Qantas ‘pressures’ pilots to save on fuel

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by rocket66

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I wonder if QF management are pressuring pilots to take 747-400s with dodgy outsourced Rolls Royce engines?

[Stationair8]

Wouldn't it smarter if Qantas pilots only fuelled up on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when fuel is a bit cheaper?

[kellykelpie]

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]

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]

they are being directed to do all this.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wel I am old school Skippers call at all times . No debate entered inti

[Keg]

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!

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.