Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Saving/Waisitng Procdedurs  
User currently offlineWilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 3
Posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 985 times:

I have noticed recently alot of airlines have stoped running the apu on the ground. Does this equal a fuel savings? Ive noticed DL and FL both are doing this, I see it as a waste, an aircraft arrives in the gate, and the time it takes to get ground power connected an engine is left running, then it always seems as soon as the crew deplanes the next crew comes on and the 1st thing they do is light off the apu. Not to mention the safety hazard this causes with ground vehicles getting blown over by running engines. I really dont see the logic here... I know there is a certain amount of fuel burned during apu start, but it has to be started regardless. I also kind of see maybe logic in it reducing the time on the APU keeping them from wearing out faster but I still fail to see the logic. Also when do you normaly light the apu off? During decent once you hit the ground? I was on one aircraft that had the apu bell rinigng when they went to light it on approach. They pulled the fire handles and the alarm stoped. Apparently there was no fire though but we sure made it in fast and had a nice welcome from the ARFF guys welcome us. I think approach would be a bad place to light it becasue if something does go wrong you have enough stuff to deal with getting the aircraft on the ground not having to worry about punching out a fire. Also ive seen aircraft doing single engine taxis after powerback or only lighting one engine after pushback. I know this is a very common procedure but what are y'alls opinons of it... This makes me think of NW 255 where they pulled the aural warning system ciricuit breaker since they did single engine taxies so tehy wouldnt have to deal with being told the slats werent set when they pushed the throttle forward to taxi and ended up taking off without without the aircraft configured for departure. I also think there was a 727 that the center engine never got lit ... What do y'all think?

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 855 times:

Try some paragraph breaks. I get lost reading your post- and it sounds pretty good.

G


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 856 times:

> I see it as a waste, an aircraft arrives in the gate, and the time
>it takes to get ground power connected an engine is left running...

The only number I recall was "8 minutes" for B757. It was cheaper to keep one engine running for up to 8 minutes waiting for ground air/electric than to start APU and shutdown both engines during those 8 minutes. This economic model took into account the APU cycles and wear/tear on APU as well as fuel burn.

OTOH; once one has the MD90 up/running on internal power, there is no way I'm going to shift electrical power to any outside source... NO EXCEPTIONS! That means the APU (if it is working) is going to be on everytime the aircraft parks. One electrical "hic-up" and the plane could be down for 20-40 minutes trying to get everything working properly again (if not longer).

>then it always seems as soon as the crew deplanes the next crew
>comes on and the 1st thing they do is light off the apu.

Inbound crew is leaving and may not know when the plane is departing (or they may not care) so shutting down may be appropriate (checklist item?). Outbound crew will have two major concerns; a) reliable electrical power and air source for starting and, b) comfortable cabin air temperature.

>Also when do you normaly light the apu off?

The "ideal" situation is to have the APU up and running no more than 1 minute prior to parking at the gate. Reality means we usually start it immediately after clearing the runway (I prefer one-engine taxi).

>Also ive seen aircraft doing single engine taxis after powerback or only
>lighting one engine after pushback. I know this is a very common
>procedure but what are y'alls opinons of it...

Very common. No big deal.

>This makes me think of NW 255 where they pulled the aural warning
>system ciricuit breaker since they did single engine taxies so tehy
>wouldnt have to deal with being told the slats werent set when
>they pushed the throttle forward to taxi and ended up taking off
>without without the aircraft configured for departure.

Never pulled the C/B on the MD80 for single engine taxi. One just lives with the warning(s) since it is so rare anyway. OTOH, the MD80 trained folks driving the MD90 always use too much power... all the time!  




*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineNKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 828 times:

Though bean counters may disagree, it seems like "false economy" to shut an APU down for 30 minutes just to save fuel. It sounds great short term but doesn't factor in long term APU maintainance/replacement costs. Saving 30-45 minutes of fuel consumption is not an acceptable tradeoff IMO due to the extra wear and tear that starts and shutdowns cause APU's...Thermal shock on the turbine wheel and aft bearings chief among them.

User currently offlineUAL Bagsmasher From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 826 times:

We had this discussion at work a while ago. We were told it costs somewhere around $25.00/hour to run the APU on a 737. Normally when one of our aircraft arrives at the gate, it will sit with #1 engine running for up to 3 or 4 minutes until the ground power is hooked up. If it isn't hooked up by then, the crew will usually start the APU anyways. The point we were discussing was the amount of bags missing their connections because we cannot drive behind a running engine. Each bag that misses it's flight costs roughly $125 to deliver to the pax. More so for an INTL bag. I myself cannot count the number of times I have missed bags due to a running engine. So what's the lesser of two evils? Running an APU at $25.00 per hour, or missing 10 bags at a cost of $125 each?? You decide.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 809 times:

UAL Bagsmasher wrote:
-------------------------------
.... Each bag that misses it's flight costs roughly $125 to deliver to the pax. More so for an INTL bag. I myself cannot count the number of times I have missed bags due to a running engine. So what's the lesser of two evils? Running an APU at $25.00 per hour, or missing 10 bags at a cost of $125 each?? You decide.
-------------------------------

No, UAL Bagsmasher, you are totally wrong with those figures.
I won't disagree with the $25/hr APU cost.
The same with the $125 missed bag DELIVERY cost.
But you are very wrong because you simply missed the by far higest cost for your company: Missed customer confidence.
Every time one single bag doesn't get on the same plane as it's owner, then the next day in avarage fifty potential customers will know exactly what happened and which airline company caused its passenger this ultimate discomfort and trouble.
You are talking about 2-digit and small 3-digit figures. But the real figures are high 4-digit figures for your company.
Believe me, I am right!!!
It is not a loss for the industry as a whole. People need to fly. Only very few has the option to take the car or train for the safety of their properties, working tools, business presentation materials etc. - what you call "bags". But they often have the option to fly a slightly different route in order to avoid one specific airline company.
You just make your competitors laugh all way to their bank every time a bag does not arrive on the belt as your customer expects.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineUAL Bagsmasher From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 802 times:

Good point! Just all the more reason why crews should start the APU, provided it isn't INOP, before they reach the gate.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 800 times:

Exactly, UAL Bagsmasher.
The airline industry is a pure service industry.
I have earned my butter for my bread during the last 30 years in another service industry. Our rules have always been:
1. Give the customer just a little more than he expects, and he will be happy. He may even tell his wife.
2. Give the customer exactly what he expects, and he won't notice you.
3. Give the customer just a little less than he expects, and he will be very disappointed, and he will use every opportunity to tell about his experiences. The story will snowball and Hans Christian Andersen said it best 150 years ago when he wrote his fairytale about the feather and the five chicken.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineMe From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 220 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 794 times:

Joe L. doesn't want the APU turned on, so I don't turn it on.

Does it make sense? Probably not, maybe a little. Who knows??


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 792 times:

Me wrote:
-------------------------------
Joe L. doesn't want the APU turned on, so I don't turn it on.
Does it make sense? Probably not, maybe a little. Who knows??
-------------------------------

Who the h#¤* is Joe L.?
There may be many good reasons for not turning on the APU, but:
If Joe L. thinks that it is a good idea to save $25 and by doing so risk that my bag (which often contains the very reason for my trip) is sent on another plane into an unknown future, and then delivered by taxi to the place where I may happen to be at work - directed by me on my mobile phone in my left hand, while I am entertaining a bunch of my customers with the right hand... etc.
Then I know one thing about Joe L.:
I know that I don't like him.
Just in case Joe L. should also somehow be involved in the airline business, then I know one more thing about him: He is not a clever man. He should instead try to be a good friend of me, because it is people like me who pay his salary.
The whole reason for people working in the airline industry is often to earn a salary. That makes sense, for sure.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineWilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 784 times:

Joe L. would be the CEO of Airtran Airways. Im just waiting for someone or something to become FOD and see how much that cost an airline, since it appears to be widespread SOP in the industry now, im waiting for someone or something to suck into an enigne. Lets take a 737 @ UAL... I read somewhere the loss of a life is roughly 1,000,000 bucks, plus the cost of the engine, plus the cost of the aircraft being AOG for a long time while they wait on the engine swap plus the cost of reaccomidating the pax, plus the frightend pax that saw the ramp guy walk over to chock the mains while #1 was still runing and got sucked in etc etc etc...

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Saving/Waisitng Procdedurs
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...
Fuel Saving On Airbus posted Sun Jan 19 2003 21:22:31 by Pat
Fuel Saving Thru Proper Loading posted Tue May 29 2001 22:05:17 by OpsManager88
Jet Fuel Prices posted Thu May 10 2007 15:19:30 by Howard500
Dash 8 Fuel Heat posted Tue May 8 2007 00:43:44 by Mainliner
Fuel Bowser Moving Without Disconnection. posted Fri Apr 27 2007 14:51:26 by HAWK21M
380 Engine.Is This A Fuel Dump Or Another Test posted Wed Apr 25 2007 19:36:07 by Relic
Boeing Researching Biofuel Blend Jet Fuel posted Sun Apr 22 2007 17:38:01 by BoomBoom
Where Is Jet B Fuel Available? posted Sun Apr 22 2007 00:58:11 by N353SK
Q: How Is A Plane Weighed To Determine Fuel, Etc.? posted Sun Apr 8 2007 21:09:27 by JAAlbert
Can You Pre-fuel The Aircraft The Night Before? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 06:05:29 by Carfield

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format