craz

LawFlyer

I believe that its not only that CO doesnt have the 767 or 777 available but even if they did , that CO probably wouldnt be using them as with the 757 they can fill it and make a decent Buck , Im Positive if CO wasnt making any $$$ on any of the routes that after X months they would simply walk away and retaining the slots isnt why they fly the route.

Not sure if they used a 767 or 777 that they will be able to fill it with passengers and cargo. So CO would from a Biz view rather fly a 757 that makes $$ for them then a wide-body that at best brakes even or losses $$

Either way they should be more forth coming about the Fuel Stops.

cerealmarketer

If they couldn't use the 757,there would be no nonstops period on any airline from HAM/TXL or those smaller cities to New York. (OK, Delta aside for a few...that won't last long with their cost issues).

The problem is the uncertainty. Booking a connecting flight would probably take as much time as a nonstop with fuel stop, but at least you would plan connecting flights to match the 2nd flight's arrival time.

In the fuel stop cases, the infuriating thing is having a connection booked from the nonstop that you miss because of the fuel stop. A lot of seasoned flyers wouldn't know to plan for this, but sadly yes, it is legal to say it's because of weather.

If they enforced a different minimum connect time seasonally, the issue would be taken care of.

Would be really curious to know if CO seasonally pads the turnaround time for these aircraft, knowing the probability of fuel delays, but doesn't pad the scheduled flying time shown to pax ccordingly. Can't imagine CO has an incentive to cascade delays through the system, unless these aircraft happen to stay isolated in the schedule.

rkkwan

Right now, I think there are at least 15 daily 752s flights EWR-Europe, some days more. Most of them just come back and sit until the evening for another run. There are some West Coast, CLE and Florida flights using the 752s, but I think 4-5 of them coming back late due to fuelstops isn't going to disrupt the schedule that much.

Anyways, this is an issue and I'm glad I raised it and someone else here also agree CO has a problem here. Somehow, when I raised the same issue on the CX board, the responses are mostly "Yeah, so what?" about one of their LAX-HKG.

I also predicted that DL will have problem with their BOM-JFK in the winter. I was correct, though not as bad as I thought it would be.

yellow77

If CO are unwilling to reaccommodate passengers properly when there is a delay, then 18% is not acceptable. I retract my defense.

LawFlyer

CerealMarketer, you make good points. Yet in my situation, it is far preferable to make a scheduled stop ex-TXL/HAM (in FRA or CDG or AMS, whatever) to get to IAH/DFW than it is to risk the "will-we or won't-we" on the 757s. You posit (reasonably) that booking a connecting flight would likely take as much time as CO's unscheduled fuel stops. But that does NOT bear out with travelers like me from large hubs like IAH and DFW that do have nonstop service from Europe, just not specifically from HAM/TXL.

For instance, routing HAM - FRA - IAH on Lufthansa makes a 13-hour total journey. But CO's "fuel-stop" technique of HAM - EWR - IAH gave me a 17-hour total journey, and that's when they WERE able to re-accommodate me. On the forced overnight in the hotel, that was a complete loss. Or, let's look at the local market: HAM - EWR with CO's "fuel-stop" technique was 12 hours. That is longer than Lufthansa's published routing of HAM - FRA - EWR. And, the benefit of the scheduled stopover (as you point out) is that the carrier can more easily re-accommodate the misconnects.

And again as you've pointed out, CO may legally be able to say these delays are related to weather. But my point is not that is is illegal. My point is that is is misleading. As someone pointed out upthread, if my car failed to get me to my lawfirm or the courthouse 20% of the time in the winter, I'd buy a new car. But please understand that I'm not saying CO isn't making money on the 757 trans-A routes, even taking the losses incurred with the fuel stops. I also support their choice to hold down the routes, fly them, and grow them until more appropriate lift comes on line. What I do NOT support is their intentional marketing of these flights as nonstops, knowing that this equipment is not truly suited to all contingencies. . .and then refusing to properly accommodate the pax when the equipment cannot handle NORMAL weather over the North Atlantic.

In short, CO knows that running a 757 from TXL to EWR in January is a skin-of-the-teeth operation on performance limits for the aircraft. Yet the CO pax get penalized when CO fails to accommodate the misconnects on other carriers, citing "weather" for the delay. Legal? Probably, though I can think of several theories of recovery one might bring suit under to show that CO intentionally misleads its pax by saying that "weather" caused the delay when, in fact, their having dispatched improper equipment caused it. Consider:

Two large cruise ships pull out of the Port of New York headed for England, with one of them fully loaded with fuel and the other only partially loaded with fuel (because the second ship chose, instead, to take extra cargo instead of full tanks of fuel). The ships encounter normal (expected) weather on the crossing, including the usual storm or two and unfortunate wind patterns that sometimes come along. The first ship (fully loaded with fuel) makes it to England. But the second ship runs out of fuel mid-crossing, and then the passengers learn that the cruiseline purposefully chose to take on more cargo and pax at the expense of taking sufficient fuel. The cruise line responds, "But we make it 80% of the time." Um...

The second cruise ship should not be heard to say, "Absent that awful storm, we would have made it to England," especially when such storms are NORMAL and EXPECTED -- and, more pointedly, when the first ship made it safely to port (through the same storm) because it did the right thing: took more fuel and fewer cargo pallets.

Now, I fully understand that 757s cannot just "take more fuel and fewer cargo pallets" absent specific modifications. But extra fuel pallets ARE, in fact, available for commercial airliners as we all know. And I'm not even suggesting that CO should do that, so please don't flame me with all those counter-arguments. What I am suggesting is that we would have very little sympathy with the second cruise ship when it runs out of fuel mid-crossing because it DID have the opportunity to properly prepare for the crossing's requirements.

Bottom line, would any of us stand for the second cruiseline's saying, "It's not our fault, so the costs of delay are on YOU?" Well, that's what CO does, in my opinion. Again, weather doesn't cause the delay; sub-par equipment for the particular route causes the delay.

cova

CO likely should schedule these flights as one-stop, direct flights in the winter and add the appropriate time in the schedule. If you do not have to stop - then great - you get in early. Then connections sync up with later flights - and if you get in early, maybe you can get on the earlier flight.

I think most would rather have the direct flight (with fuel stop) then to have to connect - so these flights are of significant value. I think CO can do a fuel stop in about 45 minutes - so not a big hit in the schedule - if the stopped is planned.

sbm12

The big issue is the lack of accomodation, not the stop. B6 is in a similar situation with all their flights from JFK to the west coast on the A320, and they've had a lot of fuel stops in Jan/Feb over the past couple years. Their planes almost all do immediate turns and often get back to JFK close to on time. They don't advertise the fuel-stop issue, and I agree with that philosophy as much as I agree that CO shouldn't advertise it either.

But the point that LawFlyer makes about blaming it on WX instead of taking the responsibility is where it gets silly.

Ultimately the airlines will continue to use WX and ATC as their excuses for everything because it is basically a get out of jail free card for them. Until people either stop flying the routes (which probably won't happen, because even with the dealy they are often the best route) or someone makes the airlines behave responsibly, we're stuck with it.

Then again, we all know about these issues at some level or another. There are frequent posts here about cxn timing and outbounds to Europe, and invariably the answer is to take an earlier flight from PVD/WAS/BOS/etc. So maybe the correct answer is to just schedule the later connection (since there is no earlier flight) and either enjoy the PC in EWR or standby for the earlier flight if possible. Of course, the non-seasoned traveller gets hosed on that, since they won't have planned appropriately, but such is the way life goes sometimes.

Yes, I understand that I shouldn't have to schedule extra time in EWR because CO flies a 757 to its limits. But that's the reality of the situation, and I can't change it, so I'm learning to live with it.

rkkwan

Most of the stops take about 40 minutes on the ground, but still adds about 1:30 to the total travel time, if everything else aren't delayed.

craz

I know a number of Die-hard JB fans /flyers who Refuse to fly JB in the Winter any longer because of this. They go with AA/UA/or DL out of JFK

Some even wont get on another JB flight anywhere any time , cause JB knew all along that the flight from the Left Coast to JFK were gonna have to make a stop and nothing was told to them

If it happens every so often and NOT on a regular basis then I understand not mentioning it but if they knew all along that Most Likely the plane will hav eto stop then its Dishonest not publizing it

WillTravel

So if you know you have a fair chance (20% or whatever) of this happening to you, and you have to make a connecting flight (in my case the scheduled time is 60 minutes), what should you do proactively in advance to minimize hassle?

rkkwan

60 minutes is not enough for a flight coming back from Europe to EWR and connecting, in the first place. I used to book people coming back from Hong Kong (not a problem) with 90 minutes connection to IAH, but the chance of missing is so high that I just book them with the 150-minute connection to start with. If the plane comes in on-time, then just standby for the earlier one.

In general, CO is pretty good in rebooking people for late flight arrivals. Most of the them, that's already been done before you arrive at EWR. If you have luggage, just go find a redcoat outside the customs exit and he'll take care of you - retagging bags and issuing BPs.

If you don't have bags, you can even just to go the gate for the next flight and chances are they have BPs waiting for you there.

MBM3

Regardless of the destination or equipment, I try to give myself at least 2-3 hours when connecting through EWR on international flights.

LawFlyer

You could politely ask CO to put you on a later connection, thus building in a buffer if you make the fuel stop. So:

If you do NOT make the fuel stop, consider yourself early and try to stand by for the earlier flight. If you DO make the fuel stop, you can remain calm in knowing that you are booked on the later flight, so who cares if you miss the first connection.

Remember, my issue was not *truly* the fuel stop (though I have had my fill of it and will not give another dollar to support it). My issue was the subsequent connection debacle and CO's nonaction to help out pax it knew it had a large chance of inconveniencing at the first sign of a nippy bluster over Greenland (wow, what a shock in January).

It may come down to whether you want to risk (1) having to wait in the P-Club for your onward connection even though you arrived on time after all, or (2) missing your onward connection and NOT being protected on the next flight because you chose to risk being on time. At this time of year, I would take the first choice, knowing that the worse that can happen is an on-time flight, no diversion for fuel, and a warm P-Club for a glass of wine and a spin through Le Monde (or Hamburgische Zeit, or whatever).

Yes, I'd rather wait around in a P-Club than wait around on a frozen tarmac at the top of the world.

Just book the later connecting flight. Or, then again, chance it. Take your pick, my friend.

ralfp

Would it be legal to say it was because of weather if CO relied on wind conditions that were only valid < 50% of the time (at least half the flights had to divert or fuel)? How about if 90% had to divert? How about 99%?

What if CO said WX was responsible because there were not enough tailwinds make the US-Europe flights? Would that be okay?

IMHO having a 20% diversion rate (if true) because of wind means that CO is out of line using the WX excuse. Wind is not like a storm over an airport; wind is always there, just to varying degrees. Wind is not an unusual or unexpected event.

Wind can also be compensated for by increasing fuel carried/lowering cargo load. If CO planned properly, the diversion rate could be dramatically lowered. They don't do this because they know the can carry more pax & cargo (more rev), all while using the wx excuse (no compensation) if the flight, predictably, does not make it .

WillTravel

I probably should have done so, but the timing with the short connection was so convenient that I couldn't resist (plus I booked it on the 25000-mile special for SEA-CGN and I was just glad to see something). I think our connection last summer back from Berlin through EWR was 1 hour, 20 minutes and we managed to get to the connecting flight before boarding started. Anyway, thanks for the tips - I'll hope for the best and expect the worst.