Weird AA Delay Today: LAS-JFK

Old Jun 16, 2019, 10:35 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rolling Lakes Yacht Club
Posts: 4,968
Originally Posted by cslovacek
Y’all hurt my head. The answer was given in the poster’s first statement. The pilot told them exactly why - it was a combination of 4 items.

C’mon people. There is nothing more to the story.
Yep.

Truth in this case, is stranger than fiction. The tangent speculation is entertaining, at least to me.
DataPlumber is offline  
Old Jun 16, 2019, 10:48 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Lifetime Plat, SPG Plat, AMEX Plat, Hertz PC, Travels too Much Platinum
Posts: 3,290
There was a thread here the other day about a 321 with a fuel tank that was inoperative that made a fuel stop in STL on BOS-LAX instead of cancelling the flight. That plane was N990AU operating AA167 on June 11, so not the same plane, but perhaps something similar?

Even the 2001-build former US A321s can do longer flights such as PHL-SFO (2,521 miles) westbound without much trouble even with winter jet streams. US waited to get the A321-200 with that range, rather than start out with the shorter range -100, so they could replace 757s on transcons. In spite of the info in Sabre and what the captain said, I have to think this was maintenance related. If it was a fuel tank out of service, the captain may not have wanted to announce that. But I have never, ever had a fuel stop eastbound from the West Coast on an A321.
wetrat0 likes this.
phlwookie is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 12:13 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYJ
Posts: 4,132
AA doesn't want a refuelling stop as much as you don't want a refuelling stop. It costs them money + possible accommodation etc.
Those who think AA is covering up some kind of conspiracy need to give your heads a shake.
iadisgreat, C17PSGR, wrp96 and 2 others like this.
cedric is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 12:51 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HND
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K
Posts: 1,230
Maybe a corporate suitor was trying to better-mask their trip to see the Oracle of OMA?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1SE0SO
tylerdurden4543 is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 1:34 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 77
Maybe they had to transport a dead body or prisoner related to national security and aren’t allowed to annouce it? Any super max prisons near there?
3sgtekb is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 5:09 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Programs: AA EXP, DL DM, SPG Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,125
Come on, people. DO you think AA would make a fuel stop if there was any choice not to? The cost of the fuel stop in fuel, crew time and potential missed connections on the other end is huge. How hot was it in Vegas yesterday? That also hurts performance.
nancypants likes this.
mizzou miles is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 8:31 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,138
Originally Posted by danwer930
the current construction closure of a major runway at JFK, some weather at JFK
Both of these factors will affect the amount of holding fuel that will be added during the flight planning process. Delays may, or may not, actually occur but the potential for delay will lead to planning additional holding fuel.

the gas required "to fly at the altitudes required to keep the flight smooth"
Lower altitudes burn more fuel. If turbulence at higher altitudes is significant then additional fuel will be boarded so that the flight can proceed at lower, less turbulent, altitudes. Lower altitudes will also have less wind. On an eastbound flight this would usually mean less tailwind so a longer flight at the lower altitudes requiring even more fuel.

that the plane was full.
You can't fill the tanks with max payload on any airplane. More fuel = fewer passengers or more passengers = less fuel.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 8:57 am
  #23  
formerly jackvogt
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Atlanta, GA
Programs: Delta SkyMiles,
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by audio-nut
The pilot was throwing out excuses that make very little sense. There were no arrival delays at JFK tonight so why mention the construction? Something doesn't add up.
I mean come on...it's clearly a conspiracy. AA is trying to make everyone's life a living nightmare. I am by no means an AA fan, but they can't seem to do anything right in some people's eyes. If they IDB 30 passengers, they risk making the news, if they have a fuel emergency because they try to make it the whole way, people get mad, BUT if they plan ahead, choose a location for a fuel stop, refuel and get everyone where they need to be, they still can't do anything right!! I will never understand.
ATLflyer2017 is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 9:15 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DFW
Programs: UA 1K, AA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by fly2nrt
Complete BS.

Runway construction at JFK? Weather at JFK? No problems landing 777's all day long but some bump-kiss A321 can't handle it? Wether was fine all day except for a quick afternoon shower. If they're going to make up excuses at least make them plausible.
The fact that 777's were landing and the "weather was fine" has nothing to do with fuel planning. If the cloud ceiling is forecast to be below 2000 feet above the field, or visibility less than 3 miles, alternate fuel is required. Add the fact they are probably metering arrivals into JFK, because they always do, and a runway is closed, they add fuel on top of that. All of the reasons given by the OP are totally plausible. No conspiracy.

This reminds me of a time I was on ANA JFK-NRT and the aircraft had to do a go around. The captain came on and told us this was due to being a "little heavy" for landing. Right... he was heavy for landing after burning fuel for 14 hours. No he had to do a go around because he screwed up the approach. (There's nothing even wrong with that!)
Of course it's possible to be too heavy after a 14 hour flight. Fuel burn calculations are done to a T and they probably took off at the maximum possible weight in order to land at maximum landing weight in JFK. But since the flight is 14 hours long, it's quite easy for the forecast winds aloft or weather to change slightly and the fuel burn was better than planned. Therefore they were slightly heavy on approach and decided to go around. They easily burned another 1 or 2 thousand pounds to circle around, which would be within landing weights. No conspiracy.
757FO likes this.
saxman66 is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 9:19 am
  #25  
 
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
As another poster said, it's not just a matter of distance. Takeoff performance also takes into account temperature, altitude, and weight. So because of the temperature yesterday and a lot of weight, the aircraft was too hot and heavy to go with a full load of fuel. So the pilot and dispatch decided to go with a full load of passengers and less fuel which required a stop somewhere.
C17PSGR is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 9:34 am
  #26  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Travel Safety/Security & Texas, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: AUS / GRK
Programs: AA, HHonors, Hertz
Posts: 13,467
This has been going on for years with the US A321's. Typically more often in the winter, but occasionally other times of year. There was a wicked storm moving through the midwest yesterday, so perhaps the aircraft had to take an alternate routing, causing more fuel.
Nothing new though, ever since US had the A321's with only 16F seats (about 2009 or so) this seems to occasionally happen.
arlflyer likes this.
aztimm is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 9:45 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: PVD, BOS
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,664
As mentioned up thread, AA696 was operated by N539UW; an A321-200 built in 2009. The current configuration is C16 Y171.

B6 748 was operated by N989JT; an A321-200 built in 2017. The current configuration is C16 Y143.

The AA plane has the capacity to carry 28 additional passengers. If both planes were full, one would expect the AA bird to have less range than the B6 bird. Clearly, this route is a stretch for the AA config of this plane in certain conditions. In the event of adverse conditions, this necessitates a fuel stop. Thus the AA captain's comment about having to offload 30 pax to make the flight without a stop, sounds entirely reasonable to me.
swingaling is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 9:58 am
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,451
Originally Posted by audio-nut
Westbound. Eastbound is almost unheard of and almost certainly AA isn't being 100% truthful.
Are you saying that the AA flight crew is deliberately lying to the passengers? I trust the flight crew's explanation, as they have to safely operate the flight. Perhaps you would rather play armchair quarterback here and question their judgement.
formeraa is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 10:10 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,511
Originally Posted by saxman66
The fact that 777's were landing and the "weather was fine" has nothing to do with fuel planning. If the cloud ceiling is forecast to be below 2000 feet above the field, or visibility less than 3 miles, alternate fuel is required. Add the fact they are probably metering arrivals into JFK, because they always do, and a runway is closed, they add fuel on top of that. All of the reasons given by the OP are totally plausible. No conspiracy.
No.

Originally Posted by saxman66
Of course it's possible to be too heavy after a 14 hour flight. Fuel burn calculations are done to a T and they probably took off at the maximum possible weight in order to land at maximum landing weight in JFK. But since the flight is 14 hours long, it's quite easy for the forecast winds aloft or weather to change slightly and the fuel burn was better than planned. Therefore they were slightly heavy on approach and decided to go around. They easily burned another 1 or 2 thousand pounds to circle around, which would be within landing weights. No conspiracy.
Also no.
fly2nrt is offline  
Old Jun 17, 2019, 10:45 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DFW
Programs: UA 1K, AA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by fly2nrt
No.



Also no.
So care to elaborate? What background do you have to make an assumption? Pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
BWISkyGuy and 757FO like this.
saxman66 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.