8
$\begingroup$

While waiting for my plane in the Phoenix Airport, we get told that we're being swapped to a new plane because that plane was supposed to fly to Maui, but can't.

When asked why it would be fine to fly to LAX but not Maui, the response amounted to "Federal law prohibits us from telling you".

That plane, we were then told, had too much fuel to fly to LAX, so we ended up getting a third plane.

What sort of issue would prevent a flight to Maui but not LAX, that they would be unable (or unwilling) to tell us about?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Is it possible the paraphrased quotation was more "Federal law prohibits the plane from flying over the ocean, but the details are too long to tell you here and now." ? $\endgroup$
    – Criggie
    Commented Jul 2 at 2:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Probably nothing to do with it, but there was a NOTAM for the launch of Firefly Alpha from Vandenburg that affected flights to and from Hawaii. Original launch was scheduled for July 1. THE TEMPORARY ROUTES DESCRIBED ABV ARE FOR ALL ACFT EQUIPPED WITH RNP-10 NAVIGATION SYSTEMS OR BETTER. ALL OTHERS SHOULD FLIGHT PLAN TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE $\endgroup$
    – Spehro 'speff' Pefhany
    Commented Jul 2 at 9:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Criggie: unfortunately, I wasn't the one who talked to them myself, so I'm paraphrasing secondhand. Possibly? But less likely, I think. $\endgroup$
    – Arcanist Lupus
    Commented Jul 3 at 0:03

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

Most likely the plane scheduled for the Phoenix (PHX) to Maui (OGG) flight had a technical issue so they needed to find a replacement. The plane was then "handed over to your route". It may very well be that your original plane went to Maui.

As you can see the PHX-OGG route is mostly over the pacific: Great Circle Mapper

Planes operating such routes need to be Extended-range Twin-engine Operations (ETOPS) certified. The problem with the plane made it non-ETOPS compliant, but it could still be safely operated on routes that have alternate airports close by. ETOPS requirements are extremely strict, so while the the PHX-OGG was out of the question, the PHX-LAX was totally fine.

Except for the fuel: the plane was fueled for 2500nm +reserves, and the PHX-LAX would only need a fraction of that. Ferrying fuel is very expensive, and while it would've been possible to offload fuel, that would also have been costly and maybe there was no time for that. Also, as Busdriver mentioned in comments, the plane might have been overweight for landing at LAX if no fuel was offloaded.

As for the reason they did not tell you the actual reason, I can only speculate that they told a little white lie, or that plane allocations and operative information such as this is actually (mildly) classified.

Link for Great Circle Mapper map of routes

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • 16
    $\begingroup$ Price of the extra fuel burned is negligent compared to the price of delay required to arrange a third jet and to mange additional delays to the network. The most likely reason is that plane was so fully fueled in anticipation for a longer flight that it would have been overweight in landing after a planned, shorter flight. $\endgroup$
    – busdriver
    Commented Jul 1 at 6:35
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ An example of a failure that would rule out ETOPS flight but not PHX-LAX would be a defective life raft: not exactly something you're going to need if the plane makes a forced landing in the middle of a desert. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented Jul 1 at 23:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Re: can't tell you This is speculative but they might be a little bit more cautious after the recent NTSB smackdown of Boeing sharing information that was already public but sharing it in a way that linked it to an ongoing investigation. Even if that wouldn't apply here they may have tighter guidelines to not tell anyone anything ever. $\endgroup$
    – user3067860
    Commented Jul 2 at 13:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is exceptionally unlikely that the reason a plane was not able to operate an ETOPS route would be classified at any level. Very-little-to-no information pertaining to the normal operation of a passenger airline is actually classified. A rather small percentage of airline employees would even have an active security clearance and the vast majority of those would just be people such as pilots who are still reserve members of the military (e.g. pilots who are still in the Air Force or Navy Reserves.) ETOPS regulations are openly published by the federal government itself. $\endgroup$
    – reirab
    Commented Jul 2 at 14:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @reirab I agree, I may have used the word "classified" a bit lightly, I was thinking more along the lines of "not to be discussed with passengers" due to company policy, not NSA or CIA kinda classified. $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Commented Jul 2 at 18:42
9
$\begingroup$

In addition to ETOPS-related issues, it could also have to do with flights over water. I am not an expert (if someone is an expert and tells me I'm totally wrong, I'll delete this), but there are requirements for flotation devices, rafts and other safety equipment for over-water flights that are not required for over-land flights. If some of that equipment was inoperable and/or missing then it might be more cost-effective to use the already fueled plane for an over-land flight ending at an airport that can service the necessary equipment than to wait for service at the current location.

The specifics vary by aircraft model. But as one example, I found the FAA Master Minimum Equipment List for the A320 and it includes things such as:

  • Slide Raft Lanyards (White and/or Yellow) - (O) May be missing or damaged beyond serviceable limits provided aircraft is not operated on extended overwater flights.
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Extended overwater (Part 121.339, basically lifevests and rafts instead of floating seat cushions) kicks in at 50 nm from shore. In North America, it would be pointless to have ETOPS without EOW, as you can't get more than 60 minutes away from a diversion airport without flying offshore. Some other regions, like the Himalayas and Australia, you can hit ETOPS limits over land. $\endgroup$
    – user71659
    Commented Jul 1 at 19:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user71659 I agree. My point is that if they did an inspection before departure and found a problem (somehow) with one of the rafts then they would have to take it off of overwater flights until that was resolved but it would be fine over land. $\endgroup$
    – manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact
    Commented Jul 1 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ @user71659 That's certainly true for SoCal/AZ, but not for all of North America, especially if you're flying a heavy jet with hundreds of passengers. There are plenty of parts of Northern Canada and Alaska that are more than 60 minutes from an airport that could reasonably handle a diversion for those. Fairbanks and Anchorage (and maybe Juneau? though that doesn't really matter) are probably the only airports in Alaska that could handle, say, a 777, for example. And, especially if it's winter, you'll need a place to safely house 300+ people. $\endgroup$
    – reirab
    Commented Jul 2 at 15:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @reirab: Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow) has a 7100-foot asphalt runway, which could probably land a 777. Taking off again might be dicey, though. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    Commented Jul 2 at 17:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @reirab Alaska doesn't require ETOPS, thanks to a lot of runways left over from the Cold War that were built to handle B-52s and C-5s. $\endgroup$
    – user71659
    Commented Jul 2 at 19:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .