This is not unique to AC. This time of year, it's not uncommon for transcons south of the border to have to make a fuel stop as well. Even CO will have the ocassional fuel stop in Newfoundland between Europe and EWR on the 757s in the winter.

 

Well, you're right on the first part of that. AC does have a lot of experience flying the YUL-LAX route. This is why they know they can load X amount of fuel on board, and 99% of the time not have to make an unscheduled stop to refuel.

Loading more fuel increases weight, which burns more fuel, which costs more money, which increases the price of your ticket.

Yes, you were inconvenienced. But likely nobody screwed up. And you got there safe.

Love when people are certified flight planners / flight dispatchers / mechanics / pilots whenever an airline "screws up"!

 

[QUOTE=JimYUL;12715409]......
I guess I am amazed that a professional organization such as AC with decades of experience still screwed this one up.
Is it such a leap of faith that a company that flies this route EVERY DAY and has for years couldn't have anticipated this?
......QUOTE]

I consider AC a very professional company.Their safety record speaks for itself,as it does for all the major North American carriers.
Airport locations have a/c delays all the time .Could leave YUL for SFO and it is all clear and upon attival at SFO a 1 hour circle due to fog.
LAX could have congestion develop overhead and cause backups that were not there when a/c departed YUL.Too many what ifs.You make the best call and move on.Is it perfect,no.Best practices are just that.You strive for 100%
not always going to happen.
I was delayed 7.5 hours Thursday and 13+ hours Friday/Saturday on flights operated by UA through ORD.Your answers came quickly and decisively.I got the runaround.

I would trade your 2 hour delay for my delays last week anytime.
BTW,UA did not even hint of a compensation of any type.the line-up at customer service to get an answer was over 2+ hours.Most were not impressed.

My 2cents

 

You basically answered your own question. Yes it would have cost big $$$ for AC to stop, and thus, no stategic benefit in doing so, unless absolutely necessary. The others have already discussed headwinds, possible ATC restrictions/holds over LAX, and flight performance details which necessitated the stop. Not to undermine the value of your time, but respectfully, why does every situation in the aviation world need to be compensation-worthy?

 

These are the questions in your OP:

Was Air Canada lying to me about a flight safety matter?

What compensation do I get?


While all questions are legitimate, do not expect kid glove treatment on these ones unless you have a pretty airtight case.

If you really wanted to ask:

How might it happen that the fuel would run so low?

you should have made that more explicit. Then only Shareholder would have been mean to you.

We're much nicer than the BA forum.

 

Did it ever occur to you that these might be unforecasted headwinds?

Considering the disruption and cost that the operation would have taken for this, I would expect that any known occurance on the flight plan would be planned for.

AC is not all knowing and all telling - nor are the computer systems they use.

 

Wow you guys are harsh! The OP complains about an unscheduled stop and questions if he is being given the truth and you lot flame him........

1) I don't think the OP wants to end up in the side of a mountain or in a field, but like 75% of the population would prefer to have some idea of what was happening to him before it occurs.

2) 80% of flyers are not experts in aircraft or operations or really care. When they pay for a ticket they expect to get from A to B at the times stated on the ticket. If it says non stop then they expect non stop. If it is cancelled, then the company should provide another plane. Please respect that when you next launch a tirad on someone.

3) Unexpected headwines are one thing but these headwinds have been well known about. Prehaps a message in the preflight captains message that this may occurr rather than all is fine speech and then once up in the air being told you have to make an unplanned stop because we are running low. Just a suggestion.

4) I'm quite sure the crew didn't lie about the situation, whats the point? However it wouldn't be the first time a crew has told a little fib......

5) There have been incidents and none as far as I am aware by AC where pilots have done a short hop on the way to somewhere to pick up fuel in a different country because it is cheaper or there was a limited supply avaiable! It does happen!

To the OP, you can try for compensation but 2 hour delay is really not that bad for something thats outside the control of the company so don't expect much. These things happen. AC are still my first choice for NA airline and I do feel safer on their planes than many others.

Finally, Andrew. Really dissapointed in you, the response and zorn and shareholder are excpected but not yours, I personally considered you way above such comments.

 

I completely agree with you, but I found it ironic you bring that up given the flight number we're discussing. I've always found it strange that AC continues to use flight numbers from it's relative few major incidents when almost every other carrier puts them to rest.

 

OMG, someone didn't correctly predict the weather?
How completely unprofessional, and strange is that.

 

Wow, what a thread - conspiracies within Air Canada?!

As a lowly private, single engined pilot, I do not have access to the wealth of information the big jet drivers have. However, it is not unforeseeable to be caught by surprise by any weather, including winds aloft. We have no idea what was going on in the flight deck, but the flight crew erred on the side of caution and stopped in LAS for fuel. In my line of work, one of my bosses said to append the phrase "your honour/m'lord" when trying to decide between two different lines of action. I believe this would apply here:

Option 1 (as described above) "We weren't sure if we would make it to LAX so we stopped in LAS for fuel, your honour."
Option 2 (after calling pan-pan/mayday for low fuel state for priority landing at LAX) "The headwinds were worse than expected but we thought we could make it to LAX, your honour."

IIRC wasn't there a Virgin jet into LHR that did something like option 2 a few years back - no idea what the outcome was investigation-wise but I imagine the CAA weren't too amused?

As for Andrew's reply (which also seems to be subject of scrutiny), I see nothing wrong with it - he gives us discount codes and advice. Nowt wrong with a bit of honesty. The customer is not always right and flight operations is certainly one of those situations.

 

Nope, this if FT after all

 

JimYUL

1. I guess you can now appreciate that AC did NOT want to stop for FUEL, as will cost them a LOT more money.

2. No most of us on this board dont think compensation was due.

3. I guess within reason its weather related, and a VERY long flight.

4. Just be glad it does not happen very often or there would be no nonstop flights between YUL-LAX let alone SFO which is even further.

5. this route was flown in the summers past with a 762 So a stop on the 319 would be better than flying on that 762

 

Sounds obvious. I suspect however that the bigger picture is quite a bit more complicated. You win some and lose some.

 

Maybe they should consider blocking seats to ensure they can carry the fuel needed for this flight, which is only 2,500 miles. They could call it "Premium Economy" and charge extra for people who want to have the empty seat beside them.

I think I'm having a deja vu!!!!

 

Yah NZ has been doing it for over 2 years

Some other airline copied and thought they were unique