cutting fuel to cut costs?

[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]

I understand pilots at Gulf Air are pressured into flying with minimum fuel - is this true?

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]

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.

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]

Why go so defensive when the word journalist is mentioned

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/showpost.php?p=3058541&postcount=277

I rest my case.

[Phil Space]

"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.

:) 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:hmm:

[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]

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?

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]

Unfortunately some dispatchers may not take into consideration of relevant facts...

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

[captjns]

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

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!!:ok:

[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]

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

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.

[Five Green]

Robert Dr_gonzo:

If you want to lay blame in this case, maybe you should be investigating airport authorities. Especially here in Asia.

In our company we have had several diverts in Manilla and elsewhere around Asia because of a "VIP movement".

A VIP movement is when some dignitary is using the airport, so here in Asia they shut the whole airport to incoming traffic. If you happen to be inbound you wait. You can wait along time.

Most weather or system related delays are known about well in advance, or more fairly the potential for delays is known. These potential delays are planned for to the best of our abilities as flight crew and airlines. However VIP movements are not announced with enough advance notice for anyone to carry enough fuel to wait them out. Especially when you might be at the end of a 10 to 15 hour flight. They can create up to one hour or more delay. The reason being, once the airport is closed to incoming traffic, the traffic backs up. So if you are the last in the que, chances are you are not carrying and extra hour and a half of fuel. The enviromental cost alone of every aircraft carrying an extra 1 1/2 hours fuel over and above normal fuel would be prohibitive. In the Manilla case it is the best choice to land at Clark and wait it out. You save fuel, and Clark is right there beside Manilla so you really do not add much time to the delay.

So put the blame where it should be applied : on the countries and airports that slam the door with little or no notice when they need to get someone "important" away on holliday.

FG

[ironbutt57]

Straight from the horses' mouth the GF flight was NOT low on fuel...how did this story get so screwed up??? It arrived over MNL to encounter a VIP movement, then diverted to it's FLIGHT PLANNED ALTERNATE....how many flights arrive at their destination with enough fuel to hold for an undetermined amount of time???? good grief people...:ugh:

[captjns]

boeingbus,

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the individuals you pass the fuel numbers to at your stands are not "Dispatchers" in the sense of the true definition of a dispatcher per your regulations. These individuals are usually referred to as "Team Leaders" or such. Your comapnys' Dispatchers do perform the duties as such as defined by your regulations.

Oh by the way I just loved your opening statement. Hey but what the heck, since this is your first job with the adults you are excused for your assinine statement. But don't worry, your ignorance and arrogance will hopefully give way with maturity and experience.

Have a nice day:)

[fmgc]

I rest my case, you know nothing of what happens outside of the US.

No, they are the dispatcher, employed by the handling agent.

We do not have a dispatch centre.

My Company and most UK airlines do not employ dispatchers and if they did they would certainly not do what the US dispatchers do.

Please get into your very sheltered brain that the system in the UK and mostof the rest of the world is completely different to the US.

But ignorance and arrogance gives way with maturity and experience

Evidently your experince is limited to your very sheltered world which leads to your ignorance and arrogance.

Have you ever flown outside of the Americas?

[captjns]

I rest my case, you know nothing of what happens outside of the US.

No, they are the dispatcher, employed by the handling agent.

We do not have a dispatch centre.

My Company and most UK airlines do not employ dispatchers and if they did they would certainly not do what the US dispatchers do.

Please get into your very sheltered brain that the system in the UK and mostof the rest of the world is completely different to the US.



Evidently your experince is limited to your very sheltered world which leads to your ignorance and arrogance.

Have you ever flown outside of the Americas?

If your company flies scheduled service, then they do have a dispatch center. They may not perform all duties as related to such... ergo the reason for joint dispatch authority. All of the relevant data is complied prior to each sector either by the "Dispatcher", PIC or any combination thereof.

Check your operations manuals junior. By the way you need to watch your manners, or you'll be sent to bed with out dinner.

[fmgc]

All of the relevant data is complied

Be more specific, what data?

We do not have a dispatch centre.

Have you ever flown outside of the Americas?

[captjns]

Be more specific, what data?

Now let's see... have I flown outside of the US... hmm. Europe... not that's outside the US... Asia that's too, Africa, South America... hmmm. yeah I think I have flown out of the US. But hey wait a minute does New York and England qualify??? Help me out here.:)

What relevant data for flight??? Come on rookie, I'm not going to do your homework... look at your Operations Manual for the information required by your captain before your flight is dispatched.

Good luck with your flight training.:)

[cwatters]

Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me could help the OP understand some more of the reasons why a divert for fuel might be required. For example not being able to fly at the planned height or ????

[captjns]

Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me could help the OP understand some more of the reasons why a divert for fuel might be required. For example not being able to fly at the planned height or ????

A good example could be the failure of a system in flight after departure, ie..ant-ice system becomes inoperative during flight. The route of flight would have to be adjsuted to avoid known areas of icing conditions.

[BOAC]

cwatters - there are numerous threads on PPRune about fuel reserves/diversions/short of fuel etc - search will locate. There are many reasons why I may not arrive in the destination area with enough fuel to continue to destination at the expected landing time, even if I have taken the company 'minimum'/'required' fuel, added on some for mum or even had shortcuts and more favourable winds. Too many variables to list.

Are you familiar with the term 'contingency fuel'? If not, that would be a good place to start.

[fmgc]

Lets just say that I have flown extensively long haul and short haul from both seats at the pointy end.

As you have flown outside of the US I am suprised at your ignorance of what happens outside of the US but then you do have dispatchers sheltering you and your Capt from the world outside!

For the record I notice that you have edited your last post from:


Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by fmgc)---
Be more specific, what data?
---End Quote---

I'm not going to do your homework... look at your Operations Manual.

Hey just for the record, are you cabin crew or a junior F/O in training?
***************


to it's current incarnation.

We have an operations department that will decide on the Co route that we will fly and liaise with ATC with regards to CTOTs (slots). The PLOGs that we pull from the computers will show that route and the alternates and the minimum fuel required for that route and the primary alternate.

It is then up to the FO & I to decide how much fuel we will carry bearing in mind the met & NOTAMs that we will also have printed off and studied (no dispatchers to brief us on the met).

We will then pass that fuel figure onto the handling agent (dispatcher) who will then produce the load sheet. He/She will organise the baggage handlers, liaise with me as to which holds the bags and freight should go into, call the refuellers, ask me for when it is OK to release the PAX etc.

There are only a handful of disptachers in the UK who have the dispatch licence that you issue in the US. They are normally employed by handling agents that handle airlines that insist on being dispatched by a US licenced dispatcher.

In the UK we do not have dispatchers who get involved in fuel decisions and who follow flights.

I think that Wiki here describes the differences very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dispatcher

Notice:


In many countries, e.g. the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNited_States) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), he shares legal responsibility with the Commander (joint responsibility dispatch system).


and:

JAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Aviation_Authorities) OPS 1 did not mandate the use of an operational control system with flight dispatchers/joint responsibility/flight watch.

Pretty much blows your "ergo the reason for joint dispatch authority" theory.

Now will you accept the fact that the system in the UK is different to that in the US?

You will also have to acknowledge, junior, that I knew about these differences and you did not, therefore my knowledge and experince would seem to be superior to yours, but that is all very petty and childish though.

[JW411]

I flew the DC-10 for a UK operator (Laker) many years ago and the fuel load was very much left to the discretion of the crew but it was explained, in training, that every time you took an extra 10 tonnes of fuel it took 1 tonne of extra fuel to get it there.

I then went to a Part 121 operator at JFK and that company policy was to take Plog fuel unless there was a huge reason to do otherwise.

Initially, I viewed this idea as akin to catching leprosy but I got to like it. It took all the guesswork out of the equation. When you bowled up over Long Island and the man said "take up the hold at Mickey intersection at F250" then it was very easy to say that I do not have such fuel so "organise a divert to Bradley please".

This took ALL of the guesswork out of the equation and saved you going round in circles for ages whilst pursuing a lost cause.

[captjns]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dispatcher



Sorry... wikipedia is not JAA, IAA, CAA, or FARs. Your company manuals dictate procedures... not wikipedia which can be accessed and edited with any account for any wannabee such as yourself. Oh better yet, when your chief pilot asks you what you were thinking of when you asked for high speed within the London TMA, you can just tell him about wikipedia.

Anyway the initial premise of this thread was about fuel not about dispatch/relesae procedures related to company specifics.

[bubbers44]

Once or twice a year I have added fuel because I knew things the dispatchers didn't. Most of the time those fuel adjustments made the difference between diverting or not. The rest of the time they are just trying to minimize fuel burn on your flight and you should cooperate with them since you are both on the same side. Just see if it makes sense. 95% of the time they do a great job so let them do it.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Apologies in advance for drifting several dots off Thread but is there ever any pressure to "tanker" fuel from low cost sources to high cost ones?

The UK and, for that matter, European tree huggers seem hell bent on changing the Duty and Tax rules on AVTUR. If this comes about, it would become cheaper to refuel in, say, Casablanca than it would in UK. Would this encourage the carriage of max fuel loads from the low cost regions. I wouldn't see this becoming a safety matter but more a false carbon dioxide/oil reserves economy by the environmentalists. Is that scenario a possibility?

[fmgc]

Anyway the initial premise of this thread was about fuel not about dispatch/relesae procedures related to company specifics.

No but our discussion is relevant to fuel decisions and how they might be made and by whom.

No Wiki is not my Ops Manual but in this instance the information it gives is correct.

Will you please accept that in the UK there is no dispatcher sharing legal responsibility with the Capt for the flight like you have in the US?

Go on, be a real man, and admit it, you were wrong. A good pilot must always appreciate when he/she is wrong, would be dangerous otherwise.

[Bigmouth]

Apologies in advance for drifting several dots off Thread but is there ever any pressure to "tanker" fuel from low cost sources to high cost ones?
The UK and, for that matter, European tree huggers seem hell bent on changing the Duty and Tax rules on AVTUR. If this comes about, it would become cheaper to refuel in, say, Casablanca than it would in UK. Would this encourage the carriage of max fuel loads from the low cost regions. I wouldn't see this becoming a safety matter but more a false carbon dioxide/oil reserves economy by the environmentalists. Is that scenario a possibility?

Yes.
Wouldn't call it "pressure" though. More like "encouragement". And operators of all sizes have been doing it for many years, so definitively not an environmental advantage.

[jshg]

I fly worldwide for a UK charter operator. In common with most UK comments so far, we have a plog which calculates the minimum fuel required using the most accurate weights, winds etc available, and then the F/O & I decide how much fuel we want to carry. There is no input from dispatchers or similar. There is no pressure from management to carry minimum fuel, or inquisition when we carry extra, but we have had aircrew notices asking us to consider carrying less extra fuel without reason, with an explanation of the financial penalties of unnecessary extra fuel.
We also have plog suggestions about tankering fuel when economically worthwhile, but again no inquisition/pressure. In 20 years with this company I have never been asked about how much fuel I have/have not carried.

[boredcounter]

Thank you. From an Ops guy (UK) you have just posted how it should be.
GZB
Tanking fuel is simple, and makes a big dollar difference. The plog calculates for the Crew and Ops guy +/- per 1000 Kg carried. Not through savings, but say as through a field where fuel is 200% base price, you bet we don't tanker. likewise if it is 85% of base price, fill the tanks.
Like you fill the the car at Tesco, but the call made by a computer.
Bored
Edit, missed a word, DOH

[Five Green]

Fmgc and Capt Jns:

You guys are really splitting hairs. Having flown under both systems ( licenced dispatcher and self dispatch) I can tell you that they are almost the same. You are still provided with the same information ie company recommended fuel, weather, winds, Flight levels and traffic etc. The only difference with self dispatch, is the guy behind the counter (or entering data into the computer ) does not have a legal stake in the final decision.

The buck still rests with the Pilots. In both systems you can go with the recommended fuel and accept the outcome, or you can anticipate something not covered by the plan and take more (or less even) if the stuation dictates.

Fmgc: I object, a little, to the insinuation that the US system is somehow weak. In this business you can never have too much information ! You can also learn from everyone.

Cptn Jns: An anti-ice failure is a very unlikely reason to divert. The most common reasons are (and not in any order IMHO) medical emergencies (sick pax), unforecast weather deteriation (thunderstorms and snow), in the case of Cat 1 only aircraft - wx below limits, mechanical en-route (ie eng shut down) or on the ground (blown tires on the runway can close an airport), in Asia VIP movements etc., wind outside of aircraft limits.

These are just a few. Most are known and you take the extra fuel but still get delayed far longer than expected so might have to divert. It hits long haul the most as there is a greater chance of other factors stacking up along the route.

As I have said before if the passangers realised the proffesionalism and decision making skills needed to get a large passanger jet from A to B, perhaps piloting as a proffesion would still garner the respect it once had.

FG

[fmgc]

Five Green,

I have never used the US system so I can not and have not commented on its merits.

I am just trying to get captjns to admit that there is a difference between the US & UK system, he seems resolved to say that I am wrong in the face of all evidence to the contrary (fairly dangerous trait in a pilot).

He will not even accept that when I command my A320/1 that there is no licenced dispatcher sharing responsibility for the flight, perhaps you could back me up on this quite major point.

Question: Does the licenced dispatcher study all the weather and notams, do they follow the flight, what else do they do? Coz in mine and in nearly all other UK airlines (perhaps BA is an exception) we the pilots do all that and make fuel decisions with no airline input other than the legal requirements. (Some might have quite an intelligent PLOG system that makes adjustments based on statistics and wx making the PLOG fuel much more accurate for the circumstances).