FlyerTalk Evangelist
Quote:
It can't have been head winds going east in the winter, so there must've been something else. Load restrictions on take-off almost make sense, but I thought that was a bigger issue in the summer due to the higher temperatures, not in the winter.
Without looking, high cross winds at BUR might have necessitated using the less-frequently used shorter runway (8/26) at BUR for the eastbound flight, leading to the fuel stop. That's happened before due to Santa Ana winds, which the LA area experienced last week. The rain over the weekend was accompanied by unusual wind patterns as well, which caused LAX traffic to reverse (landing from west, takeoffs to east). Neither BUR runway is long enough for takeoff of a fully fueled A320 on a transcon flight, especially when wind/temperatures deviate from the norm.Originally Posted by sbm12
Is BUR-JFK really required to make a tech stop that often?It can't have been head winds going east in the winter, so there must've been something else. Load restrictions on take-off almost make sense, but I thought that was a bigger issue in the summer due to the higher temperatures, not in the winter.
But I agree that it's a bigger problem due to high summer temperatures at BUR, which can hit 100+ in the afternoon on the hottest days.
Quote:
...that doesn't mean we should take every poor experience to the bank.
Let's get the facts sraight. Just because it was on the ground for 45 min, doesn't mean the delay was 45 min. And even yesterday it was not. Originally Posted by caphis
Uh, what? Flight 354 yesterday, for example, left BUR and landed in SLC at 1801 for a tech stop. It was airborne again by 1845. How about we tack on 30-45 minutes under normal conditions. If that were a controllable departure delay, then B6 still wouldn't have any compensation to offer, per the Bill of Rights. In the case of the OP, though, weather got involved, and threw everything off. Life's inconvenient like that, sometimes, but......that doesn't mean we should take every poor experience to the bank.
As someone else mentioned, it's all about managing expectations. But if it's more or less common knowledge that a stop will be required whether due to short runways & the heat in the summer or strong headwinds in the winter, this should be noted. Also, you can look at the data starting at september and get a 6% rate, or look at it in december and get a 20% rate. Maybe the winter schedule should include a tech stop.
When my flight is BUR-JFK and it came in from JFK, I can see why weather at JFK should be an issue, but weather at SLC is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, it's like saying just because it's snowing heavily somewhere in the US, I can delay your flight & blame it on the weather.
Quote:
No, but if we're talking about just how much of a delay the tech stop itself adds, we can probably come up with a rough 45 minute average. This itself is pretty high, given only a need to refuel on the ground. You can account for delays as far as climb and descent, as well, but they are overall negligible when you also factor in that the flight could be subjected to holding, ATC redirection, any number of otherwise uncontrollable factors.Originally Posted by Orion316
Let's get the facts sraight. Just because it was on the ground for 45 min, doesn't mean the delay was 45 min. And even yesterday it was not.
Quote:
As someone else mentioned, it's all about managing expectations. But if it's more or less common knowledge that a stop will be required whether due to short runways & the heat in the summer or strong headwinds in the winter, this should be noted. Also, you can look at the data starting at september and get a 6% rate, or look at it in december and get a 20% rate. Maybe the winter schedule should include a tech stop.
At 20%? This becomes a matter of subjectivity. I don't think even a percentage as high as 20 is "frequent." Your mileage may vary, as the case may be.As someone else mentioned, it's all about managing expectations. But if it's more or less common knowledge that a stop will be required whether due to short runways & the heat in the summer or strong headwinds in the winter, this should be noted. Also, you can look at the data starting at september and get a 6% rate, or look at it in december and get a 20% rate. Maybe the winter schedule should include a tech stop.
Quote:
When my flight is BUR-JFK and it came in from JFK, I can see why weather at JFK should be an issue, but weather at SLC is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, it's like saying just because it's snowing heavily somewhere in the US, I can delay your flight & blame it on the weather.
Then I'm not sure you understand the concept of air traffic. Weather at SLC may be irrelevant to you right now, but when you're the one in the air going through it, opinions change. If it's snowing heavily in your flight path, you'd care.When my flight is BUR-JFK and it came in from JFK, I can see why weather at JFK should be an issue, but weather at SLC is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, it's like saying just because it's snowing heavily somewhere in the US, I can delay your flight & blame it on the weather.
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Quote:
Um, no. Landing and taking off add significant amounts of time to the whole process. You can take your 45 minutes and at least double it.Originally Posted by caphis
No, but if we're talking about just how much of a delay the tech stop itself adds, we can probably come up with a rough 45 minute average. This itself is pretty high, given only a need to refuel on the ground. You can account for delays as far as climb and descent, as well, but they are overall negligible when you also factor in that the flight could be subjected to holding, ATC redirection, any number of otherwise uncontrollable factors.