. A used F33A bonanza (Debonair for you purists) to be exact. Thanks to my mortgage I discovered that the airplane I could afford to own I couldn't afford to fly. And the airplane I could afford to fly I couldn't afford to own! It boils down to engine time, how upgraded the panels were, and squawks on the pre buy. The used GA market has it down to a pretty good science. End result is I am not able to afford my own airplane. But the most important lesson is that whether you fly an airplane or not, there are costs to having an airplane just to keep it airworthy. And that is just for part 91 flying. The costs of keeping an airplane to 121 requirements?..... That leads me to G4 aircraft utilization. Every time I go to LAS I see their airplanes just sitting. Or flying out of PHX passing by IWA you can spot G4 airplanes just sitting on the ramp. I know they have low utilization and I do not think that is a good thing. My opinion is they cannot have a great maintenance program at G4 because their airplanes are not generating enough revenue for one. I don't care how cheaply the bought the darn things.

My judgment could be very misguided but I was very good at STATS in college I am still never flying G4 and continue to advise individuals that I know not to as well. I have a trip coming up to Las Vegas from Nebraska in the next month. While GRI is not much further than OMA from my residence Allegiant was never considered for my business. I'll gladly paid more to fly WN.

Does anyone know what Allegiant cancelled their purchase of a Phillipine 320 which was already registered to them as N226NV?

Quoting futureatp (Reply 118): but I was very good at STATS in college

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where you actually had hard numbers and stats regarding your assertion and not anecdotes and information trickled through the oh-so-accurate-when-it-comes-to-aviation media?

Quoting futureatp (Reply 118): I was very good at STATS in college I am still never flying G4

If you were good at stats in college then perhaps you need to take a refresher course as Allegiant has never even skinned a knee in their entire history and perhaps you are just afraid to fly so just do not fly

Quoting futureatp (Reply 118): . Then he made the comment about working on G4 airplanes at IWA.

You mean back when a little company called American Airlines was doing all G4's maintenance on AA's maint program? They had one line just devoted to Allegiant aircraft. I highly doubt that Union guys in American hangars were incompetent. Sorry. Just more BS from people who really shouldn't be saying anything.

I've noticed over the years on this board that 'snipiness' can set in when popular or 'different' views are expressed. Yes, downright lies or innuendo should be challenged. All I know is that I will board the very new to brand new A321 at PHX with one owner than a 28 year old POS that has had 7 owners all over the world. And that is what makes the world go around. Fly safe.

I'll be honest, as an aviation professional and someone with education and background (albeit limited, as my career is just starting) in aviation operations and safety, I won't fly G4 and I'll tell family and friends not to as well. That doesn't mean I genuinely believe their planes will start falling out of the sky or anything of that sort, I simply believe there are better choices out there that are far more likely to provide expeditious and high levels of safety and quality in their operations.

Quoting futureatp (Reply 118): I was very good at STATS in college

But apparently didn't have to take economics.

Look, a typical fleet is made up of high-operating-cost, lower-capital-cost aircraft, and lower-maintenance-cost, higher-capital-cost aircraft. Sometimes, the newer stuff requires less maintenance and has higher reliability than the older stuff. But sometimes not. Most of the time, the newer stuff is more fuel-efficient per trip than the older stuff (but sometimes,i.e. on short trips, not meaningfully-so).

To support the CAPITAL cost of the newer stuff, you need to fly it a lot and fly it longer distances per trip. That works, because the newer-stuff often has longer MTBF (mean time between failures). So you fly it more and further, and hopefully make up the capital cost difference per month by the fuel savings and revenue generated. On your shorter runs, or where not every aircraft is needed at all hours to support a sensible operation, you can use lower-capital-cost aircraft. They cost more to fuel and cost more in maintenance and maybe in reliability, but because they don't cost much to own/lease, the revenue they generate can happily exceed the payment you need to make to the bank or lessor each month, even if they aren't flown as much. In fact, at an airline like Allegiant, they can generate LOTS of revenue for which you don't have to pay much in capital costs, and you don't have to stretch yourself to fly shoulder-time, lightly-populated flights just to generate revenue to cover the capital costs of new stuff. This high amount of revenue, of course, allows you to pay for the maintenance necessary to keep the fleet reliable and safe. Safe and reliable tend to go hand-in-hand -- good maintenance to keep the aircraft safe tends to keep dispatch-reliability high.

Airlines like FedEx follow exactly this practice. Older, less-efficient aircraft are assigned to shorter runs and maybe do a single hour-in-each-direction turn each day. Newer aircraft are assigned to longer-range missions, and maybe two round -trips per day. Other (usually-older) aircraft can sit parked several days a week depending upon peak volumes, while the newest aircraft are kept in the air as much as possible. Some older aircraft can be active but on the lowest-level of utlization during much of the year, only to be pressed into more hours of service as the peak season occurs. The mix of aircraft maximizes profitability. World Airways used to have a bunch of widebodies, but they were financed differently. Some older aircraft were on power by the hour leases that were comparatively-expensive when the aircraft were in use, but basically-free when they weren't. This let World have available capacity in the event of breakdown, accidents, or a surge in business, without having to pay the Man every month for aircraft that were more idle.

There just isn't anything untoward about the heavy maintenance done on Allegiant's aircraft. In 2006, they hired American Airlines to do their heavy maintenance, on what was then 24 aircraft, all MD80s. And both sides were happy about the deal. http://www.newson6.com/story/7650461...hub-to-maintain-allegiant-air-jets

But after AA shut down the ex-TWA shop in MCI, Tulsa couldn't handle the non-AA business as much. And, of course, Allegiant's fleet was expanding. AA went from two bays devoted to Allegiant, with one tail a month in each for C-checks, to only being able to promise 12 aircraft a year, to even less. Allegiant would have liked to keep them, but plainly they couldn't handle the needs. They went with AAR, because, among other things, AAR was an established operation with a great reputation, and Allegiant's Director of Maintenance had come from AAR. Allegiant's aircraft are being serviced by a US provider that is widely-respected. So what's the problem? http://investorplace.com/2014/12/aar-corp-airline-stocks/#.VcLRPvlVi1w
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/t...7-db8b-584b-8556-22b999fee484.html

That said, THIS is interesting: https://www.apa1224.org/downloads/Allegiant/1503_TAMCReport.pdf

[Edited 2015-08-05 20:31:02]

Interesting article in the WSJ today regarding how Allegiant handled the PR aspect of this incident. It's a discussion by Crisis PR experts of Allegiant's public statement, which took 7 days to put together. These guys are smart, and the discussion is good reading. Looking at the statement, it seems to me that the 18 minutes they spent FUBARing the communication with the tower by telephone wasn't entirely circling time, so that means that there was basically 10-20 minutes of contingency fuel aboard before it was necessary to use reserve fuel. That doesn't seem like much to me. And that's an area of inquiry that the FAA should really be reviewing with the carrier.

Article in WSJ (search "statement regarding flight 426" with quotes, on google, if you want to get past the paywall if it's an issue): http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcomplian...ergency-landing-fuels-controversy/

The statement they are referring to (interesting that it isn't posted on Allegiant's regular web site; it doesn't appear in the press release section of Allegiantair.com. They created a special web site just for this statement): http://algtinfo.com/