So I'm on UA891 from LAX to NRT yesterday and ran into foul weather at NRT and all the incoming flights were on a half hour holding pattern for landing. I was listening to the chatter on channel 9 and especially the conversation between NW1 and the NRT tower. NW1 was trying to request to jump the queue because it didn't have enough fuel for a 1/2 hour hold. That's kind of scary to think that an international flight over water didn't take on enough fuel for possible weather related delays! Are some of the airlines trying to save money by loading less fuel for flights? NW1 finally had to divert to Haneda because NRT flight control refused to let it land ahead of other holding flights. I don't think I would be taking any Northwest flights in the future.

Wow, that is scary, because that flight comes in from DTW, and continues onto MNL

i was on that plane into MNL in December, and the crowds in front of the gate was horrendous

and I could understand the problem, if they had a full jet, and had a delay out of DTW

--------

they also purposely left 60 bags in NRT as they had weight problems, and capacity problems. so NW needs to figure out how to get this fixed

Isn't Channel 9 great?

nwa.com shows that NW 1 diverted to OKO which is Yokoto Air Base... ?
I guess they didn't have enough reserve fuel as that plane was a B747-200 *yuck* and they could have taken on more fuel since LAX-NRT is well within the range of a fully-fueled B747-200.

yes, 747-200 is uck

range is never a problem. maybe the weight is a problem, and severe tail winds along with taking less fuel

If the aircraft was under its FAA diversion fuel loading minimums, NW will be written up for it. You may be able to see the incident online at faa.gov.

<G>

Keep in mind that the diversion happens well before the aircraft is "running on fumes." It happens at a point well before the aircraft has the minimum fuel to reach the alternate airport. (I think it's something like when there's only enough fuel to reach the alternate airport plus 30 minutes spare fuel after that.)

Kinda like a company will declare bankruptcy well before they have zeroed out their cash reserves. (Sorry, I've been spending too much time on the AA forum where we keep wishing for bankruptcy...)

It is certainly possible that an aircraft could load exactly the FAA required amount of fuel and still need to divert if there is excessive holding at the destination. My guess is that this is what happened here.

The same thing happened to me while flying into Japan on UA in 2000. It is not an airline specific issue, but one that is circumstantial. Its not like NWA is constantly taking more risks than UA.

Unforecast headwinds will also eat into reserves. Holding, even though it's at reduced throttle settings, will eat a lot of fuel as jet engines are very inefficient at low altitudes.

There is no requirement not to burn into reserves (the rules for international flights are much more complicated than the 30 minute VFR reserves for private pilots in the U.S.). Nor is there any reason that there would be something at an FAA site. There was simply no incident.

Simply because an airplane diverts does not mean it's all that low on fuel. We will divert at the point where the fuel to the alternate puts us at the minimum fuel we're comfortable landing with under the circumstances. Generally, that puts us on the ground at the alternate with somewhere between 30 and 60 minutes of fuel.

The fact that they couldn't hold simply means that they either didn't anticipate any delays, or that they burned more fuel enroute than expected.

Diverting due to no insufficient fuel reserves is not just a UA thing.

Last year on ORD-IAD (777) we were put into a hold for IAD and wound up diverting to PIT to refuel.

While this problem can be dangerous, it's not terribly frightening since the flight crew is aware of the problem and can react in enough time. Really the only problem is the inconvenience of a delay.

I think the point most of the contributors to this thread have been making, is that the situation is actually not dangerous at all.

I always thought that the magic and fun of flying Northwest is never quite knowing if you'll get there. Some days a wing might fall off, or they might run out of fuel, but it's sure to always be some entertainment on NWA clunker-metal.

As a pilot I can say this. While operating under IFR Regulations you must be able to fly to your destination with a 45 minute reserve. Now if you have to have an alternate, you must carry enough fuel to fly to your destination, then your alternate at a normal cruise speed and land with a 45 minute reserve. All airlines carry extra fuel reserves but there is a point when you will need to declare "min fuel" which means that any further delay could push you into your fuel reserves. The NWA crew probably declared min fuel at that time because they knew that they were going to have to divert and they wanted to divert and still have their reserve. This is more common than one would think. An airplane doesnt have an infinate number of fuel, at somepoint you are going to have to get more gas.

The big question isn't fuel but why ANYONE would choose to fly on NW to NRT. (or anywhere for that matter on old, decrepit aircraft)

I fly NWA now when the only UA flight is on TED, when I am going to places in the south where UA doesn't fly and apparently with the latest schedule change I'll be going NW to Seattle now because of a misconnect in DEN on my return flights. Regarding decrepit aircraft, the Mesaba ARJ85's are much newer and nicer than the Air Wis BAE146's and have first class too. The NW DC9's are nicer than the UA 737's especially the ex-shuttle ones.

NW A320's show more wear in the interior than UA's while the NW757's seem to be in equal or better condition inside than UA. I am mostly short or mid-con domestic so have not had the "pleasure" of a NW 747-200 or DC-10.

I can't comment on the mechanical decrepitness of NW vs. UA as I'm only a passenger.

I will still make 1K on UA and will use UA for international including NRT if I ever go there.