Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

AA55 low fuel stop at goose bay AFB

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

AA55 low fuel stop at goose bay AFB

Old 27th Feb 2011, 14:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: manchester
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AA55 low fuel stop at goose bay AFB

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 ?
wkw198 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 16:06
  #2 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
Headwinds can be more than a breeze. Check our this recent thread:
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...don-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.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 16:27
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ?
TightSlot is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 16:32
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Capot is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 16:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: here
Posts: 59
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
B757 v B767

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.
Rescue3 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2011, 17:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tortola
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
intortola is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 23:45
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
FlyingKiwi_73 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2011, 06:26
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: manchester
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wkw198 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2011, 07:22
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
TightSlot is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2011, 14:15
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Vino Collapso is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 16:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DUB to MCO

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.
heidelberg is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2011, 07:38
  #12 (permalink)  
Prof. Airport Engineer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
OverRun is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2011, 08:15
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2011, 09:56
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
TightSlot is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 13:50
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by TightSlot
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 !
WHBM is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 14:13
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 16:10
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
TightSlot is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 16:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lisbon
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Joao da Silva is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 17:06
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by TightSlot
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 18:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Point taken - thanks
TightSlot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.