FWZ Flt Planning System

[flight1540]

Anyone familiar with this flight planning system?
We are considering switching to it but would like some feedback from other carriers please?
One comment I have heard is that it is rather "User unfriendly" and requires constant vigilance and data base upgrade depending on the package you purchase. Bare bones or all the bells and whistles (which of course becomes very expensive).

[Lauderdale]

Hi Flight!

What type of operation do you have (AoO and fleet)?

[BigdaddyJ]

Hi 1540,

As Lauderdale pointed out, what type of operation do you have? Also how many Aircraft? This will drive a price of course.
For your information there was a post covering Gulf Air and f:Wz, and the respective experience.
And as for a follow (self-evaluation) up it actually comes to the core of your Business what is your philosophy and what are you looking for in a FP system (Optimization Lido and f:Wz are the repective best on the market, or do you just want a flight plan forget optimization...then the others)?

All of them have thier respective pluses and minuses, one with full up automation to almost nothing.

As for a ranking again it is hard to do but this is what you can expect to see from the Sales guys:

Lido OC (From Lufthansa Systems...can be pricey)

f:Wz which you alread know about

Jepp (Cheap...lots of manual work)

EDS

Sabre (Ditto)

Navtech


Again search for threads covering f:Wz or also Lido OC which goes off into several areas, threads posts...but you will be back to core question and you will again have to answer what are you looking for in the software.

BigDaddyJ

[Lauderdale]

Optimization Lido and f:Wz are the repective best on the market


HHmmm - really? And what would you base that on Bigdaddy? Me thinks that statement is somewhat in-correct.

My advise would be that you should not believe everything you are promised during the sales call. Your fellow friends within the airline world will tell you exactly who are guilty of some serious misselling dare I say. (as some have found out the hard way in quite recent times....)

:cool:

[merlinxx]

You wouldn't be on the West Coast out of the Floridan area by chance ????:ok:

[Masif Eego]

Ahhh Merlinxx,

There's been more than one major that's realised their optimisation is, well, lets just say less than optimal.....:ok:

[BigdaddyJ]

Hi Lauderdale,

Let us just say that my experience has let me deal with them.

Let me see, Jepp give a nice story on how the system was built to calculate flight shots to the moon, but the darned system cannot check to see if a Airway is closed and its optimizer only a MTT does just that...but does no checks on anything (Boy do I love those FIR NOTAMS).
Therefore, when I made the optimizer statement, it meant to include checks. Of course as you saw in my post, it did mention they all have thier respective quirks.

Therefore, the statement is correct, unless you are reading it on another level (of course the other systems (ones) use route links or route strings to put a route together).


:}

But I agree with you wholeheart that if the sales guys come a showing...better ask for a "Shoot-Out" to determine it.

However, I might add onto this, I would dare not blame the vendors...the ATC situation is an absolute comedy...oh, let me take that back "tragedy" better fits.

Sorry if I confused.com'd the issue.

:)

Bigdaddy

[Lauderdale]

Thanks for that BigDaddy


Let me see, Jepp give a nice story on how the system was built to calculate flight shots to the moon, but the darned system cannot check to see if a Airway is closed and its optimizer only a MTT does just that...but does no checks on anything


I don't think it is helpful to turn this into a "I think so and so is better than so and so" post however in regards to the quote above, I would argue that the functionality of ERAD/CRAM as well as NRP does indeed does just that. In fact I have just finished the SRS for S09 and found that Jep deals with the SRD a whole lot better from my experience than the Germanic systems. Not sure what you mean by MTT though, at my desk it stands fro Mean True Track (you gotta love ETOPS! :E).

Now in regards to your use of the word((s) 'optimizer and 'optimising' what exactly do you mean by this? Do you want to optimize on fuel burn? Time? Enroute charges? Cost? So in regards to the latter standard CI? or variable cost index? Does the system you are looking at allow you to create CI profiles for OEM ac that do not have any?

Also when do you optimize? A CFP created at -12 might not at all be the optimal plan at STD! Does a system allow you to make any LMC's to the CFP to counter act this?

Tankering - does a system to allow you to link flights? (not jusy ob and ib but follow on sectors). Fuel cost - different handlers different prices - can a system handle this?

I could go for quite a while yet - but rather than advocating one system or knocking another I would say to flight1540 take all these points above into account, as well as customer service (or technical support), system flexibility, road map etc etc.

And last but not least be wary of the teams coming out of Montreal (or Geneva)m coming to visit you in regards to fuel efficiencies, no hidden agendas there.......and we have fairies in our back garden too!

Whoops skipper calling on the old RT...better run!

:ok:

[BigdaddyJ]

Hi Lauderdale,

Thanks I did get a little off track--the "thinking so and so" was based upon experience with Jepp, therefore, missing a FIR NTM (said FER) causes major harm for the EURO Area...see rejection and laughter (said with tongue in cheek of course).

As for the MTT, I meant from the Jepp Minimum Time Track, which also is the same from EDS (The old reliable Phoenix System).:)

As for your optimizing discussions...yes there is a lot involved, therefore the Germanic Systems do bring a different approach, which works well with some Airlines and bad for others plus variables such as behind SKED or ahead...those also need to be taken into account (as you have so well explained).

Coming back to the function you mentioned on the ERAD/CRAM from Jepp, I am at a loss because it was after my time...but prior to that...well I better not comment.

And while I am concurring most of your points coming back to 1540 I have to again agree with Lauderdale on the ponts of Customer Service, flexability, other items such as you mentioned Tankering (to include wear and tear on the Aircraft), Re-Dispatch/Reclearance/DPP and whatever new title they give it in the next 20 years, ETOPS and addition Free Flight (Ya, Right!!!!:ugh:)

But in your original post (1540) remember the FPL system is a tool and you will have to live with it for awhile, therefore you might add is the system Process Based/Systematic...because there is a lot of competing philosophies, but in the end, 50 bucks and a good German Beer (or a nice Sam Adams...Oktoberfest would do) somoeone will pull the trigger on the deal because of price.

Well back to testing...and studying (Doh--Homer Simpson like and all spelling errors in above ramblings are because of higher education/edumacation numbing the "speeling" senses!!!!!) :E

Bigdaddy

[merlinxx]

Carry on tis sounding simple to me !:E:ok:


PS: PM me SVP

[Lauderdale]

Thanks for the comeback BigDaddy! :ok:

Sounds to me that youy have not had much exposure as to where the Jepp CFP systems are currently at (for quite some years?) - and therin lies the danger in discussing other people's software without actually having recent experiences with that system. It will provide others with an o.o.d. picture of that provider.

Now in addition to this - and completely away from any point that any of the posters in this thread have made - but still very much related to my first point is that there are providers outthere who take great pleasure (and make many efforts to do so) to dish other suppliers and basically bend the thruth (....) about their competitors. Yes....you know who you are....living in Keisterbach!!! See to me, any potential provider who does that during a 'sales call' or procurement phase should not be trusted and shown the door. (with a kick to boot!)

And that is the best advice that I can give any of you outhere currently looking at the supplier market. I am sure there are those outhere (actually I know for a fact there are!) who now in hindsight wish they had followed this basic piece of aviation wisdom!

.....damn just got a crappy slot out of EDDF! Back to work I go!

:E

[CaptWUFF]

I used Jeppesen for a long time. The only problem, as is with all of aviation, is the cost. I also find that their customer service is not that great. i've been searching for good Fight Planning software for a long time. Their Flight planning software is really great, but for flight department management i would go with e-manage. It's nice cause you can use it for free. I've tried alot of the free trial systems out there, and not really liked any of them. If anybody has any experiences with flight department management software, could you please let me know. I think that with the current economic climate, we are all looking at costs to save our jobs! If we can bring down the costs, we can save our jobs (hopefully!)

[Navguy74]

Gents,

My experience is the our friends from Frankfurt have a fairly sound system built on old technology (INGRES) however they proclaim that they will update to a more user friendly IT system such as Oracle soon. For those who don't know, INGRES turns an emulated system, such as the ol' EDS, into a psuedo Wndows based envornment - and it is pretty clunky to use.

Their MTT (min time tracks) work well so long as their database guys are on top of NOTAMS and your own back office folk (many of them) keep the company data current. As far as optimisation is concerned, I would argue that due to the ATC environment that we find ourselves, ie- different everywhere, it is very difficult for a system to calculate a 100% optimised route. However, again, this system does it OK - but at a price.

My recommendation, having used and seen may systems, is Sabre. In basic terms, it's an updated version of EDS using a pretty nice GUI and it optimises well. It can use any 424 data you like but will need a team of guys to keep it clean. Of course this depends on your area of coverage/operation.

As far as FW-Z goes, I must admit I have not seen it but I have heard good things from users and administrators - but it does come at a price, much like Lido.

My advice is - if it doesn't feel right when you're getting the sales pitch, it probably isn't!!

Good luck.

[mfarrar]

I'm biased, of course, but a bit upset that AirData wasn't in BigDaddy's list.

[Lauderdale]

mfarrar.....I think Big Daddy was trying to keep the discussion serious....:E

[mutt]

And last but not least be wary of the teams coming out of Montreal (or Geneva)m coming to visit you in regards to fuel efficiencies, no hidden agendas there.......and we have fairies in our back garden too!

Are they still doing that? We hadnt heard about FWz before these "consultants" showed up, it was hard to tell if they were giving us consulting advice or a sales pitch!

My recommendation, having used and seen may systems, is Sabre. Gotta disagree, for most operations, you wont have the infrastructure to support Sabre, its an extremely labor intensive system for the back office boys!~

Mutt

[Icarus]

Have to agree with Mutt on the SABRE Dispatch Manager comment. I see your boys are looking to throw it out now after a (currently) six month delay in cutover and still unresolved problems and undelivered promises. Let's face it, you get what you pay for! Mind you a decision needs to be made quickly on moving on with it (and implementing in 2011 now!!!!) or going back to JEPP as it will affect any Electronic Flight Bag solution which is supposedly now back on SABRE's radar (finally!), in 'project planning' and due to roll starting after Ramadan.

[max payload]

All,

Nice comments about the FEGA boys from Montreal.
I can say that certainly, f:wz was pitched; but only when asked which system in our expert opinion, after visiting many airlines and working with/evaluating many systems, was the best at producing the most optimized cost solution for a particular flight.

The reason why f:wz stands out is its architecture; it has the performance to produce truly 4D optimized CI managed speed solutions which the legacy systems (like Jeppesen, EDS, Sabre, Lido, Navtech) lack.

Give it a CI value and it will produce the best solution the industry has to offer at this time- change that CI value and re-optimization laterally and vertically will produce a different optimum solution. Set a RETA and the new solution will show a new, optimized CI value to program into the FMS.
And all this dynamically, not based on interpolation of legacy Mach tables values.

The longer-range the operation, the higher the optimization/savings per sector as compared to legacy systems.
These savings can be vastly more than what the systems costs extra compared to others, but only an on-site evaluation can produce any number to take to the bank.

Now, if your operation still relies on fixed Mach flying- don't bother spending money on a top-shelf system, stay with whatever you're using because obviously there is no interest in operational savings.

Honestly, I'm not selling the system, merely pointing out why I like it.
I can recall a DEL-NYC B777 sector where f:wz produced a 45-minute shorter route than the (legacy) in-use system; the old route was via Northern Europe, but f:wz produced one via the Mediterranean. Awsome.

Fuel and operational efficiency goes a lot further than limiting additional fuel or tuning a fuel policy. It's about total cost of the operation and this is where f:wz produces great input for the larger cost picture (delays, etc.).

Do yourself a favor and buy the IATA Fuel Book Ed. 3 from their website.
No, I don't get a commission, but it'll be the best $400 or so that you'll ever spend if your goal is to increase operational efficiency.
It's a good place to start.

:ok: Max

[FL460]

As Bigdaddy says its down to what you want and what you need. The vendors all have plus and minus points. Except for fwz I have used them all (in a non glittering career :) including the SITA system which BigDaddy left off the list. Again I hear fwz has it pros/cons. 4D seems to be a pro but the cost and support seem to be the downside :(

[Lauderdale]

Max Payload:

Great lenghty and detailed post - much appreciated by all for sure.

Just one thing though.....on the side of the FWZ box containing the installation discs does it say anything about a 18 month deployment time, 2 full time database managers required and a customer service team consisting of one (eco friendly) banana? (A German speaking banana at that....).

If not.....feel free to forward to trading standards!

:cool:

[V1EXP]

FWZ not a bad at all.
It will make the bean counters quite happy as it can run circles around old school systems like Jepp, SITA, Navtech, Sabre... Its route optimization engine is built around total trip cost management, not 1970s MTTA. The system savings and efficiency gains pay for itself.

For the users once you get over the concept that the best way between point A and point B might not neccesarily be minimum distance, fuel burn, or time it has a bunch of neat features such as timed auto calculations, map overlay including vertical profile views, driftdown escape routes, and ability to interface with host of 3rd party systems (including platforms from competing vendors like LH Systems and Sabre).

For back office upkeep as I recall they had different levels of support one can purchase. Either one can be rather hands off and let their data support folks manage most of your stuff, or you do it yourself.
For the install I guess its dependent on the size of the project at hand -- how large of an operator, how much complicated interfaces need to be developed and how many customized changes one desires. Take the system off the shelf and install should easily be <12mos.

V1

[j140870]

Yet to hear of a successful, on time, on budget & on scope implementation of flywize.

Not really impressed by the list of customers they have according to their website. That says to me the airlines who really know their stuff either find them out during evaluation or just don't believe the hype.

[Nipper1011]

To my knowledge Gulf Air and Jet2 'flywize' implementations were both achieved on time and within a short period from contract signature. It is all down to good management of the project. I know that some customers took much longer but that is equally true of other flight planning vendor transitions. Methinks that many of the problems that airlines experience in cutting over to a new flight planning system are of their own making.
If you know about the QANTAS/LIDO debacle then you will understand that anything is possible (or not).

[Nipper1011]

j140870
I am sorry to read that you do not think that airlines like United and Virgin Atlantic 'really know their stuff', or do you work for a rival flight planning vendor?
I do not work for a flight planning vendor BTW but do come into contact with the ops guys at many airlines in the course of my work.

[j140870]

As I said, yet to hear / read positive feedback on implementations. I'm reserving judgement until I hear or read of a customer standing up and saying it all went smoothly and we got what we were promised.


There's a previous prune thread on Gulf Air's alleged issues

http://www.pprune.org/flight-ground-ops-crewing-dispatch/335249-flight-planning-lido-vs-jeppesen-vs-eag.html

and f:wz announce UAL as a customer in 2006 and even recently UAL were reporting d "numerous issues" with flywize rollout.

United Airlines Negotiations : Unions : PAFCA : Negotiations Updates : Negotiations Update 2009/08/14 (http://www.unitednegotiations.com/unions/pafca/negotiations-updates/2009/08/14/negotiations-update-20090814/)

I wish someone would come out and big up flywize, we all want to know this stuff.

[Lauderdale]

Does fwz's portfolio have any other products like charts, performance or navigational databases?

[V1EXP]

At the end of the day, anything with software related projects can and often does get delayed.

From my understanding the flywize issues at United, have been primarily related to UALs desire to do extreme development and customization of the flywize platform in an effort for it to take over other non flight planning functions that its current legacy systems perform. In otherwords, the UA flywize version looks and will function very different from its contemporary version at other airlines.

For an idea for project debacles look at Lido instead and its experience at place like Qantas following years development and millions of AUD sunk to have the plug pulled, or more recently at Frontier where after three abortive attempts to go live, the project now sits frozen!

[mfarrar]

Thankyou for your comment. I think that you will find AirData is as "serious" as any other system, and provides a good service to its customers. Maybe not run by hundreds of people in a big office, but professional and committed, just the same.
As someone said earlier, an FPS is a planning tool and, as such needs to be easy to use and flexible. Having lots of highly expensive bells and whistles is not always necessary. It depends on who you are and what you are trying to do.
All FP systems are constantly updated to meet the many changes in the industry - and it is how well they do that that is just as important as how "big" they are. You may also be interested to know that the FP suppliers do work together sometimes, to try and make sure that the various "authorities" don't lose sight of what their customers (the airlines) really want.
:=