AA55 low fuel stop at goose bay AFB

[wkw198]

well we had a little but somewhat inconvenient adventure yesterday. was on the AA055 MAN-ORD and at the checkin staff were handing out letters advising that due to "strong winds" we would be making a stop in Newfoundland, Canada.

this we duly did, and after about 40 minutes on the ground we were on our way again to chicago, with the whole trip having taken about 10.5 hours.

we then had to wait 75 minutes in the immigration line as well, but that's another story.

the staff at AA didn't seem to think this was out of the ordinary, but then they do only operate a B757 on that route. I would say seats were about 85% full. Is that normally a good reason for such an epic diversion ? Would a 767 also not have enough fuel to make the trip? Or are they overloading us weight wise ?

[PAXboy]

Headwinds can be more than a breeze. Check our this recent thread:
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/442587-singapore-london-track.html

This is all about the effect of headwinds on the speed of the a/c. Just the same when you are in a car on the motorway, except that the headwind might be 100mph or (as I understand it) even more. That means more drive needed by the engines to fight it and that takes fuel. Somewhere around the world, this is an everyday occurrence.

[TightSlot]

Don't forget that a fuel stop is an inconvenience for the airline as well as the customer - The additional costs (handling/fuel/maintenance/airport charges) as well as the knock on effect of crew/aircraft being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the missed connections for customers will have ensured that they took a loss on this route on that day.

I guess what I'm saying is that they will not have taken the decision lightly.

I'm not sure quite what you mean by Or are they overloading us weight wise ?

[Capot]

I have no idea why your flight would have done its on-route diversion, but a look at a Jetstream map is always interesting.

Here's one (http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html)

[Rescue3]

Both would be flying under ETOPS, but the 767 could have, potentially, approx 19T more fuel available (dependent upon certification and varient R/MTOW).
I could imagine that this would be sufficient to operate MAN-ORD direct.

Tightslot is correct, tech/fuel stops are more hassle.

[intortola]

Very strong headwinds across Atlanic last few days, i did AA63 CDG-MIA on Friday, flying time just short of 11 hours, much longer than usual made connection to next flight very tight but just made it!

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Legal reserves for Commercial flights are substantial and maybe due to some weather routing and headwinds they were getting close.

Proceeding on legal reserves when you have an alternate is a No No.

A certain African airline was banned from heathrow (an thence EU airspace) after landing on vapours and not declaring an emergency.

[wkw198]

i've seen just now on flightaware they stopped in there again on 28th feb (monday). i just think they should seriously consider flying some bigger metal on this route to avoid these stops.

[TightSlot]

wkw198 - do you have any stats that would show the actual % of diversions on that route? At the moment, we only know of two events.

[Vino Collapso]

I flew Denver to Heathrow on a BA B777 on the morning of the 25th February. The moving map on the inflight tv (dunno how accurate that is) was showing a tailwind of 179 mph at one point. It was quite bumpy and the cabin crew had to strap in for a while until the driver eased it a bit further north of track and into a more sedate 85 mph tailwind. A lot of severe weather over the Eastern US at that time.

Flight time was reduced from a normal 9 hours to 8 hours! I imagine that flying westwards would have been very slow progress.

[heidelberg]

I was on EI121 (A330) DUB to MCO on 22 Feb and the Captain announced headwinds circa 90kts. The flight took 27 mins more than scheduled.
On checking I see the return flight to DUB knocked 33 mins off its scheduled time.

[OverRun]

Deep down in the southern hemisphere, the Perth-Johannesburg leg gets some really strong winds. My fastest time going east was 8 h 15 mins, and going westwards, times can be well over 11 hours. Not too many refuelling stopsin between, unless you deviate rather far north to Mauritius.

[WHBM]

Deep down in the southern hemisphere, the Perth-Johannesburg leg gets some really strong winds. My fastest time going east was 8 h 15 mins, and going westwards, times can be well over 11 hours. Not too many refuelling stopsin between, unless you deviate rather far north to Mauritius.
That's a different matter. The aircraft in question is nowhere near the limit of its endurance, and there is further contingency fuel taken where there is no possibility of a fuel stop (although presumably Durban westbound offers an opportunity).

In contrast 757 operations across the Atlantic, especially to somewhere as far west as Chicago, is knowingly pushing things to advertise nonstops in winter, but can be done because they do have all sorts of options along the way, and the stop, as here, may well be anticipated.

Correct me, somebody, but are the major US carriers worse at scheduling such maximum endurance flights for smaller types than others ? There are so many accounts of transatlantic 757s (a US carrier speciality in this market) needing fuel stops westbound in winter, and exactly the same with A320s and 737NGs making full US transcontinental flights and having to fuel stop at Las Vegas or somewhere, in comparable conditions - neither of these missions being what the aircraft in question were designed/optimised for.

[TightSlot]

I understand the problem - from time to time, some aircraft types, on certain routes and at certain times of year and when the winds are especially strong need to make a fuel stop.

It seems to me that the answer to the problem is rather more difficult?

[WHBM]

It seems to me that the answer to the problem is rather more difficult?
TS

Actually the answer is quite straightforward; it is to assign an aircraft type to the flight which has adequate endurance to handle likely weather conditions. Needing to do a fuel stop on Transatlantics has only come back in any way in the last few years as 757s have come onto these flights at the edge of their range. Before that, when 767-200s and A310s were the smallest types on such services such stops had been unknown for years.

It's not that 757s had not done Transatlantics previously, they have done charters from Europe to Florida and the Caribbean for many years, but these have always been broken down into two medium haul sectors, say London to Gander and Gander to Montego Bay.

US carriers don't care about onward connections from westbound Transatlantic flights, because they have the belief that rebooking can always be sorted out on arrival at the hub, onto their next "frequent" flight to any of their destinations. Regular travellers who have experienced this situation, however, know differently !

[SNS3Guppy]

It may be presumptuous to say the aircraft don't have the range. Full fuel isn't automatically carried on a long journey. Extra fuel tankered for a trip is expensive, and gets needlessly burned. Typically 4% of the fuel tankered gets burned, just to carry that extra weight, though this can be substantially more, depending on just how heavy the aircraft is.

Winds aloft can be strong. I had 200 knot winds recently over the Pacific. North Atlantic winds are not usually that strong, but going westbound certainly slows a flight. For flights that are conducted under re-release rules, the key issue is the amount of reserve fuel necessary for a long Class II navigation segment (the oceanic part). On a re-release flight, the total fuel reserves are reduced, provided that by a certain point on the trip, the company is contacted for an update and recalculation of the flight performance data. If the crew and company jointly determine that adequate fuel remains to make the remainder of the journey, then the flight continues.

If, however, a determination is made that fuel burn is too high, a diversion will be necessary. Evidently this flight diverted for fuel.

It's important to note that the flight wont' be operated at any time unless enough fuel reserves exist to be safe, but the re-release function on certain flights is there to allow a flight with reduced fuel for efficiency. Clearly a stop isn't efficient, but where field conditions are different than forecast and other events may conspire to increase fuel burn, a stop may be necessary.

[TightSlot]

actually the answer is quite straightforward; it is to assign an aircraft type to the flight which has adequate endurance to handle likely weather conditions
But the 757 does usually have adequate endurance - occasionally, it doesn't.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't mandate an airline to operate a particular type on a particular route unless there is a safety issue, which, as SNS3Guppy has demonstrated above, there isn't. The airline operates a 757 on that route because it makes economic sense to do so - including the occasional fuel-stop in the overall route cost. If customers disapprove of that aircraft on that route, then the market will ultimately ensure that they book elsewhere and a change will be forced on the airline.

I'm really, really not spoiling for a disagreement on this one WHBM - I just feel that it's not quite as significant an event as the OP: I've stopped unscheduled many times for fuel on various aircraft/route combos - To me it just kind of goes with the territory. I can quite accept that there is another point of view however.

[Joao da Silva]

I'm really, really not spoiling for a disagreement on this one WHBM - I just feel that it's not quite as significant an event as the OP: I've stopped unscheduled many times for fuel on various aircraft/route combos - To me it just kind of goes with the territory. I can quite accept that there is another point of view however.

In my opinion, it very much depends on the inconvenience it causes.

On business, if I book a non stop flight, then I expect it to go non stop and I plan around that, accepting that one may encounter delays occasionally.

If I missed an onward connection due to a non stop flight becoming a stopping flight, then I would become at least irritated.

One of the reasons I like to use British Airways for long haul is that the company does have a fleet of aircraft that are fit for purpose, all year round.

[WHBM]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't mandate an airline to operate a particular type on a particular route unless there is a safety issue
No. But the CAA could require that if you can't achieve the schedule more than, say, 98% of the time without being forced ino a stop, then you should advertise such a possibility in your schedules. That's some 7 times a year. From what I hear several of the 757 routes are stopping much more than that.

I'm really, really not spoiling for a disagreement on this one WHBM
Indeed not TS - its just since US carriers started drafting 757s onto Transatlantic routes there has been a great expansion in unscheduled and disruptive fuel stops by these aircraft on the extremes of their range, previously unknown. It doesn't do the business any credit.

[TightSlot]

Point taken - thanks

[wkw198]

I'm not saying there is a safety risk, but i'm saying this is becoming a recurring theme and if it is happening often then it should be informed at the time of booking the ticket that there is a strong chance of a delay due to the type of aircraft being operated. then yes, people would start to take affirmative action and maybe not book that ticket !!

I notice again the flight has stopped in Bangor, Maine today. At least they got as far as the US this time even if not quite to Chicago. So that's 3 times stopping in roughly 13 flights (was it cancelled on 2nd March?)

[FL370 Officeboy]

Let's look at this in a sensible way.

AA have obviously decided that they do not want to operate a 767 on this route. Very possibly because it would make the route uneconomical and they would end up pulling it altogether. With a 757 they can maintain the route.

MAN-ORD is a long way for the 757 and so on rare occasions it has to stop off for fuel.

Would you prefer them to cancel the MAN-ORD route completely as they cannot economically justify a larger aircraft? OR perhaps keep it as it is and accept that on rare occasions it may result in a tech stop.

The other option is to transfer through LHR or a US hub which is hardly more convenient or likely to speed things up is it?

One of the reasons I like to use British Airways for long haul is that the company does have a fleet of aircraft that are fit for purpose, all year round.

That's great. Apart from they don't operate MAN-ORD!! Maybe their aircraft are all too big to make it economically viable :ugh:

[Mr Angry from Purley]

JFK-EMA (767-300f) last tuesday 5hrs 55 mins , planned 7hrs 05:\