Fuel prices soaring, how is your airline coping with that?

[pezetaroi]

With fuel prices soaring, airlines are having a new thing to worry about, how is your company coping with that?

I'll start, in Mexicana you've got to have a special authorization from dispatch if you want to carry more than 300 kg of what your flight plan indicates, not to mention all the other fuel saving procedures (one eng taxi, packs off at take off, flex TO thrust, etc etc...)

cheers and thanks for your comments!

[Deep and fast]

We tried one engine take offs but it didn't catch on for some reason :}

[Hand Solo]

We just raise the fuel surcharge. We've also tried glide approaches in the 777 but they weren't as successful as we'd hoped.

[no sponsor]

We've got the "Pilot Fuel League Table" in which some are taking to mean 'fuel league competition'...

[overstress]

BA are proposing that their employees pay for it.

[411A]

It's all very simple.
As we operate ACMI, the end user airline pays for the fuel.

The airline desires reliability, and the cost of fuel is secondary, to a large extent.
Operationally, starting the last engine during taxi is accomplished, together with flying at the LRC mach number...but quite frankly, this has more or less always been the norm...except if stuck behing an Airboos:rolleyes: which is never good, especially as we cruise at M.85.

[saccade]

the cost of fuel is secondary, to a large extent.At $100 oil, fuel costs will approach 60% for silly unhedged Ryanair in 2008. How sustainable is the low cost business model with $200 oil in 2012?

Sorry, off topic. Hat, coat etc.

[L-38]

Info
"Jet fuel prices moved past $2.90 on world markets for the first time and airlines pushed their fuel surcharges higher to meet the new records.
In Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 22, airlines were paying $2.935 per gallon for jet fuel. That price was $1.0755, or 58 percent, higher than the average price for February a year ago.
Friday's price for jet fuel in Rotterdam was the highest anywhere in the world at $2.9664 per gallon. It was $1.01876, or 67 percent, higher than Rotterdam's average for Feb. 2007.
Cargolux, Europe's largest all-cargo airline, raised its surcharge for the second time in as many weeks. The new rate is 85 euro cents per kilo as of March 17, up from 80 cents effective March 10."

[Denti]

My company hedged the fuel for this year, however 2009 will be a different beast alltogether. Apart from that there is no restriction at all on our decisions how much fuel to carry, of course they urge us to carry the least possible amount but we are still free to decide on our own.

[crewcostundercontrol]

My company has just given us the OPTION to leave the landing lights off until the final approach, they poke out into the airflow on the Airbus and I guess there will be a small saving to made! I prefer to keepem on to let other 250kt 60Ton bits of metal wizzzing around me know Im there.....

[PositiveRate876]

We just dig a new hole in the sand and hook a hose to it. :ok:

[Jetjock330]

My boss just loves this. He pumps it from the front lawn and orders 100 more jets here from the middle east. Now if only he would pass it onto his crew.

The higher the price, the more we tanker from the ME.

5 tons extra, you get a warning letter for taking too little!:}

[mabrodb]

single engine descents! ;-) Just kidding.

In reality, Flap3 landings, single engine taxi-in and out, where applicable (some airports restrict its use from certain terminals).

Carrying regulatory fuel, plus a small buffer. If using statistical based contigency fuel, as allowed by JAR OPS, things work out well most of the time. And if things go pear-shaped (about 2% of the time), a diversion is not the end of the world, though some seem to think it is.

Rgrds

[powerstall]

... in our airlines' current business strategy is that we pass on or should we say add on any fuel surcharge to the riding public... but hey, if you're the only LCC operating in the country do they have a choice? :}:}

[transilvana]

In my day to day we normally look for 250+ knots jetstreams and when we get there we shut off engines (1 min, 1 hour...), the more we save the more points I get on my BP points fuel card to get that precious vacuum cleaner for my wife at the fuel station.

[diesel862]

My company seems to pour money down many a broken drain so I think fuel is the least of their worries.

[GlueBall]

The price of fuel is inconsequential because it affects all carriers. It's the cost of doing business and as long as people keep buying tickets the wheels keep turning.

Curiously, at $105+ per barrel and corresponding higher ticket prices, or tickets with fuel surcharges, ever more people are still buying tickets to fly, especially premium priced business class tickets which continue to be in high demand.

Despite the increased seat costs, many airlines are in fact expanding business class and are introducing flat bed seats which heretofore had been exclusive only in First Class.

From an operational standpoint, econo cruise profiles already are optimized, but airplanes don't magically burn less fuel when the price goes up.

:ooh:

[Huck]

I flew with an old ex-Pan Am captain the other day.

He said, "When they start talking about fuel conservation, it's the beginning of the end...."

[Funnel Cloud]

I'll start, in Mexicana you've got to have a special authorization from dispatch if you want to carry more than 300 kg of what your flight plan indicates, not to mention all the other fuel saving procedures (one eng taxi, packs off at take off, flex TO thrust, etc etc...)


What exactly do you mean with Packs off after Take off? Do you mean after landing maybe?:bored:

[PA38-Pilot]

What exactly do you mean with Packs off after Take off? Do you mean after landing maybe?:bored:

He said "Packs of AT takeoff". Obviously turning them on after takeoff ;)

[Anti-ice]

"BA are proposing that their employees pay for it."

Agreed :cool:

What was the comment AA's crews adopted when there was industrial unrest - something akin to -
"We will not subsidize the travelling public in moving forward" ... too true , some tickets are still ridiculously cheap..£4.99/9.99 etc.... if they lose you money,don't carry them ;)

[Mister Geezer]

This situation is a lot more serious than I and many others will think!

BA have stated that if the price of oil is sustained at or above $120 then it will be operating at a loss! The way things are going... the FY08/09 could not be a positive as first thought!

Realistically, the life of the present fuel charge arrangement has a limited shelf life since on domestic routes we will see the surcharge being more than the fare in some cases!

[L-38]

I live a few miles between a modest regional class airport's initial approach fix and outer marker.

While frequently observing landing aircraft, I am amazed at those that drag an airliner (with the gear down) the entire approach distance vs. those that coast then drop gear at / about the outer marker. To me, efficiency separates perfected skill from the mere drivers.

[ARINC]

I live about 2 miles from EDDB 25L OM,

NO ONE apart from the odd Ilyushin drops the gear before the OM and the boys in Orange often fly a tight visual final turn leaving it even later. Suites me keeps the noise down too.

[Huck]

While frequently observing landing aircraft, I am amazed at those that drag an airliner (with the gear down) the entire approach distance vs. those that coast then drop gear at / about the outer marker.

Are their engines spooled up? They may just always be high for some reason (airspace restrictions, etc....)

[Dirty Mach]

of course if the "constant descent approach" given by the controllers has left you high and fast again, the gear out at 10 miles actually saves fuel as you don't have to go around... :E

[CAT II]

After years on fuel analysis comit's and developing techniques to reduce fuel consumption, I find myself in an operation who's policy is to land with a minimum of 15,000 Kilograms of fuel; practice is most often between 20 and 25 tonnes. But then again, when the owner also owns the purported 2nd largest oil reseve, I don't see the problem of cost. I do, however, see an environmental issue; as should PositveRate876...

[saccade]

Because Richard Branson is expecting Peak Oil within 6 years, he is busy developing alternative fuels. He is also expecting that oil prices will 'go through the roof' within that time frame.

http://globalpublicmedia.com/branson_acknowledges_peakoil

Interesting years ahead...:bored:

[rcl7700]

We are all getting so good at Flaps 0 landings after Flaps Fail messages in the CRJ2 that it might just become our everyday technique. That combined with limiting the use of reverse thrust will leave only destinations with 13,000+ft runways as part of our route structure. As long as tires and brakes don't get more expensive....

rcl

[hellsbrink]

Because Richard Branson is expecting Peak Oil within 6 years, he is busy developing alternative fuels

He'll have to do better than his latest "exploits" re:

towing aircraft all the way instead of taxi under power (nose gear gets a bit stressed)

that "green" flight which only actually used 5% biofuel....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3516551.ece (I assume it's accurate)

[dartagnan]

some airline t/off with packs off(no PAX off :p)...so less power required during t/off.

airline just increase their ticket price, so nothing to worry about fuel...
you can still travel by swiming, runing, walking, riding,...

[saccade]

From the Air New Zealand website:

IATA has made suggestions that we believe will ad up to big savings. As a result we are introducing simple but effective measures, such as:

"Looking closely at the weight of paper, charts and documentation our pilots carry on board each aircraft."

[saccade]

IEA: no likely relief from oil prices

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VB6PRO0.htm

Gasoline: Painful, and getting worse

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/news/economy/gas_prices_inflation/index.htm

etc, etc.


On a positive note, we are witnessing an unique period in the world history!

[ExpectmorePayless]

We're diluting it with water. :uhoh:
(tap water of course, bottled water is so damaging to the environment :})

[selfloadingcargo]

...don't worry guys, I confidently expect that it will be us PAX who ultimately get to pick up the tab (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, media interviews etc on the part of the management). It may suck, but that's OK. It's life.

(Now where's my drilling equipment, I'm sure there must be oil under the Mendips.....)

[desmotronic]

US$100 aint what it used to be. It helps if your revenues are in any other currency.

[saccade]

JetBlue's solution: CTL! The same stuff Hitler used to run his war machine, cheap but dirty.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak-oil-awareness/271

(scroll a little down)

[gengis]

How are we coping with it? I´m taking more fuel tomorrow! ;)

[saccade]

ICAO news release (pdf):

"Fuel being the lifeblood of aviation, what looms on the horizon for commercial air transport in terms of fuel prices and adequacy of supplies?"

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/nr/1979/pio197914_e.pdf

Oh, it's from 1979...

[rottenray]

Not to set off a big hullaballoo, but BA038 proved that you can land and not kill people when you don't have all the thrust you'd like, when you'd like it.

"Attention, folks, we're on approach now. As we trim for our landing, you will notice that the cabin will become dark and the airconditioning will stop. Don't panic - we're saving the fuel you didn't pay for so our stockholders won't feel any sort of financial pinch, and this [yadda] aircraft has proven itself perfectly capable of landing without any thrust from the engines under emergency conditions, a situation which your budget-priced ticket has ensured you will have to experience. Please remember to remove any personal belongings still contained in the overhead compartments before departing the aircraft. Please thank your cabin crew for working so hard to please you..."

B73-5s and A300s will rule the day at this point... LOL!


///

[Paddington]

What do you all think of fuel league tables?

[parabellum]

Paddington I don't think 'league' tables are allowed in the UK if names are mentioned. Worked for an airline once where the captain who monitored the fuel would produce a table showing the line of 'mean difference' and a whole bunch of red and green squares to show who was above or below this line. Individuals, by private mail, were told their position on the table but no comments or follow up was offered.
Captains discretion, in all matters, must remain absolute.

[Paddington]

So what did you think of that unnamed league table? In my company Captains can only see their own figures and how they compare to everyone else's (unnamed) figures.

[3Greens]

utter rubbish i'm afraid. Fuel tables whilst many might not agree as to their usefulness are certanly not illegal. Who do you think would regulate them? the CAA..don't make me laugh, they will not get involved in company trivia. :ugh:

[Shaka Zulu]

Yet again companies are relying on instilling a little fear into employees to carry less and less of the stuff.
If they really cared they should call Flight Crew in for a refresher of the Fuel Policies and make it a day where you learn about the consequences etc etc.
That would be worth while, because some guys DO take the piss.
However fuel league tables are utterly utterly pointless.
What good is it? If you know your Company SOP's then you take the fuel required as you are the first one responsible if it all goes sour.
It's a responsibility a Captain shouldn't and doesn't take lightly and for the company to piss about with these worthless stats.... Very immature

[Justin Cyder-Belvoir]

Fuel League?

Not worth the paper it's printed on.

Everybody fiddles the figures ;)

[fatboy slim]

We've been asked to use idle reverse only where conditions allow - guidelines are dry runway and 8000' available. Will save 30 - 50 kgs per landing apparantly and accept the increased cost of brake wear. Seems sensibile.

[Widger]

OK, here is something radical, no I am not aircrew so please do not flame me my comments are not meant to be objectionable. If you want to reduce costs, then surely all up mass is the answer. Most modern transport is furnished to a relatively high standard, with lagging, overhead lockers etc. If you want true LOCO, then should some airlines be taking the ALDI and LIDL idea and stripping out all unnecessary fittings. I have flown in the back of a VC10K and you can see the airframe rivets and all. As, long as the passengers don't freeze and they are safe in the event of a forced landing, should "cattle class" be akin to flying in a DC3? This may well be a bit of a culture shock for some SLF, but they would get use to it and even the travelling public would accept less "furnishings" if they thought they were getting a good deal.

WIDGER

[racasan]

Good Idea Widger,
I'd start with lifejackets, when have they ever been used??? Carpets, they only make it hard to push the trolley's. A pilot, why two? it only happens now and again that one falls over. Re-enforced Flight Deck Doors, Terrorists can't afford to fly now anyway, pax seats, we can put foam cushions between the seat rails..... I'm on a roll

[Brainstorm]

I guess this means that a 'go around' wipes out every bit of profit the flight would have made (assuming a profit was being made in the first place).

That is a nice added pressure to have!!!:uhoh:

[A4]

Brainstorm,

If I'm about to go around, the last thing on my mind is cost! The first thing on my mind is the safety of the aircraft and it's contents and the next thing is probably going to be figuring out how to prevent it happening again (if it was my fault). If anything, this additional cost "pressure" should concentrate the mind into not requiring a missed approach in the first place - some can't be avoided (ATC indcuced) but some can (unstable).

A4

[Flapping_Madly]

Why not take off with nearly empty tanks and then do in-flight re-fuelling?:D

[Jet Fuel Addict]

Maybe we can connect the cattle class to run the engines :ok:

[Flapping_Madly]

What?! You mean collect methane from the cattle.:eek:

[Brainstorm]

Well said A4, we should all aim to be the best of the best! Can I be your wingman?

[FRying]

Does anybody have a clue as to how much one ton of kerosene is worth nowadays ????? Or 100 liters ?

[kwick]

If an airline is wasting money because of any reason, then the people contracted to be in charge of cost management is not doing their job. Saying that the high cost of fuel has taken all by surprise is not common, but fuel has always been one of the higher costs of an airline.

Making proper use of the airplane and its performance is the best I can think of, always thinking on passenger safety first.

[Pugilistic Animus]

have fuel prices really gone up or has the American dollar gone down the tubes? as we've exported all of our intellect and manufacturing---people want gold not paper--paper's flammable


PA

[Facelookbovvered]

About $1250-$1300 a tonne at todays prices, but remember most airline (But not Ryanair, MOL bet on it going down and called it wrong big style) hedge that it to say forward buy for periods up to 18 months in advance.

Southwest (in the Sataes) hedged at $52 a barrel Jet2 at $80 and so on the price to day is around $141!! a bigger problem is currency fluctations as oil is sold in dollars so any weaknes of the £ puts up the cost of oil, but overall weakness of the dolar means buying oil is cheaper and that in part is why the speculators have pilled in.

[fourgolds]

I think we'll see everything possible. one engine taxi , idle reverse only ,review of thrust reduction / acceleration heights , use of GPU/extenal power in lieu of APU on the ground etc etc.

What worries me is how management will endeavour to exert " pressure" on crews and perhaps more importantly how crews will react.

I know many companies keep records ( accounts) of exactly how much additional fuel individual Captains carry. I feel this an unjust cop out and totally untrue reflection of the fuel decision. I think they should look at the fuel left in tanks on chocks on. eg you take 2 tonnes more and land with final reserve. If you had taken flight plan fuel you would clearly have diverted. Instead you completed the mission ! the acknowledgement you get is from some beancounter who says " well on this day the crew took another 2 tonnes , therefore they are inefficient"

I feel most crews cannot take such " lists" seriously. If there was a true reflection on our fuel decisions I feel crews would have more confidence in what the beancounters are saying. Again management you need to give us more information , but you must Compare apples with apples and look deeper into fuel decisions if you are to analyse correctly.

[Right Way Up]

Our CI on the minibus has been reduced to pretty much as low as its worth going. Its getting to the point where we will have to accelerate to 250 kts decending below 10! :O

[F14]

Fuel price is future price for next month.

Whats more interesting is when are the current fuel Hedge contract due to expire and what happens then???

Also who has money in the bank from the "good times"???

[silverhawk]

I'm lucky in so far as one of my kids has a sonic screwdriver. (Doctor Who).

I take it to work and use it to power the aircraft. I wish I knew what the guys above me on the fuel league are doing!


Really though the fuel costs what it costs. Make the travelling public pay what it costs, market forces will then dictate. Oh and then US will invade the whole of the Middle East under some spurious reason.




Nearly forgot to mention what a prat MOL is!

[keepitlit]

Thats a bit light,
Long grass and all that!

His latest comments with regards to who might not make it over this current fuel problem is a classic "attack is the best form of defence!".
Deflecting the heat away from the real problem that at the end of the day the Ryans didnt hedge or in MOP terms (bringing myself to his level) , he F88ked up.

I hope no one looses there job but im off for my flack jacket and hard hat which i bought during the fall out the last time!

regards

Keepitlit

[skyman01]

As an air traffic controller, the evidence of the current fuel price is all too apparent. A recent incident at EGCC blocked one R/W and depleted the fire service. Within 5 minutes, two shuttles ex EGLL and EGKK elected to divert (fire service down time was not specified).
More recently, an IT operator was told to expect a delay at DAYNE, to which the response was " I can only hold for 10 mins", and later stated that his alternate was R/W 23L (declared landing R/W was 23R).
I must say that I wasn't aware that crew could specify their alternate as a different R/W at their intended destination!
My gut feeling is that it will only be a matter of time before there is a major (fuel related) incident as a result of operating practices which have evolved due to higher fuel prices.

[wiggy]

Your 23L/R pilot probably won't have declared the other runway as a formal alternate for planning purposes (although in some circumstance that is allowable..:suspect:).

In general terms if there is good weather ( actual and forecast) at the Destination and the max ATC delay is known it is permissable (under some rule sets) to use the diversion fuel to continue to hold (Diversion fuel: the fuel required for a go-around at the destination, transit to the alternate and make an approach to land at alternate ) as long as his/her landing at the destination is assured with a minimum of 30 minutes Reserve fuel left in tanks. It's known as "committing". Most operators allow it - and incidentally it's one of the reasons pilots sometimes get a little upset :ooh: if ATC start rolling/sliding EATs when we are in the hold....

In your case at EGCC if the pilots had committed to EGCC and then you asked for their alternate then it would indeed have been the other runway.

It's not just confined to the IT operators, most, if not all airlines/Authorites allow this, and it has been allowable for years.

[coineach]

Everyone is complaining about the ever rising price of oil, food and other commodities, so why doesn't someone (i.e. Governments) do something about it?? Because they do not want to.

The current price rise is caused by the futures industry forward buying commodities in US Dollars. The futures industry have no idea of what the (failing) dollar will be worth in 6 or 12 months time when they have to physically pay or be paid for the stuff, so they hare hedging their bets.

Easiest solution is to dump the US dollar as the "international" trading currency and use a more stable currency - such as the Euro.

Saddam Hussein showed how vulnerable the dollar was in 2002 when he started selling oil in Euros, OK it cost him US$ 270 million to make the change, but look what it did to the US economy. They had to invade Iraq in order to stop him and the other oil producers who were considering so doing. OPEC since November 2007 sells oil in a basket of currencies. Iran is selling oil in Euros - and now being threatened. What is going to happen when Russia starts - they have said that they will only trade in Euros - and Russia soon will be the biggest producer of oil in the world.

FACT: Between March 2004 and March 2008 the US Dollar price of oil rose 70%. The EURO price rose from 65 euros to 67 euros - a 2 euro rise which amounted to less than 4%!!!!

Haiti, India and The Phillipines have all had food riots - why??? Because their currencies are pegged to the US Dollar. Saudi Arabia prior to November 2007 was experiencing 14% inflation because the Rial is pegged to the US Dollar.

It doesn't hurt the US much as all they do is cut down some more trees to make paper on which they print the "green backs". The US Dollar is a "fiat" currency - backed by nothing - basically worthless paper (just like the Zimbabwe Dollar) but we are all forced to use the US Dollar.

Scrap using the US Dollar as an "international currency" and prices will fall.

[Tags]

Facelookbovvered,

Just out of interest, where do your hedging facts and figures come from?

[763 jock]

What is the "reward" for the "contest" winner? What fate awaits the loser? Tea, bring your own biccies?

My company (UK IT) encourages PLOG fuel, but I've never heard of anyone getting a call from the suits to justify any extra.

Edited to add "Screw the fuel contest"...I agree with you Enjoy the view. Some new keen base manager perhaps...he/she won't last long:=

[Denti]

We reduced our CI now on 737 classic and NG to 13, which means a 253 kias descent speed and rather low cruise speeds. Had a short sector today with a planned cruise level of 290, the ECON cruise speed was 236 kias in a -700 :eek:, guess i need to take more papers up front to help passing the time (and no, we dont get payed for blocktime, we get payed for standard blocktime which didn't increase, so much fun making a loss each sector).

[fire wall]

Jet fuel price monitor
Jet Fuel Price Monitor (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm)

[puddle-jumper2]

Actually according to JAR OPS you can 'commit' to a single runway airfield.



Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.375

In-flight fuel management

(a) In-flight fuel checks.

(1) A commander must ensure that fuel checks are carried out in flight at regular intervals. The remaining fuel must be recorded and evaluated to:

(i) Compare actual consumption with planned consumption;

(ii) Check that the remaining fuel is sufficient to complete the flight; and

(iii) Determine the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination.

(2) The relevant fuel data must be recorded.

(b) In-flight fuel management.

[(1)] If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination is less than the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, along the diversion route to an alternate aerodrome and at the destination alternate aerodrome, when deciding [whether] to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert, so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel.



The interesting thing is this statement reads along the lines of an en-route check and not along the lines of holding at destination. Of course some would argue that holding at destination is also en route. ;)

Perhaps there is a part of JAR OPS which mentions using alternate fuel in the hold at destination.........?? Anyone know where it is ??

PJ2

[Flagon]

If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination is less than the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, along the diversion route to an alternate aerodrome and at the destination alternate aerodrome, when deciding [whether] to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert, so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel.
While the wording is (probably deliberately) 'woolly', I think a sensible interpretation which should not be 'challenged' by an eager lawyer would be:

"an in-flight fuel check" - this is worded to ensure this 'adjustment' can only be made AFTER take-off, thus preventing anyone PLANNING to commit.

"must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome..........................so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel." - to me this means if I am looking at a single runway, with NO other option, I have not fulfilled the intent of the wording since blockage of that runway could lead to 'less than final reserve fuel'. The only way to avoid that would be to declare an emergency and have the runway 'open' for you alone.

I know the argument that the div runway could block, but now we are getting to 'double problems' which aviation traditionally does not cater for.

"to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert," to me means I have to make the decision BEFORE I arrive at CMR at destination and if I judge it not sensible to 'commit' I should initiate a div. IE Not, "Oh dear, I seem to have found myself at Glasgow without Edinburgh fuel, and I've just gone past Edinburgh" (PS it's been showing on the PLOG/FMC for an hour or more:ugh:). This means if you decide to press on to a single runway KNOWING you will not have adequate div fuel on arrival, you are taking a big risk with your career. In my time I have twice had to g/a and divert from short finals due to runway aborts ahead at single runway airfields.

[puddle-jumper2]

Flagon,

Totally Agreed, particularly the last paragraph. :ok: Your applying common sense and experience to the situation, which is what's needed.

The issue though is JAR OPS does allow you to 'soldier on' to destination knowing you will arrive with FFR......as long as you have done all the checks it recommends you are legally allowed to do it.

I would liked to have seen the same common sense applied to JAR OPS...... instead of what we have at the moment.:bored:

[Flagon]

Your applying common sense and experience to the situation, - blimey - let's hope Dogma doesn't read that:).

The point of my post was that by being 'woolly' it allows the commander to do just that, in other words empowers him/her to take that 'risk' should it be 'necessary'. 99 times out of 100 it all works out well and we all go home thinking what smart bunnies we've been, 'getting away' with squeaking in below CMR, but when it goes wrong, JAROPS is there to beat you with.

[sky9]

Just a thought

If MOL didn't hedge his fuel costs he must have cost Ryanair a fortune this year.
Has be blow-jobbed his bonus?

[BillS]

Does anybody have a clue as to how much one ton of kerosene is worth nowadays ????? Or 100 liters ?
Jet Fuel Price Monitor (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm)
Regional prices and history can be seen here. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/table15.pdf)

[puddle-jumper2]

Flagon,

That's where I'll have to disagree with you.

I don't think it should be 'woolly' at all.
I think like most things in aviation it should be clear cut and set in stone. It should represent a minimum safety requirement and not rely on the commander's experience as a last safety net.

Otherwise there's no point in having regulations........."through away the MEL....I know best" :\

[Flagon]

PJ- don't get me wrong - I agree with you 100%. I was merely trying to explain why I thought it was worded that way. My 'operating logic' is visible in my first post. Don't forget how many 'vested interests' there are in any joint policy document and how difficult it is to get a meaningful result. Just look at the weasel-wording/statements on Zimbabwe over the years, especially from South Africa. (Apologies for thread drift!!!). Look also at how many other 'vague' rules etc there are in a Captain's life and how the Albatross always comes to sit on his/her shoulders.

I still think the INTENT in the wording is clear.

[The Real Slim Shady]

PJ2

You will find that the regulations are constructed in such a way that compliance may be achieved in many ways subject to how an individual, or company, or authority chooses to interpret the legislation.

[Seat1APlease]

Cost index is by no means straight-forwards. If you do your servicing on flying hours then flying more slowly will bring forward the next major check and costs. If your crew can only fly 900 hours a year and they are near that then every percent reduction in speed increases your pilot costs proportionately.

If you're a shorthaul LoCo operator then you may be getting 12 sectors a day per aircraft. Reduce speed and you may only get 11 and an expensive nightstop, or 10 per aircraft and need more aircraft to fly the programme. Paying your cabin crew an allowance of £x per flying hour? well that has just gone up as well. Does your first flight leave at the same time as your competitors but get in 10 minutes later? Which one will the businessman book to get to his meeting.


On the 737 we were regularly refused higher levels because we could not keep up with the 744's who we already up there increasing costs. It's very easy to have one man looking at fuel in isolation and making bad decisions by losing the overall picture.

[Brainstorm]

Oil marches towards $150 a barrel:

Oil marches towards $150 a barrel | Business | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/30/oil)

[Stone Cold II]

You can count on Gordon Brown not doing anything to help the industries or the people of this country!!! He is far to busy on thinking up new ways to stealth tax us and U.K. industries.

If something is not done soon there will be no more industry in the U.K., people are struggling to live and soon they will not even be able to afford to travel to work.

With Gordon Brown and the Goverment doing everything they can to RAISE taxes I can only see one outcome for the U.K.

Only a few will survive if this continues :sad:

[stansdead]

The fact of the matter is :

The Worldwide Credit Crunch is no longer the driving factor behind the world's economic issues, but the price of oil is.

The price of oil started creeping up as the value of the US dollar started decreasing. It is a standard hedging practice. What has happened since then is not so standard. Oil is up over 50% in a year and cannot keep rising forever.

Even if there is a lack of development funding for new wells and drilling from OPEC members, that will not matter.

If Oil remains on an upward curve, the WHOLE WORLD economy will suffer and the inevitable collapse in Oil price as consumption collapses will be dramatic and painful.

The only thing that may happen is that the weak airlines go bust as oil rises and the strong reap the benefits in the aftermath.

The world needs air transport. It is not going to stop, but it does need a shake out of weak players.

And perhaps the City and Wall Street boys are going to need to get used to having a very weak US Dollar and falling oil prices at the same time. The Hedge is about to be broken in my view.

[Capt Kremin]

Here's an idea out of left field.

Why don't airlines invest in their own coal liquefaction plants?

http://www.engr.pitt.edu/pcc/Missing%20Papers/243.pdf

A one billion dollar plant would amortise its cost in a few years at current prices. You make the plant big enough to supply more than your needs, and you sell the excess to other airlines, which then pays for your return fuel from other countries back to home base.

Current costs of the process are about 35USD per barrel of oil.

Supplies of coal will last for hundreds of years. Or is there something I have missed?

[bia botal]

the only problem capt kremin is that the oil companies would squash them like a bug, theres more to it than just digging the stuff up and refining it, theres distribution, storage and then deliverary to the ramp.... now all the oil companies have that all in place, to set it up would be a hugh investment only to have say the tanker drivers say no we will not drive your trucks because our union that has all the shell or bp etc contracts said no.

[whiskeyflyer]

Capt Kremin, we already uplifting fuel from coal in Joburg but guess what.....same price as normal crude as they market link the price (so if airlines where smart, they would make more money from selling the product of the coal/gas process but not to themselves as airlines but into the marketplace.... profit margins airlines as a % even in good years are pitiful)
............................................................ ...................................
Sasol says its synthetic fuel approved for jet use
Wed Apr 9, 2008 4:32pm BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
JOHANNESBURG, April 9 (Reuters) - South Africa's Sasol (SOLJ.J: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's biggest maker of fuel from coal, said on Wednesday its synthetic jet fuel has been approved for use in commercial airliners.

"Sanctioned by global aviation fuel specification authorities Sasol CTL will be the first fully synthetic fuel to be approved for use in commercial airliners," Sasol said in a statement.

It said emissions from engines burning Sasol's jet fuel are lower than those from jet fuel produced from crude oil.

The approval covers jet fuel produced at Sasol's Synfuels facility at its plant in Secunda in South Africa.

The company said it would also submit jet fuel products produced at its Oryx plant in Qatar, a joint venture gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Nigeria and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) ventures in the United States, China and India.

"Research is also underway to find an effective process to produce synthetic fuel from biomass to further improve environmental sustainability," Sasol said.

Shares in Sasol closed 0.6 percent lower at 409.25 rand on Wednesday. (Reporting by Marius Bosch)

[Fropilot]

The decision on how much fuel a PIC takes is insignificant as long as it is within reason.

Some pilots do use more fuel than others on a consistent basis and that is what the pilot community needs to look into before the bean counters come in with dipsticks.

[haughtney1]

One of the best Articles I've seen written on this manufactured state of affairs (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9557)

Read and digest all ye faithful :ok:

[Robert Campbell]

Ah! An enlightened one on PPRunNe. It's all an illusion created by a few.

Another good site: WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM (http://whatreallyhappened.com/)

[On the Spot]

Ryanair are attempting a novel way to save during diversions. Claim the cost of the diversion from the destination airport. Weather is supposed to be better organised apparently. Oh and make them pay for the PAX costs too.

How long before they are holding a gun to the PAX heads onboard and a hat in the other hand !

[TheKabaka]

JAROPS does allow for planned fuel only to reach destination. If the wx is good and it has 2 independant runways then no alt is required.

[Justin Cyder-Belvoir]

Claim the cost of the diversion from the destination airport.

OTS, thats a pretty standard clause if the destination airport has only a Cat 1 landing system on 1 runway.

I insisted on the same when negotiating with a new airport who wanted us to operate to / from there rather than a major 40 miles away.

"Us" incidentally isn't Ryanair.

[Max Angle]

If the wx is good and it has 2 independant runways then no alt is required.Yes but ONLY if payload/range limits mean you can't get alternate fuel on, you can't plan like that for every flight.

[K.Whyjelly]

Under the regulations the payload/range bit doesn't apply..........some companies do add the proviso to their own regs though.
OPS 1.295
Selection of aerodromes
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours, and
(ii) Two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and useable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height +500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km;