Is the idea of "unexpected" fuel stops due to the strength and configuration of the jet stream totally unacceptable to some or is there some level of acceptability? I'm interested in whether people think the only acceptable level is zero or whether you are willing to put up with a certain level of incidents?

For example, the fellow in the other thread threatening legal action for fraud because of a single incident of a fuel stop due to a strong jet stream on a transcon would say that the acceptable level is zero.

Perhaps star_world would put the number at something like no more than a one month period of greater than 20% fuel diversion every 10 years. Uastarflyer would be somewhere in-between.

My point (as boring as it might be) is that different people have different preferences for this level. We all have our choice of carrier (unless you live in northern New Jersey). It is the UA's job to model our behavior and to make good business decisions based on their modeling of our behavior.

I'm sure UA is thinking about the impact of this unexpected weather and whether to rethink their assignment of 752s to CDG-IAD.

I'm not familiar with the previous UA schedule. Do you think they will upgrade from 752x2 to 764x2? Reduce frequency to 764x1 or 772x1? Eliminate it entirely?