This was what one person on a FB group speculated. It was too far out of my understanding to try and de-cipher what they were saying. YMMV.
The RON PD359 would’ve been operated by T911 which was DIV to YOW inbound from MIA. As of right now that tail remains in YOW and therefore PD359 is cancelled tonight.
The HS PD352/Jan 25 would have had no equipment at this point due to the DIV on T911 so rather than cancelling the HS, they had T909 returned to YYC so the schedule won’t be out of sync and those pax on todays 352 won’t be stranded in out-station.
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
This was what one person on a FB group speculated. It was too far out of my understanding to try and de-cipher what they were saying. YMMV.
Quote:
The RON [remaining overnight] PD359 [Porter flight 359] would’ve been operated by T911 [tail 911, their 11th aircraft] which was DIV [diverted] to YOW [Ottawa] inbound from MIA [Miami]. As of right now that tail remains in YOW and therefore PD359 is cancelled tonight.
The HS [headstart... first outbound flight of the morning - we generally call them "originators"] PD352/Jan 25 would have had no equipment at this point due to the DIV on T911 so rather than cancelling the HS, they had T909 returned to YYC so the schedule won’t be out of sync and those pax [passengers] on todays 352 won’t be stranded in out-station.
Whoever wrote that abbreviated everything unnecessarily just to flex on people.
There's no way anybody besides an airport worker would know what a HS is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
I'm just impressed they had that much altn fuel
Porter almost always tankers nearly full fuel out of Calgary because their load factors are terrible. Lots of open payload to carry our cheap fuel.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Crazy. Is the fuel really cheap enough here/is the E2 really that efficient that it makes sense to tanker like that? I was under the impression tankering fuel was pretty rare these days (of course I don't have anything to back that up, just assumed I guess)
Yeah E2 is really good on burn. Fuel pricing obviously gets very complicated, purchased months in advanced, hedged, transfered between airlines, etc.
Some combination of a) E2 being very good on burn, b) Porter's loads being very poor and c) Porter scoring a favourable fuel contract here results in their high uplift.
Based on my observation it would also appear that fuel pumps horrendously slowly into the E2 - about 40 min to fill... the same as a 787 to Rome, roughly. They could be trying to expedite the turn on the YYZ end by taking more gas here, especially for the originator out at 0730 which gets fueled here at some point in the middle of the night.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Lots of tankering happens. See it a lot coming from the States. They run calculations which figures out the cost of carrying the extra weight vs. the cost of fuel in the different locations.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Lots of tankering happens. See it a lot coming from the States. They run calculations which figures out the cost of carrying the extra weight vs. the cost of fuel in the different locations.
Interesting. Has this always been the case, or just something that started becoming more common with more efficient engines?
Seems wild to me that paying to haul all that heavy fuel is cost-effective. Entirely depends on their suppliers and deals I guess, but still, I'd think there would be very diminishing returns of needing to bring extra fuel just to haul the weight of the extra fuel. Guess that's why I just assumed it was rare
Interesting. Has this always been the case, or just something that started becoming more common with more efficient engines?
Seems wild to me that paying to haul all that heavy fuel is cost-effective. Entirely depends on their suppliers and deals I guess, but still, I'd think there would be very diminishing returns of needing to bring extra fuel just to haul the weight of the extra fuel. Guess that's why I just assumed it was rare
When I was working at WestJet I remember at some point they would haul as much fuel as possible on some flights to Mexico or the Caribbean (I can't remember which routes exactly.) I think they were even carrying extra fuel to some US destinations. This was 2017 or so.
Interesting. Has this always been the case, or just something that started becoming more common with more efficient engines?
Seems wild to me that paying to haul all that heavy fuel is cost-effective. Entirely depends on their suppliers and deals I guess, but still, I'd think there would be very diminishing returns of needing to bring extra fuel just to haul the weight of the extra fuel. Guess that's why I just assumed it was rare
As long as I can remember, so like 20 years? And calgarygeologist brings up another point, exchange rates. But again it is all calculated for what is most cost effective based on the extra fuel burn to carry extra weight, the price of the fuel at origin and destination, and the exchange rate.
It doesn’t happen all the time, but it is pretty common, depending on all those factors.
WestJet has said they occasionally tanker fuel on the 787s doing YYC-Mexico specifically for the fact that they have been encountering long delays there waiting for a fueler. A few years ago I remember hearing about concerns with the quality of the fuel in Ixtapa and Loreto as well for the 737s. So those are scenarios where tankering doesn't necessarily save you money but is done for other reasons.
This is a few weeks old so old news to the Av nerds. But in the comments here there is an insider explanation of exactly what happened in the factory. And ho-boy, is it a gong show. Do not read if flying makes you nervous.
It's interesting that they brought up McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas had a number of issues with the DC-10 that they knew about but didn't do anything about them until they issues became public.
This is a few weeks old so old news to the Av nerds. But in the comments here there is an insider explanation of exactly what happened in the factory. And ho-boy, is it a gong show. Do not read if flying makes you nervous.
It's interesting that they brought up McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas had a number of issues with the DC-10 that they knew about but didn't do anything about them until they issues became public.
The common refrain I've read many times before is that "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money": it was essentially a "reverse takeover" by McDonnell Douglas executives, and they remade the company to be more like McDonnell Douglas than pre-merger Boeing. Similarly the merger between McDonnell and Douglas in the '60s was a de facto McDonnell takeover. The Boeing Company such as it is today is basically McDonnell Aircraft masquerading as Boeing, having previously sucked all the life out of Douglas Aircraft along the way.
Paywall, but the google preview of the article says this
Quote:
Flair, an airline part-owned by Miami private equity firm 777 Partners, would absorb Lynx, which is backed by Canadian investors and Bill Franke's Indigo Partners, according to the sources. Franke has been serving as chairman of Lynx's board
Paywall, but the google preview of the article says this
Well we all know the Canadian market is not big enough for what we have now (2 mainline, 2 LCC/ULCC, 1 major regional airline (Porter) and 1 charter outfit (Transat). Something is going to give sooner than later. Not sure something like this would make any sense however, other than fleet commonality.
A U.S. Senate committee on Thursday voted on legislation to boost safety inspector and air traffic controller staffing, but declined to endorse raising the airline pilot retirement age to 67 from 65.
