Can an A321 do this?

It was unable to depart with the high temperature and high weight (fuel). They either took off planning to land in CLT and were legal, or they took off planning to go to BOS with no contingency fuel, and upon deviating had to plan a divert (to CLT).

It could land in CLT because it takes less fuel to get there.
OK, two more questions... Well, actually one more question and then a comment:

I kinda get your story there. However... WHY would a plane bound for Boston loaded with Pax bound for Boston elect to take off for Charlotte instead? I mean, ok, maybe you want to help your own self and repo a plane, but how does that make any sense at all from a customer standpoint? "Hey, we'll get you to Charlotte so you can sleep in the airport and MAYBE connect on a flight to Boston tomorrow??" Did they even tell the customers what was going on? If they did, did 25%-40% of the Pax deplane before the plane departed? Were Pax given the option to do so?

And the comment: Sheesh, if you're cutting your fuel planning THAT close (that's a very small percentage difference) I suspect something else is terribly wrong from the git go.
 
OK, two more questions... Well, actually one more question and then a comment:

I kinda get your story there. However... WHY would a plane bound for Boston loaded with Pax bound for Boston elect to take off for Charlotte instead? I mean, ok, maybe you want to help your own self and repo a plane, but how does that make any sense at all from a customer standpoint? "Hey, we'll get you to Charlotte so you can sleep in the airport and MAYBE connect on a flight to Boston tomorrow??" Did they even tell the customers what was going on? If they did, did 25%-40% of the Pax deplane before the plane departed? Were Pax given the option to do so?

And the comment: Sheesh, if you're cutting your fuel planning THAT close (that's a very small percentage difference) I suspect something else is terribly wrong from the git go.

Charlotte is an AA hub, not too far out of the way. Who says the plane won’t just do a gas and go and continue on to Bos? Pilots ( contractually ) might have to be replaced but that’s coordinated well ahead of time, CLT being a hub will sprout new pilots as that plane rolls in. They‘ll spend 30 mins on the ground and go.
 
Charlotte is an AA hub, not too far out of the way. Who says the plane won’t just do a gas and go and continue on to Bos? Pilots ( contractually ) might have to be replaced but that’s coordinated well ahead of time, CLT being a hub will sprout new pilots as that plane rolls in. They‘ll spend 30 mins on the ground and go.
Yeah, I can see how that might work in the timeline you proposed. However, even if it did, that's pretty lousy customer service.

All that considered, I also know that all the king's horses and all the king's men notwithstanding, it almost never does work like that. Especially if the operation is taking place during an already FUBAR general condition.

So, sadly, I'm still left with WTF, over?

Airlines all too often seem to have basic operating principles bass ackwards. They seem to plan for the best and to expect the worst while covering their own asses' with pp2 subsection 4 of page 38 of the boilerplate and blaming everything on force majeure.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I can see how that might work in the timeline you proposed. However, even if it did, that's pretty lousy customer service.

All that considered, I also know that all the king's horses and all the king's men notwithstanding, it almost never does work like that. Especially if the operation is taking place during an already FUBAR general condition.

So, sadly, I'm still left with WTF, over?

Airlines all too often seem to have basic operating principles bass ackwards. They seem to plan for the best and to expect the worst while covering their own asses' with pp2 subsection 4 of page 38 of the boilerplate and blaming everything on force majeure.
You are telling us this as if we don't already know?
 
Sorry, way less effort to bitch about it on the internet.

I have submitted reports to my jumpseat committee each and every time I have been denied boarding due to this issue, which is currently 5 times in the past year. My post was purely factual information from the perspective of an OAL jumpseater.

I also agree with the above poster that in most, not all, cases, there is a noticeable lack of effort given to try and accommodate the OAL jumpseaters on payload optimized flights.

I’m sorry if this comes off as “complaining online” - it’s simply the true experience that many OAL jumpseaters have been having.
 
I nearly got left behind on a Delta A321 regular from DTW-LAX.

"Sorry, weight restricted."


(inner thought, um, what?!?)

Something about how in this case we can take only Delta nonrevs, but not you as a OAL pilot jumpseater. (louder inner thought, WHAT?!)

Luckily they called their loading department (or whatever it's called) about 15 minutes before departure and I got the jumpseat approved.
Depending on why a flight is payload optimized, many times it won't be until the last minute until we get approval to put more on. Gate agents are initially assigned a passenger count limit that they can go up to. Once all of those passengers and all bags are scanned on, those numbers must be sent in. Only at that point can the captain call dispatch, who then contacts load control, who then sends in the final number that can be boarded based on all of the most current conditions.

As you can imagine, there can be a lot of issues stemming from this process. The first problem is a lack of understanding of how it works, both from flight crews and even some newer dispatchers, to especially many of the gate agents. Many see that initial number and think its a hard count that can't be changed. Sometimes it's a grind to get them to understand even after explaining what needs to be done. Combined that with the time pressure that naturally happens near the end of the boarding process and you can probably see what happens many times.

Of course, this all relies on proper communication. The dispatcher has no idea anyone is getting left behind until the pilot calls them. The pilot has no idea anyone is getting left behind until the gate agents tells them (ha!) unless they specifically ask, and even then it's a hope they are given correct information. Heck, sometimes the flight plan paperwork doesn't even list the flight as payload optimized if it was printed before the flight was labeled as one.

It's a very clunky process that leads to a lot of headaches. I wish it wasn't like this, but it is what it is until someone with a much higher job title decides to change it, which I don't see happening due to costs. Hopefully they can improve it at least, given the increase of payload optimized flights with the new passenger weights.
 
Depending on why a flight is payload optimized, many times it won't be until the last minute until we get approval to put more on. Gate agents are initially assigned a passenger count limit that they can go up to. Once all of those passengers and all bags are scanned on, those numbers must be sent in. Only at that point can the captain call dispatch, who then contacts load control, who then sends in the final number that can be boarded based on all of the most current conditions.

As you can imagine, there can be a lot of issues stemming from this process. The first problem is a lack of understanding of how it works, both from flight crews and even some newer dispatchers, to especially many of the gate agents. Many see that initial number and think its a hard count that can't be changed. Sometimes it's a grind to get them to understand even after explaining what needs to be done. Combined that with the time pressure that naturally happens near the end of the boarding process and you can probably see what happens many times.

Of course, this all relies on proper communication. The dispatcher has no idea anyone is getting left behind until the pilot calls them. The pilot has no idea anyone is getting left behind until the gate agents tells them (ha!) unless they specifically ask, and even then it's a hope they are given correct information. Heck, sometimes the flight plan paperwork doesn't even list the flight as payload optimized if it was printed before the flight was labeled as one.

It's a very clunky process that leads to a lot of headaches. I wish it wasn't like this, but it is what it is until someone with a much higher job title decides to change it, which I don't see happening due to costs. Hopefully they can improve it at least, given the increase of payload optimized flights with the new passenger weights.


Sounds about right. I was listening to their phone call. It was 180 limit on pax. Then about 20 prior I heard them say “okay 188?”

And then another call about 15 prior and I heard “ok 190, and how about 1 jumpseater? Ok?”

Then I got cleared on.


Just seems cumbersome. Way too much calling and talking, especially within D-20.
 
Sounds about right. I was listening to their phone call. It was 180 limit on pax. Then about 20 prior I heard them say “okay 188?”

And then another call about 15 prior and I heard “ok 190, and how about 1 jumpseater? Ok?”

Then I got cleared on.


Just seems cumbersome. Way too much calling and talking, especially within D-20.
It’s a pain in the butt. One of my biggest complaints at work.
 
Seems like ”optimized” means take as little weight as possible that isn’t paying.
Sounds about right. I was listening to their phone call. It was 180 limit on pax. Then about 20 prior I heard them say “okay 188?”

And then another call about 15 prior and I heard “ok 190, and how about 1 jumpseater? Ok?”

Then I got cleared on.


Just seems cumbersome. Way too much calling and talking, especially within D-20.

That’s nuts…In our case we assume we can take 200, unless noted which is quite rare.
 
Hey Bus drivers— had a bad night last night. Tried to go PHX to BOS on a redeye but got diverted to CLT because “the A321NEO is unable to both depart from PHX under current temperature and weather conditions and also fly around weather to get as far as BOS” according to crew. PHX was typical 42C at 10 pm. It was a an absolute cluster**** getting us to BOS after that of course. My question: shouldn’t an A321 be able to depart a high DA field and also carry enough gas for a 5 hour block flight+30 mins maneuvering gas? Also, how was this flight even dispatched? Directly through the weather? For context, DAL launched a 739 a couple hours after us and went north around the weather over the central US.
Perhaps they planned on re-dispatching enroute but then the winds aloft et al didn’t work out and they had to sit down in CLT… I don’t know.
 
Perhaps they planned on re-dispatching enroute but then the winds aloft et al didn’t work out and they had to sit down in CLT… I don’t know.

Re-dispatching isnt legal or approved for domestic part 121. Thats a flag ops spec. If you are tight on fuel domestically and fuel situation deteriorates enroute, best you can do is delete the alternate if one was listed and it is no longer required and see if a route or altitude/speed change might improve the fuel situation.
 
Re-dispatching isnt legal or approved for domestic part 121. Thats a flag ops spec. If you are tight on fuel domestically and fuel situation deteriorates enroute, best you can do is delete the alternate if one was listed and it is no longer required and see if a route or altitude/speed change might improve the fuel situation.

We redispatch domestically pretty regularly. Although come to think of it we may be going Flag as a large part of the flight is oceanic.
 
Re-dispatching isnt legal or approved for domestic part 121. Thats a flag ops spec. If you are tight on fuel domestically and fuel situation deteriorates enroute, best you can do is delete the alternate if one was listed and it is no longer required and see if a route or altitude/speed change might improve the fuel situation.
Ok… thanks for the correction.
 
All I hear about constantly is the 321neos can’t do anything they were advertised to do, besides save lots of gas. I don’t get why other airlines can use them so great and we barely get them working without IROPs or buying people off. Supposedly we had a flight from Vegas to NYC where we bought off 2/3 of the airplane and that went over well on the company pages of operations
 
All I hear about constantly is the 321neos can’t do anything they were advertised to do, besides save lots of gas. I don’t get why other airlines can use them so great and we barely get them working without IROPs or buying people off. Supposedly we had a flight from Vegas to NYC where we bought off 2/3 of the airplane and that went over well on the company pages of operations
Not sure about that particular flight, but we left OGG the other day completely full and 15k under MTOW.

Those initial SEA-SFO-HI tech stops when we first got the NEOs were due to bad planning, not performance.
 
Not sure about that particular flight, but we left OGG the other day completely full and 15k under MTOW.

Those initial SEA-SFO-HI tech stops when we first got the NEOs were due to bad planning, not performance.
Leaving OGG should never be a problem as you have helpful winds enroute and winds are primarily down the runway in OGG.

Winter winds doing SEA-HI flights or Lihue when the winds shift to crosswinds is where our planes struggle. It hasn’t been the first fuel stop. Hasn’t been the first time we’ve bought passengers off and won’t be the last.

Nothing against the neo. We just decided to buy the bare bones basic and the stories seem never ending.

The previous SEA-HI pit stops has had 3 different communications from company on why it happened, lol.

Now I’m not saying plug 757’s back on them. That’s not the solution. We need something long term here to replace the 757. All I’m saying is our neo’s seem to be underwhelming in performance so far and I’m not very impressed compared to other models we could have bought of the neo. It’s non stop stories and excuses. I love the airplane from a passenger standpoint and hope we figure it out. I wish we would have just invested in some of the better performing models.

Vegas flight was a flight first week in July that authorized 80 seats.
 
The 8 A321’s we get all trying to do a westbound oceanic crossing at FL320 within 5 mins of each other, on a Two Way track with ZAK not approving IAFDOF, all claiming they won’t be able to make it at any other alt besides 320 is getting real old.

Bring back the 75’s that can actually make it to Hawaii or tell your airline to stop sending 5 of you at a time all back to back to back off the runway headed to FICKY, and then being surprised when 320 isn’t available for all of you. Pilots been getting real chippy recently out there like it’s somehow our fault at the Center lol.
 
Back
Top