Mr.Airport, I checked and both state and federal are levied on jet fuel.

For example: http://www.revenue.state.az.us/rulings/tpr94-9.htm

The Atlanta Journal & Constitution had an article about the practice of buying fuel where it is at the lowest price. Airlines do depart with less than full tanks so that they can buy cheaper fuel at their destination.

But ORD wasn't the destination. Not the same thing.

You know, kids, different planes, even the same make and model have different ranges, for example Boeing charges more money for 737-700's with a higher gross take-off weight rating which translates to a longer range since it can carry more fuel. Sometimes it is necessary to substitute a shorter range plane.

Usually extra fueling stops occur in the summer, when high temperatures make the ail less dense, reducing take-off weight.

Hi yall,

As someone who once worked in operations for a major carrier:

The planned en-route fuel stop isn't unusual. Yes, airlines try to leave the gate with as little fuel as possible to save money (the heavier a plane is, the higher it's fuel burn rate will be). But they don't plan an en-route stop just so they leave with less fuel; the cost of that stop would far out weigh any fuel savings.

One possible explanation is bad weather at Denver and extending for several hundred miles from there. While they may want to leave with as little fuel as possible, they must plan on the worst possible scenario. At a minimum, the airlines must depart with enough fuel onboard to fly to the destination (taking into account forecast head/tailwinds), hold for 45 minutes, make an approach to the runway, go "missed approach", divert to an alternate airport and touch down at the alternate with 30 minutes still in the tanks. The alternate airport is selected by the flight's Dispatcher with the Captain's approval. For an airport to qualify as an alternate the weather forcasts must anticipate that the visibility must be at least "x" miles and the cloud base no lower than "xx" feet. It does no good to have fuel onboard to go to an alterate if you can't garuntee that you'll be able to land there.

If the weather surrounding Denver that day was terrible for several hundred miles out, then instead of listing Colorado Springs as the alternate, maybe Kansas City or Salt Lake had to be used. The flight probably left EWR (and landed at ORD) with enough fuel to make it to DEN, but not to go from DEN to the alternate and still have reserves.

As for the choice of ORD, I agree that on the surface it looks like a bad decision. But there are so many factors that come into play that given the day's circunstances, ORD may have been the lesser evil.

If weather was the true factor in selecting ORD, I'd think the weather at MDW should be the same. IMHO, although the MDW terminal is a zoo, the airport itself seems easier to get in/out of, especially if the plane doesn't need a gate.

Over Christmas, I flew to South Bend, about 100 miles E of Chicago, and it was a dream!! No delays from the east, plenty of gate space, and the runways/taxiways were sufficiently cleared of snow.

[This message has been edited by Viajero Joven (edited 12-29-2000).]

Also, I took ground school 15 years ago but never got my license, but I vaguely remember something about high altitude airports - doesn't the plane need to have less weight or something to takeoff from high altitudes like DEN? So maybe they loaded less fuel than full? I could be totally off, just a vague recollection of something like this.

Yes, a high altitude requires more runway to take off (lower air pressure, and you need air to fly). Not sure about landing, but at the end of a flight (scheduled), fuel is low, so weight should not be a problem.

Since the flight departed from EWR, altitude was not a factor.


[This message has been edited by JS (edited 01-17-2001).]