Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Less Delay At Lower Altitude?  
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 7227 posts, RR: 7
Posted (15 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

An AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle for 23 August (page D7) starts:

"In a travel season rife with late arrivals and canceled flights, several airlines have begun flying at lower altitudes, trading fuel efficiency for on-time arrivals.
The FAA gave airlines approval more than a year ago to operate some short flights-- up to 500 miles-- at between 8,000 feet and 23,000 feet...."

The story says United sends 30-40 low-altitude flights out of O'Hare each day, "saving an average of two minutes on the ground and about 10 in the air, spokesman Joe Hopkins said." It also says AA will shortly start low flights (at Chicago?) and that NW flies them out of MSP and DTW. It also says what you'd expect: "But low flights are generally kept above 18,000 feet."

Can anyone begin to explain how flying at FL180 -FL230 will save ten minutes in the air? Can anyone give an example comparison?

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offline777x From United States of America, joined Dec 2014, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Well, the idea is that the airways in the medium altitude range are less congested and so would reduce delays due to traffic congestion in the higher alititude airways.

Why? Pilots/Airlines like to fly their planes in the higher altitude airways where drag is reduced (lower air density) and therefore require less fuel burn for the optimum cruise speed. Quite frequently, these popular alititudes are congested, and that results in takeoff delays or reroutings.


User currently offlineILS 15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (15 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1959 times:

You'd save time in the air at FL180 because you only need to climb to 18,000. A cruising AC is much faster than one that's climbing. Plus once you are at FL350, you need to get down. This means speed restrictions or vectoring in the decent around cruising traffic. As for saving time on the ground, there are often delays on major airways, example J80, however these only apply certain altitudes, at times, so you'd be able to eliminate that delay.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

This "new" LADDR program is stuff that's been going on (informally) for years, but now it's an official program.

Precisely how much time going lower saves depends upon the winds.

Westbound, the lower altitude will give a higher true airspeed (TAS), and when combined with a lower (usually) headwind component (HW), the overall result is a higher groundspeed (GS) and thus shorter total ETE. For example, FL310 TAS 430, HW -50 = 380 GS.
FL240 TAS 460, HW -20 = 440 GS.

All that is at a cost in extra fuel for the lower, less efficient altitude.

Eastbound, it's often a different story. Going lower loses out on much of that jetstream-driven tailwind (TW), and the difference between the FL330 and FL250 groundspeeds isn't beneficial time-wise.

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3589 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (15 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Primarily "hype" so it sounds like FAA is doing something about delays. Kinda like "free flight." As if enroute traffic is a problem?... Not!

Only works for flights leaving a hub. Flights inbound to ORD are usually sequenced for landing shortly after takeoff.

*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Less Delay At Lower Altitude?
No username? Sign up now!

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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Restrictions Exist At High Altitude Airports? posted Tue Sep 28 2004 14:19:01 by Mozart
Why Better Fuel Economy At Higher Altitude? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 03:59:29 by Yhmfan
Airliners Cruising At Low Altitude posted Tue Mar 25 2003 13:18:37 by Il75
Flying At Lower Altitudes posted Mon Jul 23 2001 14:36:47 by Ct
Less Delay At Lower Altitude? posted Tue Sep 5 2000 15:10:58 by Timz
Working At Less Than 100% posted Wed Dec 21 2005 07:56:19 by HAWK21M
Engine Thrust At Altitude? posted Mon Oct 11 2004 03:37:52 by ArmitageShanks
Altitude/Airspeed Restrictions - 300 Mph At 4,000 posted Wed Jul 9 2003 20:44:38 by Beltwaybandit
High-bypass Fans At Altitude posted Wed Aug 29 2001 02:43:21 by Timz
Radiation At Altitude posted Tue Jul 24 2001 14:46:14 by Ct

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format