UA69 (ARN-EWR): Wrong plane, wrong fuel calculations, or bad weather?
Dec 9, 2013, 6:51 pm
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
Dec 9, 2013, 7:03 pm
#92
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
In fact westbound, a connection inside Europe is bound to be easier and quicker than a connection at EWR which will require going through immigration and customs as the first point of entry (most European airports are either within the EU or allow their transiting passengers to connect without going through passport control).
Dec 9, 2013, 7:13 pm
#93
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: STR
Programs: UA Slvr, DL Slvr, IHG Plt, SPG Gld
Posts: 197
What most people here don't realize is the vast majority of diversions on the B752 are not done solely because of strong headwinds but rather a function of the forecast weather at the destination being below a threshold requiring an alternate airport.
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!
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 iluv2fly; Dec 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm Reason: merge
Dec 9, 2013, 7:21 pm
#94
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: IAH
Programs: UA nada, Hyatt Disc, Hilton Gold
Posts: 846
Dec 9, 2013, 7:25 pm
#95
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: STR
Programs: UA Slvr, DL Slvr, IHG Plt, SPG Gld
Posts: 197
Just http://www.united.com/appreciation and then filled in the details for the ARN-EWR flight. It didn't like the ticket number but the confirmation number brought up the message apologizing for having to stop on a non-stop flight and the offer of compensation.
Dec 9, 2013, 7:57 pm
#97
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
Or they were right -- in that it's a flight diversion since passengers were sold a non-stop flight and instead the same-day flight for travel between the same O&D on a single flight number ended up not being a non-stop flight despite all of that.
IME, a plurality of the passengers on my ARN-EWR flights are not connecting.
IME, a plurality of the passengers on my ARN-EWR flights are not connecting.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Dec 9, 2013 at 8:26 pm Reason: merge
Dec 9, 2013, 9:03 pm
#98
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC, BLR, LHR, SIN and a few others
Programs: UA 1K 1.01 MM
Posts: 1,245
Don't forget that BA also has LCY-JFK which has a scheduled "immigration" stop in SNN, they also "happen to refuel" while they they are there, so people actually book a TATL flight with a stop every time on a scarebus A318 and as a premium product...
tht
tht
Dec 9, 2013, 9:21 pm
#99
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
Not minimising it, or saying it's less significant or anything of the sort, but it's just not what you say it is.
Dec 9, 2013, 10:55 pm
#100
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: HKG, TXL
Programs: CX DM
Posts: 566
Indeed.
In fact westbound, a connection inside Europe is bound to be easier and quicker than a connection at EWR which will require going through immigration and customs as the first point of entry (most European airports are either within the EU or allow their transiting passengers to connect without going through passport control).
In fact westbound, a connection inside Europe is bound to be easier and quicker than a connection at EWR which will require going through immigration and customs as the first point of entry (most European airports are either within the EU or allow their transiting passengers to connect without going through passport control).
Also, westbound you'll still have to go through passport control in the EU unless you are connecting from a non-schengen country. A big advantage is sometimes not having to redo security checks and re-check your bags.
Dec 10, 2013, 12:29 am
#102
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LAX/VNY (Hometown: CAK)
Programs: Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Bonvoy Gold, Regal Diamond
Posts: 743
Right, I'm from LAX. My friend's final destination was CLE. The whole connecting flight argument doesn't matter to me or my friend, since they'd have to connect to a North American international gateway anyway. My friend grumbled about the stop in BDL, and I was curious and wanted to investigate.
Dec 10, 2013, 1:57 am
#103
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
Semantics doesn't change a thing -- call it a disruption, a diversion, or an inconvenience. It's quite clearly a convenience for the airline more than it is for the passengers, even as passengers and airline employees are well within their right to call such flight outcomes a flight diversion regardless of what some may want to acknowledge or deny.
...but then again, whatever happens, happens.
Dec 10, 2013, 4:48 am
#105
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,168
Semantics doesn't change a thing -- call it a disruption, a diversion, or an inconvenience. It's quite clearly a convenience for the airline more than it is for the passengers, even as passengers and airline employees are well within their right to call such flight outcomes a flight diversion regardless of what some may want to acknowledge or deny.