vaughanparry wrote:

There's much to unpack in this article from the UK's Telegraph newspaper:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trav ... years-ago/

Sample paragraph: "Furthermore, airlines are more conscious than ever of their fuel bills – and have in recent years adjusted their aircraft’s cruising speeds accordingly. In 2013 Ryanair told its pilots to save cash by going more slowly – adding two minutes to every hour’s flying time. In 2008 Associated Press reported that when the same tactic was used by American airline JetBlue it saved $13.6 million a year."

Over to you guys...

CriticalPoint wrote:

vaughanparry wrote:

There's much to unpack in this article from the UK's Telegraph newspaper:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trav ... years-ago/

Sample paragraph: "Furthermore, airlines are more conscious than ever of their fuel bills – and have in recent years adjusted their aircraft’s cruising speeds accordingly. In 2013 Ryanair told its pilots to save cash by going more slowly – adding two minutes to every hour’s flying time. In 2008 Associated Press reported that when the same tactic was used by American airline JetBlue it saved $13.6 million a year."

Over to you guys...

You don’t necessarily save gas by flying slower. The slower you go the more you pull the nose up. The more you pull the nose up the more induced drag you get. The more induced drag the the more thrust needed.
I used to save more gas flying faster (within reason).

2.5 degrees nose up is about the best AOA for a jet.

flightsimer wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

vaughanparry wrote:

There's much to unpack in this article from the UK's Telegraph newspaper:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trav ... years-ago/

Sample paragraph: "Furthermore, airlines are more conscious than ever of their fuel bills – and have in recent years adjusted their aircraft’s cruising speeds accordingly. In 2013 Ryanair told its pilots to save cash by going more slowly – adding two minutes to every hour’s flying time. In 2008 Associated Press reported that when the same tactic was used by American airline JetBlue it saved $13.6 million a year."


Over to you guys...

You don’t necessarily save gas by flying slower. The slower you go the more you pull the nose up. The more you pull the nose up the more induced drag you get. The more induced drag the the more thrust needed.
I used to save more gas flying faster (within reason).

2.5 degrees nose up is about the best AOA for a jet.

I don’t know what you are flying… but I can tell you the difference between flying at .76 and .80 in the E195 is about a 400-500Lbs difference per hour in fuel burn depending on the weight and altitude, with .80 being the higher of the two. The difference in deck angle at those two speeds are mostly imperceivable.

If your flying a Cost index, you absolutely save money flying slower as it not only factors in fuel cost, but maintenance and crew costs as well. Cost index’s tend to average out an operations overall cost as those days where you have a strong tailwind you slow down and reduce your fuel burn while maintaining the same schedule integrity.

ReverseFlow wrote:

It's not only flight times but scheduled times have gotten longer. That way the airline has a bigger chance of being on time or even early.

B6twufa wrote:

Schedule padding; crew costs; Cost Index 35; Fuel being the bigger expenditure of airlines.

MIflyer12 wrote:

B6twufa wrote:

Schedule padding; crew costs; Cost Index 35; Fuel being the bigger expenditure of airlines.

The OP's link is behind a paywall. Is The Telegraph talking about flight times takeoff-touchdown, or scheduled times?

Widebody jets don't fly the speeds they used to.

Cruise speeds from Delta's Flight Museum pages:

747, 625 mph
A350, 551mph

https://www.deltamuseum.org/exhibits/de ... 17-present

ReverseFlow wrote:

It's not only flight times but scheduled times have gotten longer. That way the airline has a bigger chance of being on time or even early.

miegapele wrote:

I heard somewhere that AA1 NYC-LAX was 5:45 in 60's on 707, now it's 6:30. Airport congestion, traffic congestion, more people flying, all makes things slower.

EFHK wrote:

I can't understand the criticism towards this. Scheduled flight times being long enough to guarantee an adequately high on-time arrival rate (and onward connections) sounds like a win-win to me.

Funniest thing is that some companies specializing in EU delay compensation are marketing this phenomenon to press media as "airlines trying to "cheat" with paying delay compensation", and the saddest part is that at least sometimes the press buys it and believes that it's a problem.

USAirKid wrote:

Back in 1980 TransAmerica flight 209 went from ORD to LAX inside of 87 minutes as documented on film at the time.

Acey wrote:

Extending the block time generally works, until you encounter no departure delay and land at ORD 40 minutes early and get to enjoy the penalty box until your gate is open.

Amfleet82 wrote:

Acey wrote:

Extending the block time generally works, until you encounter no departure delay and land at ORD 40 minutes early and get to enjoy the penalty box until your gate is open.

We jokingly refer to this amongst my wife and friends as the “earlylate,”. You might think you’re fancy, arriving in ORD 40 min early…but you’ll eventually wait so long for a gate you actually arrive 20 min late…

Adam

PhilipBass wrote:

I don't see much padding on a route like Dublin Faro which at cruise speed would be reached in about 2h12 according to GCMap. the time published is 2h50m.
Dublin Faro would be fairly empty sky with not too many ATC issues.

USAirKid wrote:

Back in 1980 TransAmerica flight 209 went from ORD to LAX inside of 87 minutes as documented on film at the time.

johns624 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Back in 1980 TransAmerica flight 209 went from ORD to LAX inside of 87 minutes as documented on film at the time.

BS--1700+ miles in 87 minutes is 1170mph.

miegapele wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Back in 1980 TransAmerica flight 209 went from ORD to LAX inside of 87 minutes as documented on film at the time.

Did it? That looks Concorde speed and even too fast for that?

Swed3120 wrote:

PhilipBass wrote:

I don't see much padding on a route like Dublin Faro which at cruise speed would be reached in about 2h12 according to GCMap. the time published is 2h50m.
Dublin Faro would be fairly empty sky with not too many ATC issues.

Dub-FAO is actually quite a congested route, a lot of the time you can see UK/IRE - Canaria’s/Portugal flight take a larger detour around France and cont.Europe airspace tll on avoid congestion and delays.
Even though the most direct route for EDI-TFS is London - France-Spain , most of the time jet2 and FR will fly out to Belfast or cork and then make a left turn to the south to avoid France. This could also be due to overflight fees though…

Polot wrote:

I think he was making a joke about the movie Airplane! (Which is 87 minutes long and release in 1980 and features the fictitious airline TransAmerican). The flight was going LAX-ORD though not the other way around.

Acey wrote:

Extending the block time generally works, until you encounter no departure delay and land at ORD 40 minutes early and get to enjoy the penalty box until your gate is open.

CriticalPoint wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

You don’t necessarily save gas by flying slower. The slower you go the more you pull the nose up. The more you pull the nose up the more induced drag you get. The more induced drag the the more thrust needed.
I used to save more gas flying faster (within reason).

2.5 degrees nose up is about the best AOA for a jet.

I don’t know what you are flying… but I can tell you the difference between flying at .76 and .80 in the E195 is about a 400-500Lbs difference per hour in fuel burn depending on the weight and altitude, with .80 being the higher of the two. The difference in deck angle at those two speeds are mostly imperceivable.

If your flying a Cost index, you absolutely save money flying slower as it not only factors in fuel cost, but maintenance and crew costs as well. Cost index’s tend to average out an operations overall cost as those days where you have a strong tailwind you slow down and reduce your fuel burn while maintaining the same schedule integrity.

I’m aware of CI and how it saves money. I’m simply replying to the concept that slower you fly the more fuel you save. That concept is wrong.

My last aircraft was the 787 flying between .848 and .858 is best fuel economy. A CI of 30 at my airline was .840 and if I flew .85 I would beat the burn on my OFP by +2000 on a regular basis.

However if I flew above .86 I burned more fuel and above .87 the cruise flaps would lock out and we burned gas like a 727.

eurotrader85 wrote:

EFHK wrote:

I can't understand the criticism towards this. Scheduled flight times being long enough to guarantee an adequately high on-time arrival rate (and onward connections) sounds like a win-win to me.

Funniest thing is that some companies specializing in EU delay compensation are marketing this phenomenon to press media as "airlines trying to "cheat" with paying delay compensation", and the saddest part is that at least sometimes the press buys it and believes that it's a problem.

But that's exactly what they are doing. Airlines lobbied against having to pay EU compensation and when, for once, the consumer won, the airlines have padded their schedules so they will always make the 'declared arrival time'. It's not a win when you sit down, told your pushback is delayed 40 minutes, you then sit off stand for another 20, and then just happen to arrive 'on time'. You've lost an hour of your time even if technically you've arrived on time. A win-win would look airlines departing promptly, on time, flying aeroplanes which are quicker, getting you to the destination, and/or, your connection/earlier connection quicker i.e. shorter flight times.

Dominion301 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

Another time padding reason is longer ground taxi times in average at hubs vs 25-30 years ago.

Acey wrote:

Extending the block time generally works, until you encounter no departure delay and land at ORD 40 minutes early and get to enjoy the penalty box until your gate is open.

LAX772LR wrote:

And all of this of course fails to take into account the time savings from the incredible range increases we've seen in ever-smaller aircraft.

Try flying from the east coast to HKG, from the west coast to India, for from anywhere other than California to Australia/Oceania, 25yrs ago.... and then let's talk about "flight times."

eurotrader85 wrote:

EFHK wrote:

I can't understand the criticism towards this. Scheduled flight times being long enough to guarantee an adequately high on-time arrival rate (and onward connections) sounds like a win-win to me.

Funniest thing is that some companies specializing in EU delay compensation are marketing this phenomenon to press media as "airlines trying to "cheat" with paying delay compensation", and the saddest part is that at least sometimes the press buys it and believes that it's a problem.

But that's exactly what they are doing. Airlines lobbied against having to pay EU compensation and when, for once, the consumer won, the airlines have padded their schedules so they will always make the 'declared arrival time'. It's not a win when you sit down, told your pushback is delayed 40 minutes, you then sit off stand for another 20, and then just happen to arrive 'on time'. You've lost an hour of your time even if technically you've arrived on time. A win-win would look airlines departing promptly, on time, flying aeroplanes which are quicker, getting you to the destination, and/or, your connection/earlier connection quicker i.e. shorter flight times.