PDA

View Full Version : Qantas ‘pressures’ pilots to save on fuel


Ultergra
19th May 2011, 22:09
news.com.au


QANTAS pilots flying the flagship Airbus A380 super jumbos are being pressured to carry less fuel on long-haul flights in a cost-cutting measure to reduce the airline’s soaring fuel bills.

Company insiders have revealed a campaign - which includes charts ranking pilots based on fuel usage - that is increasing the risk of*flights being diverted because they could not safely reach their*destinations.

Two*flights were forced to divert with fuel issues in the past week. A Melbourne-bound A380 was redirected to Adelaide on Tuesday after crew discovered it had burnt through too much*fuel.

A*flight from London to Singapore was forced to land in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday because it had inadequate spare fuel to circle Singapore while a storm*cleared.

The*airline yesterday denied the diversions were solely the result of planes not carrying enough*fuel.

But documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph reveal that in the past two years the amount of “discretionary fuel” - carried on board*flights to deal with emergencies, unforeseen bad weather and airport delays - has been almost*halved.

The documents also show*flights landing at Singapore and Melbourne - the two destinations to suffer diversions this week - on average landed with the least amount of remaining fuel of any Qantas A380*flights.

A pilot said yesterday the document, which ranks pilots based on how much fuel they take on board, was putting “subtle pressure” on*crews.

“The*airline is trying to save money, knowing that a lot of our pilots will see it as a challenge and compete with each other,” he*said.

He said the reductions in discretionary fuel - which save the*airline about $3000 on each*flight - would lead to more delays due to weather or other unforeseen*problems.

Adjunct senior lecturer at the UNSW School of Aviation Peter Marosszeky, who has almost 50 years experience in the sector, said that while the fuel*policy had no impact on safety, it increased the chance of passengers being*inconvenienced.

A Qantas spokesman confirmed the company was looking at ways to reduce fuel costs but denied it had any impact on*services.

“It is entirely appropriate that, within our carefully managed*policies and procedures, pilots are encouraged to closely monitor discretionary fuel*uplift,” he*said.

The Kelpie
19th May 2011, 22:16
Personally it wouldn't bother me if I was consistently the person at the bottom of the list.

Fuel required to be carried on board Is and will always be the decision of the Pilot in Command. My license - my decision!! It is not some management KPI!!

I am pretty sure CASA would agree!!

Disgraceful!!

More to follow

The Kelpie

Muff Hunter
19th May 2011, 23:30
Here's a thought...

See who can carry the most fuel, have a competetion amongst the ranks to see who can make to the top of the ladder. :D:D

I'll bet as soon as they see the chart rising it'll vanish quick smart!

more importantly, it'll really piss them off!

Capt Kremin
19th May 2011, 23:33
Qantas need to realise that they are not the only ones who can leak information which can easily be misinterpreted by the travelling public.

It is a different world to 89 in that regard.

Capn Bloggs
19th May 2011, 23:33
Adjunct senior lecturer at the UNSW School of Aviation Peter Marosszeky, who has almost 50 years experience in the sector, said that while the fuel policy had no impact on safety, it increased the chance of passengers being inconvenienced.
Arr, yes, another blunt saying what's best.

Them's not AIR tanks, boy, them's FUEL tanks!

Jabawocky
19th May 2011, 23:33
which save the*airline about $3000 on each*flightDiverting due fuel is not a safety issue. Not realising you have to is.

But at what cost? Does anyone here know the true cost of the diversions. Extra fuel overall used due to diverting, taking off again and more track miles to complete the journey?

Add to that the ground services at a port you are not served by an existing arrangement. Costs from ATC etc. Costs from crew schedule disruptions. Flow on effects to schedule from late aircraft.

Ohhhh hang on a minute, what about the passengers, who miss their connections, who hear the PA's, see the fuel truck and to the naive punter think they almost ran out crashed and burned as a result.

What is the public perception cost? They spend millions on advertising each year but can screw it all up in a matter of minutes.

Cost - Benefit analysis anyone?


PS Bloggsie :DAgain! :ok:

trashie
19th May 2011, 23:41
If this Qantas policy is true surely it is false economy. How much extra fuel was used as a result of the diversions?

astroboy55
19th May 2011, 23:42
I wonder if the media have seen a 'leaked' copy of that FSO threatening redundancies, unless we saved 8 million...you know, 8 of the 11 million that GD took as he walked out the door?

Whilst they can still say they havent made a pilot redundant, they sure have threatened to......

DutchRoll
19th May 2011, 23:51
It's a weird thing, the fuel spec chart. Most guys I fly with treat it with contempt and carry what they think is appropriate.

However not all of them do that. Some are clearly quite influenced by being publicly compared to their peers and pressured in numerous ways to carry less fuel.

The interesting thing about this "leak" is that it's the cold hard truth, as opposed to what Qantas fed to the media about the staff travel claim which was flagrantly misleading.

Keg
19th May 2011, 23:57
Lol. When I first saw my chart it put me at 34%. IE I carried less fuel than average. I immediately upped my fuel orders as I obviously wasn't carrying as much fuel as the other blokes. :ok: :}

I must say that I've got no gripes with QF providing me with figures about how much additional fuel I'm putting on but the sheet they provide is completely devoid of context regarding which sectors they've analysed, etc. Without that context you know nothing. It also doesn't count on the fact that I may have loaded on additional fuel and arrived with (say) 7 plus ton but that I saved the diversion when the TEMPO requirement slid into my arrival time. It just shows that I arrived with 7 ton of fuel. In essence, it's a useless tool and not worth their time doing it.

Further, having seen the sheet it doesn't change anything for me. I never put on discretionary fuel I didn't think I needed prior to getting the sheet and nothing has changed since that time (not with standing my smart alec comments earlier). I still load discretionary fuel as needed. Do I feel pressured? No. Could some guys and gals feel pressured? Probably.

If you want a real giggle though- although it may cause you to cry at the banality of it all- then go to the original article (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/running-on-empty-qantas-a380s-saving-on-fuel/comments-e6frfq80-1226059307172) and check out some of the comments. Fran of Sydney is a good one. Apparently we don't order the fuel and the article must be wrong because we just see what fuel is loaded on the loadsheet.

Capn Bloggs
20th May 2011, 00:00
But at what cost?
In my jallopy it costs 3% per hour to carry "extra" fuel.

As is usual in these types of matters, the beancounters will probably win, based purely on cost. Cheaper to run around with less fuel and cop the occasional diversion. The damage to the brand however is not measurable and so is swept under the carpet.

Ndicho Moja
20th May 2011, 00:01
Ansett introduced these fuel use/uplift charts that compared actual with flight plan and then the individual with the rest of the fleet.

At best it can be described as a revolting document. Fortunately, on the day the charts came out, monthly, the bin near the mail box was full to over flowing.

There is only one real reason for this behavior and that is intimidation.

Mr. Hat
20th May 2011, 00:02
which includes charts ranking pilots based on fuel usage My bolding.

Companies that do this historically end up having a serious mishap at some stage. This is a very dangerous practice. Can anyone confirm that the Qf safety department has been closed or renamed "Cost Cutting". 500 million must have been a disappointment.

CASA are you there? Youhoo!!!

There comes a point where cost cutting starts to increase the likelihood of an accident. How far will it go?

Skippers Braz, Whyalla Chieftain anybody?

mrdeux
20th May 2011, 00:03
The fuel graph existed in an earlier form and disappeared from view around 2000. I wondered then if the disappearance was because it had had the opposite effect to what was intended. I know that on the couple I received, my fuel order had gone up on the second one, but I'd moved down in the rankings. Thus far the same thing has happened with this new variant.

It was also easy to manipulate, if that took your fancy. Ofload enough tankered fuel, and you could have a negative rating......

Keg
20th May 2011, 00:12
Or stay low and go hard and your 'over burn' increased and you landed with less fuel thus making you look very good. :E

Capn Bloggs
20th May 2011, 00:39
Or stay low and go hard and your 'over burn' increased and you landed with less fuel thus making you look very good.
Then they'll get you on the high burn rate, Keg. := :E

sierra5913
20th May 2011, 01:37
Pardon my ignorance, but if I may ask a question for the jet pilots,

Do you fly on a company mandated speed for the type of aircraft flown, or do you let the FMC fly it economically or do you set your mach speed in the FMC as you desire to stay on schedule? Or is it a mix of all three?

Capn Bloggs
20th May 2011, 02:00
Jets fly to a Cost Index (a speed setting in the FMS). The Cost Index is a number (normally 0 to 100, sometimes 999 :}) that compromises between speed (eg saving maintenance costs, crew costs if paid by the hour) and fuel burn (the slower, the better fuel burn).

A company may publish a specific Cost Index for a sector or may just have a generic "one size fits all" Cost Index.

The crew then inserts the planned CI into the FMS and lets the FMS work out what actual speed to fly. The FMS will then fly the aircraft at that speed.

The planned speed can be overidden by the crew to make up time or to lose time.

rocket66
20th May 2011, 02:01
Sierra I was thinking the same same thing with regards to cost index or LRC. Alternatively, if hypothetically I was PIC not even upper management would influence my decision to take on extra fuel. It sounds like these decisions come from beancounters that have never been near an aircraft in thier life.
If extra fuel is taken but not burnt, who the he'll cares. The remaining fuel would mean the next fuel load to be added will be less, thus not "costing" more money.

It ain't rocket science!!

Rocket

DutchRoll
20th May 2011, 02:02
Sierra5913, normal Qantas policy is econ speed at a given (fixed) FMC cost index which varies with aircraft type, but there are caveats which involve staying close to schedule too. So the answer is "it depends".

Also, Qantas has become so dysfunctional in the Dixon/Joyce era that the left hand doesn't even know the right hand exists. No one department cares what any course of action they take is going to cost any other department. They only care what the cost is to their department directly. If one business segment implements a policy which saves them a million dollars on paper, but costs another business segment two million dollars in flow-on effects in the real world, that's fine.

So the pilots do make decisions to vary the speed based on many factors, like "is a late arrival going to cause major disruption to the next crew/aircraft schedule" and so on. If we didn't take these factors into account and just let Qantas run itself, the wheels would fall off rapidly.

Capn Bloggs
20th May 2011, 02:05
If extra fuel is taken but not burnt
It is burnt. Read my post above. You may think it's not Rocket Science, but flying around with full tanks isn't very smart for the business. The commonsense medium is the issue.

porch monkey
20th May 2011, 02:07
Where I am the C.I is entered, (company derived), and then normally flown in Econ. Adjustments made to use fixed Mach or LRC sometimes made depending on what you need to achieve. Majority is ci and Econ. (fmc).

MUNT
20th May 2011, 02:31
If this Qantas policy is true surely it is false economy. How much extra fuel was used as a result of the diversions?

In theory, if only minimum operational fuel was taken on every flight (i.e. no discretionary), even with 2 diversions a week, the savings would be 8 figures a year. However, the costs are based on quantifiable factors, which do not include loss of business due inconvenience and the negative media impact.

The Green Goblin
20th May 2011, 02:42
If extra fuel is taken but not burnt, who the he'll cares. The remaining fuel would mean the next fuel load to be added will be less, thus not "costing" more money.

It ain't rocket science!!

Rocket

Sorry mate, but you're wrong.

When we are talking tonnes of fuel, it burns fuel to tanker fuel.

Think if you carry 7 tones extra, that could translate into the equivalent weight of roughly 70 pax.

Obviously the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you burn carrying it!

I always like to have a minimum of half an hour of fuel in the tanks excluding reserves regardless when I arrive. There is nothing worse than watching the fuel gauge and recalculating your fuel constantly second guessing yourself. As Murphy usually has it, the day you go minimum fuel is the day you're held, or given huge track miles, or slowed down to a crawl at a low level.

I like to have a bit of fat for my own sanity!

blueloo
20th May 2011, 03:14
When we are talking tonnes of fuel, it burns fuel to tanker fuel.

As a rule of thumb yes......but remember, only a small percentage of that extra tonne will be burnt... eg, on a SYD - MEL sector the extra burn is negligible - therefore most of the fuel remains for the next sector, on something longer then yes you might start burning into it a bit more..

However if you fly a little smarter the extra burn can be offset.

For example SYD-PER.... sometimes if you drop several thousand feet below the 100+ headwind, you can save time and make gas. Even though its well below optimum. Many longhaulers are so used to climbing for long range efficiency they refuse to consider the option of dropping so far below optimum. (Unless its for ride)

FlareArmed
20th May 2011, 04:03
I recall those fuel graphs at Ansett – and the interesting follow-up notice to pilots. Management were aware that some Captains were carrying LESS than the flight-plan fuel to improve their ranking on the list.

Whether or not these charts constitute intimidation depends on the response of the recipient. As you see; attitudes can vary quite a bit.

boree3
20th May 2011, 04:19
See who can carry the most fuel, have a competetion amongst the ranks to see who can make to the top of the ladder.

This is a few months old from my info. I think the race started some time ago!

Somebody may not meet their KPI perhaps?:{

The Green Goblin
20th May 2011, 04:34
Quote:
When we are talking tonnes of fuel, it burns fuel to tanker fuel.
As a rule of thumb yes......but remember, only a small percentage of that extra tonne will be burnt... eg, on a SYD - MEL sector the extra burn is negligible - therefore most of the fuel remains for the next sector, on something longer then yes you might start burning into it a bit more..

However if you fly a little smarter the extra burn can be offset.

For example SYD-PER.... sometimes if you drop several thousand feet below the 100+ headwind, you can save time and make gas. Even though its well below optimum. Many longhaulers are so used to climbing for long range efficiency they refuse to consider the option of dropping so far below optimum. (Unless its for ride)

Yes, you have a point, however if you were not tankering fuel on the longer sectors with the technique above, you could save even more gas.

It's akin to what came first, the chicken or the egg.

My feeling is you're the Pilot in command and you determine the extra safety measures you deem necessary.

I can honestly say I have never been hassled by the company I operate for in regards to my fuel uploads. As long as I am not offloading revenue payload to carry fuel that isn't required, I'm left to my own devices.

sierra5913
20th May 2011, 04:56
Thanks for the replies.

I once had a look at the crz page on a 738 FMC and noticed there were a few speed options. I didn't know whether there was a management requirement to use a certain one. As we know, beancounters love consistency in their spreadsheets.

Sue Ridgepipe
20th May 2011, 04:59
For example SYD-PER.... sometimes if you drop several thousand feet below the 100+ headwind, you can save time and make gas. Even though its well below optimum. Many longhaulers are so used to climbing for long range efficiency they refuse to consider the option of dropping so far below optimum. (Unless its for ride)
I remember a year or so ago I was given 2 flight plans for the one sector, one at FL380 and the other I think was at FL280. At FL380 the headwinds were over 150kts, and the flight time was about 6 hours, obviously at FL280 the headwind was a lot less and the flight time a lot less too, possibly up to an hour less, but the fuel burn was about 2 tonnes higher at the lower level even with the shorter flight time.

These are not exact figures but I just remember thinking at the time that if the company wanted the plane to arrive earlier it was going to cost them 2 tonnes of fuel to do it.

another superlame
20th May 2011, 05:03
I wonder if QF management are pressuring pilots to take 747-400s with dodgy outsourced Rolls Royce engines?

Stationair8
20th May 2011, 06:28
Wouldn't it smarter if Qantas pilots only fuelled up on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when fuel is a bit cheaper?

kellykelpie
20th May 2011, 06:40
I heard that a well run airline in India manages the fuel issue very well. They've used historical data to calculate average vector/hold times at all their destinations and included the extra fuel in the flight plan. If pilots carry extra fuel they have to put down a reason. The company doesn't argue that the pilot-in-command has the right to put on additional fuel, but the company has the right to ask the captain to justify the uplift. Extra fuel is rarely taken. There aren't many diversions due to the accuracy of the flight plans.

Comfort fuel is a state of mind in my opinion, especially in other parts of the world were an alternate is always required. I know that I carry too much fuel, but I'm selfish. I don't think it helps the company in the long run.

Chadzat
20th May 2011, 07:00
Sue ridgepipe- it might have cost an extra 2 tonne of fuel, but how much would have been saved by running the thing for an extra hour? Not having a go, just curious as to what the operating costs would be for 1 hour, whether that would outweigh 2 tonne of juice.

jibba_jabba
20th May 2011, 07:05
All I can add to this issue is that Qantas is following tactics being layed out for them by Boston Consulting Group (BCG). BCG made all the arrangements to get Jetstar up and running and they are very good at restructuring and lowering T&C's.

So beware those involved that this just may be a tactic to push people over the edge and trigger reactions.
If PIA is done in regards to crew etc I have it on good authority that Qantas will not give in on this 'strike' of sorts. So I can only assume that they have tricks up their sleeves (contracted pilots from o/s??).

Your only bet is to have massive support on whatever action you take.

good luck.

rocket66
20th May 2011, 07:33
Green goblin, I thought of the fact that tankering fuel would result in increased fuel burn overall, but really are we penny pinching here? Surely it's better to have too much fuel than not enough. The people that create the comapny fuel policy should have taken this into account while working closely with the people that define ticket prices.

As other ppruners have mentioned, a fuel related incident really is the last thing the rat needs at the moment. If a hull loss were to be the result of A fuel exhaustion incident there would be no airline left to speak of.

The Green Goblin
20th May 2011, 07:50
As other ppruners have mentioned, a fuel related incident really is the last thing the rat needs at the moment. If a hull loss were to be the result of A fuel exhaustion incident there would be no airline left to speak of.

The A team would have already worked out the statistical probability of a hull loss from lower fuel loads prior to the directive.

I wonder if all their stats take into account the other areas they are also running stats on.

There must be a compound factor?

Low fuel, outsourced maintenance, Lower experience, less training, crew fatigue, minimum cabin crew.

Holes in the cheese anyone?

ejectx3
20th May 2011, 08:04
Rocket the extra fuel costs mojney even if you don't use it becuase it increases the weight of the aircraft, thus burning more fuel overall.

So...it is rocket science....;)

unionist1974
20th May 2011, 08:33
Wel I am old school Skippers call at all times . No debate entered inti

Keg
20th May 2011, 09:11
As other ppruners have mentioned, a fuel related incident really is the last thing the rat needs at the moment. If a hull loss were to be the result of A fuel exhaustion incident there would be no airline left to speak of.

Hull loss due to insufficient fuel? I can think of a number of things that could possibly lead to a hull loss in airlines generally and QF specifically. Running the tanks dry and the aircraft subsequently augering in is a very, very, long way down that list! :rolleyes:

Carry a ton of fuel between Sydney and Perth on a 767 and you'll burn 250kgs. Carry 4 ton and you'll burn 1 of it meaning you'll only have an additional 3 ton over the top of Perth. THAT is a significant amount of money. If you do that across all the services that QF (and Virgin and J*) fly daily in Australia and you're talking about millions of dollars a week. It's not just as simple as carrying the extra fuel all the time.

Kharon
20th May 2011, 10:22
When, oh when; please tell me, since (Pontius Pilate) when were engine overhaul costs cheaper than fuel. Or even when FOB (landing) mattered against an on time, safe flight ??.


Tanker cheaper fuel when possible, absolutely; – remember, the company owns every bit of fuel on board - landing. Ok 82 c/ litre at Whykickamoocow, 84 c at YSSY so what ?. Why, in all the hells do we pay management, if not to wangle the best fuel prices ?.


A whole 2 c per litre against brand damage = no sense, no clients = no profit, and no bloody cents whatsoever !. (Pardon the Pun).


We are paid to deliver a payload, on time, every time. That's it. Sod the accountants who can't hedge or spot market or whatever, suddenly, it's my problem. Bollocks.


Streuth.


Sellah.

mikk_13
20th May 2011, 11:01
Just a thought,

Everyone knows ryan air is the king at this. But they opperate in the EU. the EU is not a big place, lots of ads all close together.

So my question is; has it been considered that trying to push a ryan style opperation that some Ads don't have an alternative that are comfortably close.

I just ask since I know jetstar planning use YCIN as a viable alternate for the flights over the Timor sea to bali, even though this is complete reliant on the local coppa not being pissed or out fishen with the boys to turn the lights on. I guess not much thought happening at the Q.

I'm thinking of broome, alice to name a few.

airsupport
20th May 2011, 20:41
I am surprised that the Captains of today even go along with this. :confused:

On one of the Overseas contracts I did many years ago now, Aussie aircraft and Crews, we had a new Station Manager arrive during the contract and one of the first things he told me was that he was going to do all the flight plans and tell the Crews how much fuel they were to take. :ooh:

I told him I did't think it would go down well with the Captains, and big surprise when he started doing this EVERY Captain on EVERY flight ordered more fuel until common sense was restored. ;)

youcangetholdofjules
21st May 2011, 00:33
Media scaremongering?

blueloo
21st May 2011, 00:53
No it happens.


All Capts were issued a chart with where they stand percentage wise across all mainline fleets (not just A380).

Some chose to ignore it.

Most sensible people continued to order fuel sensibly, the way they did before the "Fly Spec Chart" .......but there are always a few who need protecting from themselves and order minimum (or flt plan fuel) [which to be fair can be absolutely acceptable on any given day] - however some take it regardless of potentially foreseeable contingencies.


Some are even proud to be in the lowest fuel ordering ranges.:eek: :eek:


Most are very happy if they fit into the "normal" or average range.

Feather #3
21st May 2011, 01:21
This has been going on for years, ever since one QF captain sourced the data for a thesis back in, I think, the '80's..

It's never really been a problem, except for a few guys at either end of the spectrum.

G'day ;)

By George
21st May 2011, 02:06
Ansett did this for years, it never seemed to cause any problems. We also had our line and sim checks scores compared to each other. Most managed to keep the little dot in the middle of the pack, which was comforting in a way. One character had his fuel uplift way above everybody else and eventually dropped back among the average figures, so it works. The only risk is there's always some ego maniac who would like to win the 'least fuel' prize. Even then, so what, he or she ends up diverting and is late getting home while the rest of us are having a cold beer.

Icarus2001
21st May 2011, 02:12
Bloggs...
In my jallopy it costs 3% per hour to carry "extra" fuel.

I would guess that a modern contract charter company could invest in an off the shelf electronic flight planning program and therefore have more accurate burns. I would have thought that this may save that 3%? :ugh:

Artificial Horizon
21st May 2011, 03:52
BA also does this, the list was accessible by everyone but the pilots were identified by a number only that only each pilot knew. So you didn't know who was actually the top or bottom of the list, it was purely there to allow people to see where they ranked against the average. I did fly with one Captain quite often who would order 1kg less than flight plan fuel every sector knowing they he would be fuelled more than this. What is did though was register a 1% fuel saving against his number, he was very proud of the fact he was the most fuel efficient Captain. He was also the only Captain that I knew that actually had a full genuine fuel emergency when an 'unexpected' snow flurry effected LHR.

porch monkey
21st May 2011, 04:00
I don"t think he was referring to flight plan accuracy, rather the cost of carrying any fuel over and above what the company flight plan may have. No reference to accuracy of the plan.

Capn Bloggs
21st May 2011, 04:19
I don"t think he was referring to flight plan accuracy, rather the cost of carrying any fuel over and above what the company flight plan may have. No reference to accuracy of the plan.
Thanks Porch Monkey. Icarus, I was simply answering a question about the cost of carrying fuel from Jabawocky. It had nothing to do with the "cost" of inaccurate flight planning/fuel burn calculations.

0n the 380 from Syd to Dubai, for each extra tonne you take you burn an extra 500 kg roughly.
3% per hour for 13½ hours ~ 41%. :ok: Therefore, for flights over 33hr, tankering will not achieve anything! :p

FlareArmed
21st May 2011, 05:00
By George.
I can remember a few AN Captains carried less than the flight plan to improve their ranking; there was a notice about it.

The company also monitored sector times but didn't publish them. A checkie told me that one particular Captain stood out as being consistently ahead of schedule (initials RS). A couple of others were consistently behind schedule: I was embarrassed to fly with them, particularly when other aircraft overtook us on the adjacent taxiway. :hmm: