Ozbiggles, bean counters love these sort of cheese paring games because they are very easy to play. You measure, for example, the width of the toilet paper roll and then compute the cost savings of making it a centimetre narrower and write a sober and wel reasoned paper advocating the change accordingly.

It's an easy game to play....badly.

To do it properly requires a calculation of costs related to the increased risk of a hull loss. Your insurer will do that for you.

Ahhh... Not sure where you pulled those figures from ejectx3. On a BNE-ADL 737 flight plan from today the cost to carry is actually 48kg per 1000kg. Or 480% more than you suggest. To carry 2 hours extra fuel would cost closer to 230kg of fuel rather than 40kg. Then as ozbiggles suggests, if you multiply that across every sector then said insurance is a LOT more costly than you suggest.

Just based that on an average of my four east coast sectors today. Average loads.

One was 11kg/1000kg, then 7, 10 and 9.

738-800 figures.

Perhaps today was unusually low . Ill check tomorrow but weights/ loads were average so I'd imagine it would be fairly accurate .

All 1 hour sectors mind you.

....you guys do realize there are still guys flying around oz with minimum fuel (max load) without the luxury of autopilots capable of basic coupled approaches, let alone autoland. No gpws, radalt, I could go on. While I agree with most of the sentiments here remember some guys have it far worse.

Just for the sake of interest, the cost to carry on a longer sector/larger aircraft can be significantly higher. Dallas - Brisbane; every 1000kg added will cost 380kg. To carry an extra 60 minutes of fuel on that sector (7.4T) would cost 2800kg. Not an insignificant amount. So comments like "the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire" are a touch simplistic.

We can all play with numbers as long as we like. One can just about prove black is white if you keep doing it long enough.

My attempt...So how about one hour or thereabouts? Around $150-200 per flight, divided by say 140 pax, mmmm, should we ask the pax if they want to pay one dollar more? They already believe that "the system" is safe and that is what CASA does for them for their tax dollars.

When you start talking $7 million dollars a year it sounds very impressive, but divide that into the passengers carried per year. Then what do you get.

Ultimately these things will happen occasionally. That is why the person in seat 0A gets to make the FINAL decision.

What about this...a 737 lands at ADL in fine weather that morning and the nose gear collapses, aircraft comes to rest on the intersection of both runways. No BOM to blame this time. Make a command decision. For the poster who said that we rely on BOM every time we flight plan all I can say is, not without considering the above scenario EVERY TIME I take a jet into the air.

BB

On sectors limited by TOW such as DFW/BNE, carriage of additional fuel may be at the expense of payload. This means that you have the cost of the addition fuel and displaced revenue with potential loss of good-will. The punters won't understand.

As an aside, I think the bean-counters of the world have better things to do than track and cost the carriage of additional or excess fuel. Does anyone have any hard evidence of this much rumoured practice?

Not taking sides on what right or wrong. It's why pilots get paid the less big bucks. To decide when you think about costs and when you think of carrying the extra to make the odds better in your favour. For me I always like to have a good out!

Ken, you don't work in flight ops, do you? Of course there is I implied pressure, the emails to crew, the "new" planning systems, appeals to the crew to "think about how much fuel you put on". Cost analysis like we've seen above etc, etc. Having said that, I've never heard of anyone being questioned about their fuel requirements where I work.

The numbers we always used for increased burn when tankering fuel were; 4% per hour per ton,

i.e. 5tons tankered for two hours = 400kgs.

My 1.5 hr sector this morning @ MTOW - 6 tonne, 53 kg fuel burn/extra 1000 kg.

So to comfortably carry TVL as an alternate for CNS in the venerable Douglas/Boeing 717 = 75 kg extra fuel burn.

You're not serious, are you Ken? Obviously not from Flt Ops...

Clarrie

You should also consider the cost of not uplifting xxxxkgs fuel at the destination airport when fuel at that point is less than it is at the point of uplift. True, the opposite may be the case but as I understand it, the cost differences are often revealed in the FPL so as to provide guidance to drivers.

PM

I know of the 'pressure' to which you refer but it's really only applied in the cause of an efficient operation, diversions notwithstanding. I suggest that if it ever became common knowledge that management at any level or in any part of a company was reprimanding pilots for, or tried to interfere with, the way in which they exercised their operational prerogative, then that management would be outed in more ways than one. That said, there's nothing quite like a conspiracy. :ok:

Blogs

Betcha can't demonstrate that the bean-counters do it! Analysis are made as to variations in fuel prices. Graphs may be produced showing 'excess' fuel uplifts etc etc but has anyone been actually reprimanded, counselled etc for boarding xs fuel?

Yes, in my machine tankering costs 3.5% per 1000kg per hour.


EjectX, how many engines do you have running?! :E

"What about this...a 737 lands at ADL in fine weather that morning and the nose gear collapses, aircraft comes to rest on the intersection of both runways.. "


Land at Edinburgh

Chook, in your scenario, how much runway is there from the threshold of RWY05 to the intersection where your disabled aircraft is?

Enough for a 737 to land in, in the emergency situation you put forward!

Wasn't my scenario, it was in response to Icarus.

And your option was going to be my next point!

Rommel special

Provided the wind favours 05.

Stop this nonsense about conducting operations at an airport where a major crash has occurred eg nosewheels collapse. All the airport services will be engaged at the incident site and unless you declare a fuel mayday I suspect (and would expect) you'll be told to go to...Edinburgh.

Farken hell, Ken.
 

No Ken, of course the bean counters don't play with or analyse weights/fuel costs down to the most minute detail! Why would they, after all fuel and labor are only an airlines two biggest expenses, but of course they don't analyse these things closely!

For Kens benefit (why do I bother) and to provide the proof he so desperately needs, I worked for an overseas domestic carrier. We introduced slide boards to help slide disabled pax onto their seats more comfortably and to minimise staff injury during the transfer process. It was decided to place one slide board on each aircraft. Fleet total = 110. Each slide board weighed 1.1kg. That was then multiplied by 110 aircraft, and those aircraft were multiplied by the average number of cycles per year. Give or take some anomalies such as U/S aircraft, maintenance etc, we calculated the additional fuel costs of carting around those slide boards to be around $130 000 USD per year. Needless to say the slide boards ended up staying at the terminals and used upon request.

Ken, here is some fun for you, in between building model planes. Research why it is that most LCC carriers today don't use the built-in air-stairs? They opt for the rampies to push aluminium mobile stairs up to the aircraft. Now before you say 'serviceability issues' or maintenance costs, think big, think outside the box, think weight of stairs vs aircraft cycles vs fuel vs..............cost. (Now that is a big hint for you!)

So Ken, it is worthwhile for an airline to closely analyse fuel costs.
I would like to use the same matrix on VA, lets say to analyse the combined weight, per aircraft across the fleet annually, of the Voyeur magazines. I think you would be surprised at how much fuel is burned and the associated costs. However, you would need to compare that to the revenue that the magazines bring in, to see whether output is greater or less than the input and the additional fuel costs per annum are worth it. Maybe Il Deuce has already done that, maybe not, and then again maybe Ken can ring John and suggest it:ok:

Ken, go back to playing with your remote control helicopter and plane spotting. Your posts get more absurd every time.