Scarebus34 wrote:

Flyer732 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

SkyWest does not operate any E170s, they are all of the 175 variant.

There's actually no such aircraft as the E175. It's the E170-200. It's just a slightly larger 170.

That’s correct. However, Skywest doesn’t operate the -100, smaller variant.

Yeah, I know. But Skywest employees are quick to tell people they fly the 175, when intact, they still fly the 170. It's kind of a running joke in the regionals! Their type rating says the same thing as mine, E170/E190.

Flyer732 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Flyer732 wrote:

There's actually no such aircraft as the E175. It's the E170-200. It's just a slightly larger 170.

That’s correct. However, Skywest doesn’t operate the -100, smaller variant.

Yeah, I know. But Skywest employees are quick to tell people they fly the 175, when intact, they still fly the 170. It's kind of a running joke in the regionals! Their type rating says the same thing as mine, E170/E190.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW ... /KMSN/KDEN

Flightaware states E170 for UA*5780 on 2/13, but when you click on the details they call it Embraer 170/175.

Semantics aside, the underlying point is that on the one day MSN-SFO put a DEN stop enroute it appears it was not operated by the normal variant they use.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KBOS/KMSP

AAL241 is already diverting to MSP and it only just left BOS.

mm320cap wrote:

Coming into SFO yesterday I saw winds of 240/188 at FL360. No way I was going lower as there were several reports of severe turbulence and one of extreme (aircraft lost 2000’) in the upper 20’s. So I’m guessing that some the east coast jets would need s fuel stop... especially because CA weather would require an alternate

I flew JFK-SFO yesterday (DL2943) after rebooking a few times to avoid arriving in the middle of the night (Delta moved a bunch of SFO bound flights back because of weather, and others got longer routes presumably to avoid the turbulence). As expected the flight was pretty bumpy the whole way. The pilot was quite pleased that they were able to reroute around the worst of it though, but the seatbelt light may as well have been a strobe light. We didn't need to stop for fuel, but I'd expect that the 767 is better in that regard.

Actually getting into JFK this week on a CRJ was one of the bumpiest approaches I've seen though. Bouncing around when you can see the runway is a bit more pucker inducing than at 34,000 ft.

Sometimes AC routes YUL-PVG eastbound instead of westbound due to winds.

Winds play a big role in aviation.

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

Really, Ryanair have WB jets to use?

JFK-LHR was faster than JFK-LAX today. The winds across the southern US are wicked right now. No surprise the fuel stops are rampant.

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Cadet985 wrote:

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Planes can only carry so much fuel and weight. If they could make the flight without stopping for fuel, they would. Obviously, they cannot.t

Cadet985 wrote:

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Fuel tanks only have a finite amount of room in them

RobertS975 wrote:

Cadet985 wrote:

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Planes can only carry so much fuel and weight. If they could make the flight without stopping for fuel, they would. Obviously, they cannot.t

As I recall, many years ago the hot topic was "should B6 have ordered A319's?", because the slightly-longer-and-heavier-but-larger-and-heavier A320 couldn't do BOS-California fully loaded non-stop with winter headwinds, but the same-same-fuel-tank A319 never had a problem.

Winds, winds, winds! This is why arrival times are not measured, because en-route winds can slow a plane down drastically in ways airlines can't schedule. And if you want to check how strong the winds are, find a transcon flight on FlightAware, and reverse it: the greater the difference in westbound versus eastbound, the stronger the winds. Other than possible ATC issues, nothing else makes more of a difference in flight times.

Is there a reason why east to west flights are typically longer than west to east flights?

Ziyulu wrote:

Is there a reason why east to west flights are typically longer than west to east flights?

Wind and the jet stream. Weather in the US moves from West to East, so flights heading west usually fly into wind the whole time.

MrBretz wrote:

When the winds are strong, what do they do with the 737s and 320s on their way to Hawaii? Do they tell some passengers they will have to go on a later flight?

I’m no meteorologist. But I don’t think the polar jet dips that far south to cause issues enroute to Hawaii.

Ziyulu wrote:

Are 737s and 320s designed for 6-7 hour flights? In many other countries, such a flight would be operated by a 330, 767, 777, or 787.

737s and A320s do 6+hr flight on hundreds of flights daily all around the world, including in China as well.

Michael

RobertS975 wrote:

Cadet985 wrote:

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Planes can only carry so much fuel and weight. If they could make the flight without stopping for fuel, they would. Obviously, they cannot.t

It was my understanding that aircraft generally don’t fly with full tanks because of increased weight. I apologize if I’m mistaken.

Marc

I don't think these days, a large number of diversions for fuel are normal anymore. It used to be a lot more common but recent aircraft improvements such a winglets/sharklets/and better engines have all but solved the problem. It takes a combination of unusually high head winds and bad weather at the destination to cause these diversions and that is exactly what happened this week.

packmedic wrote:

Cadet985 wrote:

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Fuel tanks only have a finite amount of room in them

That and airlines adding more seats at 31" seat pitch.

Adipocere wrote:

MrBretz wrote:

When the winds are strong, what do they do with the 737s and 320s on their way to Hawaii? Do they tell some passengers they will have to go on a later flight?

I’m no meteorologist. But I don’t think the polar jet dips that far south to cause issues enroute to Hawaii.

The strongest winds (the core of the jetstream) in North America right now are between about 100 miles west of LAX and about over Flagstaff. So, yes, at times, passengers are denied boarding heading to Hawaii because of winds, depending on a/c. ETOPS alternates play a role in that.

https://www.wunderground.com/maps/wind/jet-stream

Cadet985 wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

Cadet985 wrote:

If headwinds are a known issue, why aren’t aircraft taking on additional fuel? I had to drop out of dispatch school for medical issues, but headwinds should be known from charts, forecasts, PIREPS, etc., right?

Marc

Planes can only carry so much fuel and weight. If they could make the flight without stopping for fuel, they would. Obviously, they cannot.t

It was my understanding that aircraft generally don’t fly with full tanks because of increased weight. I apologize if I’m mistaken.

Marc

Hello from a dispatcher. If they don't need to fly with full tanks they won't but if they need full fuel they will certainly top off the tanks. If the pax/cargo load and any runway (ie runway length or density altitude) restrictions won't allow the tanks to be topped off then the airline weighs what's more important, a non-stop flight or a tech stop. I believe most would go with the tech stop for a quick splash of gas if they can turn the aircraft quickly and not leave passengers behind that the airline is now responsible for rebooking and possibly providing overnight accommodations. It may just be the case where there are no weight restrictions, there just isn't enough room in the tanks for the gas required even if you go completely full.

RobertS975 wrote:

FWIW, DL 1707 (a B738) made BOS-LAX nonstop with a flight time of 6:30. The routing was a fairly northerly one, upper the UP of Michigan. And DL's 757 ETOPS version have obviously had no issues out of JFK or BOS to LAX.

ETOPs 757 has the same fuel tanks as standard 757s. In fact I never had to stop on a transcon in a 757! Much less, never had to leave pax or cargo behind either. However when deadheading in the back on a 321 or 737 I have had to stop on a transcon a few tomes. When my airline put the winglets on the 757, it made and untouchable airplane even more untouchable! Same is true flying west coast to Hawaii. The 757 is unrestricted where the others usually are passenger or cargo limited..

On a ferry flight out of Japan with just 2 copilots we easily fly NRT-SEA with lots of gas to spare.

reltney wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

FWIW, DL 1707 (a B738) made BOS-LAX nonstop with a flight time of 6:30. The routing was a fairly northerly one, upper the UP of Michigan. And DL's 757 ETOPS version have obviously had no issues out of JFK or BOS to LAX.

ETOPs 757 has the same fuel tanks as standard 757s. In fact I never had to stop on a transcon in a 757! Much less, never had to leave pax or cargo behind either. However when deadheading in the back on a 321 or 737 I have had to stop on a transcon a few tomes. When my airline put the winglets on the 757, it made and untouchable airplane even more untouchable! Same is true flying west coast to Hawaii. The 757 is unrestricted where the others usually are passenger or cargo limited..

On a ferry flight out of Japan with just 2 copilots we easily fly NRT-SEA with lots of gas to spare.

Yes. You did all that in a 757 but burned an extra 2.5tonnes of gas on a transcon compared to a 737 or A320.

Finn350 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This is what happens when you stick A320/A321's on routes that should be 757/767/A330's.

Unless you configure A321 premium heavy with only 102 seats. I suppose AA A321 transcons don’t need fuel diversions even under these conditions.

Nope, even a couple JFK-LAX premium service flights have made pit stops in MCI in the past couple of days.

It's not always about the aircraft type either. A lot of it has to do with the pax load and cargo load as well as the airline's own approach. It seems to me by looking at it that AA has been doing the most fuel stops. Yesterday on BOS-LAX, only AA experienced diversions on both the B738 and A321.
https://flightaware.com/live/findflight ... ation=KLAX
For example, this AA A321 diverted:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KBOS/KLAX
While this B6 A321 that departed only 45 mins later, did not:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU ... /KBOS/KLAX
This was probably a Mint A321.

I'm guessing that airlines know pretty much in advance - even at departure time that there will be a fuel diversion for these aircraft. How long does it take for a fuel diversion to get back into the air? 45 minutes? Hour? Does a diversion create a risk of a flight crew time out?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

My personal record for a trans-con flight is SAN-EWR in four hours and fifteen minutes, equating to a ground speed of +/- 570 mph/912 kph. January, 2002, a Continental red-eye flight: as we taxiied out for take-off, the captain told us to expect some turbulence, but also, as he put it, "some incredible tailwinds! I know most of you will want to sleep, but if you do get up, be aware that it could hit at any moment, and to keep your seatbelt fastened, obviously!"

The return PIT-SAN took nearly five and a half hours, equating to a ground speed of +/- 383 mph/613 kph. I don't know how else to explain it, but, it even felt like we were going slower. I could just sense the power of the wind, like trying to walk in a hurricane. No diversions, no real turbulence, and no issues - but it felt metaphorically like a "slow boat to China".

You brought back memories of my two personal records...

1. AA049 BOS-LAX on 17MAR80 on a 707-123B: this flight wound up being an incredible tally of coincidences as it turned out years later to be my last-ever flight on a 707 (the final item); we had 80mph headwinds which resulted in a 7h53min flight time (so my longest-ever trans-con), but we didn't mind one bit as we were in F and the cabin crew delivered an outstanding dinner service (more leisurely than normal) but the additional coincidences were that it was St. Paddy's Day (AA had loaded special green shamrock swizzle sticks for F) and the entire cockpit crew were Irish to the point that the F/O's last name even was Ireland!

2. UA052 LAX-IAD on 29NOV81 on a DC-10-10: another string of (fewer) coincidences...my first aborted takeoff (faulty warning light on no. 2 engine generator); then after the 2nd attempt, while making the turn over Long Beach to head east, the captain told us we were going to have incredible tailwinds with an expected VERY early arrival while the cabin crew were already starting the breakfast service and the movie so they'd have time to do the later deli-buffet service (this was also in F...ah, UA's old "Ocean to Ocean Service"!) which as I recall they started setting up immediately after collecting the serviceware from breakfast (WAY early!). Then IIRC somewhere mid-con., the captain came back on telling us we were indeed experiencing 200mph tailwinds which was making our ground speed supersonic! I have it recorded in my flight log that the flight was a mere 2hrs 50mins! The cabin crew were running around like chickens without heads collecting the last serviceware while we were on short-final to IAD! Needless to say my fastest-ever trans-con, and I'm sure an unofficial speed record (at least at the time)!

Add another to the pile:

American 671, which diverted from LAS to LSV (Nellis AFB):

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N54 ... /KLSV/KLAS

Guess going around and needing to fight those nasty upper level winds did them no favors!

Would have loved to be on that flight! I have VGT and LAS in my logbook, but not LSV!

AA 671 looks like it was DFW-LAS, if that's right they just didn't seem to fill up with enough fuel to compensate for the winds. Those Transcons were full and needed a refuel. Kind of a different situation.

FlapsOne wrote:

reltney wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

FWIW, DL 1707 (a B738) made BOS-LAX nonstop with a flight time of 6:30. The routing was a fairly northerly one, upper the UP of Michigan. And DL's 757 ETOPS version have obviously had no issues out of JFK or BOS to LAX.

ETOPs 757 has the same fuel tanks as standard 757s. In fact I never had to stop on a transcon in a 757! Much less, never had to leave pax or cargo behind either. However when deadheading in the back on a 321 or 737 I have had to stop on a transcon a few tomes. When my airline put the winglets on the 757, it made and untouchable airplane even more untouchable! Same is true flying west coast to Hawaii. The 757 is unrestricted where the others usually are passenger or cargo limited..

On a ferry flight out of Japan with just 2 copilots we easily fly NRT-SEA with lots of gas to spare.

Yes. You did all that in a 757 but burned an extra 2.5tonnes of gas on a transcon compared to a 737 or A320.

FlapsOne - you're alluding to the 1988 Factor.

airbazar wrote:

It's not always about the aircraft type either. A lot of it has to do with the pax load and cargo load as well as the airline's own approach. It seems to me by looking at it that AA has been doing the most fuel stops. Yesterday on BOS-LAX, only AA experienced diversions on both the B738 and A321.
https://flightaware.com/live/findflight ... ation=KLAX
For example, this AA A321 diverted:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KBOS/KLAX
While this B6 A321 that departed only 45 mins later, did not:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU ... /KBOS/KLAX
This was probably a Mint A321.

The mint a321s have aux tanks for additional fuel. It’s uncommon for them to have to divert for fuel.

The strong jet stream across the southern tier of US from LAX to the east coast has been amazing the past two days, 175kt/200mph. Looking at flightaware some eastbounds have had ground speeds of 750 mph cruising in the 30 flight levels while some westbounds at those flight levels show as low as 340 mph. A lot of westbounds have been flying low around FL 22-24 and getting about 450 groundspeed. Guess the westbounds have the choice of high and slow or lower below the jet stream with higher fuel burn. Either way it's not surprising a lot of the westbounds are having to make tech stops for fuel.

FlapsOne wrote:

reltney wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

FWIW, DL 1707 (a B738) made BOS-LAX nonstop with a flight time of 6:30. The routing was a fairly northerly one, upper the UP of Michigan. And DL's 757 ETOPS version have obviously had no issues out of JFK or BOS to LAX.

ETOPs 757 has the same fuel tanks as standard 757s. In fact I never had to stop on a transcon in a 757! Much less, never had to leave pax or cargo behind either. However when deadheading in the back on a 321 or 737 I have had to stop on a transcon a few tomes. When my airline put the winglets on the 757, it made and untouchable airplane even more untouchable! Same is true flying west coast to Hawaii. The 757 is unrestricted where the others usually are passenger or cargo limited..

On a ferry flight out of Japan with just 2 copilots we easily fly NRT-SEA with lots of gas to spare.

Yes. You did all that in a 757 but burned an extra 2.5tonnes of gas on a transcon compared to a 737 or A320.

The 757s are great airplanes, but don't overlook the small number of diversions that CO/UA 757s had to make on westbound trans-Atlantic flights. Seems like 3 or 4 winters ago was a notable season for that.

What about the cost side of the diversions? Are the Eastbound flights arriving earlier with tailwinds and saving fuel to offset the Westbound diversion related costs? In other words, do these wash from a cost perspective? Thanks!

seat1a wrote:

What about the cost side of the diversions? Are the Eastbound flights arriving earlier with tailwinds and saving fuel to offset the Westbound diversion related costs? In other words, do these wash from a cost perspective? Thanks!

It’s costs on a very small percentage of flights. Yes it costs money but you only have to spend it on a tiny proportion of flights. Stick 757s on the routes and you’re using 2.5tonnes extra on every single flight every single day of the year.

knope2001 wrote:

Flyer732 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

That’s correct. However, Skywest doesn’t operate the -100, smaller variant.

Yeah, I know. But Skywest employees are quick to tell people they fly the 175, when intact, they still fly the 170. It's kind of a running joke in the regionals! Their type rating says the same thing as mine, E170/E190.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW ... /KMSN/KDEN

Flightaware states E170 for UA*5780 on 2/13, but when you click on the details they call it Embraer 170/175.

Semantics aside, the underlying point is that on the one day MSN-SFO put a DEN stop enroute it appears it was not operated by the normal variant they use.

They only operate one kind of variant.

seat1a wrote:

What about the cost side of the diversions? Are the Eastbound flights arriving earlier with tailwinds and saving fuel to offset the Westbound diversion related costs? In other words, do these wash from a cost perspective? Thanks!

Unfortunately not.

Headwinds increase time aloft more than a tailwind of equal strength reduces it.