Cui Bono? fuel ordering and KPI?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cui Bono? fuel ordering and KPI?
As posted in another thread...
From down under, the continued push for 'fuel reductions', driven by management continues.. Management claim that the 'data' suggests less fuel can be ordered lessening FOD and therefore carriage...
The problem with data captured yesterday, assessed tomorrow and released next week, is that it tells you what already happened. Its ability to predict the unknown is of limited value. Sometimes experience tells a pilot he needs more fuel...Have certainly been there
Cui bono?
Pilots at this 'large carrier domiciled in Australia' get an 'app' on their company tablet to compare company offered fuel and whether or not their order and subsequent burn is 'competitive'
What about pilots at BA, CX, EK and anyone else wishing to comment!
Given that 'strict liability' for having sufficient fuel, including reserves always sits with the PIC and all state rules are derived from, as I recall ICAO Annex 6 (SARPS) do Captains/FO consider it a conflict for a pilot manager to push for continued fuel order reductions, increased single engine taxi and APU usage, when financial inducements may flow to the management pilots pushing this agenda?
Should ever the people charged with the safe operation of an airline's fleet make personal financial gain from reductions and actively push pilots, without declaring their financial conflict?
Who benefits?
From down under, the continued push for 'fuel reductions', driven by management continues.. Management claim that the 'data' suggests less fuel can be ordered lessening FOD and therefore carriage...
The problem with data captured yesterday, assessed tomorrow and released next week, is that it tells you what already happened. Its ability to predict the unknown is of limited value. Sometimes experience tells a pilot he needs more fuel...Have certainly been there
Cui bono?
Pilots at this 'large carrier domiciled in Australia' get an 'app' on their company tablet to compare company offered fuel and whether or not their order and subsequent burn is 'competitive'
What about pilots at BA, CX, EK and anyone else wishing to comment!
Given that 'strict liability' for having sufficient fuel, including reserves always sits with the PIC and all state rules are derived from, as I recall ICAO Annex 6 (SARPS) do Captains/FO consider it a conflict for a pilot manager to push for continued fuel order reductions, increased single engine taxi and APU usage, when financial inducements may flow to the management pilots pushing this agenda?
Should ever the people charged with the safe operation of an airline's fleet make personal financial gain from reductions and actively push pilots, without declaring their financial conflict?
Who benefits?
Last edited by Rated De; 17th Nov 2017 at 22:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Loads: Ryanair set up a system to benchmark pilots against each other on their use of fuel. A twenty page table was produced with the pilots’ names, base, fuel burn, fuel target and percentage of use above or below the target.
The effect was like reading out school scores of children to pressurise them into competing with each other.
Pilots who were on precarious self–employed contracts felt the most pressure.
The effect was like reading out school scores of children to pressurise them into competing with each other.
Pilots who were on precarious self–employed contracts felt the most pressure.
Is this where Australia's international airline goes with this?
The Real Story Behind The Ryanair Cancellations - People Before Profit
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once worked for a carrier in India where they calculated individual pilot average fuel burns and compared where your average fuel burn on respective sectors sat among your peers - much like Ryanair.
I remember being "chatted to" for regularly taking an extra tonne or two of fuel on the BOM-DEL sector thus pushing my average burn up. DEL was notorious for short notice closures due to VIP movements - closures that weren't Notamed for "security' reasons - and on three such closures a bit more fuel allowed me to hold those 15 - 20 minutes until the VIP departed whilst other company aircraft couldn't hold and went to their alternates. My extra burn was nothing compared to the typically 3-hour disruptions for those aircraft that diverted let alone the 5 extra tonnes or so burnt to-and-from their alternates - albeit at a good average burn, though. LOL!!!
When I politely but firmly drew this to their attention all criticism stopped. They realised that their fuel saving figures were rubbish and that "average" burns were meaningless if more fuel overall was being used, even if it was at a lower hourly rate.
That's what happens when the bean counters get involved.
I remember being "chatted to" for regularly taking an extra tonne or two of fuel on the BOM-DEL sector thus pushing my average burn up. DEL was notorious for short notice closures due to VIP movements - closures that weren't Notamed for "security' reasons - and on three such closures a bit more fuel allowed me to hold those 15 - 20 minutes until the VIP departed whilst other company aircraft couldn't hold and went to their alternates. My extra burn was nothing compared to the typically 3-hour disruptions for those aircraft that diverted let alone the 5 extra tonnes or so burnt to-and-from their alternates - albeit at a good average burn, though. LOL!!!
When I politely but firmly drew this to their attention all criticism stopped. They realised that their fuel saving figures were rubbish and that "average" burns were meaningless if more fuel overall was being used, even if it was at a lower hourly rate.
That's what happens when the bean counters get involved.
Last edited by witwiw; 16th Nov 2017 at 05:26. Reason: typo
CX runs a ‘fuel ladder’ where you get a regular email regarding your discretionary fuel uplift for the month (their disastrous fuel hedging decision, i.e. management problem, seems never to be mentioned).
The magnitude of this airline’s fuel hedging loss makes their nickel-and-diming of fuel almost futile, but fuel loads have been cut to the bone anyway.
The magnitude of this airline’s fuel hedging loss makes their nickel-and-diming of fuel almost futile, but fuel loads have been cut to the bone anyway.
The magnitude of this airline’s fuel hedging loss makes nickel-and-diming fuel almost futile.
The solution is very simple and it’s what I have done. Don’t download the app. Then you don’t have to look at anything and just continue to order the same fuel as you always have.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-education camp for the conservative fuel ordering recalcitrants ?
What empowerment does CAR 233 & 234 have ?
Sounds like a company sponsored competition for a new Min-Op Mike !
Are KPI's involved and who benefits , if so ?
What empowerment does CAR 233 & 234 have ?
Sounds like a company sponsored competition for a new Min-Op Mike !
Are KPI's involved and who benefits , if so ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a company sponsored competition for a new Min-Op Mike ! Are KPI's involved and who benefits , if so ?
Who benefits (Cui Bono)? Is the DFO and his deputy pocketing a bonus for pushing fuel order reductions on pilots and 'encouraging' pilots to assess their fuel order. How long before a little chat with a pilot manager and HR over fuel ordering? Or is it a requisite condition for promotional suitability that FO exhibit a 'consistent fuel order target' like Ryanair?
The CAR 233 and CAR 234 and many regulations carry the term:
[quoteThe words appearing under some CARs or CASRs 'An offence against regulation ... is an offence of strict liability' imply that the offence is such that it is not necessary to prove a criminal intent in order to prove a breach of the regulation ][/quote]
Given that the pilots carry strict liability, why isn't the union asking exactly who pockets the $$ from savings achieved? Where is the regulator? /sarc
Has it been updated, wasn't aware it compared other airlines
Nunc est bibendum
Is this where Australia's international airline goes with this?
The Real Story Behind The Ryanair Cancellations - People Before Profit
The Real Story Behind The Ryanair Cancellations - People Before Profit
Nunc est bibendum
The app is a pretty good tool. It provides info that helps me to assess past decision making processes. Kept in the right perspective it's pretty useful.
Used for purposes other than intended though and it could become a problem. People driving agendas either way is just one example.
Folks,
A little bit of (relevant) history.
Many years ago (I mustn't mentioned names to protect the guilty) a large international airline domiciled in Australia went on a purge of "surplus fuel", Captains could compare their "fly-spot" charts, a comparison of their fuel orders, with every other Captain in the fleet. Various educational publications, let's call then Flight Standing Orders, were distributed.
The boss, lets call him the Captain D.F.O. , boasted he never carrier surplus, only the MOR --minimum operating requirement, min. fuel to the rest of you.
But unlike Captain D.F.O, we didn't get to hand pick our trips. In those days, we had 4 flights a day to UK, plus other European services.
But we did solve the problem. Quite simply, over one roster period, over a northern winter, we, the line pilots, resolved to faithfully follow the boss's fine example of compliance with company policy. Can't be criticised for that, wouldn't you say.
The weather gods were quite remarkably cooperative.
Of course, the results were as funny as they were predictable, schedules were shot to sh1t, revenue hours were seriously off, and fleet fuel consumption skyrocketed --- as did passenger complaints. As (bad??) luck would have it, one flight from Singapore diverted from London twice, one 13 hour flight took over 2 days, including crew min. rest. Crew overtime earnings blew the Flight Ops. (Captain D.F.O's) budget. Didn't do his annual KPIs bonus all that much good, either, I would think?
Suddenly, the whole "surplus" fuel issue went very, very quite, and the chap who produced the "fuel savings" charts was redeployed.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: As I used to explain to my students: If I only ever took the min. fuel the law allowed, the company would go broke from delays and disruptions to schedules, if I took what I liked, the company would still go broke from excessive fuel costs and loss of capacity, our job is to get the payload offering to destination at minimum reasonable cost, and as close to schedule as we can get. Minimum risk (aka "safety") is a given. On a long range operation, it means every flight is different.
A little bit of (relevant) history.
Many years ago (I mustn't mentioned names to protect the guilty) a large international airline domiciled in Australia went on a purge of "surplus fuel", Captains could compare their "fly-spot" charts, a comparison of their fuel orders, with every other Captain in the fleet. Various educational publications, let's call then Flight Standing Orders, were distributed.
The boss, lets call him the Captain D.F.O. , boasted he never carrier surplus, only the MOR --minimum operating requirement, min. fuel to the rest of you.
But unlike Captain D.F.O, we didn't get to hand pick our trips. In those days, we had 4 flights a day to UK, plus other European services.
But we did solve the problem. Quite simply, over one roster period, over a northern winter, we, the line pilots, resolved to faithfully follow the boss's fine example of compliance with company policy. Can't be criticised for that, wouldn't you say.
The weather gods were quite remarkably cooperative.
Of course, the results were as funny as they were predictable, schedules were shot to sh1t, revenue hours were seriously off, and fleet fuel consumption skyrocketed --- as did passenger complaints. As (bad??) luck would have it, one flight from Singapore diverted from London twice, one 13 hour flight took over 2 days, including crew min. rest. Crew overtime earnings blew the Flight Ops. (Captain D.F.O's) budget. Didn't do his annual KPIs bonus all that much good, either, I would think?
Suddenly, the whole "surplus" fuel issue went very, very quite, and the chap who produced the "fuel savings" charts was redeployed.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: As I used to explain to my students: If I only ever took the min. fuel the law allowed, the company would go broke from delays and disruptions to schedules, if I took what I liked, the company would still go broke from excessive fuel costs and loss of capacity, our job is to get the payload offering to destination at minimum reasonable cost, and as close to schedule as we can get. Minimum risk (aka "safety") is a given. On a long range operation, it means every flight is different.
Last edited by LeadSled; 16th Nov 2017 at 13:09.
If my boss gets extra $$$ because the airline has saved 1000 times $$$ then why do I care?
Eg, if every QF jet flight carried CFP min fuel for the next 12 months, how much extra burn would we save? After we have that figure, subtract the cost of the app development, the cost of the man-hours spent assessing and pushing fuel efficiency,the cost of diverts that wouldn't have happened, and the cost of the KPI's themselves, and what figure are we left with? Now that we have that figure, how does it compare with 50% of the CEO's salary?
My gut feeling is that the whole discretionary fuel push is cost neutral or worse but I don't know and neither does any other pilot.
I'd be pretty impressed if you'd have a crack at putting a figure on these things.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the cost of the KPI's themselves
Of course one might assume that their actions are motivated by higher purpose alone.
One might also ponder whether the lack of a dual aisle twin to replace the 767 left Qantas with more single aisle 737 than was optimum.. Has that meant a consequent increase to the fuel burned, whether engines to lift them or APU to cool them? Carrying a similar amount of passengers spread over more air frames might be another own goal?
Putting a cost on the carriage of "excess" or discretionary fuel is difficult for several reasons. It's tail-chasing exercise.
1. How much fuel is burned to carry that additional fuel? The theory does not consider the variables of an actual flight.
2. Less fuel may be required to be uplifted at the destination airport which has cheaper fuel than that uplifted at the point of origin.
3. Revenue payload can suffer. For example, 2000kgs of additional fuel could require the offload of a pallet of freight. Apart from the direct cost, what is the longer-term cost of this?
Unless additional fuel uplifts are considered habitually excessive, surely it's better to allow sleeping dogs sleep. I'm with Keg.
1. How much fuel is burned to carry that additional fuel? The theory does not consider the variables of an actual flight.
2. Less fuel may be required to be uplifted at the destination airport which has cheaper fuel than that uplifted at the point of origin.
3. Revenue payload can suffer. For example, 2000kgs of additional fuel could require the offload of a pallet of freight. Apart from the direct cost, what is the longer-term cost of this?
Unless additional fuel uplifts are considered habitually excessive, surely it's better to allow sleeping dogs sleep. I'm with Keg.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd call that a gross mis representation of the app and the info it provides. Competitive? Really? Hyperbole at its best.
Not DIRECTLY related to the App, but Qantaslink pilots have been told that there will soon be a ‘fuel ladder’ published in every crewroom ranking pilots on their fuel use.
That's my point Ken, nobody can make an argument using figures, we just get told it's extremely expensive to carry that extra 300kg and get regular correspondence reminding us. Over time it becomes accepted that carrying extra gas is unprofessional and expensive. But is it? How expensive is it? Nobody has ever been able to tell me because of all the reasons you stated.
I'd love it if someone with access to info such as how many sectors a year QF does could chuck in a series of assumptions and come up with some ball park figures. Anyone game?
Eg number of 737 sectors per annum x the cost of carrying CFP+ 200kg =$................
I'd love it if someone with access to info such as how many sectors a year QF does could chuck in a series of assumptions and come up with some ball park figures. Anyone game?
Eg number of 737 sectors per annum x the cost of carrying CFP+ 200kg =$................