Southwest airlines announces flights to Hawaii from mainland
- Thread starter A1TAPE
- Start date
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
The biggest difference is just the certification. Equipment and furnishing wise they are almost the same. Only a few minor differences on the ETOPS A321 to meet the certification. If the aircraft didnt have ETOPS on the logbook and aircraft, the pilots wouldnt notice the difference really. I mean the pilots and mechanics both missed it too on the non ETOPS plane that was on the ETOPS trip. It wasnt just a dispatcher mistake.
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
I envision a waffle house on every corner shortly thereafter.
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
DispatcherSam
Well-Known Member
I chortled
4EngineETOPS
Well-Known Member
It’s better than their connection with Chevron stations.
Check out those gas prices!
If they did that in PDX, the gas station attendant is legally required to fill up the tank for them.
manniax
Well-met in the Ka-tet
It’s better than their connection with Chevron stations.
Check out those gas prices!
That is some low-priced gasoline for sure.
It will be even lower thanks to SWA hedging gas bets right and getting gas at coal bottom prices.
manniax
Well-met in the Ka-tet
Ohhhhhkay...
F9DXER
Well-Known Member
Way back when, ATA ran 737-800 to Hawaii. Of course their first flight was illegal as well as the OPSPEC wasn't updated before the first flight went
That ETOPS fuel is what is the pain. I know ATA and UA were/are allowed to reduce the ETOPS fuel amount if no icing is forecast along the diversion route.
That ETOPS fuel is what is the pain. I know ATA and UA were/are allowed to reduce the ETOPS fuel amount if no icing is forecast along the diversion route.
stunnershow
Well-Known Member
Is the pain from the ETOPS fuel caused by the fact that the aircraft is now weight limited in terms of PAX+BAGS?
Delta Echo
Well-Known Member
On Hawaii ETOPS dispatchers are allowed not to select icing on if conditions don't exist on the ETOPS alternate routes.
The actual ETOPS diversion fuel is a hefty amount, but it is planed on worst case traveling from the ETP at FL100.
Delta Echo
Well-Known Member
Is the pain from the ETOPS fuel caused by the fact that the aircraft is now weight limited in terms of PAX+BAGS?
Yes, payload will go, if needed due to required fuel load.
FOXTROT YANKEE
Well-Known Member
Just curious to how you redispatch between CONUS and Hawaii using ITO/KOA or SFO/SJC. I know I have no credibility here, but from what I understand when redispatching a flight, you use your 10% reserves as part of your usable fuel when using a reclear point. You're basically saying you can satisfy the fuel requirements, 10% 30min hold, to your intended destination...once at this redispatch point. It doesnt make sense to me to use ITO/KOA to as initials destinations, going westbound, because regardless of your redispatch point, the fuel burn to your intended destination, HNL or OGG, will be almost the same as your fuel burn to your initial, ITO/KOA. It doesn't seem economical.
It would be the same reason using Bay Area airports for a redispatch from Hawaii to West Coast destinations wouldn't be economical. The short flight times don't amount to a substantial enough 10% reserve to use.
I'm not saying it wont work... what Im wondering about is if the fuel savings for weight restrictions are beneficial enough to actually redispatch the flight.
Most redispatches are long haul flights and have airports along their route of flight. This makes more sense since the 10% reserves are much higher. Using airport pairs a couple hours prior to landing at your intended destination seems to be good redispatch points.
Please correct me if I'm wrong or have the thought process incorrect.
I'm not bashing, I genuinely would like to understand what you meant in your statement.
Thanks
Last edited:
z987k
Well-Known Member
So you don't redispatch from KOA to HNL, you launch from LAX to KOA and at some point along the route, lets just say 1/2 way to KOA, you the run the fuel requirement from that point to HNL. So now your 10% does not include any of the fuel from LAX to 1/2 way or any of the climb fuel.
So you plan ANC-Asia with redispatch point somewhere in between with a redispatch airport of ANC? Not say like CTS or something where you would need a lot less gas?
McCrosky
Well-Known Member
I think what FY was saying is that the difference in 10% com LAX-KOA and LAX-HNL is so minimal does it make it worth it?
The second point, I have done this before on say ANC-KIX or NRT. Usually due to most the Japanese airports being closed at the times I would need them. Or not in C70 at all.
Flagship_dxer
Penske Material
It is true the savings are not as good as you would get on a re-dispatch on many other flights. However, on a flight that is tankage and ramp weight critical everything can help. In the case of OGG/LIH, you are also runway performance limited. So every little bit of savings can help in getting more people on. Plus if payload is offloaded and you are using a full 10% release even with 10-15 mins of hold fuel + alternate, there are some management types that blame the dispatcher for putting too much fuel on because they think a re-dispatch is always going to result in the lowest fuel. Thus a re-dispatch can CYA if you are offloading.