Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AS Most Fuel Efficient US Airline  
User currently offlineas777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 5594 times:

Per WSJ AS is the most fuel efficient US airline. I found it interesting that CO, being one of the biggest with widebodies is ranked 3rd and ranked the best out of the carries that have widebodies. It was an interesting arcticle and actually explained why the larger carriers aren't as fuel efficient as the smaller ones.

Here is a link to the article.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineas777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5528 times:

For some reason the link isn't showing up?

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

I also find this hard to believe. First, you didn't post the link.
Further, AS's fleet isn't any more modern than CO's. AS's oldest aircraft is the second gen 737-400. CO's oldest aircraft is the same-tech 737-500, yet they have fewer of them, offsetting the decreased fuel CASM of the -400. Further, CO has the 757-300 in large numbers, which is the most fuel efficient narrow body airliner ever produced, not to mention the 767-400 and very modern 777s.

So, unless I can read the article, and it makes all sorts of new ideas come to light in my mind, I'll call this one foul.


User currently offlinedreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5313 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That's because they don't know how to taxi with power. I think they let the wind blow the aiplane when on the ground.

User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6153 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

It's not all about age of fleet. AS has been the leader in new landing procedures (example is the continues decent arrivals into Seattle), flight planning, etc. It's no surprise to me that AS would lead in such.

But a link would be nice.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlinecaribbean484 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Jan 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5266 times:

Report: Alaska Airlines the most fuel-efficient U.S. carrier
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...rchives/217850.asp?from=blog_last3



All ah we is one family
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
First, you didn't post the link.
Quoting caribbean484 (Reply 5):
Report: Alaska Airlines the most fuel-efficient U.S. carrier
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...last3

Go to that link and in the article on the PI there is a link to the WSJ article.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
So, unless I can read the article, and it makes all sorts of new ideas come to light in my mind, I'll call this one foul.

Per the article:

Quote:
Alaska, No. 1 among major U.S. airlines in fuel economy, flew a seat 76 miles, on average, on a gallon of fuel last year, according to DOT data.

If it's DOT data then it can't be that wrong. It's all based on fuel gallons burned and ASMs. You make it sound as if some guy just made a bunch of stuff up to decide a winner.

And the entire second half of the article spells out exactly why AS is winning the fuel savings race.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25540 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5191 times:

Good for Alaska, but Its a bit of an apples vs orange comparison.

Not all ASMs are created equal as each carriers network stage lengths, and aircraft sizing are different.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5097 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Good for Alaska, but Its a bit of an apples vs orange comparison.

Isn't that the point of using metrics like ASMs? Because then aircraft size shouldn't matter because you are comparing apples to apples now. If ASMs wasn't a worthwhile metric then why would we ever compare CASM or RASM among airlines? We could always adjust for stage length as well.

It's about who was able to burn the least amount of fuel in relation to their ASMs. Seems like a normal comparison to me.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5097 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Further, AS's fleet isn't any more modern than CO's. AS's oldest aircraft is the second gen 737-400. CO's oldest aircraft is the same-tech 737-500, yet they have fewer of them, offsetting the decreased fuel CASM of the -400. Further, CO has the 757-300 in large numbers, which is the most fuel efficient narrow body airliner ever produced, not to mention the 767-400 and very modern 777s.

A good chunk of the reason is that CO has a lot of flights out of crowded and delay prone EWR. Sitting on the ground and spending a lot of time on approach and taxiing burns up fuel. AS can have more direct routes and spends less time waiting because it operates primarily in the less crowded west. CO's widebodies and transatlantic 757s also have larger premium cabins than AS, lowering fuel CASM.

One of the reasons that the majors ended up at the bottom was not only inefficient aircraft like the MD-80, it was also that they operate three class widebodies, the lower seating density killing CASM. 757s with 24 F seats probably do not do anything for CASM either. If you took the same aircraft and made them all coach, the fuel efficiency would shoot up.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25540 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 8):
Isn't that the point of using metrics like ASMs? Because then aircraft size shouldn't matter because you are comparing apples to apples now. If ASMs wasn't a worthwhile metric then why would we ever compare CASM or RASM among airlines? We could always adjust for stage length as well.

It's about who was able to burn the least amount of fuel in relation to their ASMs. Seems like a normal comparison to me.

You don't quite understand how total ASMs are generated. Its TOTALY dependent on your seat capacity and stage length.

Someone with a 100 seater X 500 miles generates 50,000 ASMs. Another airline with 150 seater X 250 miles generates 37,500.
It could be that 100 seater plane is a nice fuel efficient EMB-190 compared to the 150 seater being a B727, so the per ASM burn on the E190 could be lower even as the other airline has more seats and travelers shorter distance.

So at the end of the day the equation is very much dependent on the mix of flying(distance), seat capacity of one airline compared to another.
The results of this news piece is simply the way the numbers fall and does not mean other airlines are any more or less efficient as you are only using one (very uncommon metric) to determine fuel consumption.


p.s.-forgot to add -- using ASMs also gives no credit to cargo carried on board as large widebody fleets would have. With this ASMs measure you are counting the fuel burn to move the airplane including cargo, but only giving benefit of seat miles as the divisor. A better measure (still poor one however) would be tonne miles instead which would the total weight divided by fuel consumed.

[Edited 2010-08-12 17:03:22]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
So at the end of the day the equation is very much dependent on the mix of flying(distance), seat capacity of one airline compared to another.

And considering AS's location, in the "bigger" west, where most of their stage lengths are longer on average, and with a lot of their flying into airports with little to no weather delays, that also helps keep their burn/ASM down.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 6):

If it's DOT data then it can't be that wrong. It's all based on fuel gallons burned and ASMs. You make it sound as if some guy just made a bunch of stuff up to decide a winner.

A lot of the crap we read IS just a bunch of made up stuff. Like Ryanair being the best airline of all time, which I recently came across. Totally made up crap. BUT- now that there's a link included, I'll go read it and make my mind up for myself.
Living in Alaska, I am not opposed to AS being fuel-efficient; I'm simply surprised.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 9):
A good chunk of the reason is that CO has a lot of flights out of crowded and delay prone EWR.

That is a VERY good point, that I had not considered.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 9):
One of the reasons that the majors ended up at the bottom was not only inefficient aircraft like the MD-80, it was also that they operate three class widebodies, the lower seating density killing CASM. 757s with 24 F seats probably do not do anything for CASM either. If you took the same aircraft and made them all coach, the fuel efficiency would shoot up.

Also good points.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4401 times:

Having now read the article for myself, it's a commentary on a WSJ journal article. In the SeattlePI, it even points out how unfair it is, and that the issue is that widebodies are hurting the equation. They're heavy, so they get bad gas mileage is what the SeattlePI author is saying.
That's over simplification of a situation that others, above, have already enumerated on.
So, I'll give it a   at best. But yes, AS does have an impressive number compared to the National Average.
With fuel economy in the 65-75 mile per gallon range, it's a wonder that so many governments are going bonkers over how "UN-eco friendly" flying is.......


User currently offlineSRT75 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
using ASMs also gives no credit to cargo carried on board as large widebody fleets would have.

Doesn't AS carry a good deal of cargo to/from and within Alaska?


User currently offlineSanti319 From Mexico, joined Dec 2005, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

I couldve swear it was NK.... Weird

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4398 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
757-300 in large numbers, which is the most fuel efficient narrow body airliner ever produced, not to mention the 767-400 and very modern 777s.

The 757-300 really has abetter fuel efficiency than the 737-900? I doubt.


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3945 times:

A single metric like this obviously does not tell the whole story. But it is a significant piece of the story. And it is likely that Alaskan did not get this particular metric right without intention and working at it. Congrats to them.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinePanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3612 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13):
Having now read the article for myself, it's a commentary on a WSJ journal article

You obviously didn't bother to click on the link to the WSJ in the SeattlePI article


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13):
it's a wonder that so many governments are going bonkers over how "UN-eco friendly" flying is.......

It is all in your perception. You see a plane taking off and hear the roar and see the exhaust to the uninformed person they see it as an environmental catastrophe. Once you find out the facts and acquire the knowledge you look at the situation differently.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13612 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SRT75 (Reply 14):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
using ASMs also gives no credit to cargo carried on board as large widebody fleets would have.

Doesn't AS carry a good deal of cargo to/from and within Alaska?

Yes, operating a fleet of 5 737-400C combi aircraft (72 seats only on each one) and 1 dedicated 737-400F freighter.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineFutureATP From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Not to get off topic but since the 757-300 was mentioned..... 757-300 might be the most fuel efficient narrow body on longer stage lengths (talking gallons/per seat and thinking at least 3hrs). On shorter stage lengths that is not the case. Having talked with many 757 flight crews from various airlines, I have gathered that the Achilles of the 757s fuel burn is take off and climb out VS the 737NG and A320familes takeoff and climb out. So it must spend some time in cruise to make up for the extra fuel burned. Also remember that the 757 airframe is heavier than that of the A321 and 737900.

On the flip side, one of the captains I talked to showed me an interesting example. Fully loaded 737-300 vs Fully loaded 757-200 PHX-IAD. Told me that the 737-300 can make PHX to IAD but it would be on its limits. (I have personally witnessed CO fly the 737-300 PHX-EWR). Load both airplanes with 35000lbs of fuel. Was told that the 737 would need extra time to get up to optimum cruise because of the total weight of the aircraft thus spending more time at lower altitudes. And while at lower altitudes cruise speed would be lower and fuel burn would be higher. End result is that the 757 would be in IAD 45min sooner and burn right at or even LESS fuel that the 737-300 would have. Talking total gallons NOT gallons/seat.

The advantage the 737NGs and A320family has over the 2nd gen 737 and 757s are the ability to fill the gaps, operate short and longer lengths and eliminate the need for the extra type in your fleet. The big advantage the 757-200 holds over the A321 is 3500 gal. higher in fuel capacity. A321 is a good performer fuel burn wise, just don't have as big of tanks.(I think Airbus may have increased the capacity on the 321 but not sure. The 757-300 holds just bit more fuel than the-200). BTW, 3500 gallons is enough to get a full A320/737-800 PHX-JFK.


User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 496 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
So at the end of the day the equation is very much dependent on the mix of flying(distance), seat capacity of one airline compared to another.

This is true, but AS has has done an enormouse amount of work on RNP and in fact, they are an industry pioneer with advanced RNP technology. AS and QX are using it regularly at SEA and at numerous other airports throughout the system and it saves a ton of fuel. I am generally not a fan Wikipedia, but here is a link that discusses RNP a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Required_navigation_performance

Also, AS has been very, very aggressive with APU reduction efforts and they are enforced along with single engine taxi upon landing (with cool down time). Not uncommon to see the chief pilots out on the ramp monitoring APU usage to make sure the flight crews are policy compliant. ( The robust performance based pay initiative helps too)



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
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...
Continental Rated No. 1 Most Admired US Airline posted Fri Mar 5 2010 10:11:34 by yazoo
US Airline Fuel Hedge Positions posted Sat Oct 18 2008 11:49:01 by LAXDESI
CO Ranked #1 Most Admired US Airline posted Tue Mar 6 2007 15:41:45 by Cory6188
Major US Airline To Fly To Sabiha Gökcen As Of 07 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 03:43:57 by DALelite
CO "Most Admired US Airline" posted Tue Feb 21 2006 22:16:07 by Letsgetwet
Which US Airline Offers The Most Flights To Italy? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 05:08:18 by Deltasju777
Is CO The Most Innovative US Airline? posted Sat Jun 4 2005 04:29:05 by Xlpants
What US Airline Is Expanding The Most In 2005? posted Wed Mar 9 2005 21:20:20 by COEWR777
Which US Airline Do Celebrities Fly Most Often? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 06:53:30 by Bpat777
US Most "International" Airline posted Wed Jul 30 2003 21:26:20 by Rafabozzolla