PDA

View Full Version : Foreign airlines: Heathrow fuel rationing discriminatory


Speedpig
6th Feb 2006, 14:30
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.
Just been reading a report condemning the BAA for allowing British (LHR) based airlines to uplift 55% of their normal fuel as opposed to foreign carriers only being allowed 40% of their normal fuel. As far as I'm aware, British carriers are tankering into LHR, in most cases uplifting return fuel at the outstation for shorthaul. Do "foreign" carriers not do the same?
American, South African, Singapore and Qantas are very vociferous in their complaint as all have to tech stop to uplift the balance of their trip fuel...... wouldn't they have to do that even if they were allowed 55%?
One long haul captain is quoted as saying that when carrying extra fuel, "it pushes the nose down and you have to keep pulling it back".... conjures up an interesting image.:confused:

egbt
6th Feb 2006, 14:42
Factually incorrect on a number of points (related to long haul) and I understand internationally accepted practice. There is a thread somewhere. A pain for everyone, especially when as a PAX no one tells you about a tech stop until shortly before departure and you miss your connection. :yuk: I'm booked BA/Quantas to Sydney (no a/c change) later in the month rather than risk the other airline.

Here is the NOTAM.

Q)EGTT/QFULT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5129N00028W005
FROM 06/01/30 12:24 TO 06/03/30 12:00 EST A0151/06
E)HEATHROW AIRPORT IS EXPERIENCING REDUCED DELIVERIES OF JET FUEL.
IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONTINUANCE OF OPS, THE ARRANGEMENTS AGREED IN THE
DRAFT HEATHROW FUEL CONTINGENCY PLAN (HFCP) WILL APPLY WIE.
THE SITUATION REMAINS UNDER CONSTANT REVIEW AND AS SUPPLIES AND
STOCKS CHANGE FURTHER CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE OPERATIONAL
IMPACTS ON EACH AIRLINE.
ALL INBOUND ACFT WILL MAXIMISE TANKERING OPPORTUNITIES. IN ADDITION
TO TANKERING, FUEL RESTRICTIONS WILL ALSO APPLY.
USING THE HFCP, EACH CARRIER WILL, ON A DAILY BASIS, BE ALLOCATED A
PERCENTAGE OF THE PREVIOUS WEEKS TOTAL UPLIFT. THIS ALLOCATION CAN BE
USED AT AIRLINES DISCRETION.
ALL DEPARTING ACFT WILL RECEIVE FUEL, BUT ON A REDUCED BASIS -
(REFLECTING NORMAL CONTINGENCY PRACTICE WORLDWIDE). THE FOLLOWING
RESTRICTIONS APPLY:
NEW ALLOCATION FOR VISITING CARRIERS AT LHR WILL BE AS FOLLOWS:
FLTS UP TO 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 40 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
FLTS OVER 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 70 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
NEW ALLOCATION FOR BASE CARRIERS:
FLTS UP TO 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 55 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
FLTS OVER 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 82 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO AIRLINES THAT PREDOMINANTLY OPERATE
ACFT AT THE LIMIT OF THEIR RANGE. AIRLINES IN THIS CATEGORY SHOULD
CONTACT THE AIRSIDE BUSINESS RECOVERY TEAM ON 020 8745 7582 TO
ESTABLISH AN AGREEMENT.
THE SITUATION WILL BE MONITORED DAILY AND AIRLINES PERFORMANCE
MEASURED, AS THE FUEL SITUATION DEVELOPS THE ALLOWANCES MAY BE
ADJUSTED AND FURTHER NOTAM WILL BE ISSUED.

Da Dog
6th Feb 2006, 14:43
yep very large tankering operation for BA shorthaul, costing in both terms of fuel and in this cold weather de-icing. Also large amount of longhaul tankering from various destinations, which is updated almost daily according to the varying costs of fuel. Last time I flew we were tankering from JFK (7 flights a day) EWR (3 x day) SFO (2 x day) BOS (3 xday) YVR (1x day) CAI (1 day) LOS (1 day) PHL (2 x day) IAD (3 x day) together with various other destinations, many being told to land with a minimum of 40 tonnes of fuel(taking aircraft performance into account). Last flight I did from JFK we tankered 80 tonnes of fuel, landing at 100kg under our MLW:\ Thats how tight its being planned. So on reflection it looks like BA are fareing no better than the US carriers, the only advantage we have is a degree of flexibility which would be afforded to any home based carrier.

30W
6th Feb 2006, 14:54
At least there shouldn't be any complaints of being short of fuel in the LHR stacks in times of delay!!:D

exvicar
6th Feb 2006, 18:48
I know American had a bit of a winge. If is unfair, which I do not believe, what about the billions of dollars given by the US government to prop up several American carriers. Fair competition, don't think so! It is a credit to the British carriers that they remain competitive.

In trim
6th Feb 2006, 21:23
As stated above, the difference appears to be that home-based carriers have a degree of flexibility.......the overall operation may be rationed, but for performance / cost issues they can elect to uplift 100% on some sectors, but make that up with a huge tankering operation on others.

As I understand it, HAL are doing a degree of policing to ensure fair play? Not sure how robust this is.

TwinAisle
6th Feb 2006, 23:00
CNN have been running this story all day at regular intervals. They are saying that American have formally complained to BAA about the policy which "unfairly discriminates against non-UK carriers". A BAA spokesman was featured who claimed that the whole policy had been discussed with the airport users and agreed on well before the refinery fire, and this was the policy BAA were now following, so he couldn't understand AA's gripe.

KLMer
6th Feb 2006, 23:00
KLM tankers into LHR though were lucky just a short hop... plus the fuel is alot cheaper in AMS :D

M.Mouse
7th Feb 2006, 00:24
And don't forget that LHR based carriers have virtually all their flights affected by the rationing. What percentage of AA's total flights worldwide are affected?

egbt
7th Feb 2006, 12:54
Made the BBC this lunch time (You and Yours BBC R4).

Summary:

SA airways cancelling flights in March. Apparently they staged a flight through Milan and due to bad weather had passengers stuck in the terminal for 36 hours because they had no visas. Makes one wonder why they went there if the weather was that bad.

American surcharging customers £3 each way to recover a $20k per day tanking cost.

Lots of complaints about unfair practice although they helped form the plan and agreed to it in the first place.

Threats about taking action over anti-competitive practice ahead of a “crisis meeting”.

One spokesman from the US said rationing should be based on distance travelled ignoring lower rations already in place for short haul, this was picked up by the MD of LHR but not followed though.

Shitsu_Tonka
7th Feb 2006, 13:14
I assume this is related to the fire at the fuel depot in North London last year?

flaps to 60
7th Feb 2006, 13:19
If the top post is true then i say at last the British are looking after their own.

If this was happening anywhere else in the world the same would be true and more so. Could you imagine anyone getting any fuel if this was CDG of FRA etc etc etc

We have in the past tried to play cricket on a level playing field to the disadvantage of our own people just to be PC and appear fair.

M.Mouse is correct

All of BA's and BMI's operations fron LHR are affected why should they not be given some leeway.

egbt
7th Feb 2006, 14:10
ST

Yes The depot piped 30% of LHR's fuel

PAXboy
7th Feb 2006, 16:10
SA airways cancelling flights in March. Apparently they staged a flight through Milan and due to bad weather had passengers stuck in the terminal for 36 hours because they had no visas. Makes one wonder why they went there if the weather was that bad. They have been staging through Milan [LIMC, I presume] since this started in November and, mostly, it has all gone well. As I understand it, at the time of night and the geographic position that SAA would like to make a tech stop, Milan is the only place that is open and without noise restrictions.

It should be no surprise that many airlines are shouting now - irrespective of the agreement made. They want to be able to show their newspaper clippings to the boys in The City and their small shareholders to show that they kicked up a fuss about it. My guess is that the alternative fuel uplift plan that was agreed, NEVER imagined that they would lose 30% of supply for a year (or more).

Typically, these plans would be about a couple of weeks whilst some emergency work was done. I would lay a small bet that, losing the whole storage facility would not have been planned for.

Mick Stability
7th Feb 2006, 20:01
I'm surprised AA don't fill up at Lakenheath or Fairford. It'd be just like Uncle Sam giving them a helping hand . . . . .





again

Capt Claret
7th Feb 2006, 23:04
Why is anyone surprised at American complaints? They claim the moral high ground with Boeing v Airbus, change the rules of the America's Cup when they don't appear to be winning, in short, one rule for them, another for the rest of the world. :ugh:

Glassos
7th Feb 2006, 23:12
Why is anyone surprised at American complaints? They claim the moral high ground with Boeing v Airbus, change the rules of the America's Cup when they don't appear to be winning, in short, one rule for them, another for the rest of the world. :ugh:

Sounds like you're still upset about the American revolution. Get over it!

soddim
7th Feb 2006, 23:58
Why should we in UK be upset at the result of the revolution in America - if we had won we would have to run the ruddy country and look what a pigs ear that job turned out to be!

Glassos
8th Feb 2006, 01:33
Why should we in UK be upset at the result of the revolution in America - if we had won we would have to run the ruddy country and look what a pigs ear that job turned out to be!
Well thank God for that! Otherwise the states would've turned out like the rest of the bleeding empire.

BahrainLad
8th Feb 2006, 09:56
Well thank God for that! Otherwise the states would've turned out like the rest of the bleeding empire.

Ah yes....India, that basketcase, shortly to be the second largest economy in the world (behind China no less!)

Anyway, back to the point.....from today's FT:

Heathrow secures jet fuel stocks until the weekend
By Kevin Done, Aerospace Correspondent
Published: February 8 2006 02:00 | Last updated: February 8 2006 02:00

London's Heathrow airport has succeeded in rebuilding jet fuel stocks to a level that will allow all airlines operating very long haul flights to avoid expensive refuelling stops at other airports in Europe, at least until the weekend.

Heathrow, the busiest airport in Europe measured by passenger numbers, lost 35 per cent of its fuel supplies in the Buncefield oil depot fire in Hertfordshire in December. It is still suffering a shortfall of about 30 per cent of normal supplies.

Ultra-long haul carriers on routes of 10 hours and more have faced the most acute difficulties.

Qantas, the Australian flag carrier, has been forced several times to route one of its four daily services from Heathrow via London Stansted to refuel, while Thai Airways has been taking on fuel for some services in Copenhagen, South African Airways in Milan and Singapore Airlines in Frankfurt.

BAA, the airports group, said that jet fuel stocks at Heathrow had stabilised sufficiently to allow the ultra-long haul carriers to be guaranteed adequate fuel supplies for all services at least until Friday.

Supplies to the airport, which was previously fed by three different pipelines, one from Buncefield, have fallen from the level of 20m-21m litres a day to only 14m-15m since the fire.

A crisis meeting is to be held tomorrow at Heathrow by airlines, BAA, oil companies and government officials to try to defuse the international row over the emergency fuel rationing system imposed eight weeks ago after the fire, and to consider short-term ways of increasing supplies.

The meeting will be chaired by the International Air Transport Association, the global airline trade association.

Some long haul carriers, in particular American Airlines and United Airlines of the US, have claimed that the current fuel allocation is unfair and discriminates against foreign airlines to the advantage of the home-based carriers, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and BMI British Midland.

For long haul services the home airlines are receiving 82 per cent of the fuel they had been taking in the month before Buncefield and visiting carriers 70 per cent.

Nimbus5
8th Feb 2006, 12:31
Not sure why American Airlines would complain. I know one of their 777 FOs and he says they routinely tanker fuel from Tokyo to LAX and from LAX to LHR simply because the lower prices make up for the extra burn of tankering. Only thing I can figure is maybe this shortage is causing them to tanker so many tons that the cost saving is eaten up by the inefficiency.

moosp
8th Feb 2006, 13:17
Nimbus,I don't want to upset the thread here, but I think your report of your AA friend tankering fuel NRT-LAX is deeper than you think.

If you are a private buyer of fuel in NRT, (ie you brought your G5 in here) you will pay a very high sucharge over the LAX price. NRT has always been one of the highest priced places in the developed world to purchase JET A1.

I suspect what your friend is seeing is the acceptance of the high price to ensure that the home base, ie LAX has sufficient fuel. What is not released to the press is that supplies to the West coast of Jet A1 is precarious, and airlines will be assessed on their consumption. To keep their yearly consumption down, it is best for North American international carriers to tanker in, at a financial loss, so that they may get a preferential position later in the year when the fuel stocks are rationed.

It is very expensive to tanker fuel on long haul sectors. To be doing so shows a very serious concern as to the future suppplies of fuel.

Perhaps your friend is wrongly advised. Maybe they are taking alternate fuel for Las Vegas instead of Ontario, in this winter season?

AirportsEd
8th Feb 2006, 14:10
Looking at the 'big picture' although the fuel rationing is tougher on the overseas carriers, isn't it neccessary to 'look after' the home based airlines in this situation? As they operate by far the largest number of flights from LHR, if their operation suffered massive disruption the airport would soon end up with thousands of passengers stranded in the terminals, creating a whole new set of problems (including safety-related ones) to add to the fuel situation.
Seems to me that -given the fact that LHR is 35% down on its normal fuel allowance- things are working far better that they might have.... :confused:

Munnyspinner
10th Feb 2006, 10:05
Bl**dy Arrogant Ar**les( BAA) are in complete meltdown. LHR is one of the Worlds biggest filling stations and if BAA had no contingeny planning for a Buncefield type disaster they they desrve a kicking.
BAA will start spewing out cash when T5 goes on line and the Budapest Bid shows that the Groups assets are completey undervalued. Last year they robbed £800M of property from the group and no-one noticed.
LHR may be a jewel in the BAA crown but they don't spend much time looking after the customers. The management need a wake up call and it looks like the Spaniards have just set the ball rolling.
The fuel companies could close BAA if they decided to get clever with the supply agreements. Look in the BAAplc accounts for how much revenue is generated through fuel sales! A consortium bid that put the big fuel companies in charge of supplies and split the shopping centres ( oops - Terminals) off would begin to make a lot of financial sense.
Time for a rethink?

egbt
10th Feb 2006, 10:37
Munnyspinner

if BAA had no contingeny planning for a Buncefield type disaster they they desrve a kicking.

They did have an agreed plan – fuel rationing. Quite what do you expect them to do? Have another oil terminal and duplicate underground pipes as a standby or perhaps maintain a huge fleet of idle road tankers to guard against something that has not happened before?

I bet the airlines would have been really please to have been funding that. Contingency planning can only go so far.