Originally Posted by
justhere
Mad that the airline didn't take a chance of running out of fuel and got you there safely?
Mad that the airline didn't make the delay longer by making everyone get off the plane while refueling in Kansas City?
Mad that the airline followed safety procedures and had the jet bridge connected and the door open while fueling?
Mad that the airline didn't slow the jetstream down so the refueling stop wouldn't be needed?
Mad that the pilot that got off didn't explain to you why he was getting off? By the way, how do you know he was deadheading?
I'm sure it was frustrating getting to your destination a couple hours late but it sounds like all of what you experienced was legit and handled correctly. (Other than it would have been nice if you were on an aircraft that had the fuel capacity and range so that you didn't have to make that stop even with the headwinds.)
As for the pilot that got off, you are just going to have to accept the fact that you are not likely to ever find out exactly how or why that came about. As others have noted, extremely unlikely that the airline used a fuel stop as an excuse to get a pilot to Kansas City. Other, cheaper ways to do that.
So, I guess the question is: should an airline be responsible for providing more than enough fuel to arrive at a destination safely in any weather condition?
And if the equipment cannot carry adequate fuel, should the airline be required to employ equipment that can routinely make it to the destination safely without making fuel stops?
I personally would prefer the answers to be "YES" to both questions, and would appreciate some small allowance due to inconvenience if the airline falls short. But alas, profit trumps all, and airline consolidation makes it difficult to have real choices, so we have to put up it. Luckily it doesn't happen too often.
Another proposed solution would be to retrofit all US metal with in-flight refueling capability...
