AMflier

This stopping to refuel an A320 is not unheard of at B6.

There is a recent rant on the B6 board about a transcon that stopped for fuel at DEN, went MX, then the crew timed out stranding the passengers until the crew rested.

suranyi

In our situation at SMF, we were not parked at any gate while being refueled so it would have been difficult for anybody to get off. I don't know what would have happened if anybody had demanded to do so.

As far as the first point, having 97% of the required fuel to get to SFO, considering all contingencies, isn't enough. They need 100%.

Kamalaasaa

Friends of mine were supposed to fly BOS-DFW-LAX on Dec 17, but the BOS-DFW leg was delayed so they would miss their connection.

They were rebooked onto a BOS-LAX flight several hours later, but after they had boarded it was announced that the plane would be making a refueling stop due to strong headwinds. Turned out it was at DFW.

They did not arrive into LAX until 2AM PST.

saxman66

It probably also has to do with being overweight for the flight. Fuel is a few thousand pounds for a cross country flight.

eigenvector

Seems fairly common when airlines use RJs for mid-cons and unfavourable winds hit. For example, DEN-YUL on an E175.

dvs7310

Had something similar on a UA flight to SJO last year. We were severely delayed due to weather out of IAH then had to fly quite far east around a storm before heading south. In the end, SJO was cloud covered and they would have had to circle, so there was an extremely quick turn and landing in LIR for fuel and to wait out the clouds/storm over SJO.

Actually a lot of people did want to get off in LIR as that was actually where many of us were going anyway. Because of the long delays in Houston, already they had to start letting some people off, so the captain pleaded with passengers not to demand getting off in LIR since if we did they would then have to cancel the flight. They said it's due to it turning into a domestic flight in Costa Rica if they let anyone off in LIR, so the remainder of the flight would have to be cancelled. In the end everyone stayed on to San Jose.

In your case, I can imagine since it's all domestic then they would have to let people off if demanded, depending on the length of the delay, however I'm unsure what would happen to checked luggage if there was any.

TA

It seems such a waste to stop in Fresno, because if they already were planning the stop in advance before taking off, then just carry less fuel from the beginning. Stop in MCI or DEN instead, and avoid all that unnecessary fuel weight from JFK. Maybe use 1/5 to 1/4 less fuel compared to the nonstop?

jrl767

the airline's ops and dispatch teams run all the numbers for various scenarios before they actually file the tlight plan... some considerations might be:

• FAT isn't nearly as busy as MCI or DEN, so the total descent/approach time (and therefore fuel burn) is likely less
• if JFK ground ops and departure go really efficiently, they may not burn as much fuel as expected prior to takeoff
• if the enroute winds are less, or if they can request a couple routing changes -- "present position direct XXX" (where XXX is four or five waypoints ahead) -- during flight, they can save time and hence fuel

if any or all of the above happen, and the captain (in conjunction with ops) determines they can make it to SFO with required reserves, they can re-file well before starting the descent to FAT

yogimh49

Happened to me once going Phl-sea on a then US A320. Pilot was confident at first expecting earlier arrival in sea but eventually we stopped for fuel in Spokane, WA (GEG).

coolcoil

I've been on two diversions, on on AA and one on UA, over the last ten years where the airports we were sent to were the final destinations for some of the pax. In neither case were they allowed to deplane despite demanding to do so. In both of these cases nobody was allowed to deplane.

However, I have heard of passengers being allowed to stay if everyone had to deplane.

slawecki

during thunderstorm season, the RJ's had problems going the distance dca to dfw. the airline would leave a few passengers, and add fuel.

i presume freight is more profitable than people

jmastron

I gather the rules for fuel planning have gotten more nuanced/complex, and won't pretend to know them, but I believe they involve things like enough fuel to execute a full missed approach at the destination, go around and try again, then divert to an alternate. I can easily believe that SFO's missed approach and go-around is far more involved and fuel consuming than FAT's, beyond the 120 miles closer that FAT is.

To the second point, it depends -- I had a planned fuel diversion years ago on a UA 737-400 (I think) going from ORD-SMF (Sacramento) due to high headwinds; we stopped in Colorado Springs away from a gate. They did end up bringing up stairs to offload a sick passenger, which added a half hour or so to the stop, but probably wouldn't have let anyone else off (extremely unlikely COS was anyone's final destination on an ORD-SMF flight though). On the other hand, another poster here noted a fuel stop in SLC where they were allowed to get off and rebook direct to their destination.

LarryJ

Here is the rule for domestic operations.

14CFR121.639 — Fuel supply: All domestic operations.

No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;

(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and

(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption

glennaa11

I think the airlines should be required to give better explanations about what's going on in these situations.

I was majorly inconvenienced by AA back in August when we stopped at MCI on the way to PHX to refuel. It was an ancient ex-US A319. Boarding was delayed and rather chaotic but they did inform us that we'd be stopping for fuel. They only allowed people to board when they expected they would be able to make their connections. Once on board we were told by the captain that there was a problem with one of the fuel tanks and they were in the process of emptying it which was the reason we had to stop at MCI.

Missed my connection at PHX and got to PDX a few hours late. It was pretty much a clusterf*#@. Then of course AA tried to blame weather for the problem and refused any sort of compensation until I started contacting their VP of customer service. Essentially they told me I was lying about what the crew told us the problem was.

mileageplusorminus

I'm wondering how often this happens en route over the US mainland with a final destination in Hawaii. I've flown these non-stop routes for nearly 30 years now (ORD-HNL, or ORD-OGG, or JFK-HNL) and had a fuel stop only once when leaving Chicago and flying to one of the islands. We wound up refueling in Seattle while other scheduled non-stop flights that day refueled in other west coast cities. I would think this rarely occurs but perhaps I'm wrong???