Weird AA Delay Today: LAS-JFK
Jun 17, 2019, 10:54 am
#32
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: LON, between FAB and EGTD
Programs: OWS - AA Lifetime Platinum, BA nobody (blue)
Posts: 861
I had a similar experience RNO/DFW, albeit 737 not A321. 30 passengers off or a refuelling stop. We stopped to refuel at ABQ. The reason given was the temperature at RNO was unseasonably hot, so the assumed take-off weight for that date was not valid.
Jun 17, 2019, 11:05 am
#34
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: SAN
Programs: AA CK, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 839
I was once on an A321 which made a fuel stop from SAN to PHL due to weather and “congestion” at PHL. That was one flight out of hundreds I’ve taken over the years, probably a “perfect storm,” excuse the bad pun.
Jun 17, 2019, 11:22 am
#35
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: Does Non Rev count?
Posts: 588
Technically, at 2,000 feet and 3 miles vis, it is still VFR. But, if the WX was deteriorating, I would put more fuel on.
Last edited by 757FO; Jun 17, 2019 at 11:28 am Reason: typo
Jun 17, 2019, 11:29 am
#37
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: CoUniHound 1K 1MM, AA EXP 2MM, DL Plat, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,625
Hot air is less dense. LAS isn't exactly cool. The plane probably couldn't take off with the full load of fuel necessary to fly the flight plan and have the safety margin for the runway situation at JFK. So they either stop somewhere to take on more fuel or lighten the load. Why this seems to be a mystery is (dare I say) a mystery to me.
Jun 17, 2019, 11:32 am
#38
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New York City + Vail, CO
Programs: American Airlines Executive Platinum, Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador Elite
Posts: 3,225
Perhaps this is a loaded question, but I'm genuinely curious: would the Boeing 737 MAX's increased efficiency have handled this better? (Putting aside the aircraft's propensity to...fall out of the sky.)
Jun 17, 2019, 11:48 am
#39
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
There is also another factor belly freight in the narrow body world which sometimes happens.
Jun 17, 2019, 12:29 pm
#40
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: DCA/IAD & BUF
Posts: 1,395
A couple of years ago I was on a delayed departure out of STT. Pilot came on and said the total weight was more than estimated and we'd have to remove some fuel on the runway prior to departure. He specifically made a mention of more luggage than anticipated in addition to his total weight comment. In the same announcement, he said we'd then need to make an unscheduled stop at SJU to pick up additional fuel prior to flying back to the states. No conspiracy.
Can't recall if this was American or not, but 75% of my Caribbean flights end up being on American, so pretty good chance. This thread has me curious; am going to look for the boarding pass and aircraft type.
Can't recall if this was American or not, but 75% of my Caribbean flights end up being on American, so pretty good chance. This thread has me curious; am going to look for the boarding pass and aircraft type.
Jun 17, 2019, 1:04 pm
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wanting First. Buying First.
Programs: Lifetime Executive Diamond Platinum VIP with Braniff, Eastern, Midway, National & Pan Am
Posts: 17,483
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.
Jun 17, 2019, 2:01 pm
#42
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: Does Non Rev count?
Posts: 588
i'm a 777 CA, and had this happen the other day on my last trip. We took-off within 1K of MGTOW and flew for 12:45 minutes at our cruising altitude, and ended up landing about 20K below our MLW. Average fuel burn was 16K pounds per hour, so we didn't get below our MLW until 11:30 minutes into flight.
Jun 17, 2019, 2:21 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wanting First. Buying First.
Programs: Lifetime Executive Diamond Platinum VIP with Braniff, Eastern, Midway, National & Pan Am
Posts: 17,483
i'm a 777 CA, and had this happen the other day on my last trip. We took-off within 1K of MGTOW and flew for 12:45 minutes at our cruising altitude, and ended up landing about 20K below our MLW. Average fuel burn was 16K pounds per hour, so we didn't get below our MLW until 11:30 minutes into flight.
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, 2:22 pm
#45
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: Does Non Rev count?
Posts: 588