Transcon Refueling Issues/Technical Stops
Sep 21, 2018, 9:47 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat
Posts: 88
Transcon Refueling Issues/Technical Stops
To bring up a thread that was closed earlier this year:
Why is Alaska Flying Planes That Can't Make it Cross-country on a Windy Day?
Last night on AS1357, because of weather, headwinds, and the limited range of the VX A320s, before we departed BOS, it was announced we would have to stop in SLC to refuel. That would not be the end of the world, except operationally there were delays that I perceive were due to poor airline operations. We sat on the ground in Boston for an hour to wait for paperwork to account for the new flight plan. To me it seems like AS should have known of the weather issues in advance and should have been more proactive to get paperwork in place before the scheduled departure time. Even worse, we sat on the ground in SLC for 70 minutes waiting for paperwork. Four hours had elapsed between our departure in BOS and our arrival in SLC, and it seems like the paperwork should have been ready when we arrived in SLC. Thus, we arrived in SFO 2.5 hours late. If AS had put a VX A321 on this route, this would not have been an issue.
This diversion was a lesson learned. I booked the flight out of loyalty to AS. Given I was in paid F, I should have gone with DL, B6, or UA and enjoyed an on-time arrival (they use planes with longer ranges than a non-sharklet A320), a lie flat seat, my choice of a meal (I never get my meal choice on this route on AS).
Why is Alaska Flying Planes That Can't Make it Cross-country on a Windy Day?
Last night on AS1357, because of weather, headwinds, and the limited range of the VX A320s, before we departed BOS, it was announced we would have to stop in SLC to refuel. That would not be the end of the world, except operationally there were delays that I perceive were due to poor airline operations. We sat on the ground in Boston for an hour to wait for paperwork to account for the new flight plan. To me it seems like AS should have known of the weather issues in advance and should have been more proactive to get paperwork in place before the scheduled departure time. Even worse, we sat on the ground in SLC for 70 minutes waiting for paperwork. Four hours had elapsed between our departure in BOS and our arrival in SLC, and it seems like the paperwork should have been ready when we arrived in SLC. Thus, we arrived in SFO 2.5 hours late. If AS had put a VX A321 on this route, this would not have been an issue.
This diversion was a lesson learned. I booked the flight out of loyalty to AS. Given I was in paid F, I should have gone with DL, B6, or UA and enjoyed an on-time arrival (they use planes with longer ranges than a non-sharklet A320), a lie flat seat, my choice of a meal (I never get my meal choice on this route on AS).
Sep 22, 2018, 12:04 pm
#3
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SFO, mostly
Posts: 2,204
It looks like you guys flew way north (skirting into Canada) to avoid flying through some severe thunderstorms in the upper Midwest. I get being frustrated, but weather issues are often dynamic, and blaming the airline is a bit short-sighted. Perhaps a more southerly route was planned but as the thunderstorms intensified and they received reports from other aircraft, it was decided to completely avoid the area, rather than merely adjust elevation? Also, you don’t appear to have been all that late leaving Boston; flightaware only shows about 25 min delay off the gate in 9/20.
Also true that diversion due to refueling would be a non-issue on a 737 or probably A319 or A321...
i hope by this winter the A320s will be mostly gone from transcons...
Also true that diversion due to refueling would be a non-issue on a 737 or probably A319 or A321...
i hope by this winter the A320s will be mostly gone from transcons...
Sep 22, 2018, 12:12 pm
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
There really was violent weather Thursday late afternoon and early evening in the upper Midwest. Some places got six or eight inches of rain in a couple hours, there were confirmed tornadoes, and lots of buildings and farms were damaged.
Sep 23, 2018, 12:58 pm
#6
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Las Vegas
Programs: DL DM, AA PlatPro, Hilton DM, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 1,532
This diversion was a lesson learned. I booked the flight out of loyalty to AS. Given I was in paid F, I should have gone with DL, B6, or UA and enjoyed an on-time arrival (they use planes with longer ranges than a non-sharklet A320), a lie flat seat, my choice of a meal (I never get my meal choice on this route on AS).
Sep 23, 2018, 1:43 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
Don't be so sure. Jetblue is well-known for winter / high wind diversions or technical stops in the midwest because their A320s / A321s are also at the outer envelope of performance in those conditions. Just like AS / VX. Until any of them get the A320neo. As with UA's 757s westbound across the Atlantic in winter, you may be disappointed if you adopt a categorical approach to believing any one carrier is better at this than another.
Last edited by TA; Nov 24, 2018 at 2:48 pm
Sep 23, 2018, 1:54 pm
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
OP's complaint is that he chose to fly a carrier with an aircraft which does not meet his personal operational needs, when there are, as he points out, multiple alternatives.
Putting aside yesterday's particularly poor weather, it does not take much to push the aircraft into planned diversion territory.
My only thought is that knowing that AS operates an aircraft on the margins of its capability and that there are alternatives, why not book one of those?
Putting aside yesterday's particularly poor weather, it does not take much to push the aircraft into planned diversion territory.
My only thought is that knowing that AS operates an aircraft on the margins of its capability and that there are alternatives, why not book one of those?
Sep 23, 2018, 2:38 pm
#9
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SFO, mostly
Posts: 2,204
Sep 23, 2018, 3:22 pm
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
But, are used on higher PRASM-routes (one presumes). Perhaps the better way to put this question is, "if AS reassigns an aircraft to this frequency, from which frequency should it take the aircraft?"
Sep 23, 2018, 4:14 pm
#11
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,847
...and B6 Mint configured A321s also have no problem on trans cons which is one of many reasons to use then on longer routes. Thus the OP was severely misinformed about the capabilities of the AS/B6 A321s.
Sep 23, 2018, 6:30 pm
#12
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AA Plat Pro
Posts: 1,158
A320ceo has a 78t MTOW. A321ceo has a 93.5t MTOW. The 30 extra pax will not weigh 0.5t each.
Sep 23, 2018, 8:47 pm
#13
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
Alaska has no A321, only a few A321neo. I see that Alaska has pulled A320's from the SEA-JFK in favor of 737's only. They say they are moving to have the A319/A320 on north-south routes on the West Coast. Maybe pay attention to the plane when booking?
Sep 24, 2018, 10:21 am
#14
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,830
Sep 24, 2018, 11:33 pm
#15
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AA Plat Pro
Posts: 1,158
Sure, if you want to get into the details it’s got 6t extra empty weight, and about 3t extra passengers. That still gives it 6t extra fuel when weight limited.