If a flight has to stop for fuel, revenue wise that flight lost money. No matter what the load is. Strong winds, weather, etc., the co. is going to opperate the flight to get the px from A to B. It has happened to me in the past. If everything goes right, 30,35 min. for gas and go. Perfict,no.
Reconfigured A321s
- Thread starter FutureUScapt
- Start date
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
In my experience, normal is 50-75 minutes. And that can then have a considerable downstream effect on the rest of the operation because you now have passenegrs misconnecting and late aircraft and crews. Even if that crew is heading for the hotel, if they are scheduled for min rest the odds are high that they will be delayed for their first flight the next day because of crew rest issues.
I just spoke with the f/a that was on that flight and he said that the captain and F/O both made announcements. Twice in the air and then again on the ground. He said they explained in full detail exactly why and what they were doing. So IMO...they had every right to have someone arrested that was trying to storm up in the cockpit having a temper tantrum. He then said the guy was verbally abusive to him aswell.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
I have been on a few fuel stops, and the fastest was 45 minutes. Couple that with the headwinds and the flight will still be 2 1/2 Hours late.
SpinDoc
Veteran
SpinDoc replies:
If the aircraft in question was a B757, this entire thread would be unnecessary. There would not have been a fuel stop.
markkus757
Veteran
- Jul 26, 2004
- 598
- 1
As noted earlier, the sad thing is that the company could do this relatively easily. There are enough 757s in the fleet to handle the heavily traveled transcon routes...just reconfigure them to 16F. Use A319s for the lightly traveled transcons. Continue with the A321 reconfigs and use them on the heavy north-south routes. Seems so obvious, and yes, despite the added cost of reconfiguring the 757s, it would make more money in the long run as the HIGH costs of unplanned fuel stops would be completely removed from the equation.
2clippedwings
Veteran
As someone has already mentioned on another thread, I can't help but see a trend of rash decision making without proper planning or testing. Following that is the reluctant public apology and back pedaling to partially correct the errors in judgement.
Amateurish and adolescent-like behavior. I feel as if inexperienced airline management is running this airline with a policy of “trial and errorâ€.
And we, the employees, bearing the brunt of this embarrassment.
With the perceived focus away from our bread and butter business travelers to Ma and Pa Kettle, management seems more intent in decreasing passenger expectations and the consequential loss in profitable road warriors.
<_<
Amateurish and adolescent-like behavior. I feel as if inexperienced airline management is running this airline with a policy of “trial and errorâ€.
And we, the employees, bearing the brunt of this embarrassment.
With the perceived focus away from our bread and butter business travelers to Ma and Pa Kettle, management seems more intent in decreasing passenger expectations and the consequential loss in profitable road warriors.
<_<
This would be the Logical decision made. A refurbished B757 with larger overhead bins and a modified entertainment system would be the preferred way to go. The AB is a great airplane but fuel stops and the tight seating that we are seeing on the A320 and soon to be A321 would make US the most deplorable way to fly across the country. STOP The MADDNESS!
Take the 757 out of the LAS market and put the A320/21 in LAS, put the 757 to the west coast problem fix
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,037
- 1,529
The A321 is NOT an acceptable aircraft performance wise for LAS. As someone else mentioned, at typical LAS-PHL loads/weights, the A321 will incur significant payload restrictions for normal westbound departures or lengthy ATC delays for east takeoffs due to weight.
The airline attempted this years ago and finally someone figured out it wasn't the plane for this mission and put the 757's on the route.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
Back in DEC 1998 I had a fuel stop in a 757 PHL-SFO in LAS, The AM departure stopped in MCI.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
You bring back a memory that likely is applicable to the A321.
I was working an A-320 thru flight from the east coast to the west coast with a stop in LAS. We landed about 10:00 pm or so in LAS and it was still well over 100 degrees. We unloaded and reloaded and were off for the west coast (I think it was PDX) and very soon after takeoff, probably about 5,000', I heard the gear come back out. Oh crap, I thought. While I waited for the phone to ring all my little emergency checklist items are going through my head.
Anyway, the phone rings a few minutes later and as soon as I get a chance to speak I ask what is up with the gear being dropped on climbout. The captain, hearing the tone of my voice, laughs and said that the gear was overheated and that he was cooling it off. Between the heavy and hot temperatures on landing and then the amount of times we had to stop on the taxi out the gear was still quite hot when tucked into the wheel well upon obtaining positive rate and they had to lower it again too cool it during climbout.
If that happened to an A320, I can hardly wait to see what will happen with an A321.
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,037
- 1,529
The A320 Family has brake temperature indications. They also have brake fans to help cool the brakes after landing or a rejected takeoff.
At LAS there is quite a long taxi to RWY 25's for takeoff and the route is slightly downhill resulting in more brake applications to stay at the apprpropriate (less than 30 knots) taxi speed.
The maximum brake temp for takeoff is 300 degrees C.
You experienced a "BRAKES HOT" warning after takeoff and the procedure calls for extending the landing gear to cool the brakes.
At LAS there is quite a long taxi to RWY 25's for takeoff and the route is slightly downhill resulting in more brake applications to stay at the apprpropriate (less than 30 knots) taxi speed.
The maximum brake temp for takeoff is 300 degrees C.
You experienced a "BRAKES HOT" warning after takeoff and the procedure calls for extending the landing gear to cool the brakes.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
I understand that. We discussed it on the way to the hotel later. But it was still an oh crap moment when it occurred to me on my jumpseat, looking backwards, without warning on a climbout that night. The situation happened once or twice after that and I knew what was happening those times so that I could be the one to calm my partner on the seat.
