dr_gonzo

I'm researching a newspaper article and would like to get the opinion of pilots on the issue of airlines reducing fuel on flights to cut costs. This follows the incident in Manila where a Gulf Air flight had to land at the Clark Air Base because it was low on fuel. Does this pose a risk to passengers? How much are airlines reducing fuel on flights? I understand pilots at Gulf Air are pressured into flying with minimum fuel - is this true? What happens at other airlines? How does the current situation compare with previous years when captains carried 3,000 kilos of comfort fuel? Any feedback would be much appreciated. The article is due to appear tomorrow.

Thank you in advance.

Robert Smith
News Editor
Gulf Daily News
Bahrain

Piltdown Man

The management can try to send an aircraft off without enough fuel to reach its destination, hoping that favourable winds will enable the flight to be completed. However, they shouldn't be too surprised when their aircraft regularly divert en-route to refuel. The people who suffer are the passengers (not being on schedule) and shareholders (due additional operating costs as a result of "un-planned" diversions and tech. stops). Safety is not compromised as long as you have properly qualified flight crews who will divert when they have to.

PM

Five Green

Don't normally reply to Journo stuff but:

No ! Pax are not being put at risk.

It costs more to divert than carrying the appropriate amount of fuel.

No matter how much fuel you carry you may have to divert on any given day. The modern airline industry excels at taking aircraft around the world every hour of the day. So good in fact, that anything other raises misplaced concern. The "unexpected" situations, as seen by the SLF are things that we as pilots and airlines plan for every time we take to the skies but rarely must execute.

Now try not to scare monger please.

Cheers

FG

L337

If it is true, then that is your story. Is management trying to force pilots into an unsafe operation for the sake of a few dollars? Safety and Profit are always in conflict. Push one and the other will suffer.

In my airline (BA) I have never, ever been pushed into taking less fuel. And when I take more, I am never asked to account for it. And that is how it should be. Anything less is profit eroding safety.

What I am expected to do, is make a safe professional decision about the fuel required.

misd-agin

Rubbish. Fuel requirements are defined by regulations.

"Pressured into flying with minimum fuel"? Depends upon the POV of the person making the comment. Do we fly with minimum fuel? Yes, tens of thousands of flights a day. Is minimum fuel dangerous? Uh no, it's the minimum.

It's when fuel above minimum is desired that the divert opinions start.

Is minimum fuel dangerous? No.

Is diverting dangerous? No.

Are pilots being 'pressured' to carry minimum fuel? Depends upon your opinion re: fuel loads. The answers you get will be mostly based on opinion and different carriers have different cultures. At my carrier I'd say the answer is no but some coworkers strongly disagree.

How much are airlines reducing fuel loads? As much as possible. It costs roughly 3%, per hour, to carry any additional gas. The 3000kg 'comfort' fuel costs about $250 to carry on a 5 hr flight. That is a significant percentage of any net profit expected.

"The article is due to appear tomorrow." Well, if you want to do a professional, well researched, opinion or fact based article on this subject you don't have enough time. And IMO random sampling of opinions here isn't enough research to accurately cover the subject.

You need to understand the regulations, talk with enforcement officials, talk with operations officials, flight management, crewmembers, research statistics, and then write your article. "Tomorrow" is too soon.

BoeingMEL

So (with respect) you have a story due to appear tomorrow and you are now doing some research? Ah well, it wouldn't be a proper newspaper article if it was balanced, relevant and factual would it?

Sorry for the cynicism but it's the result of reading aviation stories in the press for 40 years...sorry got to go now, must swerve to avoid orphanage.. bm

Will Hung

I think PM was being facetious. Why go so defensive when the word journalist is mentioned ? Me thinks a lot of the "Pilots" on this site are flying nothing but a desk.

fmgc

Because there is so much inaccurate reporting in the Dailys (including the broadsheets) that it is almost impossible to not be defensive.

fmgc

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=277

I rest my case.

Phil Space

And a journo not allowing enough time to meet a deadline is akin to your question about fuel. Be it time,fuel,money or luck the answer is the same. Life is full of risks be they calculated or cavalier. Get the sums right or have the cards falling right and life is a doddle. Get things wrong and it is another story. What is the saying about doctors?....at least they can bury their mistakes

Tinribs

Some airlines do seek to influence the "extra" fuel that is carried, the 3% cost per hour is generally accepted as being the correct cost.

Usually the type of pressure applied is through stories about a pilot data bank being kept of the average extra carried by each pilot or a log being maintained against each route. Sometimes fuel amounts selected are part of sim records

A robust response by the captain usually solves the issue but what pilot wants to carry extra fuel on a given day if he cannot promptly state an acceptable reason, not me

Some pilots have an enhanced fuel awareness after a previous experience. It is normal for each of us to see our own experience as being relevant to current decision making, that is what we are paid for.

My employer has never asked me to justify a fuel decision even when I was clearly wrong, I would have benefitted from a bit of advice but they never sought to interfere, I learnt about being a commander from that.

dr_gonzo

Thanks for the feedback guys... As it turned out we held the article over to make sure we did not publish any inacccuracies! The intention is not to scaremonger, but to inform our readers about why such things as flights being diverted happen. Obviously if you find yourself stuck in an airport you never wanted to be in for two hours because the aircraft did not have enough fuel - even if it had the required fuel to be safe - then as a paying customer I think you deserve an answer... Gulf Air has still not told us how much fuel the plane had left when it finally landed...! Thanks again and don't worry misd-agin - the object was not to write an article based solely on feedback I got here, but it has helped and any more is much appreciated.

Cheers,

Robert

Bigmouth

Every flight that dispatches is legally "safe". What differs is the "safety margin". And before cost cutting became the universal mantra "safety margins" were significantly larger.
Didn't Malaysian land at LHR more than once a few years ago with something like only 15 mins of fuel left?

captjns

I am sure there are a number of documented cases about landing with less than minimum fuel world wide. Unfortunately some dispatchers may not take into consideration of relevant facts... extended taxi times or wx delays at busy departure airports, wx delays, possible re-routes while on long flights, arrival delays as a result of the departure delays... etc. Luckely these are rare instances where crews have the situational awareness to all factors before deciding on final fuel loads.

fmgc

Thats assuming that you are in one of the countries where the "dispatchers" are US style disptachers.

captjns

Airlines in the US are not faultless in this area either. Most dispatchers are satisfied with the fuel requirements as generated by the computer. Its very important for the crew, in a way (ie route, fuel, aircraft condition, re-dispatch requirements, etc...), to complete the dispatch process before signing the release. Another problem are alternate airports. While its rare, but there are occasions with canned flight plans, that some alternates may be illegal.

120.4

L337

This morning we had 4 give us early warning of potential fuel issues, 1 US and 3 UK. One was swapped within company, another "managed" but one, having waited as along as he could, had to declare a PAN. Does the declaration of PAN for fuel automatically lead to a meeting with the CP? How is the investigation process managed?

.4

boeingbus2002

Captjns...
I think what fmgc is referring to is that in UK dispatchers are those responsible for weight and balance/turnaround process.
In US, dispatchers are those who are responsible for flight planning and flight monitoring.
Hence dispatchers (read for weight and balance) would not make any consideration of taxi times etc etc!!

fmgc

boeingbus,

Thanks for that. I am afraid that captjns is a provincial jockey with very little knowledge outside of his own sheltered little world.

I work for a pretty major UK airline. We turn up for work, normally the FO pulls all the paperwork off the PCs, we go throught the Met, NOTAMS etc and then between us make a fuel decision.

That fuel amount is then passed to the dispatcher who will generate the load sheet. He/She has nothing what so ever to do with the preflight planning unlike in the US. Nor do they follow the flight.

I am sure that the difference has been explained loads of times on here before.

misd-agin

I diverted last year. Only the fourth fuel divert I can remember in the last 20 yrs so my experience is that they are not too common.

How much fuel did the Gulf Air flight have once it landed at it's alternate? Honestly, if folks get too nosey around my flights I tell them to ask the authorities for the information they seek. The authorities have the power, knowledge, and expertise, to investigate flight matters.

If you have serious concerns that is probably where you should inquire.