This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 71

Nonstop Flights Stop for Fuel

Submitted
Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean. The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes.… (online.wsj.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
By the way, high time and senior captains doesn't mean too much. I've flown with 15,000 hour pilots that sucked, and 1,500 hour pilots that shone...
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
This should be in response to chalet up above with the senior captain comment.
chalet
chalet 0
It depends on how you choose your friends pilots or otherwise.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
What does choosing friends have to do with a pilot's performance???
chalet
chalet 0
I meant why you ended up flying with 15K-hr pilot that suck. Pilots choose pilot companions the same way they choose friends.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
I wish if I could choose, the company does the choosing...
chalet
chalet 0
Now I understand what you mean. Commercial pilots I know have told me about their not quite pleasant experiences with fellow pilots that did not belong on the left seat which fortunately enough have been the excemption. Are you are an airline pilot by the way
Derg
Roland Dent 0
I would always choose to fly with a really "hot" lady next to me..hahah..you can always tell when the bidding gets wild when you got a "hottie" up front. Hahha!
Derg
Roland Dent 1
We have MBAs running stuff and their grey cells just cannot hack the math involved. Send 'em all back to college to do 101 foundation math, or would a local kindergarten do?
jhbeaty13
Jerry Beaty 1
As you know, non-aviators simply do not understand the dynamics involved with international flying. The detail with which the pilots and dispatch use to determine ALL factors affecting the mission. Abberations in Jet Stream movement from year to year is just one of those things operators make adjustments for in their decision making prior to flight and inflight.
Kudos to the Captains who made the decisions earlier in their flights vs those who pushed the envelope for the sake of schedule. United - Safety, first and foremost in all operations. Their's is a culture of safety.
Blue Skies...
lightcrew
Here are two United flights diverted to Gander on the same date:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL119/history/20120103/0745Z/EDDF/KEWR

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL153/history/20120103/0830Z/EDDS/KEWR

When you look at the history of the second flight (UAL153), it happens very frequently!
AccessAir
AccessAir 0
This is the price we pay for trying to down size on all aspects of the air travel. ETOPS or not, the 757 was not really designed to hop the pond...The 757 was designed to replace the 727!!! Did we ever see the 727 attempt to hop the pond Nonstop??? No...
The airlines have no one to blame but themselves for this mess...
pilot62
Almost sure they would not undersell that route, thin line on profitability with a 57.
jhakunti
Do you mean the winglets could not keep them hanging in the air?
DanielFahl
Daniel Fahl Staff Writer 0
Trans-Atlantic use of the 757 is mainly limited to the "short-haul" western European markets. Many of the markets served, such as Ireland from the eastern U.S., are comparable to a transcontinental flight from NY to L.A.; it's really not a long leg. We get this idea in our heads that its gotta be a 747 if you're crossing the ocean, but it's just not the case, especially in today's market. It's all about maximizing the revenue per available seat mile, a fine art that has been both mastered and pushed to the limits by the airlines.

A few airlines lack the necessary wide-body fleet in relation to the international network they serve. In order to tap into the lucrative international markets in a big way, you've gotta work with what you've got. It's during the winter months that this becomes an issue, as the strong winds aloft push the 757 aircraft to it's limits. Inconvenience, not danger, is the risk for passengers on these flights during the winter months. Pilots are aware well in advance that fuel will be an issue and react accordingly with planned fuel stops.
FedExCargoPilot
Check this: CO 133 from cdg-iad on Dec 8 flew over 4000miles time was over 9.5 hours...that would leave almost zero in the tanks correct if 757 can only fly 4000miles. Also anything over 9.25 hours was diverted. I don't see the point in this 757"pushing limits".
jayhawk566
Dale Hupe 0
Probably had a pretty good tail wind that round.
DanielFahl
Daniel Fahl Staff Writer 0
It's hard to say why this particular flight continued all the way to IAD, while others diverted. There are many factors that can gauge the Captains decision to divert. Flight 133 on 12/8 may have realized a fuel critical situation, but were comfortable with the weather at IAD to continue on with the option to divert if necessary. They may have reached into their fuel reserves to complete this segment. Other times, when the expected weather upon arrival is fowl, or other anticipated delays are expected, a planned fuel stop will be arranged before even leaving Europe. It comes down to fuel legalities per the FAR's, as well as a conservative approach between the Captain and airline dispatch as to whether the entire flight will be attempted or not. They can try the whole flight, and if things turn out looking not-so-good, make a last minute divert.

I've operated flights before with no planed fuel stop, but after departure, the winds were much stronger than forecast, causing an unplanned fuel stop. It happens.
delmonaco03
That is when the majority of flights get routed to Bangor, poor weather in the NYC/PHI area so they stop for fuel, usually clear customs and continue on.
SmokingKoala
Yes, it happens :) It can happen to anyone. Happened to me years back on a SK flight ex NRT bound for CPH when the headwinds over siberia were too strong even for a 747. Diverted to ARN, sat on tarmac for hours & hours in the middle of a wonderfully frosty swedish winter night, unions screaming that the crew´s 12 hrs were already over, waited for replacement to take us down to CPH, a hop of 50 mns. arrived almost 6 hrs late. it´s not fatal but pretty uncomfortable and i would never fly airlines which deliberately apply this policy. not to mention the comfort of a fully packed 757 over the big pond :(((
FedExCargoPilot
why not use the 777 on ams/cdg to dulles instead of 2 757s? what a waste of money, very bad on UAs operations. how about 767-200s in the winter and 757s in the summer? this is a winter issue..would never fly a 757 trans atlantic. thats why 777/767s were made for this.
MrNuke
MrNuke 0
That would mean pulling a 777 off of some other route.
chalet
chalet 0
Virtually all airlines with U.S. flag and flying 757s have stopped at Canadian airports recently to refuel, in some cases even 767s and 777s. Nothing to lose one´s sleep, before leaving Europe they know what headwinds are expected and if necessary they have various enroute airports where they can stop by such as Iceland, Greenland before hitting Newfoundland.
jkudlick
That's correct. UAL reduced their 747 fleet and had to replace those 747s with 777s. Other routes (such as IAD-GRU) grew in popularity so the 767 was no longer sufficient to handle the demand.

UAL actually eliminated the old UAL IAD-CDG 777 route and replaced it with 3 COA 757s. I don't understand the reasoning other than they had to do something with the aircraft they were inheriting. It will be interesting to see what they do with the 737s they inherited after eliminating their own 737 fleet a few years ago.
EmeraldRocket
But by pushing its international Boeing Co. 757s to nearly the limit of their roughly 4,000-nautical-mile range, United is leaving little room for error when stiff winds increase the amount of fuel the planes' twin engines burn.

Last month, United said, its 169-seat 757s had to stop 43 times to refuel out of nearly 1,100 flights headed to the U.S. A year earlier, there were only 12 unscheduled stops on roughly the same volume of 757 flights.

Last month, United said, its 169-seat 757s had to stop 43 times to refuel out of nearly 1,100 flights headed to the U.S. A year earlier, there were only 12 unscheduled stops on roughly the same volume of 757 flights.

Such stops are safer than eating into the minimum amount of reserve fuel pilots are required to keep on board, which guarantees that a plane can fly 45 minutes past its destination or alternate landing spot.

The resulting delays can cause passengers to miss connections; require them to be put up at hotels by the airline; and sometimes prompt them to seek compensation for their troubles.

A United spokesman said the company has been offering compensation as a gesture of good will in situations where customers' experiences warrant it.

Remote Canadian fields at Gander and Goose Bay are the primary places to top off the tanks, but United confirmed that some of its 757 jets were also diverted to Iceland; Ireland; Nova Scotia; Albany, N.Y.; and Stewart International Airport, 60 miles north of Manhattan.

"Headwinds returning from Europe are more extreme than we have seen in 10 years," said a United spokeswoman. For the past decade, December headwinds averaged 30 knots, according to United data. But last month, the winds averaged 47 knots, and, on the worst 15 days of the month, 60 knots.

The winds didn't abate this month. In the first eight days of January, United said it made unplanned refueling stops on 14 flights on the six routes most prone to refueling, including four on the Stuttgart-Newark run, four on Paris-Washington Dulles and two each on Stockholm-Newark and Barcelona-Newark. Those routes tend to be nearly as long as the plane's maximum range.

For remote airports such as Goose Bay and Gander, which have been largely bypassed in recent years by jetliners' longer range capabilities, fueling stops can bring in tens of thousands of dollars in landing fees and other revenue a month.

The United spokeswoman said it hasn't substituted larger aircraft on the affected routes because those planes are being used on other parts of the route network of the Chicago-based carrier, which was formed by the 2010 merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines. According to industry estimates, a nearly full 757, operating with fewer flight attendants, can be more profitable than a larger plane such as the Boeing 767 carrying the same number of passengers but more attendants.

The refueling-stop issues haven't posed any safety hazards, according to government and industry experts. But a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said agency officials are "aware that United aircraft have made more unscheduled fuel stops this year than last year, and we are looking into the issue." Capt. Jay Pierce, chairman of the pilots union representing Continental pilots, said last week that he asked the union's safety officials to look into the matter.


The refueling-stop issues haven't posed any safety hazards, according to government and industry experts. But a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said agency officials are "aware that United aircraft have made more unscheduled fuel stops this year than last year, and we are looking into the issue." Capt. Jay Pierce, chairman of the pilots union representing Continental pilots, said last week that he asked the union's safety officials to look into the matter.

The fluky weather pattern, which AccuWeather.com meteorologist Henry Margusity blames on La Niña, or cooler-than-normal equatorial ocean temperatures in the Pacific, has also created problems for other airlines using single-aisle 757 jets across the Atlantic.

USAirways Group Inc., which uses 757s between Philadelphia and some European cities, said that in December it diverted four of 112 trans-Atlantic flights due to strong headwinds. Three Amsterdam-Philadelphia flights and a flight from Brussels to Philadelphia gassed up in Bangor, Maine, the company said. Early in January, two more had to stop in Bangor. But the carrier, which has a much smaller European route map than United, has some flexibility to switch to Boeing 767 jets, and a spokesman said it tries to do so in the winter.

AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, which serves six European routes with 757s, said it has had "a few" unplanned fuel stops on westbound flights, but it's "not a daily occurrence." Delta Air Lines Inc., which also flies 757s to Europe, said it didn't experience a single diversion due to fuel constraints in December or so far this month.

United's Continental unit—which relies on 757s to link its Newark, N.J., hub to numerous European destinations—has been most adversely affected. And recently, Continental began deploying some of its 757s on two traditional United routes out of Dulles—to Paris and Amsterdam—that used to be served by larger planes, exposing some westbound fliers to the same diversions that have played havoc with its schedule and reputation.

Jesse Hoy, a TV producer in Los Angeles, was traveling back from Paris with his pregnant wife on Jan. 3 on a Continental plane. Shortly before takeoff, Mr. Hoy said, the pilot said the jet was going to make an unscheduled fuel stop in Gander due to high winds but would try to get passengers to Dulles in time to make connections. Mr. Hoy said the plane landed at 9:50 p.m., the exact time his United flight to Los Angeles was scheduled to take off. The couple didn't make it home for two more days.

The workhorse 757, which entered airline service in 1983 and was produced until 2004, can carry more than 220 passengers in one class. In the U.S., it was initially used for domestic flights, including coast-to-coast trips, and for trips to nearby overseas destinations. But once the FAA in the early 1990s granted airline operators permission to use it on over-water routes, carriers including American, Northwest, US Airways and Continental found the 757 a fuel-effective way to serve cities in Western Europe that had previously been reached with larger, more costly wide-body planes that consume more fuel but have greater range.

Continental's enthusiasm for the 757 came under scrutiny four years ago when federal officials determined the carrier was responsible for nearly two-thirds of all the minimum fuel or fuel-emergency incidents reported annually by airliners landing in Newark. There were minimum fuel issues on 23 flights arriving from Barcelona over the course of a single year. When pilots make those calls, air traffic controllers give them landing priority. The Transportation Department's inspector general didn't find any safety violations, however.
maxie13
john folker 0
Continental? I thought this Airline was named United..........
planeman33
Donald Rand 0
Just keep an eye on BGR to see who stops for fuel
delmonaco03
I notice they're coming to Bangor especially when the weather in the New York/New Jersey and Philadelphia area is poor. But it's nice having something outside of the CRJ's and Embraer's to watch from my front porch.
mduell
Mark Duell 0
Most are going to Goose Bay or Gander.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
How many / much pax / cargo would the load need to be reduced by to be able to make these routes without refueling? Would it not be more cost effective to just undersell the flights rather than have to stop and pay for hotels etc.?
DiversionD
Darryl Sarno 0
I believe the diversions have to do with strong head winds. I ahve seen many United (Continental) flights en route to EWR or IAD divert for fuel. Also, Bangor (BGR) has seen AMerican B757's as well as US Airways flights make fuel stops.
pdixonj
pdixonj 0
The issue isn't that a 757 sometimes has to make a fuel-stop on a TO flight, it's that people are paying for a "nonstop" flight, and they're not getting what they paid for due to a situation already known to the airline, but that passengers aren't being made aware of.

More so, I presume they're not being told until just before departure or "after" the flight has departed that a fuel-stop would be necessary...when it's too late for any of them to make any changes to their travel plans down the line. The problem is a lack of information being given to passengers so that they can make informed decisions on whether to put up with a fuel-stop or to make alternate travel arrangements...all people really want from an airline is to be treated like a PERSON.
jhakunti
I totally agree, and was just about to suggest that.
DanielFahl
Daniel Fahl Staff Writer 0
I think you are overestimating the foresight of such a situation. Planned fuel stops aren't necessarily known far enough in advance to inform everyone as to allow for alternative travel plans. These decisions take place between airline operations and the Captain, which often occurs shortly prior to departure.
Yankees8898
Scott Rapacki 0
I beg to differ. These airlines know several hours in advance whether they will be able to make the trip non-stop or not. If they are properly pre-planning, and reviewing the weather and flight plans as they are supposed to, they will know, at a minimum 3-4 hours prior to departure whether they can make the trip non-stop. To be honest - they should know with 90%+ certainty 12 hours prior to departure whether they will make the flight non-stop or not. Instead - they choose to lie to passengers and say that this situation just came up. It is crap..
chalet
chalet 0
Indeed the airline dispatchers know with a great degree of certainty as you say "several hours in advance" whether the flight in question can make the trip non stop, but Scott the thing is that the tickets were sold "several days if not weeks in advance".so they would have to bump some of the passengers offering attractive vouchers in case they need to increase the fuel uptake.
pdixonj
pdixonj 0
Planned fuel stops for individual flights may not be known, but operating an aircraft on a route that has been known, several times in the past, to push the aircraft to it's range limits, thus requiring a fuel stop, and not informing passengers of this at the time they book the flight, is just plain bad for business. It's one thing if people were accustomed to their TO flights having to make these stops, but that's not the case, airliners routinely make ocean crossings and most do it nonstop (as advertised).

All I'm saying is that if a person living in Europe is rushing to the U.S. to visit an ill relative or friend who's only expected to live a day or two at the most, and they decide to book on an airline's "nonstop" TO flight, and that flight has been known to divert for fuel a few times before due to range limitations of the aircraft, that's something this person would want to know before they decided to book on that flight. It's a blatant disrespect of people's time (as well as their money) to assume that it would be little more than an inconvenience to their travel plans, when it could actually be a serious and stressful impact on their lives, especially if it was due to something that was within the airline's control.

We're not talking abrupt bad weather or a last second mechanical problem, it's the plane not having enough gas to make it from point A to point B because it's not quite big enough to make the trip nonstop every day it operates. That's senseless, disrespectful, and greedy.
chalet
chalet 0
You got a valid point, if airlines are selling non-stop flights they should do all they have to in order to meet that, including bumping people (and making them good with $ 1000 or more in vouchers). Many years ago I took to task good ole Braniff and good ole Eastern when they eere landing in Panama (PTY) on a regular basis, DC-8s, 727s and 1011s as they could not reach MIA with the initial fuel upload.
FedExCargoPilot
True, not everybody knows 757 limitations and figures it would be smarter to take the 767-200 an hour later. There should be an alert on the flight, though that may just spook the public. Its a difficult argument, and headwinds and fuel consumption is hard to predict far in advance. Usually the airline makes it so that some arrangement could be made, like taking the next flight to the final destination or reroute through O'hare for example. But pilots coming on over mid-atlantic saying there is not enough fuel to make it safely to Dulles, I can see why that could really anger Pax and would anger me as well. Because fuel is a basic need, and would question why the airline wouldn't pick an airplane that could make it to the destination, and have plenty of fuel to circle and divert to another airport.

In conclusion, if inflight and the plane is in a headwind and makes an unexpected stop, it isn't the fault of the crew to make a stop, or airline if it was unexpected and simply wasn't enough fuel. But if its planned, I don't see why the airline wouldn't rebook people on different flights through different cities, and explain the situation..that should be a given.
flyinchief
John Oddo 0
Same thing happen to us, I work for AA and we had a Manchester JFK flight stop in Maine to refuel
kinoworks
G R E E D
snowboss
Continental Airlines is history, it is now United Airlines!!!
laxfool17
go figure, airline management stepping over dollars to pick up dimes...
Pileits
Pileits 0
If the flight is advertised as non-stop but then you find out before departure they are planning a fuel stop, then it becomes FRAUDULENT advertising.
Take the airline to court and complain to the Federal Trade Commission about this false advertising as not meeting the requirement to provide detailed accurate travel times as well as ALL charges associated with the flight.
Its all about money grabbing airlines trying to crowd MORE people into a confined spaces without regard to health and safety caused by that overcrowding nor the disruption caused to those passengers.
emtp139
Take a look at AAL55 over the past week or two. Lots of diversions to KBGR.
thunderland2
al fredericks 0
some airliners allow underwing pod to be added to fly spare engines to where-ever, almost like a fuel drop tank on fighters. looks like the a/c has 5 engines instead of four. saw this in new zealand (auckland). so, INSTEAD OF CARRYING AN ENGINE, CARRY A FUEL POD.JUST A THOUGHT!
jkudlick
It might allow for the transport of the engine, but are there fuel-system attachments to those hardpoints? If not, then attaching a fuel pod in the same location does nothing except add extra weight and drag.
grinch59
Gene Nowak 0
Maybe the airlines need air refueling capabilities. Then they might be able o call upon the 101st ARW out of Bangor for assistance.
jkudlick
I doubt the airlines would be willing to spend that kind of $ to train their pilots in close-quarters flight like that. The booms on KC-135s and KC-10 only extend so far. Unless the pilot flew for the USAF, they will probably have no experience with boom refueling (USN and USMC use drogue-line refueling). I wouldn't want my pilot's first mid-air refueling experience to actually be OJT.
chalet
chalet 0
Totally out of the question. The cost of retrofitting commercial airliners to take fuel would cost in the hundreds of millions. Then add a couple of hundred millions more for training and finally, how much would the air forces charge to have say two or three KC-135s, KC-10s and other tankers along the routes on a full stand by basis ready to go and assist a plane in less than one hour after they receive a Mayday call: FUEL ME, FUEL ME. FORGET IT.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Lets see if we can get the MBAs to believe they actually thought of that themselves..could work. They are such triers...God bless 'em all.
thunderland2
al fredericks 0
they will say, out of gas. EAT SOME BEANS
eagle5719
eagle5719 0
After some calculations concerning weight and balance and airspeed - maybe tip tanks would solve the problem.
erisajd
erisajd 0
This is bad for business. I have heard bout the winter 757 diversions and if I were traveling to Europe this winter would be more likely to select a national carrier who are operating twin aisle jets with longer range. Generally Lufthansa has the same fares as AA or UA and much better service. Now it's actually nonstop as well. I cannot image the dgifference in comfort on a 9 hour trip between an old cramped 757 and a 767 even. Ugh. Type of aircraft is enough to change my selection of carrier. 757 across the pond is a game changer.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
Ya stop for gas, they complain. Ya run outta gas, they complain!!!
Rumor has it, they're building a bridge from EINN to KBGR. The toll shouild be a little less than the $89 ticket that the public demands...
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
The news media is making much to do about what amounts to 0.0033% of the flights crossing the Atlantic that United had to divert for fuel. This is not a lot of flights to divert. Weather delays and cancellations due to weather can cause more delays in one day than this. This is the one time I have to come down on the side of the operator.


In everything we do we plan for the norm and when a situation arises that effects the norm you deal with it in the best possible manner you can. In this situation when the Airlines looked at future reservations it made no sense to operate a larger aircraft so they put the smaller 757s on the route to try at the very least too break even for the flight(s).


You can't predict weather or head winds. The headwinds we are seeing haven't been seen in 10 years or more. Some fights are light enough that the fuel dispatched with can allow for the unexpected head winds and possible arrival delays. In December United had 43 out of 1,100 crossings where the pilots felt the need to stop for additional fuel. It is a Captains decision to stop for fuel. It does not mean the plane could not make destination without stopping. It means the Captain felt it was safer to stop then not stop.

This also doesn't mean that United or any other Airline should rearrange their flight schedules to put the larger, longer distance aircraft on these routes. Which route should they change aircraft on. How much deeper in debt should the go for a possible 6,500 passenger out of a possible 181,500 passengers who might be inconvenienced.

The winds will diminish soon. United is accommodating those they strand at Newark for the night. While this may be inconvenient for those passengers it would be more convenient for future passengers if United and other airlines were to totally ignore the bottom line over an issue like this.

As I said the media is making a mountain out of a very small, 0.033% mole hill.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
This argument is flawed because:

1. Minimum fuel requirement is NOT optional
2. A safety critical issue always over rides profit motives
3. No comparison data is offered from other operators using this aircraft.
FLGeographer
Joseph Brown 0
That's why my first choice is a foreign flag carrier between the US and Europe. I only fly US flagged carriers when I absolutely have to.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
The Foreign flag carriers are reducing capacity as well. You could just as well end up on a smaller aircraft then the one you may be use to traveling on. The one thing I do agree with you on is the service on the Foreign Flag carriers, is generally speaking, far superior to our domestic carriers making it well worth selecting them over the domestic carrier.
erisajd
erisajd 0
Guys- headwinds do not INCREASE the amount of fuel burned by the engines. . . .the additional length of the flight increases the amount of fuel burned - the airplane has not a clue whether it has headwinds or tailwinds - it flies at Mach .76 or ,84 or whatever and generates a groundspeed based on the winds it faces -

Pilots can go higher - to FL410 if necessary - to try to get above the worst of the winds and burn less fuel - but that slows them down so the calculus is best ground speed for the wind speeds and fuel burn.

But headwinds do not change the fuel burn of the engines one bit - they burn what they burn at the given temperature and power setting whethe3r they have a 100kt tail wind or a 60kt headwind . . .
chalet
chalet 0
Oh my, oh, my, you left me speechless, I guess you should take your (strange) phylosophical theory to the airlines and weathermen. FYI sometime ago senior captains who cross the U.S. coast to coast and over the Atlantic to Europe on a regular basis said in a conference that the Jetstream reduces flight time and by extension fuel burn when flying from west to east and the opposite happens when flying from the east towards the west. I kept the calling cards of a couple of those captains and I am forwarding to them your discourse, I am sure they will will find it enlightening......
erisajd
erisajd 1
Yes, please do that. The photo of me in my actor, if you look closely, if of me in the left seat of an aircraft.

The engines have no idea whether they face a headwind or a tailind. An engine, for example, burns 3000 lbs per hour. You have a 7 hour flight from JFK - BRU that engine burns 21000 lbs of fuel. With an 8.5 hr flight (say BRU-JFK) the engine burns 25500lbs if you can carry 60,000 lbs of fuel you have a problem westbound in a twin.

But the only reason an airplane burns more fuel with a headwind is that the flight is longer.
cmrle02ss
Chalet obviously has no clue to how any engine works. "said in a conference that the Jetstream reduces flight time and by extension fuel burn when flying from west to east and the opposite happens when flying from the east towards the west" - The fuel burn the captain was discussing was the total fuel burn for the trip, not the fuel burn per hour for the engine. I too am speechless after reading chalet's comment.
chalet
chalet 0
Now roland silly boy it is obvious that you ought to read everything 3 or more times before you understand what is being said. Put your reading glasses where they belong, read again all the blogs and see what I was talking about. Hope that you will get it righ this time.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
I think you're the one that is reading the comment by erisajd wrong. He like myself stated there is no direct connection between winds and fuel burn. The consumption will be affected by the winds.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Haha Chalet..it is true..I read a little until I come to a real "howler" then I stop. I really do believe that many flight crews would fail the 101 Physics exam...not all but a significant number. Now turn the clock back 35 years and ALL flight engineers would pass the 101...see what I mean. They want pilots to be machine minders and hand holders which, in my view, is NOT what the masters' job is about. But thats just me....
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
You're partly correct, the technicality here is in the wording. The winds do not increase or decrease the engine's burn. The increase or decrease of consumed fuel happens as a result of increased or decreased times due to the winds.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
Put this way; headwinds slow forward progress extending flightime. Engines run longer burning more fuel. Tail winds push the plane faster making for a shorter flight time and less fuel burned.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
This discussion illustrates a very big problem we have when educating our children in schools and colleges.
erisajd
erisajd 0
yeah, because most people are idiots . . . taught by organizations designed to make everyone feel good instead of learn well . . .
chalet
chalet 0
When a pilot talks about fuel consumption he seldom if ever refers to SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption) which is the amount of fuel (expressed in pounds) burned per unit of time (say one hour) to deliver energy (pounds of thrust for jet engines or horsepower for recip engines) which is not affected by wind. Pilots always present concern is the amount of fuel he will need for a given flight expressed in gallons and this is affected by wind.
erisajd
erisajd 0
Wrong. Turbine pilots talk about pounds per hour. Piston pilots talk in terms of gallons per hour. The discussion is always about time remaining . . . Time of flight remaining vs. time of fuel left.
zvis
zvi shtayman 0
and what about seating in this long 6 abrest one aisle corridor for 7-8 hours, instead of a widebody
zvis
zvi shtayman 0
and what about the impossible seating 6 abrest / single aisle fot many hours?
npog99
npog99 0
I am sorry I will use this post to express my deep dislike for the B757. From the cabin crew and passenger perspectives, this airplane is horrible. It's no more than a b707 with two engines instead of four. I am so glad Boeign decided to stop production of it.

This plane was not designed for today's international travel. It is a super-crouded, densely packed flying tube too uncomfortable for more than a 3 hr flight, let alone a Transatlantic flight. Good bye 757. Welcome Dreamliner!
aetty
Ya I was wondering why Thayer got diverted to
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
"Continental's enthusiasm for the 757 came under scrutiny four years ago when federal officials determined the carrier was responsible for nearly two-thirds of all the minimum fuel or fuel-emergency incidents reported annually by airliners landing in Newark."

That statistic by itself is meaningless; Continental has a hub at Newark and conducts more operations than any other carrier so it's not surprising that they'd have the plurality or majority of minimum fuel arrivals.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!