Interesting article

Came across this earlier and thought it was quite interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 41982.html

Looks to me like an accident waiting to happen.

You can see why they would want to do this but did they not look at previous years weather patterns to see if this sort of thing might happen.

I definitely would't feel comfortable on such a small aircraft.

Surely the cost of refuelling elsewhere and additional fuel used completing a secondary take off and landing must outweigh the savings of using the smaller aircraft?

I remember the days of stopping at Gander to refuel!

Looks to me like an accident waiting to happen.

I think (hope) you're joking.

The FAA wouldn't be allowing thousands of 757's to cross the atlantic every week without be 100% confident that the aircraft is safe to do so.

Sometimes flights from the US to Asia on 747's have to make fuel stops in places like Taiwan because of headwinds on the pacific. Doesn't make it unsafe.

Two reasons I would not choose to fly TATL on a single aisle plane a) cabin comfort and b) the risk of delay due to running out of fuel ... there's a big debate on this on ANet, between those arguing that smaller planes achieve the perceived nirvana of frequency of operation, vs those who like me don't look forward to them. I've never got the argument that you need to flood a market with frequent small plane flights, rather than better planned larger planes - but some are vehement about it!

I definitely would't feel comfortable on such a small aircraft.

I agree that crossing the pond on a narrow body, single aisle aircraft is not very appealling to me for comfort reasons. Also remember that Air Canada use an A319 across the pond on scheduled flights from LHR to Halifax.

However, I would jump at the chance to use BA's A318 service from LCY to JFK.

I always found that the EOS flights to JFK - using 757s, were perfectly comfortable. Better than VS in many ways. Although back then I was not au fait with their range limitation, which might have put me a bit more on edge...

And yes, I hear nothing but good things from my colleagues that have done the BA flight out of LCY. The minor irritation of the Shannon stop off is offset by the easy immigration clearance (apparently...).

Looks to me like an accident waiting to happen.

I think (hope) you're joking.

The FAA wouldn't be allowing thousands of 757's to cross the atlantic every week without be 100% confident that the aircraft is safe to do so.

Sometimes flights from the US to Asia on 747's have to make fuel stops in places like Taiwan because of headwinds on the pacific. Doesn't make it unsafe.

I am absolutely serious. What happens when an aircraft that has been battling strong headwinds needs to refuel and airports are closed due to weather issues etc?

I hope this never happens but often dissasters happen when several unforseen circumstances happen at the same time.

I have flown LGW to Montreal in a 757 many years ago and is was not a good experience with only one aisle.

I would be far happier flying in something that has the range even with the headwinds.

If the US carriers dont have the load factors or aircraft to fly these lean routes, why don't they run feeder flights into a european hub and then use larger aircraft for the transatlantic leg?

The thing is that just because a 747 (for example) has twice the range of a 757 doesn't mean that it'd be fuelled up to go that far at all! It'll have enough fuel to get to an alternate airport + whatever extra holding time (45 mins for example) based on the weather conditions expected en route.

In the article above these are planned stops for the weather conditions - but for what you're saying where the weather conditions change en route and alternate airports are closed the situation would be the same whatever size the aircraft is, as they'll only be carrying as much fuel as they need if you get me!

The thing is that just because a 747 (for example) has twice the range of a 757 doesn't mean that it'd be fuelled up to go that far at all! It'll have enough fuel to get to an alternate airport + whatever extra holding time (45 mins for example) based on the weather conditions expected en route.

In the article above these are planned stops for the weather conditions - but for what you're saying where the weather conditions change en route and alternate airports are closed the situation would be the same whatever size the aircraft is, as they'll only be carrying as much fuel as they need if you get me!

Spot on. A 747 won't be brimmed with fuel for 'padding' any more than a 757 would. They will fill it with enough to get from A to B with a bit of contingency.

Remember that carrying fuel is like ballast, and it costs more to carry 'dead weight' around.

Regardless of the aircraft type, if the weather wants to intervene then diversions etc are unavoidable from time to time.

I am in full agreement on the comfort issue of flying a narrow body across the pond though, not something I'd be rushing to do!

[Darren Wheeler]

There was a thread a while back where the CAA had warned airlines about declaring an emergency to obtain priority landing on the grounds of lack of fuel. ISTBC but but they were reminded that the correct proceedure was to divert to refuel.

[honey lamb]

There was a thread a while back where the CAA had warned airlines about declaring an emergency to obtain priority landing on the grounds of lack of fuel. ISTBC but but they were reminded that the correct proceedure was to divert to refuel.

You're quite right about that, Darren. Also weren't Malaysian Airlines fined heavily some years ago for not having enough fuel on board and having to declare emergencies. They frequently had less than an hour's flying time of fuel and on one occasion had not enough to divert or to do a go around

There was a thread a while back where the CAA had warned airlines about declaring an emergency to obtain priority landing on the grounds of lack of fuel. ISTBC but but they were reminded that the correct proceedure was to divert to refuel.

You're quite right about that, Darren. Also weren't Malaysian Airlines fined heavily some years ago for not having enough fuel on board and having to declare emergencies. They frequently had less than an hour's flying time of fuel and on one occasion had not enough to divert or to do a go around

I recall one of the LCCs were also warned about their 'fuel management' strategy having to divert or declare pan pan once too often.

One of the least appealing aspects of the Continental merger, IMO. Caused as much as anything by CO rotating 757s into IAD and pulling 767s (3-class planes with many more F/C space) into EWR on more biz-friendly routes (like flights to Swiss destinations). IAD is asking for it, and combined with weather it's going to cause a lot of problems.

757s were, in fact, primarily used for O/D NY to Europe routes. Except for CO using them for small/frequent runs EWR to LHR, they would serve spots with one flight a day, the idea being that you'd save folks in EDI, GLA, MAN, CPH, BCN etc etc the need to make connections. Subbing these planes into IAD, where 3/4 of the plane is usually making a connection, is not smart. I'll never set foot in one of those planes myself out of Europe if I can help it.

Regardless of the aircraft type, if the weather wants to intervene then diversions etc are unavoidable from time to time.

Not sure I agree with that, the point about the TATL 757s is that they are at the physical extremity of their flying distance when the weather is not balmy, there is no contingency, whereas a jet designed for long haul can have that contingency. We didn't after all see 43 747s diverting to Gander to refuel in January.

On a slightly unrelated topic, in the other direction isn't the VS4 scheduled just too early - I can't recall the number of times sitting on the 4 we've been towed to a quiet spot of JFK because the winds were to favoursome and a pre-6 am landing was forecast, hence the need to delay.

Regardless of the aircraft type, if the weather wants to intervene then diversions etc are unavoidable from time to time.

Not sure I agree with that, the point about the TATL 757s is that they are at the physical extremity of their flying distance when the weather is not balmy, there is no contingency, whereas a jet designed for long haul can have that contingency. We didn't after all see 43 747s diverting to Gander to refuel in January.

Surely if there's no contingency then an aircraft wouldn't be allowed to take off on that particular route.. these 'diversions' were presumably planned to allow the aircraft to refuel before they took off. Yeah its inconvenient and adds to the flying time, but still don't believe it's a risk to safety at all as it was known that they'd have to stop there with the particular weather conditions!

Would still take flying on a widebody with flat beds and a bar on it any day of the week as its a much nicer way to fly, but wouldn't see it as being much safer!

To be fair the Continental (now United) 757's do have flat beds up front.

To be fair the Continental (now United) 757's do have flat beds up front.

Ahhh didn't realise that, only time I was on one was probably about 5 years ago to new york, must have moved on a bit since then!

Guess though even with the flat bed you need to still keep waking up to pull over for petrol if its windy haha

The contingency is the ability to divert for fuel...decent flight planning (and I assume UA/CO partake of this) means they'd plan for all eventualities including ariving at destination with legal minimum fuel reserve etc.

I think the key point is, are the passengers informed of this eventuality when booking and prepared to accept it?

I suspect when booking they are not informed, so it remains to see whether the increased frequency of refuelling stops puts off the customers.