I have seen in the past, and a post on UA made me think--does anyone know of specific flights that cannot be full (either due to loads or bilateral rules)...

The example cited was the UA flight ORD-HKG which is payload restricted due to length.

I remember in the past that carriers had to limit the # of seats in certain markets (Air France comes to mind) during negotiations etc with governments.

Just curious...

JL

Does anyone know about these situations--could be reasonably good ways to fly relatively comfortably (albeit perhaps not cheaply...)

I'm not real up on this, but last I knew ...

LAX-to-Sydney flight is very fuel sensitive and can't generally go out full. Because cargo is frequently worth more $ than passengers, passengers will sometimes be bumped for cargo even when there are seats available.

As I recall, heavies from one of the Hawaiian islands can't go out full - OGG?

AA tried to operate a flight from SJC to the Orient, but the runway at SJC isn't long enough to allow a heavy to go out full, so they'd put in small amount of fuel and then fly to SFO to gas up, where the runway is long enough to accommodate the full load. For obvious reasons this was short-lived.

Extreme heat (PHX, for example) and the combination of heat and altitude (DEN, for example) can also play a factor in mandating that a flight contain less than a maximum passenger load. But on any given flight not prone to these or runway-length/flight length issues, the risk is always there that a passenger could be denied boarding even when there are empty seats. I've known it to happen on ERJs in optimal weather conditions with more than adequate runway length. Most likely due to cargo weight. In my case, 4 passengers were deplaned.

UA does limit seats sometimes on SFO-SYD,LAX-SYD,ORD-HKG legs and I would imagine LAX-MEL (eff. 12/4/99) for weight/cargo reasons. I have seen ground staff bump 10-20 people just for these reasons.

Years ago, when I was based in RSA, SA
(South African Airways) had seat limits on its old JNB-TPE flight. They used to be one of the largest operators of the 747SP, the short funky looking 747. These were designed for long range operations before the days of the 747-400 and 777's. I think only 30+ were ever built?? SA phased these out and leased them to Air Mauritis and others?? They now operate 747-400's mainly. I would also think the JFK-JNB flight (the worlds longest with the LAX-MEL running a close second) would have seat/weight/cargo restrictions??

When there were excessive headwinds, AA's LGA to DFW flights used to go out weight-restricted due to the short runways at LGA, but I haven't seen this happen in a while, and I don't know what might have changed.

I've been on several UA Express flights out of IAD where they limited pax loads when there was bad weather in upstate NY. These flights, e.g., to ROC, SYR or BGM were problematic b/c there were frequently times when if one airport fogged/snowed/stormed in, all reasonable alternates would be as well, so they carried enough fuel to take them back to IAD. This happened to me once into SYR. If there's anything worse than a 1.5 hour flight in a J31, it's a 3 hour flight in weather.

Just FYI, AA still runs the SJC-NRT flight, now w/ a 777, used to be an MD11.

Presumably this flight was profitable, as they kept it running even after they shut down the the hub operation - high value, low weight cargo (e.g., electronics components from Japan to/from the Sillycon Valley) was probably the reason.

Greg

[This message has been edited by greg99 (edited 11-15-1999).]

Greg99: Thanks for the info on the SJC-Narita flight. The part I knew didn't last long was the stop in SFO. No one much cared for adding an extra 1-2 hours or whatever it was to an already long flight. Funny thing was, thinking back to when I was growing up in the Bay Area and flying with my family, our flights tended to always make two stops in the Bay Area - either at SJC before SFO or at SFO before OAK. I guess it worked then when the Bay Area was perhaps viewed as a "bigger" place, but doesn't go over so well now.

Back when DL flew to Hong Kong, they used a L1011 without the range to fly LAX-HKG, so had to stop in ANC.

Thanks for the responses.

LAX to HKG is such a long route that CX often stops in Osaka (TPE is too far away???) during winter season. CX will rather stop in KIX, than bumping cargo and passengers. I think cargo is a big part of CX's profits on its LAX run. My father stopped in KIX once, and a couples times at TPE. Even I stopped in TPE once... I honestly don't like the stop because they often do not add an additional meal or so. They simply change the crew and refilled the drink. KIX is better because my father told me that they had a sushi and noodle service in J class. However, TPE to HKG has nothing... only juices. If CX needs to make a technical stop, they serve breakfast before landing, even for KIX.

During the winter season, many transpacific flight require a stopover, especially those Asian airlines with full load. CI and Eva often stops in Okinawa. United stopped in TPE.

Not a fun thing... especially when you need to connect in TPE.

Carfield

re: AA's SJC-Narita unintended one-stop: I believe they usually stopped at OAK, probably because landing slots are more available (especially if SFO is clouded over, which seems to be nearly always (: . I'm pretty sure of OAK, because I remember reading that the Oakland Airports Authority (or whatever it's called) loved the arrangement - they got a full landing fee (many hundreds of dollars) but provided no passenger services!

johna: Yes, I'm sure you're right. It would make much more sense for them to fly SJC-OAK than SJC-SFO. Thanks.