FlyerChrisK

Yes, the airline is required to put enough fuel onboard the aircraft so that it can make it to its planned destination, fly to an alternate, land, and still have fuel reserves left in the tanks. Stopping in MCI was just a part of the plan. Taking off, flying across the country, and running out of gas near the destination was not.

Stopping in MCI makes it very easy to ensure there can be enough fuel to do so. Not stopping may mean that they'd have to dip into the legally-required reserve to fly to an alternate airport if weather conditions at the destination were bad.

This affects flights during the winter, in particular, when the jet stream is quite strong. Overbuilding airline fleets (by replacing smaller planes, buying larger ones that have larger tanks) costs money. Carrying larger, empty fuel tanks costs fuel. Carrying more fuel costs fuel. JET-A costs real money.

As air travel is a commodity, you're going to have a difficult time convincing would-be passengers to choose airline A because "they will never stop for fuel" over airline B, even when the price is consistently higher with A. As an individual, you can state your individual preference, but AA's MRTC experiment shows that unless the market is willing to distinguish between products, an airline would be foolish to choose increased operating costs/lower revenue per seat.

Notice, however, that an airline cannot truly market itself as "never" stopping for fuel. The pilot in command is the "final authority as to the operation of that aircraft" (14 CFR 91.3(a)). No amount of marketing speak can (or at least, should) prohibit a pilot from stopping for fuel (or taking more aboard, diverting, etc.) if safety and prudence demands it.

sfchris2013

Thanks for the answers everyone. I knew with all the experience here it would clear up the situation so I wouldn't have to stew with conspiracy theories.

If they are stopping for fuel often on this route I would hope they would change this to a "1-stop" flight instead of calling it "nonstop". Had I realized this was the case, I would have certainly selected an alternate flight. 9 hours sitting on a plane to go cross country is just too much. It's worse than a real connection where you can stretch your legs.

Often1

1. It makes zero sense to divert an aircraft to MCI to transport a deadheading crew member. Even if AA had to pay cash for a full F ticket on another carrier, it would be a heck of a lot cheaper than the off $12-15K it cost AA to divert.

2. It also makes zero sense to play a game of chicken with fuel reserves. Not only does it violate safety rules and standards, but slavish attention to these standards is part of what keeps US commercial aviation so safe. I'd rather divert to MCI than make it to roughly SFO, find out that there's a wind shift and then have to divert.

3. It lastly makes less than zero sense to fly larger aircraft on routes which don't support them. There is certainly a greater chance of a diversion on a 319/320 than on a 321, but flying larger aircraft means either much higher fares or fewer frequencies. Something has to give.

buckeyefanflyer

The question I have is why was the pilot flying to SFO in the first place if he got off in Kansas City. There are better ways to get there, via CLT or even PHX.

justhere

Either SFO wasn't his destination or something changed once the stop was determined. He could have been commuting and just trying to head west. Maybe PHX or LAX was his final destination and was routing himself via SFO but the stop let him connect with an MCI - PHX flight.

Or perhaps Ops contacted him and said "hey since you are in Kansas City we have a leg you could fly".
There are other possibilities and combinations of those scenarios.

Doc Savage

The stop likely cost many thousands of dollars. Do you really think they would do it for one person?

FWAAA

The off-duty pilot wasn't flying to SFO. He knew (as did every passenger) before the plane took off that the plane was going to stop in Kansas City, and that may be why he selected that flight - he was going to Kansas City.

See above.

While I'm certain that the fuel stop wasn't a pretext to "let the pilot off" at MCI, I doubt it cost "many thousands of dollars."

The landing fees for the A320 were about $337. The extra hour of pay for the crew was about $600, and the extra fuel (for the additional takeoff, maybe 400 to 500 gallons) would have cost another $800 to $1,000, for a total of no more than about $2,000.

ubernostrum

I do wonder, though, if the proposed consolidated terminal plan goes through, whether MCI will stop being a popular transcon fuel stop. They keep trying to find ways to fund it without selling municipal bonds, since that would require a vote that likely wouldn't pass, so ramping up the fees is the only option.

(though at least they'd really have to hike the fees in order to become worse than STL, which last time I checked cost about 4x as much to land at)

FlyerChrisK

This is entirely a matter of how the jetstream is behaving on any particular day. If you haven't noticed, the weatherman is already not that great at predicting whether there is going to be rain tomorrow, let alone "fast and powerful jetstream next month."

Not every flight has to divert, so it doesn't make sense to remarket the flight.

727stretch

Actually, the 319 has more range and less risk of a fuel stop than the 320 and 321. A lot of the old America West 320s have the V2500-A1 engines, which are less fuel efficient and less powerful compared to the -A5s and therefore are susceptible to flag stops such as this. It's legit, as most have said. They may have thrown the deadheading crew member on as a cheap way to get him/her to MCI vs routing them on another carrier. Also, as a lot have mentioned, landing fees + ripple effect with the schedule + crew hours + possible missed overnight maintenance make this an absolute last option and would never be done to drop a pilot off.

bd3500

I was on the same exact route after Thanksgiving, I believe on Tuesday, and we had the same PHL -> Kansas City -> SFO stop. They actually even let us off the plane.

I didn't see any crew get off.. But it was during a really bad weather day in SF (lots of Rain / Wind)

medichill

Should it not be advertised then as a direct flight rather than a non-stop?

iztok

It is not a scheduled stop. No (regular) passengers get off/on in MCI. It is non-stop.

CPRich

When 95%+ of the flights aren't forced into an unplanned stop by weather, no.

Geauxtigers

*****