Luv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1648 posts, RR: 2 Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11978 times:
I know the media isn't always on top of things aviation related...but this one is way way off. Looks to me like the reporter wanted to sensationalize/exaggerate and went a bit too far.
Quote: As Turner watches 20,000 gallons of fuel being pumped into a jet, he says, “this is what we are trying to do as little of as we can.”
At the recent market price of roughly $3.85 a gallon, that means it costs about $77,000 to top off a Boeing 737.
and
Quote: A Boeing 737 burns about 9,000 gallons of jet fuel on a cross-country flight. That means American Airlines pays about $34,000 in fuel costs alone for that flight, up $15,000 in just the past year.
Considering that B6 said
Quote: it cost about $9,600 to fill up its Airbus A320 aircraft fuel tanks for a transcontinental flight last year. That cost has now climbed to more than $15,000, according to the official.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11946 times:
Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Thread starter): and the fact that the max fuel a 73G can hold a max of 6,875 gallons of fuel
Maybe he mixed "pounds" with "gallons"?
The difference in cost what B6 said and what the reporter said is astounding though. Maybe this was also a mix up from the reporter, mixing "fuel cost" with "total operating cost"? I have no idea, just guessing here!!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11908 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 1): Maybe he mixed "pounds" with "gallons"?
The math doesn't work out there either, but that probably is what happened.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Luv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1648 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11790 times:
Quoting Kappel (Reply 1): The difference in cost what B6 said and what the reporter said is astounding though. Maybe this was also a mix up from the reporter, mixing "fuel cost" with "total operating cost"? I have no idea, just guessing here!!
True..but then he added that those costs were just for fuel, and that the remaining $14,000 spread from cost of fuel/avg revenue has to cover everything else.
Judging by the statement that a transcon pulls in $54,000, I'm wondering if they got confused for some other type of aircraft? I'm somehow doubting that the RASM that AA pulls in is $0.19...
When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11739 times:
Many airlines are loading up the tanks at airports with "cheap" fuel and tanking it with them to airports with higher fuel costs as the cost of hauling the unneeded fuel for the mission is cheaper.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11637 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Many airlines are loading up the tanks at airports with "cheap" fuel and tanking it with them to airports with higher fuel costs as the cost of hauling the unneeded fuel for the mission is cheaper.
Reeve used to do that at the Port Heiden station.
They would tank the Electra in Anchorage and then off-load it at PTH to run the GSE and heat the terminal.
It was cheaper to do that then buy Bering Sea side fuel oil from the local supplier.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
BeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 708 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11250 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Many airlines are loading up the tanks at airports with "cheap" fuel and tanking it with them to airports with higher fuel costs as the cost of hauling the unneeded fuel for the mission is cheaper.
It's called tankering and has been done for years either to save costs, or to operate to stations with no refuelling facilities.
Just for fun, on a smaller scale, I put 139 liters of fuel in my Beech last week, and it cost me $250. The full 226 liter capacity represents over $400 of hard-earned, after-tax cash. It's getting to be an expensive hobby, so my flights have been getting shorter!
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6518 posts, RR: 37 Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11025 times:
Quoting BeechNut (Reply 6): It's called tankering and has been done for years either to save costs, or to operate to stations with no refuelling facilities.
Tankering is very common, but it rankles me that this article doesn’t go into the hold fuel, divert fuel and such that HAVE to be added into the release fuel amount (dispatchers out there, please elaborate if you could and correct my nomenclature gaffes if needed).
The gross inefficiency of the system, plus the sheer waste because of ATC inefficiencies are cha-ching all the way around. If MSNBC is going to do a study of this, they ought to go into the nitty gritty with a little more detail and avoid the sound-bite mentality. The public should be educated about the stakes and sensitivities involved with airlines and fuel and certainly the bureaucrats need the education and to be immersed in media touches such as this.
MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10434 times:
Quoting Slider (Reply 7): If MSNBC is going to do a study of this, they ought to go into the nitty gritty with a little more detail and avoid the sound-bite mentality. The public should be educated about the stakes and sensitivities involved with airlines and fuel and certainly the bureaucrats need the education and to be immersed in media touches such as this.
Ironically, even though the MSNBC figures may be wrong, the article may just have done a lot to educate the wider public that it is very expensive to fly an aircraft and the $300 ticket they hold for LAX-JFK or wherever, which they feel is a "rip-off/expensive/gouging" is actually an absolute bargain so it might just help the subconcious mind to accept the realities of higher pricing.
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8977 posts, RR: 27 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9835 times:
Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Thread starter): I know the media isn't always on top of things aviation related...but this one is way way off. Looks to me like the reporter wanted to sensationalize/exaggerate and went a bit too far.
incorrect.
it was wrong on the information that was given to MSNBC.
it has since been corrected.
Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9225 times:
I think MSNBC was correct to begin with. The Airbus 737 does indeed use 20,000 gallons of aviation gasoline. Hey - it takes a lot of fuel to fly at 35,000 miles per hour at an altitude of 450 feet.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9114 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 10): I think MSNBC was correct to begin with. The Airbus 737 does indeed use 20,000 gallons of aviation gasoline. Hey - it takes a lot of fuel to fly at 35,000 miles per hour at an altitude of 450 feet.
Surfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8403 times:
They changed the article, and it reads 767 now instead of 737. Sounds a lot more accurate now.
SeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8241 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 10): Hey - it takes a lot of fuel to fly at 35,000 miles per hour at an altitude of 450 feet.
Futureatp From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5998 times:
Here is some fun information for you
On a average day(no extra load for weather) It costs United right now less than $30 a revenue seat in fuel to make PHX-DEN on a Ted Airbus.
If they pay the same for fuel, I have calculated that it costs AA at least $1500-$2000 more in fuel to fly an MD-80 from PHX-ORD than UA does for an Airbus.
PHX-JFK/EWR runs on 737-800 usually leave with 30K-39K in Fuel. Weather, routing around weather, and payload affect the load day to day.
On a same day, An Airbus A320 on the same route will take slightly more fuel, but usually within 2K.
At PHX, United consistently shows up with the least amount of fuel onboard. (I am withholding #s here. Of course I am not including RJ's)
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7445 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5728 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 10): The Airbus 737 does indeed use 20,000 gallons of aviation gasoline. Hey - it takes a lot of fuel to fly at 35,000 miles per hour at an altitude of 450 feet.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7445 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5631 times:
I heard an Airbus L-1011 Jumbojet is well known for being the most dangerous plane in the sky!
It has dozens of near-misses every day, and the American ATC system is to blame. The sky is falling. Hundreds are or will be potentially injured every day in the dangerous United States, where scary things are out to get you. Daily, bad people at the airport try to kill you but the brave, strong TSA can sense the criminals and efficiently, quietly catches these criminals.
Next when we come back, going to the airport less than 2 hours early will mean the government punishes you for 1,000 years in secret cages under the airport. Everything is coming apart, as it has since 1863 and Orville Wright invented these damn things. more when we come back.
Edit: And let's not forget terrorists may be using laser pointers to make the Concorde fall out of orbit. They suck!
QQflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2198 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5322 times:
I'm guessing the info in the original post was copied from USA Today's "Today in the Sky" blog where they misquoted the statistics given in CNBC's story.
CNBC correctly referenced the Boeing 767, not the 737.
Apparently CNBC had a typo in their online version of the story that aired last night, which also might be where USA Today and the OP got their info. At any rate, the info was correct in the original story and has been updated on USA Today's blog.
Otherwise the rest of the information is correct.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1648 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 708 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
