Flt 660 diverts DEN

Actually the two sides on the "direct" routing issue are talking largely apples and oranges.....

All the examples given to "prove" that direct routing is not automatically better use transcon flights. In that environment, flying "direct" can often cost both time and fuel, as has been stated. Especially going direct for a large portion of the flight, as has been implied.

However, one needs to look at WN's average stage length - about 600 miles. In that world (and it's where I operate day in and out), going direct when it's available will save both time and fuel 99.9% of the time.

On long-haul flights, going 100-200 miles to the side of the most direct routing adds little to the distance, percentage wise. But if the result of that non-direct routing is even a 20-30 knot decrease in the average headwind (or increase in average tailwind), it makes a larger difference in average ground speed - again percentage wise. Thus saving time and fuel.

However, when you're talking about shorter flights - mid-continent to the coasts or NE to Florida - going those 100-200 miles "out of the way" adds more distance than any change in headwind/tailwind can usually offset (once again, percentage wise).

The exception is the jetstream. If direct means missing it's tailwinds or fighting it's headwinds, when a little "off-direct" will make the difference, direct hurts you. Thus the 0,01% of the time that direct is not better on legs of 1000-1200 miles or less.

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
Actually the two sides on the "direct" routing issue are talking largely apples and oranges.....
Click to expand...


That is the problem with WN. They have not gotten out of the HOU-DAL route segment mindset. Going direct AML from TNP is not the smartest move yet I have heard them ask for direct MRB from out in the midwest.

If you reread my post you will find that I did mention the only true way to find out if Direct is better is to have an optimized FP or a dispatcher that can do the calcs. in real time.

Direct was a work load alleviator back in the days of dual vors and no LNAV airplanes. However the electric airplanes do not make direct the ideal tool it once was. Also with fuel at 25cents a gallon it made no difference in the bottome line for the most part.

The culture and mindset at WN is not keen on the big picture. Have collegues that work there and they give me stories all the time.
 
magsau said:
Going direct AML from TNP is not the smartest move yet I have heard them ask for direct MRB from out in the midwest.
Click to expand...

As I said, going direct all the way across the country may not be the best for time or fuel (for those that don't know, AML is effectively Dulles IAD and TNP is the arrival gate for LAX). However, MRB (Martinsburg, WV) from the "midwest" is not necessarily that far and direct would probably save both time and fuel.

magsau said:
Direct was a work load alleviator back in the days of dual vors and no LNAV airplanes. However the electric airplanes do not make direct the ideal tool it once was. Also with fuel at 25cents a gallon it made no difference in the bottome line for the most part.
Click to expand...

Actually, back in the "olden days", direct for any distance over a hundred miles or so meant a heading from ATC - not the same as direct. The modern avionics make true direct possible.

It's really a difference of distance and geography. Under 1000-1500 miles direct will usually save time and fuel, over that it may not. At least in the eastern half the country, flight plan routings are almost always ATC preferred routings and have nothing to do with fuel or time savings. Getting direct routing when available is a safe, and almost always a sure, bet in these situations.

What it all boils down to is common sense. Saying direct is never a good idea is as wrong as saying direct is always a good idea. Even on transcons (your AML - TNP example), using direct to take some shortcuts but still following the general route can save time and money. Thirty seconds here and 15 seconds there add up when you're talking about a couple of thousand flights a day.

Jim
 
Jim,

I have attempted to enlighten magsau that SWA does notate the flight release when direct routing will not provide fuel savings. I am certain that occasionally pilots, including myself, may miss something on the release.

I appreciate your informative posts.
 
KCFlyer said:
Your image of me is the least of my concerns. Thanks anyways.
Click to expand...

I would not suppose it would be. However, linear thinking and a general education would be very beneficial for you. That is if you continue to question whether or not someone has the cajones to do something that is not correct or to be applied in the method you are implying its use.

But again you don't care so you probably don't care for backing statements and knowledge of what you speak. Continue the blathering if you like to hear yourself speak.
 
Quit the personal attacks on each other. If this topic is done it can be closed.
 
magsau said:
I would not suppose it would be. However, linear thinking and a general education would be very beneficial for you. That is if you continue to question whether or not someone has the cajones to do something that is not correct or to be applied in the method you are implying its use.

But again you don't care so you probably don't care for backing statements and knowledge of what you speak. Continue the blathering if you like to hear yourself speak.
Click to expand...
mags...when all i see is someone whining about direct routings, I gotta wonder, why not ask for one yourself and get in front of a Southwest flight? FWIW, you just took two paragraphs to tell me to go pound sand. Very verbose, my friendly skygod.
 
KCFlyer said:
I gotta wonder, why not ask for one yourself and get in front of a Southwest flight?
Click to expand...

I give. The linear thinking and dimensional aspect of the navigation theory is lost.

Do you realize that every night the routes to and from the US and Europe are changed based on the favorable winds? The routes across the atlantic are called NAT's or the North Atlantic Track System. These routes vary because the winds vary and this is a great arguement against direct routings over long distances. The evening the routes are optimized for tailwinds and in the morning they are optimized for the minimum headwinds on the return flights from Europe to the states.

Now I suppose over the Atlantic I could ask to fly above or below the NATS and give the ol'southwest try and request a direct routing. I would burn more gas and get to the other side of the pond later but none the less I would be as cool as a Herb Tur& flyer in a leather jacket.

So as this arguement goes I ask that all of the LUV pilots ask for direct. This will allow me to pass you in the slow lane just so I can invoke my own version of MULE on the LUV pilots when I get to LAX. Ever hear of MULE? You WN buddies could fill you in but it has to do with them flying slow in front of UAL airplanes on final, dallying on the runway to force UAL go-arounds and various other tactics they used to attempt to harm and disrupt the UAL flying. Not sure if the ONT wrong runway in the fog was part of the program but it was a near miss. By the way, MULE was WN speak for Make United Late Everytime. Very professional of the cowboys and cowgirls. We will see how they fare in DEN.
 
I give. The linear thinking and dimensional aspect of the navigation theory is lost.

Do you realize that every night the routes to and from the US and Europe are changed based on the favorable winds?
Click to expand...
I'll be sure to note that next time on an an trans-atlantic LUV flight.
By the way, MULE was WN speak for Make United Late Everytime. Very professional of the cowboys and cowgirls. We will see how they fare in DEN.
Click to expand...
Gosh, and not two days ago, we were all informed about the "cowboy" pilots, hot shot taxiing, and too fast approaches that LUV pilots were famous for. Please opt for too fast cowboy or mule...you can't have it both ways.
 
Magasu knows SWA pilots have no idea of winds aloft and no contact with their dispatch resources. That's why UAL is kicking SWA's butt.
 
KCFlyer said:
Gosh, and not two days ago, we were all informed about the "cowboy" pilots, hot shot taxiing, and too fast approaches that LUV pilots were famous for. Please opt for too fast cowboy or mule...you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Of course you can have it both ways as not every airport and every approach is the same. Again I forget you have a narrow view of how flying is accomplished. At airport like BUR and ICT, OKC, MCI and various other fields you do not often have the traffic flow you have at say LAS or LAX. I hate to go into pilot 101 but it seems you are going to want to the long version. At a field like LAS or LAX the ATC folks are more in control of an arrival than say ICT. The controllers assign speeds and expect the pilots to comply strictly with these speeds for proper traffic flow. The speed assignment generally is in place until about 5 miles from the end of the runway. If you slow down before the 5mile point it causes the planes behind you to be too close and the controller will send that trailing airplane around the pattern. This is an old SWA trick when flying a UAL airplane is trailing. They can still be cowboys on occasion BUR is a good example of no speed restriction being in place an apparently no trailing UAL aircraft. I suppose if they had only had a UAL flight behind them in BUR it might have saved the airplane, fence and service station.

So KC things in aviation are not the black and white you like to paint them as. But then again what did I expect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top