Yeah, I've been a frequent flier for more than a decade now, and I had never heard of domestic refueling stops until now. I have been on weight-restricted flights before, but I guess it's easier for the really large carriers with more extensive networks to reaccomodate a few passengers than for one like B6 with limited connection alternatives. Also, B6 doesn't have to worry about reaccomodating pax who miss their connections on to Asia or Austrailia, which would probably be a major concern for UA, NW, etc.

Before reading this thread, I would have been quite surprised and annoyed if I were told we had to make a refueling stop because we didn't have enough gas to go the whole scheduled flight. Now I would just be annoyed. :(

A 1h delay I can usually deal with in the middle of the day. But if it's a late evening flight, and all I want to do is get back to the left coast, then I would be more annoyed.

Last July I was on a CO flight from DEN to EWR when due to heat in Denver and storms in the EWR area the 737 either had to leave 40 people or stop in MKE for fuel. CO picked the stop and it only took about 40 minutes. Frustrating, but not the end of the world.

Very good points. Until this happened, I wasn't aware this was an issue for the A320. One of the reasons I started flying B6 vs CO was that CO put so many 737s on their transcon routes. As a lowly silver elite, upgrades didn't occur very often and I preferred the legroom of B6. Anyone happen to know if the 737 has the same issue?


I don't think the inbound passengers disembarked in ABQ. My wife was waiting in SAN for the flight to show up, then turn around and head back to NYC.

OR they could have left the cargo and some of the baggage behind.

Depends what model; some are designed for longer range ops. But I don't think this is really a question of which models are more likely to require refueling stops, but rather how the airlines are routing their planes and whether they can cope with periodic strong headwinds without having to make fuel stops.

An airline with more than one type of plane has the option of redeploying their aircraft to make sure they can handle the non-stops during the most challenging times of the year, (i.e. move 757's to longer routes and A320's to shorter ones), but JetBlue doesn't have this option since they only have one type of large jet.

I don't think the Next Generation 737's has this issue to the same extent the 320 does. The 737-700 has a range of a good 1000 or so miles longer than the A320. I think Jetblue's 320's have a range in the 2700 mile area, while the 737-700 has a 3800-ish mile range. JFK-LGB is just under 2500 miles.

But, the head winds will take their toll on the 737 as well. Westjet flies a 3500-mile range 737-800 from Vancouver to Hawaii (2700 miles) and has had to make the odd fuel stop in San Francisco on the westbound leg.

I don't believe so. I flew DCA-LAX on AS's non-stop on 2/16, the significant winds pushed our flying time to ~ 6h40m :eek: but we didn't divert for fuel... (737-700)

When I read this at first, I didn't get it -- SFO isn't really on the way from YVR to HNL. Then I figured it out: there's nowhere else to stop along the way, so you'd better take that detour to SFO and gas up to get a short enough route overwater!

I know it's all taken into account by the airlines and that the fuel calculations have to be correct for any aircraft, but it is a little disconcerting that they're flying a plane on a route where it can't always make it all the way to dry land. I guess the weather forecasts are accurate enough that they don't have a problem with this happening unexpectedly along the way. I wish our regular weather forecasts were that good! ;)

Yeah, it didn't make much sense to me either at first. But I checked the Great Circle Mapper and SFO is 300 miles closer to Hawaii than YVR, so I guess they wanted to build that extra margin in. They have been taking a bit of a hit on public relations (not to mention the jabs on the Air Canada forum LOL), since it adds a few hours to the advertised non-stop flight.

Was on 173 on 2/22, stopped MSP. Just think the wrong aircraft for these flights. Checked AA, DL, UA and they all made JFK-SFO without stopping. Our arrival in SJC was 90 minutes late. Anybody read USA Today on 2/22? I think jetBLUE better be careful.........growing too fast and a big mistake with the Embraer 190. Should have kept to one aircraft.................the success of WN.

I don't think the 190 is a bad move. Trying to copy Southwest is probably a fools game unless you think you can take them on and beat them. I think Jetblue probably wants to take on the legacy carriers more than they want to fight SW, and to do that, they need to have an aircraft that they can serve smaller markets with.

maybe they got to Spring for the A-321s and keep them for the TransCons

Just did BOS-SEA without a stop, but we flew a bit north into Canada (not too far--we still flew over one of the Dakotas and Montana). Flt took 10 minutes extra, but since the SEA-JFK was still at the gate when we arrived, arrival time was 20 minutes late. The plane was full, but likely lots of $59 promotion fares.

As expected, on the return, took off 35 minutes late, landed 5 minutes late, due to tailwinds. A quick turn and the next flight could have been on time.

You mean the A319? The A321 has less range than the A320.