Well, both. Our flight plan will be done based on a planned mach number at a certain altitude, but it could change as we climb in altitude during the flight. The cost index will vary our speed as we fly along and get lighter, or climb and descend. ATC doesn't know our cost index, so if our actual speed is different than what we have filed, we let ATC know. Most of the time, we end up flying the speeds ATC would like us at, which is a fast speed. Someone cruising along at .74 mach for cost index is like a speed bump in the road for others flying along. So ATC might ask us to speed up, or take a vector or go to a different altitude. Either one of those affects our planned fuel burn. Not only that, but when flying a cost index, as you start your descent, the cost index can really get you. If I'm cruising along at a cost index giving me .77 mach, that same cost index on descent slows my jet down to .68 mach all of a sudden. If I don't notice, ATC comes on asking what's my speed since I'm backing everyone up. So I'll come out of cost index on descent and use manual speed settings.
It just depends on each flight really.
So it sounds like the flight plan comes to you in Mach numbers varying by segment, but you fly CI. Is the CI fixed across the fleet type, or is it also communicated to you on the flight plan, or do you have some other way of picking it?
So it sounds like the flight plan comes to you in Mach numbers varying by segment, but you fly CI. Is the CI fixed across the fleet type, or is it also communicated to you on the flight plan, or do you have some other way of picking it?
It is not fixed, nor is it the same across the fleets. It can vary by specific aircraft in the same fleet. Our flight plans will have listed the lower to higher CI ranges for us to look at.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Programs: My views are not those of United Airlines or UAL Corp
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryFF
On a recent flight from BOS to SFO, I heard an interesting issue arise regarding cruising speeds as I listened to channel 9. I was on UA 181 (a 757)and about an hour into the flight, UA 15 (also a 757) from JFK to SFO came on our frequency. UA 15 was a little behind us but was obviously cruising at a faster speed at the same altitude and catching up to us. The controller asked each aircraft its mach speed - UA 181 was .78 and UA 15 was .81. The controller asked each aircraft to fly at .79.
The pilot of UA 15 agreed but then asked for a different altitude in order to resume his previous speed and pass us. That was done and since we were both flying nearly the exact same route the rest of the way to SFO, we heard UA 15 get ahead of us and eventually land about 15 minutes before we did.
It seemed curious to me that two different flights both using the same equipment - 757 - for the same airline on the same route would cruise at different speeds. At first I thought that perhaps UA 15 was late and was trying to make up some time, but UA 15 was actually scheduled to arrive after UA 181. I would have thought that company policy regarding such issues as fuel consumption would have dictated the same speed for both aircraft.
About the only thing I could think of was that the passenger load on UA15 was less, since UA 181 was full and since the 757s on the JFK SFO route are configured differently, with F, C, and E+ and therefore carry fewer passengers, even with a full load. If UA 15 was lighter than UA 181, that may have dictated a faster cruising speed.
I'm wondering if anyone with more technical insight than I have would have some insight on this.
The pilots of UA15 were heading home and had to make their commuter flights!...LOL
Programs: UA 1K (3K), Hilton Diamond, National EAEE
Posts: 1,283
Flight path diversion in China
Dont know if any of the pilots here can answer this one as they seem to be mostly domestic but I will try...
On a recent flight SFO-PVG, our flight path was pretty much a great circle up to the Aleutians and down over Siberia. We were on a dead reckoning path to Shanghai but I could see we were heading directly for North Korea. This was a few months ago but I remember that overflights had been banned by North Korea by then so I expected a jog in our flight path. As soon as we hit the China border with Russia we took a turn to the southwest on a vector to Beijing. We continued on that vector but when we were out of the way of North Korea I expected us to turn to the SSE towards Shanghai but never did. We kept going straight for Beijing and were now getting WAY out of the way. We had been making pretty good time but as we were getting close to Beijing I began to worry that we may be diverting!
Once we were almost to Beijing we then vectored south towards Nanjing and when we go to about Nanjing we FINALLY turned on a vector to Shanghai. This path I estimated added about an hour to our flight versus a direct route. The last time I flew to Shanghai we did not do this and kept on a beeline to Shanghai pretty much.
Anyone know what may have happened here? Is ATC in China really so limited in its flight paths? Did that occur because of the need to go around North Korean airspace? It seems that in other parts of the path, the changes in direction are only slight as each waypoint is hit. This seemed a bit extreme and I wondered if this was part of the filed flight plan and if we had fuel loaded to accommodate it.
Dont know if any of the pilots here can answer this one as they seem to be mostly domestic but I will try...
On a recent flight SFO-PVG, our flight path was pretty much a great circle up to the Aleutians and down over Siberia. We were on a dead reckoning path to Shanghai but I could see we were heading directly for North Korea. This was a few months ago but I remember that overflights had been banned by North Korea by then so I expected a jog in our flight path. As soon as we hit the China border with Russia we took a turn to the southwest on a vector to Beijing. We continued on that vector but when we were out of the way of North Korea I expected us to turn to the SSE towards Shanghai but never did. We kept going straight for Beijing and were now getting WAY out of the way. We had been making pretty good time but as we were getting close to Beijing I began to worry that we may be diverting!
Once we were almost to Beijing we then vectored south towards Nanjing and when we go to about Nanjing we FINALLY turned on a vector to Shanghai. This path I estimated added about an hour to our flight versus a direct route. The last time I flew to Shanghai we did not do this and kept on a beeline to Shanghai pretty much.
Anyone know what may have happened here? Is ATC in China really so limited in its flight paths? Did that occur because of the need to go around North Korean airspace? It seems that in other parts of the path, the changes in direction are only slight as each waypoint is hit. This seemed a bit extreme and I wondered if this was part of the filed flight plan and if we had fuel loaded to accommodate it.
There are two sets of routes in China. The more dense route structure, used for domestic flights, is controlled by the military, and non-Chinese nationals aren't supposed to know where all the airways and points are; naturally, foreign airlines on international flights cannot use this. There's another route structure, much more sparse, that's published to everyone and can be used by foreign airlines. That said, it's possible that only specific routes of those are allowed to be used by specific operators (or specific airports as origins or destinations).
Also the Russian routes there are pretty restrictive, there are only a few routes allowed for foreign aircraft, again by agreements with the carriers, leading to only certain points where you can cross into Chinese airspace.
Also keep in mind that the great circle is not in general the shortest air distance, once you take winds into account. If you look at flights between the west coast of the US and Europe on flightaware, most times of the year you'll see the eastbound and westbound are not symmetrical, and can be really far apart. Same thing for transcons, like SFO-BOS.
I've seen SFO-HKG to take a similar route to your flight, overflying Beijing after leaving Russian airspace and then heading SSE over China. I've also seen HKG-SFO fly pretty far east of Japan, over the water the whole way. The combination of winds and overflight clearances can take you pretty far from the great circle.
So... In my stalking of White Sox flights, I noticed they sometimes go to unusual airports which United does not offer service. So my question is, does the flight crew do anything special before landing at an airport they never have been to before? Or are these airports small enough that it doesn't matter?
Here's my question that a google search didn't see an answer to:
Any chance of UA mainline E190's? (Aside from financing and manufacturing availability of course)
Seems like UAX can't operate them due to scope clause.
So... In my stalking of White Sox flights, I noticed they sometimes go to unusual airports which United does not offer service. So my question is, does the flight crew do anything special before landing at an airport they never have been to before? Or are these airports small enough that it doesn't matter?
I haven't flown a charter in ages, but we have specific rules we follow when flying them. If we are going into an airfield that is not a normal airfield, ie a very small runway or something, then the company's engineering section works up a profile on the field to make sure we can get in and out of there, and the crew is provided the necessary paperwork and charts for the trip. Most of the time United will try to get the party to use a field we already have data on (not so much a United station, it could be an alternate we use, for example Rockford, IL) which would cut down the workload a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_flies_ua
Here's my question that a google search didn't see an answer to:
Any chance of UA mainline E190's? (Aside from financing and manufacturing availability of course)
Seems like UAX can't operate them due to scope clause.
Interesting question, and one I have asked our union about. What I have been told is the company just uses a catch-22 logic with the union on this. The Company comes to ALPA and says, we want to discuss E190's for UAX. ALPA says no, let us look at it. ALPA comes back and says we want to discuss E190's on property with United pilots flying them and the payrates. United then says we won't discuss payrates since we don't own any E190's. See the game there? They want it for UAX, which we will never do, but they won't even discuss it on United mainline since we don't own any??? So, who knows, but I would venture to say if we get E190's, it will be mainline, and not UAX.
AD
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Location: Nearly equidistant from EWR and PHL. Stranger in a strange land - a Devils fan in Phlyers country.
Programs: PWP Chief of Les Clefs d':rolleyes:, Sarcasm Diamond, Stupidity Hater Titanium, CO Silver
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
Interesting question, and one I have asked our union about. What I have been told is the company just uses a catch-22 logic with the union on this. The Company comes to ALPA and says, we want to discuss E190's for UAX. ALPA says no, let us look at it. ALPA comes back and says we want to discuss E190's on property with United pilots flying them and the payrates. United then says we won't discuss payrates since we don't own any E190's. See the game there? They want it for UAX, which we will never do, but they won't even discuss it on United mainline since we don't own any??? So, who knows, but I would venture to say if we get E190's, it will be mainline, and not UAX.
AD
Interesting. As much as I'd love to see more US airlines pick up E190's as replacements for missions flown by DL/NW DC-9's, and CO/UA small 737's (-300/500), etc. I think it's going to be a very contentious process. Not only will the unions make it difficult, but there's the real risk of alienating Boeing and Airbus.
__________________
The UDU is an African drum originated by the Igbo people of Nigeria. An EUA is an upgrade.|My FM|Our FM
Interesting. As much as I'd love to see more US airlines pick up E190's as replacements for missions flown by DL/NW DC-9's, and CO/UA small 737's (-300/500), etc. I think it's going to be a very contentious process. Not only will the unions make it difficult, but there's the real risk of alienating Boeing and Airbus.
Well, the unions will make it tough, and rightfully so, since it's our jobs. Look what happened when United was able to get E170's on property. Within a couple years they sat down the entire 737 fleet and cost 1450 pilot jobs at United Mainline. If United wanted to buy these planes and fly them, that would be an easy sell, but to let others buy them and fly them for United, that is a no go. So, the union rightfully fights them on that.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Does anyone have any information about flying on United under the Reciprocal Pilot agreement and how to list to do so. As well, what are the odds of getting upgraded on United when flying like this? Thanks
The other day on ch 9 I heard a pilot of a UA flight tell ATC he had a TCAS warning and that they were climbing.
1. How rare are TCAS warnings?
2. Do you always climb?
3. Is it possible two planes get the warning and both climb, possibly making the situation worse?
The other day on ch 9 I heard a pilot of a UA flight tell ATC he had a TCAS warning and that they were climbing.
1. How rare are TCAS warnings?
2. Do you always climb?
3. Is it possible two planes get the warning and both climb, possibly making the situation worse?
Here's the area of the thread that covers TCAS - not sure if all your questions are answered there, but it might give you a start:
2. Do you always climb?
3. Is it possible two planes get the warning and both climb, possibly making the situation worse?
Not a pilot, but relatively familiar with Honeywell/Sperry's early TCAS designs...
The TCAS units communicate with each other (ie each aircraft) and they negotiate vectors to avoid collisions. One aircraft would issue a command to the pilots to climb and the other would issue a command to descend (for example).
