Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Powerouts At DTW End  
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

The DC-9 power outs at DTW have ended. I was through there 4 times in the past 4 weeks and did not see or
hear one power out.
In the March issue of the NW onboard mag, there is an article that talks about NW fuel
conservation. One sentence stated the "NW has a different pushback procedure that now saves the airline
fuel" It must be no power outs because its awfully quiet around the A building these days.
safe


If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

While I understand the need to save fuel (why didn't they implement this months ago???) , I will definitely miss the power-backs in the DC-9. Love the sound of those JT-8D's spooling up.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting Michman (Reply 1):
While I understand the need to save fuel (why didn't they implement this months ago???) , I will definitely miss the power-backs in the DC-9.

You know, while it does save fuel, it ends up costing them more on the labor and non-aircraft related expense end.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Everyone wants to be friendly to the environment these days.....even if it costs more money. It's all about the image of green (as in green movement)....kinda makes me sick actually.

Someone tell me a terribly heavy pushback truck with a big v8 (at least) burns just as much fuel as those twin JTs during the same manuever. Once the aircraft is in motion backwards.....it does not take much thrust to keep it that way.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 3):
Someone tell me a terribly heavy pushback truck with a big v8 (at least) burns just as much fuel as those twin JTs during the same manuever. Once the aircraft is in motion backwards.....it does not take much thrust to keep it that way.

Increased a/c maintenance costs as well. Powerbacks are rough on engines and by eliminating the practice you save on the costs of maintaining and replacing engines.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
You know, while it does save fuel, it ends up costing them more on the labor and non-aircraft related expense end.

The cost of additional labor and GSE is still less than the cost of a replacement engine. Even FL realized (in addition to the fuel savings) that and quit the practice a few years back.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

Reverse thrust on landing is also hard on engines, and most of the time entirely unnecessary. Is catching the nearest exit worth the added engine maint. expense? I guess so since it happens all the time.

A better argument would be reducing noise levels in and near the terminals and having less chance of blowing debris being tossed around the tarmac. I think the "fuel saver" mantra is basically to appease those that are currently deemed the most politically-correct.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1585 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 3):
Someone tell me a terribly heavy pushback truck with a big v8 (at least) burns just as much fuel as those twin JTs during the same manuever.

A diesel tractor probably doesn't burn that much fuel doing that.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 4):
Even FL realized (in addition to the fuel savings) that and quit the practice a few years back.

FL still does powerbacks regularly.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
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...
Star Alliance Connection At DTW! posted Thu Jan 11 2007 16:57:20 by Nicogagne
Who Will Be At DTW 1-11 For BA 777? posted Wed Jan 10 2007 13:36:39 by Airlinelover
Delta's Location At DTW posted Sun Dec 31 2006 18:09:12 by TLHFLA
Local Input At DTW posted Wed Dec 13 2006 23:04:11 by Hjulicher
Mystery 738 At DTW posted Wed Dec 13 2006 02:55:03 by Cubsrule
Flashback: AA At DTW In 1977 posted Wed Dec 13 2006 00:47:19 by WA707atMSP
Black Mold At DTW posted Tue Nov 28 2006 12:46:24 by Greg76
Northwest Ponders Cargo Center At DTW Or YIP posted Sat Nov 4 2006 13:16:08 by KarlB737
Mesaba & Pinnacle At DTW posted Fri Oct 27 2006 04:06:09 by RedTailDTW
Very Short Connection At DTW. posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:15:30 by Eugdog