HP 302 27nov06

[BuffaloJoe]

Just looking at Flight Aware and its routing has it going PHL-LAS and online staus still says PDX but at 3:51am ETA. Why is this flight going to LAS 1st? If its a refueling stop, that seems to be out of the way, why not MSP/ORD/MKE?

 

[Fly4Free]

Just looking at Flight Aware and its routing has it going PHL-LAS and online staus still says PDX but at 3:51am ETA. Why is this flight going to LAS 1st? If its a refueling stop, that seems to be out of the way, why not MSP/ORD/MKE?

LAS is a west coast hub.. it's either that or Phoenix? 😵

 

[Weight&Balance]

LAS is a west coast hub.. it's either that or Phoenix? 😵

HP302-stopped tonight in LAS due to major weight & balance
restrictions. The a/c N620AW is a first generation A320-A1B
with a MTOW of 166400 lbs .This coupled with the headwinds and fuel required and low payload for passenger and bags. To get her there required a stop at LAS for a refuel and crew change. Had this been an A320-A5 there most likely have been less of a problem.

 

[Fly4Free]

HP302-stopped tonight in LAS due to major weight & balance
restrictions. The a/c N620AW is a first generation A320-A1B
with a MTOW of 166400 lbs .This coupled with the headwinds and fuel required and low payload for passenger and bags. To get her there required a stop at LAS for a refuel and crew change. Had this been an A320-A5 there most likely have been less of a problem.

Interesting. So a 320 can't normally fly nonstop from PHL-PDX on one tank of gas? 😵

 

[exB717Flyer]

The A5-powered 320 should normally be able to handle it. We only have a few A1's left and they should only be relegated to shorter legs. Ops knows all about it so blame them.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

HP302-stopped tonight in LAS due to major weight & balance
restrictions. The a/c N620AW is a first generation A320-A1B
with a MTOW of 166400 lbs .This coupled with the headwinds and fuel required and low payload for passenger and bags. To get her there required a stop at LAS for a refuel and crew change. Had this been an A320-A5 there most likely have been less of a problem.

I understand the reasoning for the stop, but why fly to LAS for the fuel? If they would have stopped at MSP, that would require less fuel burn and was along the way. I don't believe MSP had any weather problems so that was not a obstacle. It seems like a waste of extra money for fuel flying to LAS first instead of a stop along the route.

 

[rjh]

I understand the reasoning for the stop, but why fly to LAS for the fuel? If they would have stopped at MSP, that would require less fuel burn and was along the way. I don't believe MSP had any weather problems so that was not a obstacle. It seems like a waste of extra money for fuel flying to LAS first instead of a stop along the route.

 

[hp_fa]

I understand the reasoning for the stop, but why fly to LAS for the fuel? If they would have stopped at MSP, that would require less fuel burn and was along the way. I don't believe MSP had any weather problems so that was not a obstacle. It seems like a waste of extra money for fuel flying to LAS first instead of a stop along the route.

I don't know if this applies to the case-at-hand, but there was a hint of it in the information above and that is that the crew might have been "timing out".

If the crew (either the flight deck or the cabin) had worked one or more legs before this leg it is entirely possible that the crew was legal to take off. However, if they run into fuel problems due to headwinds or re-routing they may have been in a situation where once they landed anywhere and refueled, got new flight plans, etc., they were then projected over their maximum allowed time and no longer legal to fly.

If that scenario was developing, a decision to divert to LAS makes plenty of sense since it is a hub. It makes it easier to get the plane and crew into the flow of the airline the following day. If it were to land in Denver, Boise or some other place the problems would have been even greater to the airline the following day.

Sometimes the best move is to cut your losses and proceed anew the next day.

 

[soc-hpjester]

HP FA -- Partially correct but an A-5 would not have helped, without a good alt. in the PDX area had to carry too much extra, thus the weight bump. No close in fuel stop would have helped due to bumping more pax in the out station. LAS or PHX was the only place due to DEN requiring a crew chg due to over blocking over 8 hr.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Thank You for the help. I am learning something new everyday! 😉

 

[USFlyer]

Last summer when HP flew PHL-SEA, the F/As who worked PHL-SEA originated in PHX and worked PHX-PHL-SEA. If HP is doing the same thing, that might be why the crew was about to time out. (Doing PHX-PHL-SEA or PHX-PHL-PDX is one heck of a long day!)

 

[soc-hpjester]

Now the fa's and pilots start out in PHL so it was just a pilot block issue.

 

[NevadaHP]

from a real TL who plans and restricts flt first hand, heres the explanation. The A/C used was an A1 engine which has a severe payload decrease from the A5. The reason vegas was chosen was the time frame the flt took. Vegas was the only station staffed enough to handle a flight at 0048. The routing over the midwest would have taken into severe weather so it went south. MKE/MSP doesnt have the staffing at those hours and ORD, well its ORD.

 

[rjh]

The A5-powered 320 should normally be able to handle it. We only have a few A1's left and they should only be relegated to shorter legs. Ops knows all about it so blame them.

There's nobody to "blame". There are only so many A5's, and often times due to the routing needs, and the way the schedule is built, there's no way to avoid using an A1 for the longer flights.