CAL pilots 757 question re: BCN-EWR
11-26-2009, 09:18 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: e190
Posts: 929
You know i am not quite sure if they are the same aircraft but i am almost positive that there are three of them that havent moved. There was an embraer literally parked under the wings of two 75's in Amelia. I have seen the ballpark get packed too but this is kind of unusual for terminal A. Normally there are a handful of 73's and maybe one 757 but this is a bit extreme.
just thought i would ask.
just thought i would ask.
11-26-2009, 09:25 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,576
Often the schedule is cut back for Thanksgiving. One flight per day vs. two. I did a 5 day Rome over Thanksgiving a few years ago in the 767. No flights for a few days.
All the times I did BCN and TXL in the 757- I never had a divert. Lucky I guess.
All the times I did BCN and TXL in the 757- I never had a divert. Lucky I guess.
11-26-2009, 07:54 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 786
You CAL guys need to quit discussing trade secrets here. Let the AMR and UAL people continue to blunder. Putting 777 non IGWs on JFK to HKG and diverting 3 times a week from BCN may be why they have more people on the street than CAL does.
If they are smart they'll take fuel off in BCN. After all, it takes fuel to carry fuel, so if you leave a couple grand behind you'll burn less by not carrying it all the way over the ocean right?
If they are smart they'll take fuel off in BCN. After all, it takes fuel to carry fuel, so if you leave a couple grand behind you'll burn less by not carrying it all the way over the ocean right?
11-26-2009, 09:08 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
That's about the tall-n-short of it Tin.
I have seen the B762 from time to time on the BCN run. When it happens, normally it's during the holidays, or cruise season w/ heavy cargo loads.
Depending on the time of the year, as stated earlier, your already stretching the plane's capability when it comes to fuel on the BCN-EWR run. You'd be amazed how fast your holding fuel goes 'bye-bye' when doing turns/holding over HELON Int (located about 1-2 miles West of Stewart on the arrival to EWR) at 7,000ft due to "TRAFFIC VOLUME" into NYC airspace.
After you burn through your add, conting, wrap-around & holding gas....Bingo Fuel is Bingo Fuel and sometimes it happens in the hold North of EWR....thus Hello Stewart
Good to hear you enjoyed your DUB flight, glad it was a good experience on CAL.
I have seen the B762 from time to time on the BCN run. When it happens, normally it's during the holidays, or cruise season w/ heavy cargo loads.
Depending on the time of the year, as stated earlier, your already stretching the plane's capability when it comes to fuel on the BCN-EWR run. You'd be amazed how fast your holding fuel goes 'bye-bye' when doing turns/holding over HELON Int (located about 1-2 miles West of Stewart on the arrival to EWR) at 7,000ft due to "TRAFFIC VOLUME" into NYC airspace.
After you burn through your add, conting, wrap-around & holding gas....Bingo Fuel is Bingo Fuel and sometimes it happens in the hold North of EWR....thus Hello Stewart
Good to hear you enjoyed your DUB flight, glad it was a good experience on CAL.
And yes, that CAL flight was one of the best flights I've ever been on. The pilots were so nice to me, and the flight attendants were absolutely amazing. I was so impressed and thankful they treated me so well. I truly felt like I was one of you all. It was a GREAT experience.
We fill up our 763s quite a bit during the summer to BCN. Wintertime, not so much, hence the change to the 757.
Like SoCal says, the fuel #s look fine on paper when leaving westbound. Throw in a lower than requested altitude on the NATs, delaying vectors approaching NY, a hold or two, and you get the picture. 9 times out of 10 these flights are dispatched with a re-release, meaning that the flight is only released to a certain point, and upon arrival at that point, based on actual fuel the crew and dispatch determine whether they can get "re-released" to destination.
The 757 is truly not a trans-atlantic bird, end of story.
Like SoCal says, the fuel #s look fine on paper when leaving westbound. Throw in a lower than requested altitude on the NATs, delaying vectors approaching NY, a hold or two, and you get the picture. 9 times out of 10 these flights are dispatched with a re-release, meaning that the flight is only released to a certain point, and upon arrival at that point, based on actual fuel the crew and dispatch determine whether they can get "re-released" to destination.
The 757 is truly not a trans-atlantic bird, end of story.
The 757 seems like the perfect choice for Ireland and certain UK flights (excluding London and perhaps even MAN depending on the loads). Delta uses a 763 and a 764 on ATL-DUB, and the flights are usually NEVER full. Very rarely from my experiences, and I've done that flight more times than I can count. It wouldn't have surprised me if they put one of the ex-TWA ETOPS 757s on that route.
11-27-2009, 09:43 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
11-27-2009, 09:49 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 362
Wrap Around (no not what you're thinking - dirty minds of pilots there days :-) is a couple of thousand pounds (2000 +/-) extra if you're arriving from the north and they're forecasting landing 4R.
Or, arriving from the South and they forecast 22L.
Our current flight planning software takes the last fix on the arrival, and then assumes you fly directly to the airport/runway.
We all know that when you know when you terminate at SAX, you still have 15 minutes to fly down Kilma way and then land on 4R at 3000-4000 feet burning 8000lbs/side.
If we had a more accurate flight planning software that could forecast typical ATC vectoring, we wouldn't need it.
This is a poor mans way to account for it.
Also, traditionally, on the 757 our FOD on the paperwork is almost always 2000 pounds more than we land with.
If it says you should land with 12, you'll land with 10.
If it says you land with 10, you'll land with 8.0.
However, if you ask the dispatcher for a Fuel Time Flight Plan - The fuel number will be dead on to the droplet for the whole flight.
No if's ands or buts.
Why isn't every flight plan a Fuel Time Flight Plan - because it's 2-3 more key strokes - no kidding.
With so few dispatchers, and so many flights, they feel it's not worth it on the flights that they know will get there with enough gas.
TXL,BCN,ARN are always Fuel Time Flight Plans to make them work - and then we get an altitude 2-3000 feet off of the filed/planned/and optimized best case scenario.
In the summer when the weather is VFR-ish, and the head winds are light, you're chances of getting to EWR are still ok.
In the winter, when you need a viable alternate, and there is a strong headwind, you're probably stopping in Gander or Goose for gas.
Or, arriving from the South and they forecast 22L.
Our current flight planning software takes the last fix on the arrival, and then assumes you fly directly to the airport/runway.
We all know that when you know when you terminate at SAX, you still have 15 minutes to fly down Kilma way and then land on 4R at 3000-4000 feet burning 8000lbs/side.
If we had a more accurate flight planning software that could forecast typical ATC vectoring, we wouldn't need it.
This is a poor mans way to account for it.
Also, traditionally, on the 757 our FOD on the paperwork is almost always 2000 pounds more than we land with.
If it says you should land with 12, you'll land with 10.
If it says you land with 10, you'll land with 8.0.
However, if you ask the dispatcher for a Fuel Time Flight Plan - The fuel number will be dead on to the droplet for the whole flight.
No if's ands or buts.
Why isn't every flight plan a Fuel Time Flight Plan - because it's 2-3 more key strokes - no kidding.
With so few dispatchers, and so many flights, they feel it's not worth it on the flights that they know will get there with enough gas.
TXL,BCN,ARN are always Fuel Time Flight Plans to make them work - and then we get an altitude 2-3000 feet off of the filed/planned/and optimized best case scenario.
In the summer when the weather is VFR-ish, and the head winds are light, you're chances of getting to EWR are still ok.
In the winter, when you need a viable alternate, and there is a strong headwind, you're probably stopping in Gander or Goose for gas.
11-27-2009, 12:37 PM
#18
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
"Wrap Around" is just another bit of dispatcher "planned fuel" to compensate for the "ATC Jersey Tour" that one may experience when being sequenced into the EWR landing flow....Coming in from the North and looping around to land on the 4's....same consideration from the South to land on the 22's or 11.
I wouldn't consider it on "AIM Approved" term tho!
11-28-2009, 08:59 AM
#20
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
As an ATL 7ER, the only trips I've seen lately for ATL-DUB and ATL-SNN are on the 75ERs. I could be wrong, but since we got the TWA birds from AA, I haven't seen a WB on those flights.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
B727DRVR
Cargo
14
08-22-2008 02:23 PM
