United 724 "Overburn"

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Did you read what I posted above from the other website? This sounds like a one off thing. They could have continued as is but the unforecast wind made it so IF they had to descend they wouldn't have had enough. We're talking a few hours at 10,000 ft....that was the issue. If the weather was accurate in the flight plan then if wouldn't have been an issue but like @TUCKnTRUCK said they run the flight plans hours in advance.

The sad part - the inflight information available to most modern GA airplanes far exceeds what 121 guys get. 172's get better stuff than a lot of corp. jets get... And the lowly iPad on wifi far outpaces even that.

 

[Springer]

I get than tankering fuel costs money. But running on the thin side to where "carry what you need" is about all you have, with reserves of course, would seem to cost far more in having to turn around.....fuel-wise in returning and launching again, maintenance-wise, passengers-wise.....than tankering a bit more of a hedge would ultimately cost. Little bit of an insurance policy with an extra amount of fuel, not necessarily saying to top the tanks.

It would be interesting to know how tight UAL's contingency fuel is compared to other airlines and what kind of pressures their dispatchers are under.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

It would be interesting to know how tight UAL's contingency fuel is compared to other airlines and what kind of pressures their dispatchers are under.

On the E-190 we try to land with 5,000 LB. 3,500 is our minimum fuel.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

It would be interesting to know how tight UAL's contingency fuel is compared to other airlines and what kind of pressures their dispatchers are under.

Small amounts of tanker= $$$$$ at the end of the year. The sheer number of flights per day mean that even small over runs that happen every flight will have mass of scale economic effect.

The cheap-o blankets and pillows were rumored to cost several hundred thousand annually at CAL, spare magazines into the millions range.

Most Boeing operators have a cost index program, most of which comes from Boeing, then tweaked by the operator.

This kind of explains the airplane side

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_05_2.html

 

[Tommay85]

Sounds like shady operating standards overall...

Coming from a part 135 freight guy, that should say something...

 

[BobDDuck]

Sounds like shady operating standards overall...

Coming from a part 135 freight guy, that should say something...

I bet you don't do intersection departures either.

 

[Tommay85]

I bet you don't do intersection departures either.

Can't do LAHSO either

 

[Springer]

Small amounts of tanker= $$$$$ at the end of the year. The sheer number of flights per day mean that even small over runs that happen every flight will have mass of scale economic effect.

The cheap-o blankets and pillows were rumored to cost several hundred thousand annually at CAL, spare magazines into the millions range.

Most Boeing operators have a cost index program, most of which comes from Boeing, then tweaked by the operator.

This kind of explains the airplane side

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_05_2.html

I understand that. There is planned, alternate, reserve, tanker and contingency fuel. Contingency fuel is placed aboard when there are possible delays, unable to fly at filed cruise alt, wx/traffic diversions, etc. When I have asked for more fuel it goes into that block.

As an example, I am always leery when I am the first flight of the day and I am dispatched with planned and reserve fuel only to find that I have to fly lower than the planned cruising alt due to unforecasted turbulence and I am delayed arriving due to traffic. In this case added fuel is placed in the contingency block. I have been flying long enough to know when to ask for more fuel and have never been refused. Considering that UAL's Senior VP of Flt Ops came from my airline, I was curious to know UAL's policy.

Ex UAL "570"

 

[Tommay85]

I get than tankering fuel costs money. But running on the thin side to where "carry what you need" is about all you have, with reserves of course, would seem to cost far more in having to turn around.....fuel-wise in returning and launching again, maintenance-wise, passengers-wise.....than tankering a bit more of a hedge would ultimately cost. Little bit of an insurance policy with an extra amount of fuel, not necessarily saying to top the tanks.

Totally with you here. We only need 3400-3600 to land in Barbados or Aguadilla most of the time with the Braz. The Metro only burns 1500 on the same route, needing about 1100 to meet the same requirement. We still plan to arrive at the final approach fix at all destinations with 45 minutes of holding fuel before hitting the 1 hour reserve required by the company. It costs the company about a 2 million per year to carry this much extra gas. No craps given all around in the interest of safety and making it to the destination as planned. FedEx is paying for it and as far as I can tell is following the same philosophy with their own operation.

I'm calling shady operations only if the captain requested more and someone said "no" and the captain didn't have the stones to say "we're not going until you give me X".

Jetstreams and trade winds are the easiest and most consistent to predict. I call bullocks for unfavorable predicted winds aloft in the flight levels. Sounds like out of date weather or laziness to me... I feel the same way about lightning strikes, hail, and sever turbulence encounters though. Laziness or incompetence all around.

 

[cmhumphr]

I'm more amazed at the fact AA is running A321's on LAX-HNL. Talk about running on fumes!

 

[Cal Goat]

The sad part - the inflight information available to most modern GA airplanes far exceeds what 121 guys get. 172's get better stuff than a lot of corp. jets get... And the lowly iPad on wifi far outpaces even that.

I dunno. Flying 3+ hour legs in the CRJ700 and now crossing oceans and continents in the whale, the performance and weather data we get from Sabre/Aerodata is impressively consistent when it comes to actual flight times. I've only seen a handful of incidents where actual enroute weather was dramatically different from our forecast.

Even if an airline crew was using the latest and greatest iPad software with live data, you still coordinate a decision like this with the company.

 

[MikeD]

I can see management pressuring guys to take the least amount of fuel safely possible, but as stated by Springer, the Capt should be able to request more if he feels he needs it. His flight, his jet, his responsibility to get there and plan for contingencies. If the company doesn't want to give extra fuel, then maybe it's the of-described "parking brake" time?

 

[Baronman]

I'm more amazed at the fact AA is running A321's on LAX-HNL. Talk about running on fumes!

A321's with 2 additional tanks holds 50,000lbs of gas. With the sharklets it should be no problem. 6 1/2hrs block with reserves and an alternate are fine.

 

[cezzna]

What a crock of crap. The 121 people always berate to he 91 world, but this kind of bull crap doesn't happen in the 91 world. I always carry enough fuel for many various contingencies. I normally land with PLENTY of fuel, far beyond minimums.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I dunno. Flying 3+ hour legs in the CRJ700 and now crossing oceans and continents in the whale, the performance and weather data we get from Sabre/Aerodata is impressively consistent when it comes to actual flight times. I've only seen a handful of incidents where actual enroute weather was dramatically different from our forecast.

Even if an airline crew was using the latest and greatest iPad software with live data, you still coordinate a decision like this with the company.

We use the same data provider as saber, but, garbage in / garbage out still applies. If your dispatcher pulls the plan 8 hours before your dept. time, it might not work. The Data we get now with all the live WX makes it a lot easier to give things a reality check long before you ever launch. Having come from 121, the data available to me now 91 makes it much easier.

 

[Nark]

It costs the company about a 2 million per year to carry this much extra gas. No craps given all around in the interest of safety and making it to the destination as planned. FedEx is paying for it and as far as I can tell is following the same philosophy with their own operation.

So which is it, Fedex or Ameriflight that pays for it?

Also, the Brasillia is ETOPS capable?

 

[Murdoughnut]

It costs an unneccesary amount of money to carry that much more gas than you actually need... In this case the weather changed. Why is everyone making a big deal about this? There's a reason you check fuel at waypoints. When have you flown an airplane fully loaded with gas for a leg that doesn't require it? I guess I am not sure what you fly either.

I would assume they also probably get a better price on fuel in SFO than at HNL

 

[ClarkGriswold]

I can see management pressuring guys to take the least amount of fuel safely possible, but as stated by Springer, the Capt should be able to request more if he feels he needs it. His flight, his jet, his responsibility to get there and plan for contingencies. If the company doesn't want to give extra fuel, then maybe it's the of-described "parking brake" time?

This has nothing to do with asking for extra gas. PER the flight plan it was legal, he had no reason at the time im sure to question it. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. It has been stated the flight plans are ran early, the weather changed. It has happened to me before and we had to divert. I'm done commenting on this.

 

[Max Power]

What a crock of crap. The 121 people always berate to he 91 world, but this kind of bull crap doesn't happen in the 91 world. I always carry enough fuel for many various contingencies. I normally land with PLENTY of fuel, far beyond minimums.

Because 91 and most 135 ops tend to do most of the flight planning right before they depart or fairly close to it. And the PIC is usually the one doing the planning, not someone else in another state (or country). Granted, the PIC is to double-check the dispatchers accuracy, but it sounds like they did and they realized the winds were stronger than forecast in flight. As has been stated, the dispatcher might have run the planning at the beginning of a shift. We've all seen the forecast wx/winds etc. get completely messed up, even right before departure.

 

[MikeD]

This has nothing to do with asking for extra gas. PER the flight plan it was legal, he had no reason at the time im sure to question it. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. It has been stated the flight plans are ran early, the weather changed. It has happened to me before and we had to divert. I'm done commenting on this.

Ease up there partner. It's simply a discussion. No one is slamming the capt, nor is anyone saying anything wasn't legal. My only question is why airlines in general seem to want to not hedge with some extra fuel beyond what's just needed + reserves, all due to it costing a bit of money? Seems like it would be a small price to pay as an insurance policy against something like this occurring, and all the costs + negative PR that go with an occurrence like this. I would think any pilot...and even the airline itself....would like some extra fuel if it can be carried.