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

[aptboeses]

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.

The airplane has the range. It just doesn't have the range with that strong of a headwind.

Once again weather is something that US can't control. Sad fact of life.

 

[California Girl]

This plane has the range? It can barely do ATH-PHL without a fuel stop. The issue here is priming the aircraft for this routing. Headwinds or not, dispacters know issues before the flight leaves the ground. Instead of a fuel stop, take people off and keep that airplane moving nonstop. This is a LOW YIELD flight routing to begin with...CS can easily re-route with little disruption and complaints. You're losing money right off the bat with any disruptions on a low yeild flight.

 

[aptboeses]

This plane has the range? It can barely do ATH-PHL without a fuel stop. The issue here is priming the aircraft for this routing. Headwinds or not, dispacters know issues before the flight leaves the ground. Instead of a fuel stop, take people off and keep that airplane moving nonstop. This is a LOW YIELD flight routing to begin with...CS can easily re-route with little disruption and complaints. You're losing money right off the bat with any disruptions on a low yeild flight.

So it can do ATH and it can do HNL. I knew the answer was in there somewhere.

You're completely right that when the headwinds are this strong and they've had experience with this specific flight they should weight restrict it. But considering that this specific flight has operated for only three days they may not have had enough historical data to operate with? Who knows? Let's just hope they are a little more proactive soon.

 

[SS255]

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

Somebody did screw up, regardless. 🙄 I guess the real question is whether the screw-up occurred before or after the non-revs were cleared. Even then, if you cannot fly a fully-loaded 762 on the route with heavy headwinds......hmmmm......maybe you shouldn't be flying a 762 on the route??? When a flight diverts 3 days in a row and has not yet made it to its destination without a fuel stop, something is seriously not right.

I'll bet Doug Parker is relieved that About US is on hiatus until January 7. Maybe if they can figure out a way to get this flight from CLT-HNL without a fuel stop by the time the 1/7/10 issue goes to press, and US's 32,000 employees drink enough eggnog between now and then, he can squeak by without having make excuses.

 

[SS255]

You're completely right that when the headwinds are this strong and they've had experience with this specific flight they should weight restrict it. But considering that this specific flight has operated for only three days they may not have had enough historical data to operate with? Who knows? Let's just hope they are a little more proactive soon.

They're supposed to be running an airline, not playing guessing games as to whether or not US 807 will cross the finish line.

 

[desertsun]

So it can do ATH and it can do HNL. I knew the answer was in there somewhere.

You're completely right that when the headwinds are this strong and they've had experience with this specific flight they should weight restrict it. But considering that this specific flight has operated for only three days they may not have had enough historical data to operate with? Who knows? Let's just hope they are a little more proactive soon.

Agreed. As a lurker (and new poster), I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the next couple of days.

However, with the Holidays, this flight is going to be jam packed until at least the third of January. If this flight diverts > than say 80% during this time period, somebody will have some explaining to do (perhaps to the D.O.T.)?

 

[California Girl]

It can do ATH-PHL...with a weight restriction...and dispatchers knew this on the 2nd day of the flight. But flight bookings from ATH-PHL were low, thus no need to WR at the inaugural.

I can see your point on historical data, but let's face it...it's the computer age. Don't you think with all the "advanced computers" we have, that someone couldn't just say...kick people off the flight tomorrow? It's easy...get the Liverpool Res Center or Tempe CRC to do some work;work the flight manifest from people that booked last to first by using single reservations first...then so on. Then add incentives for people to skip to earlier flights.

Geez...even leaving on an earlier flight from CLT would have gotten people in HNL earlier with a real connection in PHX and less money spent from the company.

Historical data isn't the issue here....it's common sense.

 

[aptboeses]

It can do ATH-PHL...with a weight restriction...and dispatchers knew this on the 2nd day of the flight. But flight bookings from ATH-PHL were low, thus no need to WR at the inaugural.

I can see your point on historical data, but let's face it...it's the computer age. Don't you think with all the "advanced computers" we have, that someone couldn't just say...kick people off the flight tomorrow? It's easy...get the Liverpool Res Center or Tempe CRC to do some work;work the flight manifest from people that booked last to first by using single reservations first...then so on. Then add incentives for people to skip to earlier flights.

Geez...even leaving on an earlier flight from CLT would have gotten people in HNL earlier with a real connection in PHX and less money spent from the company.

Historical data isn't the issue here....it's common sense.

Oh, um, perhaps you haven't seen CATCREW. One of my friends saw me using it and thought there was something wrong with my computer. I really wouldn't give US much credit when it comes to having state of the art computers or programs. I'm pretty sure there's an abacus being used in the PIT OCC sometimes.

I'm going to withhold judgment till this flight has operated for at least a week. After that, I'm backing you up.

 

[California Girl]

Might as well start now, Flyertalkers are already ripping this flight up. Doesn't US know the saying...you only have one time to make a good impression. We're now at three...and HP wasn't any better in their Hawaii start with the 757's.

Doug should just make this a later thru flight with a non-stop to CLT.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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?

First you have to know if it was possible to go non-stop given the winds aloft, any t/o weight restrictions due to MEL's, alternate fuel requirements, etc.

Assuming that non-stop was possible but the payload made it impossible, it becomes a comparative cost analysis - what's the cost of the fuel stop vs the cost of alternate accommodations for the passengers taken off. Whether that was done is a completely different question.

Jim

 

[aptboeses]

Might as well start now, Flyertalkers are already ripping this flight up. Doesn't US know the saying...you only have one time to make a good impression. We're now at three...and HP wasn't any better in their Hawaii start with the 757's.

Doug should just make this a later thru flight with a non-stop to CLT.

I'm pretty sure "US" and "good impression" don't belong in the same sentence to begin with. I hope that changes soon though.

 

[California Girl]

Soon? US impresses dirt...just ask a few flyers in PHX....they hate them. Actually US Airways has had one of the worst brand names for over 8 years now...yet they seem to survive by just screwing over their employees.

Ask Scott about this...he seems to know in more ways than one....

 

[BoeingBoy]

yet they seem to survive by just screwing over their employees.

I retract that - forgot about Ralph's admonition.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Somebody did screw up, regardless. 🙄 I guess the real question is whether the screw-up occurred before or after the non-revs were cleared.

Either way, the non-revs shouldn't have made the difference. If it was a pre-planned fuel stop the non-revs made no difference, and if the fuel stop was due only to the non-revs they could have been removed from the flight.

I'm assuming that the winds aloft, and possibly the payload, required the fuel stop. So the problem comes from using an airplane with somewhat marginal range for that route (same for PHL-ATH). I haven't even tried to research what percentage of the time the ATH-PHL flight has to make a fuel stop (although it's seasonal, right?), and that's about 300 NM further than CLT-HNL (great circle distance) - anyone have a good figure?

Jim

 

[DHG750R]

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

Don't be so quick to accuse the dispatchers for this. They have regulations and procedures which must be adhered to. If the aircraft is not capable of flying nonstop or the winds are unusually strong, which they are, These things are bound to happen. None of us know all the circumstances behind why this is happening, so lets hold off judgement till we do.

Fly safe