Weird AA Delay Today: LAS-JFK
Jun 17, 2019, 2:24 pm
#46
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: Does Non Rev count?
Posts: 588
Very interesting. That's still 2.5 hours less flying time or +/- 40K lbs of fuel but I concede your point that the poster who claimed "14 hours" likely didn't mean it as an exact time enroute. While I had ballpark numbers for 777 weights and fuel burns, obviously your real world numbers are better!
Do you commonly takeoff that close to MTOW?
In the bizav world, OEMs (or at least one of them) are obsessed with getting their MLW/MTOW split as narrow as possible to afford maximum unrefueled range.
Do you commonly takeoff that close to MTOW?
In the bizav world, OEMs (or at least one of them) are obsessed with getting their MLW/MTOW split as narrow as possible to afford maximum unrefueled range.
Jun 17, 2019, 5:20 pm
#49
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Jun 17, 2019, 5:51 pm
#50
Join Date: Mar 2003
Programs: former MD-88 jumpseat Medallion. DL FO, AA PLT PRO. Marriott LT Plat.
Posts: 752
I always answer "yes" to my captains when they call ... it gets them off the phone faster 
Back to this flight, I looked up AAL969 history in flightaware, and for TODAY 17JUN, it shows the flight flew JFK-MCI, then MCI-LAS. A321. So a westbound fuel stop the very next day after the eastbound OMA fuelstop the OP was detailing. I can't see tail numbers on flightaware, but then went to flightradar24.com, and it shows different tail numbers. So it appears it wasn't the same airplane, unless its bad data. I don't work for AA.
The plot thickens
Back to this flight, I looked up AAL969 history in flightaware, and for TODAY 17JUN, it shows the flight flew JFK-MCI, then MCI-LAS. A321. So a westbound fuel stop the very next day after the eastbound OMA fuelstop the OP was detailing. I can't see tail numbers on flightaware, but then went to flightradar24.com, and it shows different tail numbers. So it appears it wasn't the same airplane, unless its bad data. I don't work for AA.
The plot thickens
Jun 17, 2019, 6:16 pm
#51
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: DCA/IAD/WAS
Programs: MAR AMB, WOH Explorist, AA EXP, UA 2P
Posts: 2,138
It could be as easy as fuel in LAS is super expensive and it's worth it to take the diversion. Or the weather. Or any of the actual reasons stated by the pilots than the nonsense than has been conjectured in this thread.
Jun 18, 2019, 7:02 am
#52
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 812
The main efficiency in the 737MAX is its engines, which burn less fuel and have more range. So yes, a 737 MAX could handle this better (but I confess I can't quickly find the seating capacity to compare).
There is also another factor belly freight in the narrow body world which sometimes happens.
There is also another factor belly freight in the narrow body world which sometimes happens.
Jun 19, 2019, 8:13 am
#53
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 836
737 also has hot/high issues and extremely long take-off rolls, and high speed landings, due to Boeing essentially making a 707 with bigger and bigger engines. A lot more factors than just new engines on the MAX. 320 family will almost always perform better than a comparable 737 in take-off/landing limited situations due to being a newer airframe design.
Jun 19, 2019, 9:15 am
#54
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DL: Silver; AA: EX PLAT; UA: Silver; HY: DIA; HH: DIA; MR: TIT
Posts: 1,708
How much cheaper would the fuel need to be? 95% off of LAS prices at OMA?
Jun 19, 2019, 12:24 pm
#55
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: Does Non Rev count?
Posts: 588
We have supply contracts, and the price of fuel is usually negotiated upfront (hedging) for a period of time, so that the cost is usually the same in the United States. RoW can vary, but again is typically a fixed cost for a period of time.
Last edited by 757FO; Jun 19, 2019 at 12:25 pm Reason: Typo