Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airlines Cutting Fuel To Save Costs  
User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1518 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9292 times:

MSNBC has an interesting story regarding airlines cutting back on the amount of fuel they
are carrying in order to cut back on their expenditures. This could be interesting in light of
all of the recent safety groundings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468


Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9264 times:



Quoting GARUDAROD (Thread starter):
MSNBC has an interesting story regarding airlines cutting back on the amount of fuel they
are carrying in order to cut back on their expenditures. This could be interesting in light of
all of the recent safety groundings.

This really isn't anything new. When I was working in Flight Control 5 years ago, we were conserving fuel. The media will jump on any opportunity for ratings, and the airlines are a great place these days!



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9224 times:



Quoting GARUDAROD (Thread starter):
MSNBC has an interesting story regarding airlines cutting back on the amount of fuel they
are carrying in order to cut back on their expenditures. This could be interesting in light of
all of the recent safety groundings.

I have a hard time seeing this as a real safety issue. I can't think of a single accident on a modern airliner due to fuel exhaustion that wasn't caused by a plain old screwup (dumping it overboard or not loading the right amount to start with). The required reserves seem to have served us pretty well so far.

Tom.


User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9215 times:



Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
This really isn't anything new. When I was working in Flight Control 5 years ago, we were conserving fuel. The media will jump on any opportunity for ratings, and the airlines are a great place these days!

That is very true, but i this day and age with gas over $114 a barrel, and many if not most airlines losing
money and a string of cancellations for maintenance problems, this is probably not the best time for
the media to focus on this problem. Just wait for the first plane that has to divert because of low
fuel and the media gets ahold of, they will have field day with it. And if its one thing the industry doesnt
need right now, is a dark focused story pertaining to cost reduction vs. passenger safety.



Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9216 times:



Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 3):
Just wait for the first plane that has to divert because of low
fuel

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this happens all the time.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6072 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9195 times:

Name to me one time when a part 121 airline since 9/11 has had an emergency landing or accident because of fuel exhaustion—especially because of the reduction of fuel carried.


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9151 times:



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 4):


Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 3):
Just wait for the first plane that has to divert because of low
fuel

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this happens all the time.

Having to divert because of delays due to weather or traffic, yes.
Having to divert because the airline purposely loaded less fuel to save money??
Will be a big problem.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Name to me one time when a part 121 airline since 9/11 has had an emergency landing or accident because of fuel exhaustion—especially because of the reduction of fuel carried.

The BA B777 at LHR. Cause was determined to be fuel starvation due to fuel contamination?



Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9138 times:



Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 3):
Just wait for the first plane that has to divert because of low
fuel and the media gets ahold of, they will have field day with it.

It happens hundreds of times a month. When conditions change quickly at a busy destination airport (be it a storm, disabled aircraft, security issue) aircraft en-route cannot hold indefinitely, so when they approach their minimum fuel, either they will declare it, or divert to their alt. If they had no alt required, then hopefully the pilots are smart enough to call dispch as soon as they enter a hold (with no EFC, or a ridiculous EFC time) and have them work up numbers for an alt. In all my time in Flight Control, I've never heard a pilot act surprised when they had to divert for fuel...It does suck, but can be managed with communication and planning.



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9037 times:



Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 6):
Cause was determined to be fuel starvation due to fuel contamination?

Source?

And even if it was contamination, that doesn't mean that BA didn't fuel the aircraft. What it means is that the aircraft was fueled to appropriate levels but the fuel became contaminated for whatever reason. The engines were starved of fuel, not the aircraft itself.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8893 times:



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 8):
Source?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=314143



Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8843 times:

The MSNBC article from 4/15 is the same article that first appeared on on KXAS on 2/18, and it's still a piece of crap journalism. I posted the following on KXAS' site back in February, and since they've recycled the story, I recycled my comments on MSNBC's blog as well as the reporter's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordinarily, I'm happy to see folks recycle things, as
it helps the environment, but in MSNBC's case, all
they did April 15th was to re-cycle Grant's original
story from mid-February (Sweeps!) from his home
station KXAS in Ft. Worth, Texas.

In keeping with that same spirit, I'll also recycle my
response comments to Grant back then, which I also
posted on UncleBarky.com, a Dallas-Ft. Worth site that
comments on local media. To wit, Uncle Barky later
stated: "That's possibly the most detailed explanation
I've ever received on anything in these comments
sections, "OPNLguy." I appreciate the time it took for
you to post them. Thank you.
Uncle B | 02.20.08 - 5:55 pm | #

So, grab a cold one, and follow along with this
re-run:


Did you happen to catch KXAS's story of low-fuel
airliners? What garbage!

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/153379...945/ detail.html

My comments below...

KXAS’s “news” item on low-fuel airliners is sadly
typical of the “scare the snot out of the
unknowledgeable viewing public” story that we see
during TV’s “sweeps” ratings periods, and the February
“sweeps” we’re in now are no exception. Additionally,
KXAS was deftly “played” by AA’s pilot union, the
Allied Pilots Association (APA), who apparently
everyone but KXAS seems to know has been bitterly at
odds with AA/AMR management on an assortment of labor
issues. In making the on-camera comments, the APA
spokespilot has not only thrown their fellow AA
employees (i.e. flight dispatchers) under the bus to
further the APA’s own agenda, but he’s also given the
entire airline industry an unwarranted black eye, not
to mention misleading the public.

Here’s what the APA spokespilot didn’t tell anyone,
and KXAS was too lazy to research, since the facts
would have gotten in the way of the story.

Here in the USA , scheduled airline fuel loads are
calculated by a flight dispatcher, who are also
airline employees, and are also trained and
FAA-licensed just like the pilots are. Dispatchers are
not “management” and nearly all in the country are
represented by various unions. The dispatcher
determines the fuel load and includes it on a legal
document called a dispatch release, which the
dispatcher also signs. When the captain gets the
release prior to their flight, they review the
dispatcher’s work, and if they agree with the fuel
load and other flight parameters, they too sign the
release. In signing, both dispatcher and captain are
then indicating joint agreement that the flight can be
operated safely, as planned.

Conversely, if a captain doesn’t agree with the
dispatcher’s fuel load, nobody is holding a gun to the
captain’s head or otherwise “forcing” them to sign the
release let alone actually operate the flight—in fact,
the captain has a responsibility under the FAA
regulations –not- to sign the release in such a case.
When disagreements arise, captains and dispatchers are
supposed to communicate and come to a compromise that
each is agreeable with. Once that happens, the release
is amended accordingly, and the flight then can
legally operate. Pretty simple, huh?

Another story error is that the captain is the final
authority for the fuel load on the aircraft. Not true.
There are plenty of situations where dispatchers
desire to carry more (not less) fuel than the captain
wants due to weather and other operational factors
that the captain may not have a full awareness and/or
understanding of. Dispatchers have access to a wider
variety of weather and other information resources
than do the pilots, and the dispatcher works dozens of
lights over the course of a shift that provide
feedback.

Do unexpected situations and diversions still occur?
Sure they do, but the same communications and
concurrence mechanism between dispatcher and captain
successfully resolve them long before they get to the
point of becoming actual tragedies. It might mean that
you’ll divert to Podunk for fuel, but no dispatcher or
captain who truly respects passenger safety and their
ability to retain their FAA license (needed to work,
and thus eat) is going to allow a flight to actually
run out of fuel.

I’ve been a dispatcher for nearly 30 years (not for
AA), and it’s a sad state of affairs for our society
when the media becomes a willing participant in
another group’s desire to suppress and otherwise
obfuscate the facts to further their own agenda and
mislead the public in the process.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8808 times:



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Name to me one time when a part 121 airline since 9/11 has had an emergency landing or accident because of fuel exhaustion—especially because of the reduction of fuel carried.

Obviously not because of fuel exhaustion, but there have been plenty of planes that have diverted due to fuel. I have seen it many times in the Midwest when a storm cell moves over an airport. An airport like ORD might have a groundstop for as short as 15 minutes, but because airlines were flying too close to the minimum fuel requirement, there was not enough buffer to allow for holding time and diversions to airports like RFD and MKE happen. It's not a safety concern, but it happens.

I believe I heard of one event I think two years ago when a WN 737 was holding for MDW. They decided to divert to IND, but had to divert again to Lafeyette because they didn't have enough fuel to make it safely to their original alternate of IND. That was just heresay, so I'm not sure if it is true, but I have been told it happened.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
I have a hard time seeing this as a real safety issue. I can't think of a single accident on a modern airliner due to fuel exhaustion that wasn't caused by a plain old screwup (dumping it overboard or not loading the right amount to start with). The required reserves seem to have served us pretty well so far.

I'm not sure if this fits in your plain old screwup category, but in 1990 an Avianca Boeing 707 ran out of fuel and crashed on landing approach 20 miles from JFK. In this case the plane was holding for an extended period of time. They were cleared for an approach after declaring that they could not hold any longer and that they would not be able to make it to their alternate. Due to weather conditions they had to perform a missed approach and while on the second approach, they ran out of fuel. This is mostly due to poor fuel management, but did result is quite a few changes in how fuel emergencies are handled.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8802 times:



Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 6):
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Name to me one time when a part 121 airline since 9/11 has had an emergency landing or accident because of fuel exhaustion---especially because of the reduction of fuel carried.

The BA B777 at LHR. Cause was determined to be fuel starvation due to fuel contamination?

Fuel starvation and fuel exhaustion are different things. Fuel starvation does occur with fuel exhaustion, but we know that the BA flight wasn't fuel exhaustion because there was lots of fuel left on board. It still might be fuel starvation, but that wouldn't have anything to do with BA shorting the quantity on board.

Also, the investigation is still open and cause hasn't been determined yet.

Tom.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8770 times:



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Name to me one time when a part 121 airline since 9/11 has had an emergency landing or accident because of fuel exhaustion—especially because of the reduction of fuel carried.

Delta and American both have had tons in the New York area.

NS


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8755 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13):

Delta and American both have had tons in the New York area.

NS

Diversion? Yes. Accident/emergency? No.

Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 9):

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...14143

I can't view the page. Either way contaminated fuel is not the result of the airline cheaping out on fuel.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8753 times:



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
I'm not sure if this fits in your plain old screwup category, but in 1990 an Avianca Boeing 707 ran out of fuel and crashed on landing approach 20 miles from JFK. In this case the plane was holding for an extended period of time. They were cleared for an approach after declaring that they could not hold any longer and that they would not be able to make it to their alternate. Due to weather conditions they had to perform a missed approach and while on the second approach, they ran out of fuel. This is mostly due to poor fuel management, but did result is quite a few changes in how fuel emergencies are handled.

Avianca 52 is a different animal, in that it was a Part 129 operaton, and not a Part 121 operation. Part 129 airlines operating into the US basically get kicked back to operating under the rules of the home country. In this case, Avianca 52 had a dispatcher, but his only job duties were to crank out a flight plan out and file it with ATC, but he didn't do anything once the flight departed Colombia. Three holds (at ORF, BOTON, and CAMRN) used up all their fuel for that purpose, and rest is history. You'll note that US FAR Part 121 flights into JFK didn't run out of fuel that night, and that's because our regs and standards are higher, and there was somebody (on the ground) minding the store as far as passing info to the flights, and diverting them when necessary.

The last time a US FAR Part 121 airliner ran out of fuel? IIRC, that would be the UAL DC-8 outside of PDX back in 1978.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8748 times:



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 14):
Diversion? Yes. Accident/emergency? No.

Emergency landings? Yes.

NS


User currently offlineCaspian27 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 382 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

The PIC has the burn data in the release, if he wants more fuel, there's nothing stopping him from asking the fueler to put more on. Happens all the time. Airlines do not purposely load less fuel. We're required by the FAA to have contingency reserves. Most airlines now have fuel conservation profiles and are more stringent about less APU use and single-engine taxis...but that still doesn't eat into your MINTO (Min. Take Off fuel). If you get to be number one at the runway and don't have enough gas, we go back to the gate and get more.

OPNLguy, as usual you're right on the mark! That PDX crash was UAL173 right? As I recall, that was caused mainly by a burnt-out gear indicator light that the entire flight crew got fixated on until they ran out of fuel. In the end: total pilot error, and nothing to do with improper fuel loads.

In any case, I'd love for you to be my dispatcher someday!

[Edited 2008-04-17 00:59:46]


Meanwhile, somewhere 35,000 ft above your head...
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6072 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8534 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
Emergency landings? Yes.

So, all of these planes ran out of fuel? I think not. They might have declared a fuel emergency, but they did not run out of fuel.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8503 times:

Most domestic flights will land with 1-2 hours of fuel remaining onboard. Very few will land with only the 45 min. FAA required reserve fuel. Fuel planning is much more sophisticated today than it was 25-30 years ago. Modern aircraft can fly using what's known as Cost Index or variable Mach as the aircraft's weight changes inflight as fuel is burned.
FARs require the fuel load specified by the dispatcher to be on the aircraft at the point of dispatch, unless the captain and the dispatcher can agree on a different fuel number (by perhaps deleting or changing an alternate if conditions allow).



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8455 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13):
Delta and American both have had tons in the New York area.

Specifics?

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 17):
In any case, I'd love for you to be my dispatcher someday!

Depending upon how the upcoming merger nusical chairs ends up playing out, it could theoretically happen...  Wink

I left a question in the reporter's blog, asking him to cite which FAA regulation it was that supposedly made the PIC the ultimate authority over how much fuel gets loaded. Curious to see what the response will be, though I already suspect what the answer will be....


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3475 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8290 times:



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
but did result is quite a few changes in how fuel emergencies are handled.

Uh... nope. Just re-emphasis training on the different definitions of EMERGENCY, MAYDAY and PAN.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15):
You'll note that US FAR Part 121 flights into JFK didn't run out of fuel that night, and that's because our regs and standards are higher, and there was somebody (on the ground) minding the store as far as passing info to the flights, and diverting them when necessary.

The pilots knew they were low on fuel. The pilots NEVER declared an emergency, never used MAYDAY or PAN (international keywords for a flight in distress), and never stressed to ATC that there was any instructions received that they could not comply with. IOW, pilot error.

Quoting Caspian27 (Reply 17):
That PDX crash was UAL173 right? As I recall, that was caused mainly by a burnt-out gear indicator light that the entire flight crew got fixated on until they ran out of fuel. In the end: total pilot error, and nothing to do with improper fuel loads.

Correct, pilot error -- NOT a fuel emergency until the pilots created it. By the time the pilots decided to deal with the low fuel situation, it was too late.

BTW OPNLguy -- comments were right on the mark. APA's recent advertisements and press releases continue their tradition of blaming everything on AA management.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineIAHFLYER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8082 times:



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
I believe I heard of one event I think two years ago when a WN 737 was holding for MDW. They decided to divert to IND, but had to divert again to Lafeyette because they didn't have enough fuel to make it safely to their original alternate of IND. That was just heresay, so I'm not sure if it is true, but I have been told it happened.

Are you saying that a plane destined for MDW diverteed to Louisiana or is there another lafeyette in the midwest I don't know about



Little airports with the big jets are the best!! Floyd
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8065 times:



Quoting IAHFLYER (Reply 22):
or is there another lafeyette

YUP


http://www.city.lafayette.in.us/


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8039 times:



Quoting IAHFLYER (Reply 22):
Are you saying that a plane destined for MDW diverteed to Louisiana or is there another lafeyette in the midwest I don't know about

Lafayette, Indiana.

Right next to the home of Purdue University. (West Lafayette, Indiana).


25 Post contains links GolfBravoRomeo : Has this Wall Street Journal article been discussed? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...1771422115.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Mentions CO and their T
26 OPNLguy : All true, and my point was that under the Part 129 ruleset that Avianca was operating under (at the time), there wasn't any authorized and empowered
27 AirTran717 : Exactly right.
28 AirTran717 : Airlines can't override the FAA's fueling regulations. Airliners carry required emergency reserves. What I think this means is that fuel burns will be
29 Dispatchguy : Or mother nature not caring about how much is loaded on an aircraft, and changes the weather so that the planned winds aloft are much rosier than the
30 AirTran717 : That too.
31 WunalaYann : I am the first one to denounce the media's thirst for "sensationalism" but at the same time I do not think there is a good or bad time to bring atten
32 Swf : Mentions CO and their TATL 757 ops as a particular concern In the summer we see the continental 757s fairly frequently during storms when they are div
33 ADXMatt : I'm not a subscriber to the WSJ so I couldn't read it. No one in this article or the other ones I've seen suggest how much fuel an airplance SHOULD l
34 FXRA : Matt, the brief synopsis of the article I read on the ATA Smartbrief mentioned that in 2007, 100 Continental flights were reported, by the crews, to b
35 Post contains links GolfBravoRomeo : Hmm, I'm not a subscriber either, it worked for me yesterday. The Star Ledger picked it up here: http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf...ontinentals_lo
36 Post contains images IAHFLYR : You really need to get out more!    I don't see any safety issues at all with the lighter fuel loads, nor any reason to think there will be an incr
37 GolfBravoRomeo : I agree on safety but the margin of error gets smaller while people still remain people. Can you give us a sense of the number of flights declaring w
38 ADXMatt : No the port authority could care less. The FAA FSDO is another story... Our ACARS system puts the arrival fuel into the computer and reports can be r
39 AirNZ : Hmm! correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware the investigation has not yet concluded nor any cause determined. Thus, how do you know what th
40 WorldTraveler : Let's be clear. There is a big difference between reducing fuel loads in order to minimize the amount of unnecessary weight that is being carrier AND
41 RJdxer : Even if they landed with less than reserve they are still legal. Reserve fuel burns just the same as regular fuel. There is a big difference between
42 WorldTraveler : but FARs state that you must carry enough fuel for the appropriate hold times. If CO is not able to hold for the acceptable amount of time which is q
43 OPNLguy : Which FAR is that? (No help from the audience please...)
44 WorldTraveler : I don't have to know all of the statutes of the land to know what is right or wrong whether it deals with murder, taxes, or aviation (and the three ar
45 RJdxer : If a flight shows up in stormy NYC airspace it does not show up on fumes. It shows up with a legal alternate plus intl reserves at the very least. If
46 FXRA : I've had to convince many a pilot that this is indeed true, especially that over destination you can burn the 10% (in Int'l flights) and they won't h
47 Futurecaptain : No.... § 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations. No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel— (a) To fly to the
48 Post contains images OPNLguy : Then how in the world can you be an expert (real or inferred) on FAR interpretations if you can't even cite the applicable FARs? Nope, just trying to
49 FXRA : Futurecaptain, don't forget 121.647 Gotcha... I see why. "You know Normie, it's a well known fact....:"
50 OPNLguy : Is that it?
51 Futurecaptain : Ok, since you two are too lazy to post the regs... § 121.645 Fuel supply: Turbine-engine powered airplanes, other than turbo propeller: Flag and supp
52 WorldTraveler : the article specifically talks about CO. I'd like to see the stats for all carriers in all cities and how often they tell ATC they are low on fuel. E
53 OPNLguy : Bingo! If something wasn't forecasted as per (a), or wasn't anticipated fully as per (b) (like anticipating 30 minutes of holding based on what FSM s
54 IAHFLYR : No I can't give a sense of the number of flights and it isn't a pain at all, no big deal for "minimum fuel" as that mean only no can be accepted when
55 RJdxer : Which is a part 121 carrier which means they have to abide by the same rules as all other part 121 carriers. The safest thing to do would be to put a
56 REALDEAL : slightly off topic but heard a while ago that DJ slow their aircraft to save ful. On a sector like SYD/MEL it makes very little difference to actual f
57 ADXMatt : What is the appropriate amount of fuel to be lugging around for what if situations? 1 hour holding 2 hours holding? What is the appropriate amount of
58 WorldTraveler : because unplanned holds happen all the time, esp. in NYC. IT IS not illegal to be unable to accept a hold that is greater than what was planned for b
59 UAXDXer : Do you hold the formula that will plan a flight for everything that MIGHT happen from point A to point B? Dispatchers do the best they can to plan a
60 Bok269 : Right, because the media always presents a balanced and truthful view, especially with the airlines.
61 OPNLguy : I don't think anyone thinks you're a bad guy here. You certainly have an opinion (to which you're obviously entitled), but as evidenced by several fo
62 RJdxer : I don't think you are a bad guy but as OPLNguy has stated, you are woefully uninformed. Legally I don't have to plan for, and the pilot does not have
63 Laxintl : CAL lands with around 10,000lbs on the 757s coming inbound from Europe. That works out to around 90 minutes of total endurance...yes, wind busts, exte
64 Laxintl : Why isn't 5.1 enough fuel for arrival @ 3am? It meets the regulatory required amount...do we think the regulations are unsafe? Is something expected
65 CALPSAFltSkeds : Wow, a thread with WorldTraveler and not a single mention of DL. It looks to me that WorldTraveler is concerned that capacity at NYC is being reduced,
66 ADXMatt : I was pointing out that the regulations are alot lower then what these flights actually carry. That the planes are not comming in on fumes. Company p
67 Laxintl : yes this whole stink sounds like Union vs. Co stuff, esp @ CAL and AAL, where the pilots are in CBA talks.. 9k min? Sounds like a pilot fuel policy,
68 FXRA : In my former life, our DC-10's and MD-11's were required to be planned with a minimum fuel at destination of 16.0. My current airline has fuel number
69 YWG747 : The only one I can think of was the AC 767 (Gimli Glider)
70 Tornado82 : Yep, I've got non-A.net quality cellphone pics of it. If I look hard I can find them but I don't really feel like hooking up my old pix HD right now.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airlines Cutting Fuel To Save Costs
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Holes In Airplane Wings To Save Fuel posted Sat Oct 21 2006 01:30:20 by Lumberton
Do Airlines F*** Around With The AC To Save $$$$$? posted Fri Jul 11 2003 17:09:59 by Indianguy
Fuel To Climb Comparison: Empty And Full posted Thu Feb 21 2008 11:19:08 by NCB
Have I Helped To Save The Planet? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 09:30:44 by Goinv
Airlines Swapping Passengers To Each Other posted Fri Oct 28 2005 21:49:43 by Julesmusician
Use Tugs To Save On Gas posted Fri Jul 15 2005 17:18:27 by Pmg1704
What Airlines Do Fuel Tank Mtc Inhouse? posted Sun Jun 20 2004 00:45:38 by Dl757md
Why Some Airlines Don't Fly To Certain Airports posted Sat Nov 29 2003 09:33:05 by Paulinbna
What Price To Airlines Pay For Jet Fuel? posted Mon Apr 7 2008 06:11:01 by MOBflyer
What Happens To Crews When Airlines Stops? posted Sat Apr 5 2008 20:39:23 by Fvyfireman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format