What's going on with easy flying at 250kts all the time these days? Is it a new sop to fly that on transition from your econ mach speed? I've been stuck behind a few now going into south of spain and have had to slow down to 220kts just so we don't catch up with them.
My girlfriend thinks I'm being a grumpy old man for posting this. But I don't care.
Sort it out! Surely it's not the most efficient speed to fly at? Can't you just stick with the econ speeds?
Chap, you need to learn a thing or two about efficient flying and the use of cost index.
Regards the decent, basically the longer with the thrust levers at idle from the cruise the better the saving. This involves flying the jet towards the best glide speed. Thomsonfly have worked with Nats to come up with a compromise speed for the London TMA of 270 kts in the decent.
As stated in one of the other threads it's all down to the cost index. Easy use 10 or 13 which gives approx 266kts in descent. However, they could always come back to green dot. Watch this space.
As regards to ECON speed, this is defined by the cost index. Most airlines (including mine) has lowered cost indices dramatically over the past few years.
With the cost of fuel as is, there is no justification for most airlines to have a cost index of more than ZERO. The reason most operators still fly faster than that is for ATC, other aircraft and of course the commercial schedule.
So, chill out boys ... as long as you don't get a bee in your bonnet about it, it's actually quite calming - and you're only going to loose a couple of minutes.
BB - your g/f is partly right!. It is the 'future way' at the moment. We need to be 'SAware' en-route and to anticipate slower speeds at any point. Plan your descent etc accordingly. If you are a 'barber's pole' merchant, you can always try nipping past at warp 8 (unless it is the national carrier outside UK, of course)
Quote:
Can't you just stick with the econ speeds
They may, of course, be doing just that................. As others say, CI's are dropping.
BongleBear -at 24 you obviously have so much more experience than the people at easy that make the decision. If you want to blast along at 300 knots then go ahead and see what the final fuel bill for your company is when the receivers go in (no I do not know or frankly care who you work for but sincerely hope you still have a job when this all settles). Econ speeds are being flown it's just that with a CI of 10 the speeds are slower than before. It has been this way for a couple of months now so you should be getting the hang of it. None of us particularly like being at the head of a slow moving queue but if that is what it takes to keep me and my colleagues in our jobs then by hell we will do it. If we are in the way then ATC can always (and do) ask us to speed up a bit and of course we will comply. Maybe if the oil price goes all the way down we will see a return to the heady days of 290 kts in the descent but until then relax and watch the slower moving scenery. Hey, look on the bright side, if you are paid by the hour instead of sector pay you're going to be making more money.
Lurkio, you are correct IF you are the only one in the sky... Today, again..., slow moving Easy into CIA, nobody ahead of him, second easy behind and we ended up in the Tiber hold. So the first easy saved 10 kg of fuel, the second one lost 120 kg where is the gain?
Bonglebear, this is a stab in the dark - you either have or want a BMW? Preferably one with the xenon headlights that only drives in the outside lane?
What's wrong with slowing down to 220 kts? The alternative I guess would be to request vectors and more track miles behind the Easy so you could maintain your 300kts or whatever.
Face it, it's generally going to add a minute or two to when you touch down. Your clientelle will be too smashed to notice and unless I worked for an airline that paid me according to my arrival time, I'd really be hard pushed to care. In your case, it's hardly going to earn you a discount on the amount you're shelling out to your airline to work for them, so it's probably worth relaxing a bit in the air.
My advice would be, assuming you've got a few miles to spare behind the Easy, is to check out your photocopy of the airfield plates, the Easyjet will probably not vacate at the earliest exit, you do a nice fast approach with a carrier landing (It's the winglets, I know I know), you can hopefully get off earlier than him and take him on the taxiway or the apron.
Sarah, you're right in what you say. There is no gain, looks like a net loss of 110 kgs to me. Sounds like the first Easy didn't have the capacity to assess the whole situation and the knock on effects of fuel flow to the other aircraft in the Rome TMA. Perhaps you might've volunteered some advice over the radio and provided some much needed guidance?
I think that we are all flying wth lower cost indexes now due to the fuel cost but what buggs me about Easyjet is that the seem to be very reluctent to use the visual approach to save time and even more fuel.
Could this be because of the company FDM policy? (please note this is a question not an accusation)
Give me the visual every time, saves having to work out what all those instruments are trying to tell me. Seriously though, at some places a visual seems to be a great short cut, ALC 10 for instance. However, placing yourself slightly high (due terrain) when hitting the centreline does leave one or two a little reluctant due the strictness of the stabilised policy. Trying to save time and fuel by going visual always seems like a great idea but if you are going to flop your wedding tackle on the table don't give the company a big sharp knife as well. As for waiting in the queue why is it that a certain harp carrying airline descends flat out and then gets vectored for a 9 mile final in glorious weather (no traffic in front of him) when we could go visual and be on the ground before he has hit the marker. Now that is a waste of fuel.
Will everyone get over it. The company set a cost index. We fly it. If asked by ATC we will increase. If its obvious we are going to screw company traffic up, we will increase. Otherwise its EZY's train set and we fly the aircraft how they tell us. We don't do it to screw everyone else up!
Its a sign of the times, if you don't like it leave your airline and go fast jet instead! Thats if they don't go bust first.......
Will everyone get over it. The company set a cost index. We fly it. If asked by ATC we will increase. If its obvious we are going to screw company traffic up, we will increase. Otherwise its EZY's train set and we fly the aircraft how they tell us. We don't do it to screw everyone else up!
Its a sign of the times, if you don't like it leave your airline and go fast jet instead! Thats if they don't go bust first.......
If it's a company aircraft behind and they're catching up then someone's not flying the correct speed. If both are descending at 250kts of whatever econ says then the no2 shouldn't need to hold.
CI 10 is one measure to safe cost on the flight mission from A to B. As we are part of a complex traffic flow with different companies flying at different CIs, flow problems will therefore mainly occur on arrival routes of big airports. That is daily business and as such occasionally leads to more fuel flow due to more track miles. Proactive early questioning of required arrival speeds might prevent once in a while more track miles by speeding up or even slowing more down due to early arrival. Use flap 3 (where appropriate) and ask for a visual (where appropriate), perform a single engine taxi-in (where appropriate) and don't forget to switch Pack 2 OFF after landing and you might end up for the perfect day regarding fuel burn... Most likely, we don't achive alll this on one single rotation, yet optimizing it to the best extent for every leg we fly is a great challenge and worth to try.
My airline flies under a variable cost index policy. On transition we are doing 250kt IAS lots of times. Of course, if asked by ATC, we'll increase (just yesterday arriving at ORY we were asked to do 300kt... no problem!!!).
As long as airlines and pilots have this kind of flexibility, there shouldn't be any traffic flow issues.
Read all the replies with interest as I am having to reduce due to the Orange buses descening at 256kts. Cost indexes and all that are very interesting and I understand you are told what to do and you follow your SOP's. However, what about all the other companies who don't have such low indexes and say want to cruise at .79 and descend at 280kts. Have Easy consulted ATC in the UK and across europe about their new speeds as it must reduce flow. Or have they decided we will do it this way and F**k everybody else ? I don't know the answer and am just asking. Also does it affect your schedules at all ?
Be interested to know how much more airframe/engine time these new speeds create im willing to bet the maint schedules will be going haywire!
This all sounds like one of those evil accountants making a rubbish decision based on numbers, but lacking the operational knowledge. With all the measures mentioned above single engine taxi, pack 2 off etc, are easy really struggling that much? What is easys break even point with oil prices, $140?
Questionable, if easy has asked all relevant ATC units before introducing CI10. Yet, we might see route specific CIs coming up in the near future. IMHO they would make more sense as they could take into account local ATC regulations on a one to one basis...
. It is the 'future way' at the moment. We need to be 'SAware' en-route and to anticipate slower speeds at any point. Plan your descent etc accordingly. If you are a 'barber's pole' merchant, you can always try nipping past at warp 8 (unless it is the national carrier outside UK, of course
)
Linear Mode
