Qantas ‘pressures’ pilots to save on fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas ‘pressures’ pilots to save on fuel
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: tassie
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I'll bet as soon as they see the chart rising it'll vanish quick smart!
more importantly, it'll really piss them off!
See who can carry the most fuel, have a competetion amongst the ranks to see who can make to the top of the ladder.
I'll bet as soon as they see the chart rising it'll vanish quick smart!
more importantly, it'll really piss them off!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
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.
It is a different world to 89 in that regard.
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.
Them's not AIR tanks, boy, them's FUEL tanks!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
which save the*airline about $3000 on each*flight
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
Again! 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
Whilst they can still say they havent made a pilot redundant, they sure have threatened to......
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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. 
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 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.
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 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.
Originally Posted by Jabba
But at what cost?
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Here There Yonder
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which includes charts ranking pilots based on fuel usage
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?
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......
It was also easy to manipulate, if that took your fancy. Ofload enough tankered fuel, and you could have a negative rating......
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
) 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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: location loaction
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
