US 807 CLT-PHX-HNL today...and tomorrow

[California Girl]

Uh yeah, shouldn't this flight be overflying PHX and NOT landing there? How embarassing, and just as embarassing as the HP HNL venture where 757's were diverting because of cheap HF equipment and aircraft certificate issues. This is now 3 for 3 and nothing from Doug or Scott regarding the failure here.

Yeah Scott...it's called a weight restriction and you need to invoke it. Take some people out of coach and put them on CLT-PHX-HNL flights with restrictive $300 dollar vouchers for "their next flight".

Geez at least D E L T A can run the flight nonstop and crap...they are lower than US in every rating.


http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NWA803

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE807

Thanks for giving away customers again dispatchers...you're number ONE!

 

[Edward]

In light of the last post in the existing thread(which I just closed) I'm going to re open this one.

If it gets off topic or personal remarks we well consider it done.

 

[California Girl]

Thanks so much and let's keep it on topic....

AA - No diversions
DL - No diversions
CO - No diversions
UA - No diversions
AS - No diversions
HA - No diversions

US - Diversion...and it's shorter than CO's flight and almost as far as DL's

This smells like a 21-year old analyst that didn't think of the aircraft age and restrictions.

Sorry Scott....this flight isn't going to work...

 

[California Girl]

I just got a call from a US pilot friend and CLT US agents are putting non-revs on this flight. Are these agents stupid?

Isn't there an embargo on this flight until there is some normality on the flight load?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Are these agents stupid?

Depends. Was the flight pre-planned to make a fuel stop? If so, the non-revs won't change a thing. If the fuel stop was a result of the final load, the non-revs may or may not have made a difference depending on how many passengers would have had to be taken off to avoid a fuel stop. Only if it was the non-revs and nothing else that caused the fuel stop could one say that someone screwed up.

Jim

 

[California Girl]

Well the pre-plan should be for the flight not to make a fuel stop at all, as in what does it take for the aircraft to get there non-stop?

If this plan shows pax need to be off-ed...then the determination should be how many and what if anything can res do to call pax to reaccom.

Remember, a fuel stop requires an unnecessary landing and usage fee. There are ways to mitigate this with funny money...IE reaccom on earlier flight or flight vouchers. Obviously there is nobody thinking of this or thinking of this too late.

So here again here is a 767 landing in PHX wasting money when it should be on its way to HNL...on-time!

 

[ggiby]

Depends. Was the flight pre-planned to make a fuel stop? If so, the non-revs won't change a thing. If the fuel stop was a result of the final load, the non-revs may or may not have made a difference depending on how many passengers would have had to be taken off to avoid a fuel stop. Only if it was the non-revs and nothing else that caused the fuel stop could one say that someone screwed up.

Jim

this same topic is on Yahoo finance .... usairways...
why do we run a a/c that cant make it???
day after day???

 

[California Girl]

Here's another shot of money wasted...

 

[California Girl]

Here's a shot of DL arriving on-time...with no diversions the last three days. What up?!?!

 

[Black Magic]

How does the fueling requirments go for an aircraft, it is a mystery to me. When a aircraft is fueled is it filled completely full everytime or is it filled "just enough" for the given route?

 

[USFlyer]

FWIW CO 15 (EWR-HNL), a 767-400, is making a stop in SFO, after turning back over the Pacific.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/COA15

 

[freedom]

wow it was really nice to see the big plane , perhaps you on the east coast can send us more planes that can't quite make it ...


Wow , 3/3 that's NOT good ... if this keeps happening we may start to draw negative media attention ....


Someone get the ax out , time to roll heads ..

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

FWIW CO 15 (EWR-HNL), a 767-400, is making a stop in SFO, after turning back over the Pacific.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/COA15

Ouch, better a pre planned stop than turning around back to dry land.

Oh well, misery loves company

 

[aptboeses]

Here's a shot of DL arriving on-time...with no diversions the last three days. What up?!?!

I guess I should chime in so this isn't just a California Girl thread.

I guess the easy answer to why this flight can't make it is strong headwinds and old aircraft that doesn't have surplus range. Unfortunately US can't control the weather (though I bet they wish they could) and unless you have a $100 million to spare for a new A332 I don't think that the aircraft type is going to change.

Maybe they'll start weight restricting the West bound flight if this is going to be a recurring problem.

 

[California Girl]

I think the bigger question is, why did US executive leadership start a flight routing with an airplane they knew couldn't fly the mission in the first place? Classic example of bait and switch...which some passengers will be citing when they file their complaint letters with the DOT.