I know.....and I can emphatically state: Nope. We don't do this. During ATC delays and weather re-routes, we are hostage to whatever ATC is running. We fuel for the route we are re-routed to. Once airborne, ATC can make changes to the route depending on arrival flows and weather restrictions on each arrival. When they see they can slot one into the 'shorter' route, they'll do that. We can certainly request a shorter route once airborne (and it's always free for us to ask), but I will once again repeat that we would never delay on the ground in order to take a shorter route and save fuel......saving the company $200 at that point is absolutely the lowest priority with respect to getting 125 of you on your way.

I suspect you were originally re-routed to a SAT arrival that we have (requiring a longer distance from DFW), and once airborne they were able to get you onto the RIICE arrival, which comes in over College Station. Your departure out of DFW was most likely delayed due to one or more of the departure 'gates' being shut down, which requires ATC to route ALL traffic over the open gates. If you have four departure gates which normally handle 100 departures/hour and you cut it down to two, you can see the snowball effect that takes over in hour one, hour two, etc.

DRW

As always, our resident pilot makes a definitive ruling for us ^

What would we do without him -- spew meaningless speculation back and forth all day? We're quite adept at that

Thank you for chiming in doobierw!

Plus 2 the additional customers were very happy

The delay you incurred was most likely due to our requirement to obtain a new dispatch release and flight plan. When we are re-routed we are required to get the new paperwork, flight plan filed from dispatch in Houston, clearance re-route from ATC clearance delivery, etc. This generally takes quite a bit of time to happen. If we are at the gate, ops can take the opportunity to onload more passengers......which changes our load numbers, fuel requirements, etc. We have a legal requirement to get off the gate and/or airborne with a minimum amount of fuel. If we are under that number prior to takeoff, we are required to return to the gate. We generally have a bit of cushion on our fuel upload, but when our route changes (by say, several hundred miles) it often requires all new numbers. To you it might only be 85 gallons, but for us it means being legal to make the flight (My pilot license is on the line.....not yours. Please understand my desire to do things by the book and not end my professional career 17 years early.)

As a passenger you don't have the big picture. As a pilot, I don't either. It's possible ATC slapped slot restrictions on departures and one of the next arrivals or departures was cancelled. At that point, they have 50 people to find seats for. With an airplane at the gate with 20 open seats, and getting re-fueled, the solution is real obvious......to someone. Generally not you, or I.

DRW

Thank you to those with productive comments and feedback. i never have issue with adding fuel as I prefer to have enough to get to where we need to go safely. The decision to add passengers was at the same time as fuel and announced before we pulled into the gate again. The pilot said something about having to be routed towards Abeline which now looking at the map is quite west and out out of the way from DAL to IAH. If something changed with our take off slot while at the gate a simple announcement would have helped understand why a 'few minutes' to add fuel was 20 and that maybe we were no longer in a rush but that didn't happen.
I know airline employees have each have difficult tasks and I appreciate those on this board who provide inside input. I wouldn't be monitoring this board if I didn't enjoy flying CO and have a keen interest in the airline. When situations like this and the ensuing mis-connects happen I try to remember we are all doing our jobs. However, as a customer all I ever ask is to be informed of what's going on in a timely manner.
In regards to doobierw's input I absolutely understand and please don't misunderstand me questioning any of that. My frustration with this whole thing may be founded in lack of information which goes back to my prior comment about being kept informed. I've been on delayed flights with very good updated information and others without. In the end it's beyond the flight crews control but passengers take it all in better when they know current infromation as the fluid situation changes.
I'll let this issue go as just the start of a bad day.

Thanks,

I understand your pain. We're often in the same situation as aircrew. The company asks that we keep the passengers updated with timely info. It's not uncommon for ATC to cancel departures for certain gates, with the next update at ____z. Sometimes that's an hour or two away, and so we'll try and pass that along. In the interim, there's really nothing to say..... As a passenger, you see planes departing and wonder why we're not moving, or saying anything. Our departure gate is closed, and we're stuck on the field with the other 15 planes trying to get out that way.

Generally, crews will pass along the info, if we have any. Sometimes you get a crew that handles those type situations just a bit differently and go into their shells and just wish it away. You tell folks you should be airborne in an hour, and then they hold you to it. An hour later, it becomes another hour. You get to the point where you just don't know what to say.....and nothing you can say will satisfy anyone.

DRW

+1 CO Insider's time should really be used for more productive issues.

I think it was a good decision for CO to decide to add additional folks.

Plus, you never know, they were likely going to wait anyways so adding more passengers didn't actually incur a departure penalty.

While I can be hard on CO at times, I have to agree they don't deserve it here.

It seems they used the best available information at the time, and you don't seem to have anything to prove otherwise, let alone even cast a doubt on anything.

Did someone slip you some blue COol-Aid into your coffee this morning?

In my earlier post, I should have acknowledged your reference to not having received timely information. As doobierw noted, we can often do a better job of keeping customers informed. I have always tried to do that, but there have been days where, due to multiple distractions, I've realized it's been 45 minutes to an hour without my having made a PA to the passengers.

Your post reminds me how important it is to update passengers throughout a delay. Thank you very much for your observations and input.

What surprises me is that the extra fuel required for the alternate route would be enough to make the aircraft overweight for landing when the original route was taken. Are the jungle jets that sensitive as far as fuel weight goes? Although I don't have the numbers, I'd always assumed that on the larger jets you could have several hours of extra fuel on board and still be okay for landing.

Rah! Rah! We're the best!

LMAO!!!

The fuel issue is equally an issue whether it is an RJ or a larger airplane. It all comes down to payload management. An airline wants to put as much payload on board as possible but of course still allowing for the required fuel (a side note...very few airliners can take full payload and full fuel at the same time...it is either one or the other) so it becomes a balancing act. In the case originally described (and I have had the exact same situation on DAL-IAH flight, I used to be a pilot for XJT) you are maxed out on payload to figure that you will land right at max landing weight. That means that any weight over max landing weight at time of departure can only be fuel as you will burn that enroute. If a normal DAL-IAH uses 2000 lbs and the new route uses 3000 lbs and after fueling for a 3000lbs burn you get the shorter original flight you can see how now there is 1000lbs too much fuel on board. Small jets don't have fuel dump so only way to get rid of it is by burning it.

This is fascinating. So why don't pilots routinely reject the shorter route under such circumstances? Circling has to be mildly riskier, more cognitive load to track. Under this reasoning, it would be idiotic to insist on flying the shorter route then circling, wouldn't it?