View Full Version : Gas guzzling wastage at JFK
Fright Level
5th Jun 2006, 10:31
Departing JFK on Saturday evening, 04L in use and we pushed only to join the back of a 40+ queue to the runway. This is quite a common occurrence in New York and we loaded a bit of extra taxi fuel to cover it.
When we got to the runway, we'd burnt all of the 3,000kgs we'd loaded for the (hour long) taxi but what a waste. With 40 in the queue and an hour on the taxiway, the airport must be responsible for burning at least 50 tonnes an hour of unneccesary fuel because they don't operate a gate hold system.
Sure, it's a busy place, but why not have the landers wait with engines shut down and wait for a gate rather than a line of departing a/c right round the airport chucking a valuable resource into the atmosphere?
Gate holds cost a fraction of that with 4 engines running on a heavy. Why not at JFK?
Or even better: use remote holding, so push back from the gate, shut down and await your turn.
At least the landing A/C can dock, clean, board, and join the cue again.
Not just JFK unfortunately....
Gr.
Spuis
Globaliser
5th Jun 2006, 10:40
Sure, it's a busy place, but why not have the landers wait with engines shut down and wait for a gate ...Surely even a lowly SLF can see the problem with that: You'd quickly condemn the new arrivals to departure delays and quickly wreck the entire schedule - particularly of the highly networked local airlines. The solution would surely be to get departures out of the gates and waiting, shut down, on some remote part of the airfield - just as soon as JFK can reclaim some space from the sea for that to be done. ;)
jondc9
5th Jun 2006, 13:51
face it, many airports are not run for fuel efficiency. I do recall that during bax winter wx there is a bit more organization to keep planes that have been de/anti/iced within their holdover times.
gee wilbur, with all of these new fangled computers, you would think the scheduling would work better.
and there is danger (small) of taxying out on one engine and getting close to the runway, starting the other engine and OOPS the starter shaft has sheared...now you have to go all the way back to get fixed.
better to start at the gate, have a "good" engine start time and go right to takeoff.
was JFK better before Jetblue?
clicker
5th Jun 2006, 15:50
I wonder what the record is for JFK under normal ops conditions, seem to recall in my ops days of seeing several around 3 hrs block to takeoff times for a sched flt Transamerica did to AMS. This was back in the early to mid 80's.
WhatsaLizad?
5th Jun 2006, 16:10
What's a APU use in fuel compared to 30 minutes over Ockham?:)
I once spent over 5 hours in the congo line at JFK with the centre engine and the APU running one particularly foul night about 20 years ago. We were No.54 when we joined and I remember hearing a No.78.
As someone has already stated, holding at the Gate is not allowed.
Lou Scannon
5th Jun 2006, 19:47
When you were way back in the departure queue you could only pray for a runway change. This would then entail every one in a 180 at some turning point and leave you at the front of the line for departure.:ok:
I often thought that it would pay to have a huge fleet of tugs just to pull the line around the airport until it was their turn for departure. Some companies delayed starting one or two engines until they were at the head of the crew. One large American outfit forgot to start the centre engine on their DC10 (Luxury Liner) but picked the error up when they noted a lack of performance passing 20,000feet.
cwatters
5th Jun 2006, 19:56
Can't we have "lounge holding"? I'd rather not board for an hour than sit for another hour with minimal freshair.
javelin
5th Jun 2006, 21:23
Hang on, listen to the Septics asking for 'ride reports' - they regularly go down 2, 3 or 4 thousand feet just to get out of mild turbulence.
I cannot begin to imagine how much fuel American operators waste in their zealous pursuit of calmer air.
I get sick and tired of all American operators asking for ride reports across the Atlantic - I guess this should be another thread - perhaps it will end up there ?
Conserve fuel guys, your offspring wil appreciate it :ok:
It's lawsuits, mate. Pax get hurt in CAT then sue the carrier. Captain gets dragged into court to explain himself. Welcome to the american legal system.
TomConard
5th Jun 2006, 22:55
Gentlemen,
There is a thread under TECH LOG regarding single-engine taxi. This is relevant to our discussion here.
Tom
WhatsaLizad?
5th Jun 2006, 23:03
I get sick and tired of all American operators asking for ride reports across the Atlantic -
From my experience, the requests for ride reports seem to come from all nationalities, more so from us colonials when we're gobbed up in loose formation.
At my company, the "hostie" injury rate has gone down as a result of more CAT awareness., even given their increasing fraility due rapidly advancing age.
Now if we're discussing endless requests for sports scores of teams I can't stand, then we are in agreement. Only discussion of teams I like should be permitted. They can easily be put in a notam format with Gander and Shanwick.:E
TOGA Descent
5th Jun 2006, 23:49
I wonder what the record is for JFK under normal ops conditions, seem to recall in my ops days of seeing several around 3 hrs block to takeoff times for a sched flt Transamerica did to AMS. This was back in the early to mid 80's.
September 2000. Waited in line at JFK for over 5 hours. Nothing moved!
galant1
6th Jun 2006, 04:52
I get paid by the minute.
You want to sit on an airplane that has arrived after 8 hours flying and wait for the gate for 2 hours. I dont think so. Most paxs would rather be onboard and in line knowing they are going to depart. But keep 2-300 people bunched up in the terminal and wait and see, you get total hatred. At leats on the airplane if done right, the paxs will understand and be of no problem.
But hey thats a colonial for you.
zerozero
6th Jun 2006, 13:27
I get sick and tired of all American operators asking for ride reports across the Atlantic...
Yeah, well, when you realize that the concept of "in-flight service" has virtually disappeared, then maybe (at least) a smooth ride isn't too much to ask for.
captjns
6th Jun 2006, 22:19
I get sick and tired of all American operators asking for ride reports across the Atlanti
Hey Ace... I didn't realize that BA aka "Speedbird", Air France, Lufthansa, KLM, German Wings, Globe Span, to name a few, are American carriers and they request ride reports too.:ugh:
galant1
7th Jun 2006, 02:40
Well then for an improved cabin service I suggest dig deeper and pay more for the ticket. The airports and goverments get half the money from the tickets.
Who wants to ride for even an hour in turbulence? You would be complaining to the flight attendant then writting a letter to you friend the CEO of the airline to complain.
DA50driver
7th Jun 2006, 07:40
Damn Yankees
They actually care about the comfort and safety of passengers. How dare they?
hetfield
7th Jun 2006, 07:55
Damn Yankees
They actually care about the comfort and safety of passengers. How dare they?
Come on, let's talk about unnecessarily air polution.
Sir Richard
7th Jun 2006, 21:11
I once spent over 5 hours in the congo line at JFK with the centre engine and the APU running one particularly foul night about 20 years ago. We were No.54 when we joined and I remember hearing a No.78.
As someone has already stated, holding at the Gate is not allowed.
Strange that..on a similar dark and stormy night some years ago at JFK there were NO departures for about 3 hours. Gate holding all round.
When somebody asked "What is our number for start?" the reply was something like : "If I told you #117, everybody else would ask":O Few others asked.
Pax fed and watered on board before departure so they all got a couple more hours sleep across the pond.
Charles Darwin
8th Jun 2006, 17:53
How many tonnes of fuel could be saved every year worldwide if there were tow trucks for all jets. When qued up the engines would be started when approxmately 5 minutes before takeoff. Probably would mean a whole new way of thinking, but could this be possible? A tow truck on every nose until just before takeoff?
:confused:
Of course it's not possible. Most days you would have 300 tug drivers (assuming 3 shifts of 100) doing absolutely bu**er all and being paid a good salary with pension rights plus the capital expenditure of buying 100 tugs just to deal with a possible congo line on a few days of the year.
Mind you, on second thoughts, this just about sounds like BA on an average day at LHR except that the tug drivers, crew bus drivers etc etc are probably just as numerous but can't be found when they are needed!
captjns
8th Jun 2006, 21:21
Hey if you get paid by the minute, then what's the problem?
mansaloco
9th Jun 2006, 01:31
It is AMERICA "the land of the free" they don't give a rat's ass whether they waste fuel or not.
More for the Bushes
Keep it up...:D
jondc9
9th Jun 2006, 01:41
some of us voted for kerry and gore before him...The only really fuel efficient leg I did was taking off from CLT at an off time and going to Talahasse (sp) florida... given descent clearance to 3000'...intercepted Glideslope aobut 90-100 miles out...checked that the engines would respond and went right on in.
rare
regards
jon
misd-agin
9th Jun 2006, 02:59
Strange that..on a similar dark and stormy night some years ago at JFK there were NO departures for about 3 hours. Gate holding all round.
When somebody asked "What is our number for start?" the reply was something like : "If I told you #117, everybody else would ask":O Few others asked.
Pax fed and watered on board before departure so they all got a couple more hours sleep across the pond.
If I was more motivated I could get you a date that might match. Four hour taxi-out. We were number one for Takeoff for 2 hrs, most of that shutdown on the runway in position and hold(with no engines running we weren't moving anyway). Tower - "trust me, no one's going to land, or takeoff, for a long time."
At one point JFK tower said, "you can start them up if you like and takeoff. You'll be the only a/c in NY departure's area. You can fly any altitude and any heading you like." My response "thanks but no thanks." No one else volunteered so no flights departed.
Just before we became #1 a DL 767-300 flight departed of 22R with a left turn towards Europe. We were facing 130 degrees (taxiway Z ???)(just prior to 22R departure end) and could see the radar picture. We had no interest in departing, especially in *that* direction. 'Shadowed' the flight on departure control frequency using TCAS and radar picture. "Moderate to severe turbulence out of 2000' ". Duh!
JFK-LAX flight. During the course of the night we had about 8-10 different clearances. Routings included flying NE towards BOS and then north into Canada and as far SW departure towards ATL and then westbound.
Nasty, nasty, night.