View Full Version : Lights Going Out at EVA Air

17th Jul 2008, 23:40
Things must be tough at EVA Air - latest fleet notice says "the Logo Light will remain off at all times for cost saving".

No mention of flying, where possible, normal approaches (i.e. "low drag"), CIs consistent with uplifted fuel prices, etc.

"Butt Captain, you don't understand!" now takes on a whole new meaning. :ugh:

18th Jul 2008, 09:23
Surely, the Logo light being on makes the aircraft lighter?

18th Jul 2008, 11:10
Reminds me of the time I saw a zombie aircraft float in and suddenly the lights all came on .. (that was before it's lights were extinguished before quickly being escorted by a follow-me car).

Somebody was saying that it is a dangerous situation because birds will collide with lights off.. :E (now dont ask if birds fly at night time .. apparently they do .. )

And lightship blimps maybe burning less fuel if they too switch off the light ..

I should patent a process to extend the flying time of lightships ...

Anyway, on a serious note, isn't logo lights part of promoting the brand stuff ?

18th Jul 2008, 11:45
Talked about this to an engineer, (B747-400). Engineer said that the unit, for it is not so simple as a bulb/globe, is itself very expensive and they will fail so reducing their 'on' time does make economic sense but also to access the unit requires specialist ground equipment to reach the tail plane/stabiliser so labour costs escalate. I've worked for a carrier where they were switched off at 10,000' on the way up and back on at 10,000 on the way down, also worked for another major who left them on all the time.

Time Traveller
18th Jul 2008, 12:14
I once nearly taxied into a taxiing unlit 727, due to an erroneous clearance at CDG. If he had had the tail light on, I would have seen it well before.

False economy.

Pixie Queen
18th Jul 2008, 13:29
Kinda makes me think of that little diddy...Lights on for safety. Hmmmm

Also, anyone use that word "malcontent" from AZ must be a, Tony. ;)

Capt Groper
18th Jul 2008, 15:29
Surely the current draw is infinitesimal in the overall big picture of fuel saving.

Also for the engineers, doesn't a CSD supply sufficient rpm to the GEN's so that the output from the GEN's (AMPs, KVA) bears little impact on the fuel burn.


18th Jul 2008, 16:20
Current draw has to be tiny indeed but it won't be the first time such "savings" have been tried...how about captains turning off the pitot heat to "save fuel"?...It's been done. In heated times, all manner of squirrely notions abound. I think the logo light should stay on because it's a proven collision-avoidance tool - false economy indeed.

Dan Winterland
18th Jul 2008, 16:35
About two hours ago, we were told to follow an Eva 330. We could see a 330, but we couldn't tell who it belonged to (night time) because the logo light wasn't on! Needless RT ensued.

Put the bl##dy lights on!

18th Jul 2008, 17:56
Keeping the Logo-Lights switched off has nothing to do with saving fuel consumption.
Even the guys on the 9th floor know that. :E

Although at the moment fuel costs are the primary concern everywhere, the point of this measure is to save the lights themselves. As has been already posted further up, replacing the logo-lights is expensive.

So much for theory.
On the other hand: If EVA decides to save money by selling other people's safety, why don't they also remove the landing-lights, seat belts and smoke detectors? :ugh:

Go on, do as you're told, guys! :rolleyes:

18th Jul 2008, 19:36
If the tower is asking you to follow an unlit EVA plane and you cant see it because its unlit thats not safe for anyone. Could the tower ask EVA to light itself up on the ground? Are there any laws requiring logo lighting on ground in any country?

If not, shouldnt there be if its a safety issue ?

19th Jul 2008, 15:26
replacing the logo-lights is expensive

there's no point in replacing them if they are not going to be used anyway!

19th Jul 2008, 22:57
Spoke to some guys who were working in KE in 1983 when they had the 747 shot down, and learned that this was their policy at the time, indeed they turned off the nav lights as well, to save fuel. They believed that the electricity used to power the lights was provided by the generators and this put a load on same, which required more fuel as a result. This is true, of course, although the amount of fuel is very small.
They also had a policy of closing the window blinds, so you can see that the airplane was very dark as it flew off-track on that night.
The pilot of the interceptor said to his controller that he could not identify the airplane positively, all he could see was it was big, had four engines, and was darkened. The airplane he was looking for was a C135, which had a similar shape, although smaller. But at night, with no references, it is possible to confuse the two types.
He did not want to shoot (he said) but was told to do so anyway, with the resultant loss of the 747 and all on board.
Perhaps if the logo lights had been on, and he had been able to identify it as a civilian airplane, or even if the nav lights had been on, which is something a civilian crew would do, the decision to shoot might not have been made.

20th Jul 2008, 04:53
If the tower is asking you to follow an unlit EVA plane and you cant see it because its unlit thats not safe for anyone. Could the tower ask EVA to light itself up on the ground? Are there any laws requiring logo lighting on ground in any country?

If not, shouldnt there be if its a safety issue ?

A lot of aircraft don't have logo lights.

21st Jul 2008, 06:56
True, some aircraft don't have logo lights. That does not mean that those that do wouldn't benefit from the safety concept of " see-and-be-seen".
Typical bean counters. Just when aviation is experiencing numerous runway incursions and near/close encounters, someone in a cubicle decides a way to justify his salary. Never mind the unquantifiable safety improvement, what about the increased "brand recognition" offered by having the lights on?.
If I could light up my aircraft like the one from the movie "Close Encounters..", I would. Every time I get position and hold, and they are doing parallel approaches, my sphincter tightens a wee little when the TCAS shows someone landing right next to/ or on top of me?. I would have a friggin Christmas light show on my tail if I could.

21st Jul 2008, 07:22
My goodness,

What is going to be next? Removing some tyres out of the landing gear so can save money?
Or maybe no potable water so they can increase the revenue, and give every pax when bording the plane a 1,5l botlle of water for a 13h flight??? hahahahaha
What a non-sense

21st Jul 2008, 08:06
PANS-OPS DOC 8168 Chapter “Lights to be displayed by an aircraft” is clear regarding this subject, whit the detail that the NAV lights should be on from sunset to sunrise. Boeing recommends that the NAV lights should be on whenever the AC power is applied to the aircraft.
My company has an SOP that the NAV lights should be turned off for day operations as per PANS-OPS, but the pilots tend to forget to turn it on before landing in an obscure or low vis airport. I am with First Step having a Christmas light show on the tail of my aircraft if I could. :ok:

21st Jul 2008, 14:50
During SARS circa 2003 CX had the Logo lights CB's pulled and claimed savings of <HK$1000000 in a six month period on a fleet of 80 odd aircraft.

Whether that number came from the Spin Doctors office or not is anyone's guess.


21st Jul 2008, 15:07
I don't think American (and probably United as well) uses them, they just get burnt out and never replaced.

22nd Jul 2008, 06:03
First the LOgo Lights. now not hiring 35 FA already 3months into their training !!


EVA Air suspends hiring their newly recruited flight attendants

The China Post news staff
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/images/icon/share.gif (javascript:void(0);) http://www.chinapost.com.tw/images/icon/print.gif (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/print/166559.htm) http://www.chinapost.com.tw/images/icon/email.gif (javascript:void(0);)

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- For the first time ever, EVA Airways recently notified its 35 newly recruited stew

ardesses that there are no job vacancies for the moment, dashing their hopes of enjoying a well-paid job.
In the notification letter, EVA Air told the would-be stewardesses that the lingering high oil prices have undermined flight operations, thus reducing demand for flight service staff. "Accordingly, our company doesn't have any job vacancies available, and will take the initiative to contact you in case of any demand for the service staff in the next year," the letter read.
EVA Air officials said that the company has been forced to cut the number of flights to reduce operating losses caused by the spiraling fuel oil prices. "This is the first time we had to make such an unfortunate decision," one official said.
As for the 35 recruits, they can't imagine that their dreams of becoming enviable, well-paid stewardesses are finally dashed after three months of hard efforts in ploughing through various tests.
They expressed the hope that the EVA Air can officially hire them as soon as possible.

EVA Air suspends hiring their newly recruited flight attendants - The China Post (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/%20taiwan/2008/07/22/166559/EVA-Air.htm)