Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Re-Fueling At Airports  
User currently offlineUSA Flyer 737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1074 times:

I'm new to this board, but I have a question. Can someone tell me why airplanes have to refuel at every airport they go to? Wouldn't it make more sense for an airline to fuel the airplane all the way up at the first airport it goes to each day, then use that fuel for the rest of the airplane's flights? Thanks for the helpful answers.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWishihadalife From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

Many airlines do this anyway.

User currently offlinePurdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

Two reasons...

1) Airplanes only hold so much fuel, and they burn a lot of it. Airliners would generally be unable to complete a day's schedule without refueling, even if they started with full tanks. Many flights are already stretching the limits of the aircraft's range, so a full day of flying would be impossible.

2) Lighter airplanes burn less fuel, and are therefore less expensive to operate. For this reason, airlines generally load the amount of fuel that is legally required for a flight, rather than topping off the tanks. When, for example, an American 777 flies from DFW-ORD, it is almost guaranteed that it does not have 14 hours of fuel on it.


User currently offlineUal757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 806 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 993 times:

woohoo!! a question i *know* i can answer. The reason is the fact that let's say....on a 737, you can usually hold 9500lbs per wing, and 10000lbs in the center (this is USair's regs, others differ)

now on a normal trip from, oh, florida, let's say they topped off there. When the arrive in let's say...IAD, they would usually have only 8000lbs TOTAL. In short, each fill up is usually only good for a flight, maybe 2. ANA flies out topped off every day, and i'm sure uses almost all of that fuel.

hope this helps


User currently offlineFuelman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 982 times:

How about this. There are things called weight restrictions too. An aircraft may be booked with people, bags, freight and mail, and that is why fuel consideration comes in last. I've fueled flights from BWI-ORD that somedays will take 20k pounds because of weight restrictions and other days they will take 35k pounds. Also you have to take into consideration the weather, and runway lengths. If you top off the A/C when it needs fuel it also may be to heavy to land when it get to the destination airport .

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 979 times:

It is very easy. It is much more expensive to fly useless fuel arround the world than to re-fuel at every airport. Every kilogramm (or pound) you have more on an aircraft burns more fuel and costs more. Airlines only take more fuel as necessary if they fly to an airport where the fuel would be much more expensiv, anything else is uneconomical. If they fuel an aircraft for a short haul flight with the necessary fuel for a long haul flight it would cost the airline a lot more.

User currently offlineAlmbluzman From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 182 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 966 times:

hello people -
when i was a fueler at mke, very often twa would not take any fuel. one reason was that they don't need a whole lot of fuel on their md-80's to get back to st. louis. another was that st. louis gave them a break on fuel taxes so they would usually take as much fuel there as possible in order to avoid having to pay higher fuel prices elsewhere.

almbluzman


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 960 times:

As some folks have mentioned, there are a variey of reasons, mainly economic and operational, why airliners don't go around routinely flying with full tanks. You'd be surprised how some folks *within* the industry and ATC think that's the case, but I digress...

Various FAA regs address fuel requirements that dispatchers must consider. You need fuel to get from point-A to point-B. You need fuel to get to a viable alternate point-C if the weather at B is (or forecast to be) below a certain value. You need fuel for a :45 minute reserve (that's necer planned for use). You need fuel for any enroute weather deviations around storms, and for any known/probable ATC delays.

Depending upon the operational variables for a specfic flight, the resultant fuel is known as "required" fuel, and we strive to keep that number as low as possible. One, to leave room for payload (pax, bags, etc.) and two, to minimize the fuel consumption it'll take to fly that additional fuel around (about 2-3%).

In some cases, we also carry extra fuel (above required) for cost-differential tankering, or other operational purposes. For example, if the aircraft was going from DFW-XYZ-DFW and the cost of fuel was higher at XYZ, it might make more sense to take enough extra fuel from DFW sufficient to have enough for the return XYZ-DFW flight, without the need for buying of the more expensive fuel at XYZ. We do this all the time, if we cam, payload permitting, and applied system-wide, it can and does save oodles of $$$, especially when fuel prices vary greatly and change so often.

Sometimes, fuel trucks and fuel farms are inop for some reason or another, and we take this kind of extra fuel along, not for economic reasons, but to avoid getting stranded since no fueling is available.

Lots of variables....


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3700 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 952 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I read many years ago, that for every 9 galls on board you need another gallon to burn just for carrying the 9 galls. I hope that makes sense, the qty's may be wrong but you should get the point.

User currently offlinePlanenutz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 949 times:

What about flights to unequiped or underequiped airports? I know that both Sabena and British Airways fly their 747s and A330s fully laden with fuel from LHR and BRU tro say Lagos, Kinshasa, and Kigali because the fuel available a those airports tends to be unreliable and possibly dangerous.




User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 948 times:

You're correct... Just another of the variables...

Whatever the reason you tanker additional fuel, it can sometimes bit you in the butt for other reasons. In another airline life, my airline ran a DC-10 from JFK to a carribean airport with extra fuel. When it came time to depart the island, the winds had shifted and now mandated the use of the opposite direction, which, towards terrain, was not a great weight runway. The flight was now too heavy, and couldn't be defueled. They ended up boarding half the pax, flying a short hop to San Juan, dropping the pax off there, and returning for the other half. Upon their 2nd trip into San Juan, everyone got back aboard, and non-stop they went to their intended destination...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Re: FIS At Regional Airports To Relieve Congestion posted Tue Mar 11 2008 09:33:06 by Surfrider1978
Some Urging Exit Screening For Flu At Airports posted Fri May 15 2009 13:54:54 by CARNOC
Homeless Living At Airports posted Mon Mar 16 2009 17:12:27 by STT757
Airlines At Airports They Don't Serve posted Wed Oct 22 2008 13:06:34 by DLX737200
Bio-Scanners To Be Installed At Airports? posted Fri Sep 19 2008 14:28:01 by Mike89406
Amtrak At Airports? posted Sun Sep 7 2008 10:24:54 by AndyDTWnwa7
Management Re-tool At United Contiunues posted Wed Aug 20 2008 17:00:57 by United1
Busiest Times At Airports posted Wed Jul 9 2008 23:03:24 by AAden
Help Re Arrival At MNL posted Wed Feb 20 2008 07:36:39 by EDICHC
AA 1668 Fire During Fueling At FLL posted Fri Feb 8 2008 19:13:43 by N62NA