UA69 (ARN-EWR): Wrong plane, wrong fuel calculations, or bad weather?
Dec 9, 2013, 1:02 pm
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SEA or BGR, Lower Earth Orbit
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 17,217
Honestly, I'm okay with this. I just need to go to BGR at about 10 AM eastern and I can go plane watching.
I used to be concerned about the lack of available flights in BGR to the various hubs. But that hasn't been an issue lately. I just can't actually get on them.
I used to be concerned about the lack of available flights in BGR to the various hubs. But that hasn't been an issue lately. I just can't actually get on them.
Dec 9, 2013, 1:06 pm
#77
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,659
As many times as I have flown TATL 757s, I have never been lucky enough to be diverted for fueling. Somehow it is always the flights on the day before and the day after my own flight that make these adventuresome stops.
I don't know why others are so much luckier, but I keep hoping. Still, I'm starting to think that I'm just going to have to take the leap and spend a few days flying AC in order to add YYR, YQX, and YYT to my list of flown airports. I did manage to get to BGR and PQI on CO in the old days.
I don't know why others are so much luckier, but I keep hoping. Still, I'm starting to think that I'm just going to have to take the leap and spend a few days flying AC in order to add YYR, YQX, and YYT to my list of flown airports. I did manage to get to BGR and PQI on CO in the old days.
Dec 9, 2013, 1:09 pm
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
The check in agent for the premier lane was upfront about the delay at check in. It didn't look like everyone was as well informed at that point, but they made it very clear again at the gate. The crew on the flight gave quite a few updates throughout the flight. I was not offered an alternative, but I suspect that the hour delay (almost exactly an hour late on arrival to Newark) was still the quickest routing.
Dec 9, 2013, 1:19 pm
#79
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: STR
Programs: UA Slvr, DL Slvr, IHG Plt, SPG Gld
Posts: 197
The check in agent for the premier lane was upfront about the delay at check in. It didn't look like everyone was as well informed at that point, but they made it very clear again at the gate. The crew on the flight gave quite a few updates throughout the flight. I was not offered an alternative, but I suspect that the hour delay (almost exactly an hour late on arrival to Newark) was still the quickest routing.
Dec 9, 2013, 1:49 pm
#80
Join Date: May 2013
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium, IHG Spire Elite, National EE
Posts: 197
For anyone flying one of these faux-nonstop flights that are magically "planned as two segments" - PLEASE let us know if UA was fully forthcoming about the stop BEFORE stepping on the plane, and actively offered to book you onto other routings.
Somehow I kinda have my doubts.
Somehow I kinda have my doubts.
I was flying TXL-EWR-LAS-LAX (with about a 2 hr layover in EWR), and UA proactively confirmed me (on Saturday, without me calling) on a EWR-LAX non-stop that left about 4 hours after my scheduled EWR arrival (in addition to keeping me on my original flights). I received no e-mail or phone call about this change, I just happened to see it in my reservation earlier. I called the premier line to figure out what was going on, and after 20 minutes they finally figured out that they were protecting me on the later flight since they were anticipating fuel stops, but couldn't actually confirm that there was going to be one.
Upon arrival at TXL on Sunday morning, the counter agents were unaware whether there would be a fuel stop (they also didn't really see my other booking option, or were confused by the LAS and LAX similarity).
After getting on the plane, the FAs & pilot then informed the pax of the fuel stop. Quite a few unhappy pax apparently weren't aware of this, and also weren't sure what this meant for their travel plans. Had I not been watching my reservation I too would've been pretty clueless (and worried).
The fuel stop in Bangor was only about 40 minutes (which I think would've been less than any connection in the EU so you didn't have to make the fuel stop), then we were held on the ground (probably thanks to ATC) just shy of the runway for 15 more minutes. We then seemed to do a little meandering around EWR and landed about 1 hr 40 min late.
After waiting what was probably 20+ minutes for baggage to arrive, I'm pretty sure most people's connections would've been toast. When I tried to get a new tag for my checked bag that reflected my new itinerary, they directed me to the "International Connections" desk which had a massive line and only a GS & GF priority lane. Instead, I just went upstairs and went to the premier check-in/bag drop and got a new label and BP there.
I think a pax with no status would've missed any connection in EWR that was less than 3-4 hours, and who knows whether UA did any proactive rebooking for them.
On the somewhat bright side, on arrival at EWR I had an appreciation e-mail waiting for me. Offered $200, 9000 miles, or 10% off my next flight.
I was only flying through LAS to try to increase my upgrade chances, but it wasn't going to work this time around, so I don't mind the rebooking on the direct EWR-LAX flight, especially since it arrived before my originally planned EWR-LAS-LAX itinerary.
Dec 9, 2013, 3:25 pm
#81
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: STR
Programs: UA Slvr, DL Slvr, IHG Plt, SPG Gld
Posts: 197
Also, at least one person on my flight was sent a customer appreciation email upon arrival in Newark. I have not seen one yet, but I'm not sure if traveling on my us dm number has any effect on that.
Dec 9, 2013, 3:26 pm
#82
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
How does your comment correspond to my observation that I have been unlucky enough not to visit the airports which I cited?
Dec 9, 2013, 3:32 pm
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,686
Dec 9, 2013, 3:41 pm
#84
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Hyatt Plat, SPG Plat
Posts: 332
I was on UA69 ARN-EWR on Dec 8th. I was fully expecting a fuel stop as the flight plan time was showing 9:20 when I checked FlightAware. Was surprised that no one mentioned the possibility at check in or when boarding - although I still expected a last minute diversion based on the headwinds and projected flight time. But it didn't happen. Guess I got lucky as it looks like day before and day after diverted.
The flight was not that full - probably about 1/2 full in Economy as far as I could tell, so maybe they were able to load more fuel??
The flight was not that full - probably about 1/2 full in Economy as far as I could tell, so maybe they were able to load more fuel??
Dec 9, 2013, 4:10 pm
#85
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 380
I have only flown this route once, and they knew in advance that headwinds were strong. UA subbed in a 767-200. Obviously that isn't an option anymore with them all retired, but I was quite impressed with how proactive and knowledgeable the ARN staff was about the equipment sub (e.g. very helpful in selecting new seats, very apologetic about the lack of lie flats, etc).
Dec 9, 2013, 4:50 pm
#86
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1
And to put in perspective, the 752 is hardly the only aircraft that is operated on routes that challenge the a/c's range.
Currently, the longest flight in the world is operated by QF with its signature 744ER, a version of the 747-400 with extra fuel tanks that was essentially designed by Boeing for Qantas.
This is QF 007 SYD-DFW, which covers about 8,478 miles. This flight has made a number of fuel-stop diversions as well, for the same reason some of the westerly TATL 752 flight do, namely it operates very close to its maximum range.
In some ways, QF operating a 744ER in this route is not so different from UA's decision to operate a 752 on TXL-EWR, since one could argue that the 772LR (with its far greater range) would be a much better choice.
One has to assume. though, that QF choses the 744ER for business reasons, namely they want to fly an a/c with more capacity than the 772LR (of course, QF doesn't have any 777's in its fleet).
And very little mention is ever made of the numerous 737 or A-320 family westerly transcons that make fuel stops on a fairly regular basis during this same period of high late fall and winter head winds.
Again, in every case, these fuel stops represent some degree of inconvenience to the passenger which can range from inconsequential to severe.
While much is made of the delays caused by fuel stops, let's not forget that at least a portion of the delay is due to flying in tremendous head winds. In these cases, even without a fuel stop, the arrival would likely be delayed.
In the end, though, airlines make calculations based on numerous parameters that create a series of compromises.
It is inconvenient to have a fuel stop on a 752 OSL-EWR, of course. But if UA didn't fly the 752 on this route they would likely drop it all together and a passenger flying from Oslo to Newark would need to connect somewhere in Europe and the travel time would be at least as long as the flight on the non-stop including the fuel-stop diversion (at least for passengers terminating at EWR).
The same goes for transcons operated on 737's and A-320-family a/c by AA, B6, DL, UA, US and VX.
And so on...
Currently, the longest flight in the world is operated by QF with its signature 744ER, a version of the 747-400 with extra fuel tanks that was essentially designed by Boeing for Qantas.
This is QF 007 SYD-DFW, which covers about 8,478 miles. This flight has made a number of fuel-stop diversions as well, for the same reason some of the westerly TATL 752 flight do, namely it operates very close to its maximum range.
In some ways, QF operating a 744ER in this route is not so different from UA's decision to operate a 752 on TXL-EWR, since one could argue that the 772LR (with its far greater range) would be a much better choice.
One has to assume. though, that QF choses the 744ER for business reasons, namely they want to fly an a/c with more capacity than the 772LR (of course, QF doesn't have any 777's in its fleet).
And very little mention is ever made of the numerous 737 or A-320 family westerly transcons that make fuel stops on a fairly regular basis during this same period of high late fall and winter head winds.
Again, in every case, these fuel stops represent some degree of inconvenience to the passenger which can range from inconsequential to severe.
While much is made of the delays caused by fuel stops, let's not forget that at least a portion of the delay is due to flying in tremendous head winds. In these cases, even without a fuel stop, the arrival would likely be delayed.
In the end, though, airlines make calculations based on numerous parameters that create a series of compromises.
It is inconvenient to have a fuel stop on a 752 OSL-EWR, of course. But if UA didn't fly the 752 on this route they would likely drop it all together and a passenger flying from Oslo to Newark would need to connect somewhere in Europe and the travel time would be at least as long as the flight on the non-stop including the fuel-stop diversion (at least for passengers terminating at EWR).
The same goes for transcons operated on 737's and A-320-family a/c by AA, B6, DL, UA, US and VX.
And so on...
Just my two cents.
Dec 9, 2013, 5:05 pm
#87
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Not diverted - planned as two segments before they left. There's a huge difference; the main one from a passenger's perspective is that it allows for any changes to connections to be made before departure (including putting the passenger on a different flight ex-ARN if needed).
There's no huge difference for the passengers whom I know were on that flight today.
IME with this flight, those with UA FFP account numbers in their records are far more likely to get those emails than other customers; and even then, they don't get to everyone with a UA FFP account number in the record.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Dec 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm Reason: merge
Dec 9, 2013, 6:21 pm
#88
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: IAH
Programs: UA nada, Hyatt Disc, Hilton Gold
Posts: 846
Take it from a Texan living in Newfoundland; you aren't missing much this time of year. Be careful about flying into YYT at the wrong time of year. You may not get out for days.
Dec 9, 2013, 6:24 pm
#89
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
I was on UA69 ARN-EWR on Dec 8th. I was fully expecting a fuel stop as the flight plan time was showing 9:20 when I checked FlightAware. Was surprised that no one mentioned the possibility at check in or when boarding - although I still expected a last minute diversion based on the headwinds and projected flight time. But it didn't happen. Guess I got lucky as it looks like day before and day after diverted.
The flight was not that full - probably about 1/2 full in Economy as far as I could tell, so maybe they were able to load more fuel??
The flight was not that full - probably about 1/2 full in Economy as far as I could tell, so maybe they were able to load more fuel??
Take your 9:20 flight time for example; the B752 can handle that. It is on the upper end endurance-wise but definitely doable without stopping. However, if the weather at EWR requires an alternate....you're screwed and stopping for gas somewhere. If it is known that an alternate is required before takeoff, you are notified by the crew before leaving. If the weather deteriorates mid flight, then you're forced to stop en route somewhere.
Simply put, the required fuel over destination (planned landing fuel) has to be artificially increased when an alternate airport is required. For example, let's say on a normal, good weather day we plan to land in EWR with 9.5 (9500 lbs of fuel). Unfortunately, the forecasted ceiling is below 2,000' or visibility less than 3SM, so we need an alternate...let's say ALB. The flight from EWR to ALB takes 2.0 (2000 lbs of fuel). Our new minimum fuel requirement at destination is now 9.5+2.0=11.5 (11,500 lbs of fuel), roughly a 20% increase.
Strong headwinds obviously are the fundamental cause for this to be an issue because of the increased flight times. However, if you actually investigate things further, the forecasted ceiling at the destination is usually the technical reason for the vast number of diversions.
For those that care , hope this helps!
Last edited by clubord; Dec 9, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Dec 9, 2013, 6:42 pm
#90
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,659
And to put in perspective, the 752 is hardly the only aircraft that is operated on routes that challenge the a/c's range.