diver858

Another example where loyalty, status DOES make a difference...

91foxbody

I was really, really, really happy to have qualified for MVP last week. I was dreading being one of those two people that was held off the flight.

jrl767

I don't know what the actual terminology is, and I'm pretty sure that crew scheduling algorithms take this into account when looking for replacement crew members, but both pilots and cabin crew members on DL mainline can bid a dedicated "Reserve" line rather than an assigned rotation for the month ... for those individuals, it probably doesn't matter what time of day the phone rings (other than sleep schedules)

Westcoaster

When our OAK-KOA flight had weight and balance issues last month they offered $400 cash in an attempt to get the 7 people they needed to get off. They made a big deal about how this was cash and not a voucher towards a future flight. Maybe that's their way of making it more tempting. The whole process took much too long in my humble opinion and I remember wondering why they didn't increase the offer to make the process move along.

beckoa

AFAIK AS doesn't offer beyond $400 at a time, although talking with an agent a few weeks ago, they have offered a "CSR voucher" on top of the bump one before to add leverage. Just what AS does.

Have had situations like this before ex-PUW on a Q400 (everyone had lots of luggage going back from school- been nearly a decade though).

UAPremierExec

Fll-sea took 12 volunteers on Saturday, was a 737-800. Kinda surprised, but figured it was due to winds.

beckoa

Wow.

This is a bit crazy. But not unprecedented. Guess AS can use the 73MAX

dmodemd

Maybe this really doesn't hit SkyWest because they just chalk it up to "weather" and it is Alaska Air that suffers. I am not sure how this is handled from a contractual perspective. Ops can't handle resolve so it is put on the customers.

danbrew

While I rarely would believe anything a gate agent has to say about the "why" in a delay or other ops exception, I'd be thinking if I really wanted to get on the plane in the first place if fuel was such a concern that they had to leave luggage behind.

The FAA is very specific on fuel requirements, yet if the airline is concerned about "using every drop" I guess I'd be concerned too.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.167

91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to -

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:

(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:
(i)For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
(ii)For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.

3Cforme

I'd call using every drop a casual, wholly non-technical explanation -- not the operating plan.

Delta's MKE-SEA the same day - also a SkyWest E175 - had an even longer total departure-to-arrival time according to FlightStats.

TA

Heavy winds indeed:

Raymoland

It's fairly rare that this happens. The 175 is a capable airplane. Yesterday MKE-SEA took a full load, all the bags and the flight time was 4:10 and there was room for nearly another 1,000lbs of payload. The fuel load was 90% of the maximum capacity of the airplane.

But, as the fuel load approaches the 95-97% range, the takeoff weight of the airplane goes down from 85,500lbs to about 83,000lbs. Embraer says this has to do with the wing loading of the airplane with the fuel out in the far outboard reaches of the fuel tanks. This leads to the situation encountered on Sunday where the fuel goes up only a little bit and suddenly the takeoff weight goes down 3,000lbs and you end up offloading a ton of pax. Personally I wonder if this isn't just an error in the math used to calculate the takeoff weight in the performance calculations but it's beyond my payscale to figure that out.

Finally the MKE station is really good about calculating weight restrictions in advance - they have always done the math before the inbound flight arrives - it's possible on Sunday they were taken by surprise with the obscure limitation cited above - possibly their planning software doesn't take account of the severe takeoff penalty at certain nearly full fuel loads.

Tracer_SEA

Posts like the one above are why I love FlyerTalk.

Thanks for the fascinating, detailed info!

pinniped

When were the 20 bumped pax told they would fly? On a DL flight leaving shortly thereafter? Or was there another AS flight that day?

$400 seems like a lowball offer unless there was another flight with a bunch of open seats 2-3 hours later.

beckoa

$400 is AS' standard offer.

Maybe some routed thru ORD?

Thanks for the insight @Raymoland ^