Cui Bono? fuel ordering and KPI?
 

As posted in another thread...

From down under, the continued push for 'fuel reductions', driven by management continues.. Management claim that the 'data' suggests less fuel can be ordered lessening FOD and therefore carriage...

The problem with data captured yesterday, assessed tomorrow and released next week, is that it tells you what already happened. Its ability to predict the unknown is of limited value. Sometimes experience tells a pilot he needs more fuel...Have certainly been there

Cui bono?

Pilots at this 'large carrier domiciled in Australia' get an 'app' on their company tablet to compare company offered fuel and whether or not their order and subsequent burn is 'competitive'

What about pilots at BA, CX, EK and anyone else wishing to comment!

Given that 'strict liability' for having sufficient fuel, including reserves always sits with the PIC and all state rules are derived from, as I recall ICAO Annex 6 (SARPS) do Captains/FO consider it a conflict for a pilot manager to push for continued fuel order reductions, increased single engine taxi and APU usage, when financial inducements may flow to the management pilots pushing this agenda?

Should ever the people charged with the safe operation of an airline's fleet make personal financial gain from reductions and actively push pilots, without declaring their financial conflict?

Who benefits? :confused:

Is this where Australia's international airline goes with this?

The Real Story Behind The Ryanair Cancellations - People Before Profit

I once worked for a carrier in India where they calculated individual pilot average fuel burns and compared where your average fuel burn on respective sectors sat among your peers - much like Ryanair.

I remember being "chatted to" for regularly taking an extra tonne or two of fuel on the BOM-DEL sector thus pushing my average burn up. DEL was notorious for short notice closures due to VIP movements - closures that weren't Notamed for "security' reasons - and on three such closures a bit more fuel allowed me to hold those 15 - 20 minutes until the VIP departed whilst other company aircraft couldn't hold and went to their alternates. My extra burn was nothing compared to the typically 3-hour disruptions for those aircraft that diverted let alone the 5 extra tonnes or so burnt to-and-from their alternates - albeit at a good average burn, though. LOL!!!

When I politely but firmly drew this to their attention all criticism stopped. They realised that their fuel saving figures were rubbish and that "average" burns were meaningless if more fuel overall was being used, even if it was at a lower hourly rate.

That's what happens when the bean counters get involved.

CX runs a ‘fuel ladder’ where you get a regular email regarding your discretionary fuel uplift for the month (their disastrous fuel hedging decision, i.e. management problem, seems never to be mentioned).

The magnitude of this airline’s fuel hedging loss makes their nickel-and-diming of fuel almost futile, but fuel loads have been cut to the bone anyway.

Normally the magnitude of management KPI bonuses makes fuel conservation policies pointless.

The solution is very simple and it’s what I have done. Don’t download the app. Then you don’t have to look at anything and just continue to order the same fuel as you always have.

Re-education camp for the conservative fuel ordering recalcitrants ?
What empowerment does CAR 233 & 234 have ?
Sounds like a company sponsored competition for a new Min-Op Mike !
Are KPI's involved and who benefits , if so ?

That exactly is my read on it.
Who benefits (Cui Bono)? Is the DFO and his deputy pocketing a bonus for pushing fuel order reductions on pilots and 'encouraging' pilots to assess their fuel order. How long before a little chat with a pilot manager and HR over fuel ordering? Or is it a requisite condition for promotional suitability that FO exhibit a 'consistent fuel order target' like Ryanair?

The CAR 233 and CAR 234 and many regulations carry the term:

[quoteThe words appearing under some CARs or CASRs 'An offence against regulation ... is an offence of strict liability' imply that the offence is such that it is not necessary to prove a criminal intent in order to prove a breach of the regulation ][/quote]

Given that the pilots carry strict liability, why isn't the union asking exactly who pockets the $$ from savings achieved? Where is the regulator? /sarc

How much fuel do the managers carry?

Depends which manager and how uncurrent they are....

Last time I flew with the CP - **** loads

Qf? It's Gunna get pushed now. I, and many others, had deleted it so... Yeah will never open it.

Has it been updated, wasn't aware it compared other airlines

Nope. That not where it goes.

I'd call that a gross mis representation of the app and the info it provides. Competitive? Really? Hyperbole at its best.

If my boss gets extra $$$ because the airline has saved 1000 times $$$ then why do I care? I want my company to be successful and if we can find ways to save gas then why not. I carry the fuel I reckon I'll need. If I can save some through track shortening, efficient altitude selection, shutting down an engine on taxi in where appropriate and shutting down the APU after arrival where appropriate then what's the problem?


The app is a pretty good tool. It provides info that helps me to assess past decision making processes. Kept in the right perspective it's pretty useful.

Used for purposes other than intended though and it could become a problem. People driving agendas either way is just one example.

Folks,
A little bit of (relevant) history.

Many years ago (I mustn't mentioned names to protect the guilty) a large international airline domiciled in Australia went on a purge of "surplus fuel", Captains could compare their "fly-spot" charts, a comparison of their fuel orders, with every other Captain in the fleet. Various educational publications, let's call then Flight Standing Orders, were distributed.

The boss, lets call him the Captain D.F.O. , boasted he never carrier surplus, only the MOR --minimum operating requirement, min. fuel to the rest of you.

But unlike Captain D.F.O, we didn't get to hand pick our trips. In those days, we had 4 flights a day to UK, plus other European services.

But we did solve the problem. Quite simply, over one roster period, over a northern winter, we, the line pilots, resolved to faithfully follow the boss's fine example of compliance with company policy. Can't be criticised for that, wouldn't you say.

The weather gods were quite remarkably cooperative.

Of course, the results were as funny as they were predictable, schedules were shot to sh1t, revenue hours were seriously off, and fleet fuel consumption skyrocketed --- as did passenger complaints. As (bad??) luck would have it, one flight from Singapore diverted from London twice, one 13 hour flight took over 2 days, including crew min. rest. Crew overtime earnings blew the Flight Ops. (Captain D.F.O's) budget. Didn't do his annual KPIs bonus all that much good, either, I would think?

Suddenly, the whole "surplus" fuel issue went very, very quite, and the chap who produced the "fuel savings" charts was redeployed.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: As I used to explain to my students: If I only ever took the min. fuel the law allowed, the company would go broke from delays and disruptions to schedules, if I took what I liked, the company would still go broke from excessive fuel costs and loss of capacity, our job is to get the payload offering to destination at minimum reasonable cost, and as close to schedule as we can get. Minimum risk (aka "safety") is a given. On a long range operation, it means every flight is different.

I'd agree with that sentiment Keg if I knew that the ratio you used was accurate but I am not convinced it is. I'm proactive at determining efficient levels ( CFP is usually pretty good now days) , I use single engine taxi when appropriate and push for ground power so I can get the APU off but.... nobody has told me what the savings are regarding discretionary fuel uplifts and I suspect they are quite minor in the scheme of things.
Eg, if every QF jet flight carried CFP min fuel for the next 12 months, how much extra burn would we save? After we have that figure, subtract the cost of the app development, the cost of the man-hours spent assessing and pushing fuel efficiency,the cost of diverts that wouldn't have happened, and the cost of the KPI's themselves, and what figure are we left with? Now that we have that figure, how does it compare with 50% of the CEO's salary?
My gut feeling is that the whole discretionary fuel push is cost neutral or worse but I don't know and neither does any other pilot.
I'd be pretty impressed if you'd have a crack at putting a figure on these things.
Cheers

I actually don't know the answer to that, but I think it is pertinent to know exactly what pecuniary benefit is secured by those management pilots with a keen interest in fuel conversation, for the sake of transparency.

Of course one might assume that their actions are motivated by higher purpose alone.


One might also ponder whether the lack of a dual aisle twin to replace the 767 left Qantas with more single aisle 737 than was optimum.. Has that meant a consequent increase to the fuel burned, whether engines to lift them or APU to cool them? Carrying a similar amount of passengers spread over more air frames might be another own goal?

Putting a cost on the carriage of "excess" or discretionary fuel is difficult for several reasons. It's tail-chasing exercise.

1. How much fuel is burned to carry that additional fuel? The theory does not consider the variables of an actual flight.

2. Less fuel may be required to be uplifted at the destination airport which has cheaper fuel than that uplifted at the point of origin.

3. Revenue payload can suffer. For example, 2000kgs of additional fuel could require the offload of a pallet of freight. Apart from the direct cost, what is the longer-term cost of this?

Unless additional fuel uplifts are considered habitually excessive, surely it's better to allow sleeping dogs sleep. I'm with Keg.

Perhaps not at the mothership, and perhaps not yet. I wouldn't be saying "Never".

Not DIRECTLY related to the App, but Qantaslink pilots have been told that there will soon be a ‘fuel ladder’ published in every crewroom ranking pilots on their fuel use.

That's my point Ken, nobody can make an argument using figures, we just get told it's extremely expensive to carry that extra 300kg and get regular correspondence reminding us. Over time it becomes accepted that carrying extra gas is unprofessional and expensive. But is it? How expensive is it? Nobody has ever been able to tell me because of all the reasons you stated.
I'd love it if someone with access to info such as how many sectors a year QF does could chuck in a series of assumptions and come up with some ball park figures. Anyone game?
Eg number of 737 sectors per annum x the cost of carrying CFP+ 200kg =$................

Pretty easy. Tankering costs 3.5% per hour.

If and when the Company is able to

- present aircraft that are perfectly aero-dynamic, have engines tuned to perfection and trimmed with load that's spot-on,

- guarantee that winds and levels will be as assumed by the flight plan,

it may be able to justifiably report on additional fuel carriage with some credibility. I think the data all too nebulous to be of any value, especially as the reasons for additional fuel carriage is unknown.

As an aside, I wonder if Marketing consider the cost of additional fuel burn when they wish to add some dazzle-dazzle, whizz bang stuff?

If the intent is less innocent and derived from the same warped logic as Ryanair or the CX 'fuel ladder' then they will cherry pick the fuel ordering to suit a 'performance management agenda'.

An honest system, driven by a heartfelt desire to reduce CO2 pollution would ALSO include any financial inducement to management pilots (DFO or deputy) to drive an agenda.

Further any assessment would balance fuel ordered versus needed, including those times when instinct, experience or a vibe means pilots added fuel not strictly necessary but that decision saved a diversion and unscheduled overnight of crew, aircraft and passengers.

One suspect that in the absence of an inclusive real cost benefit model and transparent disclosures of any financial benefit, a more nefarious motive may be in operation.


Of course establishing a benchmark Ryanair offers insight into how this operates...

Maybe ask your DFO or his 'deputy' whether or not he makes money from you carrying less fuel whilst you carry strict liability before dismissing what other airlines have done to their pilots and they may yet do to you.

A mate was "marked down" on a line check because he took discretionary fuel to a place notorious for springing a TEMPO on you. The weather had all the ingredients for thunderys, but none were forecast. He used his discretion, experience and knowledge of meteorology to predict the highly predictable. The thunderys eventuated and he had to hold for 50+ minutes. The checkie still berated him for not blindly following the company "fuel policy" and then sat back while he tankered 5500kg back to a CAVOK home base (as per the company fuel policy), at the princely sum of 55kg per 1000kg. Company fuel policy has been pushed so aggressively that in some places that you can be penalised for using your noodle.

Additional to 73qanda's point until Companies publish meaningful figures on the cost of diversion the entire argument is totally pointless. No point saving $1000 in fuel to then divert.

They won't count that on the app!

Imagine a 'performance interview' for an FO with the viscious HR manager present as adherence to fuel policy is considered a 'requisite' for promotion?
HR want control of pilots, they know pilots do not answer to corporate control channels. Ever wonder what the Qantas 'uniform policy' was a clumsy attempt at?



And who makes the money from it being 'pushed'?

It suprises me from a legal perspective that most pilots do not understand what strict liability means. Fuel policy is nice to know but ultimately the only one being cross examined by the regulator's barrister is the PIC.

Fortunately my mate has a spine and despite knowing he would be marked down for carrying out his duty as a Captain, he chose to do what was right rather than what would get him through unscathed. The sad reality is that CASA enable these training organisations to push their own version of fuel policy to the potential detriment to safety. CASA should really lift its game here I think.

The reality of the situation is that ICAO has a statistical based fuel policy for many years now, which many airlines have adopted.

Th real key to these policies is not following the black and white, it is how to and when to apply the grey to your advantage.

I am aware of one Captain from a major Airline getting marked down on a line check as he called the Flight Planners and asked for CBR as an alternate for MEL as he wanted more fuel on board (It was 5000m in Showers). Happily took the extra fuel loaded and proceeded to taxi. Check Captain had noticed though that Canberra was closed for the period due to Fog. Made for an interesting discussion at the end apparently about professionalism.

Fuel is easy. If you need it take it. If you are making up excuses to always carry more than it may be time to reconsider your position and don't even bother to go to the Long Haul operators as you won't last long there. As for HR they should never be in any of those sort of meetings and they know it.

I'm baffled as to why you're so bent out of shape about the FlightPulse app Rated De? Your descriptions of it bear virtually no resemblance to the internal Comms QF crew have had about it.

Your linking of the app with supposed KPI or 'performance interviews' (neither of which occur in the 'major Australian airline' with the app) is surreal.

There are regular exhortations to crew and information published to assist crew in being wise with their fuel making decisions. In 23 years I've never felt pressured about the discretionary fuel I've loaded. This app certainly doesn't add anything to that pressure.

Could it be used for evil instead of good? I guess so but that's about 178 steps further down the list of where we are at for the time being.

Keg, i work for a different airline but I am with you, i have never felt any pressure to manage my fuel loads in an adverse way.

I have been given information on how much it costs to carry fuel, what the impact of that is on the business and how I can make an impact on those costs, BUT i see that information that I can use when deciding on what fuel to load.

On a previous widebody type i flew with an individual that wanted to load an extra 300kg on for a reason that i wont go into here, but on face value it was not an unreasonable line of thought.

Except, the aeroplane doesnt assign fuel to various segments, i.e. that extra 300kg you loaded is for taxi, or the extra xyz kg is for whatever.

To my way of thinking 300 kg, 500kg even up to a tonne is neither here or there in the grand scheme of things (note the numbers vary depending on the aircraft -300kg might be a significant number in a 737 but isnt necessarily a worthwhile number in an airbus or boeing widebody).

I prefer to make an assessment on the entirety of the flight and then adjust the fuel to suit and where i need to make adjustments i will do so in multiple tonnes, rather than stick 300kg on, if i need fuel i will make it a meaningful amount 1500kg-3000 kg - 5000 kg. I will play with alternates to give me more and better options and i will make decisions enroute that might see me pull the pin and divert to an enroute airport before i put myself in an untenable position (that said though i have not diverted or put myself in an untenable position so it is a bit academic i guess).

I have however looked at the taf, ttf and other available info, including past experience, and said that tempo starting an hour after our sta is more than likely to come forward so I am loading the juice on now. Was it technically required? No, but on almost every occasion where I have done that there has been a significant enough change in the weather such that the extra fuel has been the thing that has avoided a diversion.

There is a lot to be said for listening to that little voice in the back of your head.

The above is a very long winded way of saying that i welcome as much info as the company can give me to allow me to make better, more informed decisions, but I dont feel pressure to not carry extra fuel.

I do however make sure I have considered every option, including enroute diversions and different levels, speeds etc when i need to limit payload to allow me the fuel i want. That, to me, is good airmanship and good management.

Agreed snake charmer
Make it count. No point loading a tempo (just) and ten hours later having 55 mins...

What do most QF 73 guys land with on a gin clear day into ML SY BN out of interest?

I once wrote the powers that be a suggestion for a new fuel policy. I called it the Retrospective Fuel Policy. As far as I could see, it was the perfect policy, as it would cover all situations, whilst still actually carrying the minimum possible. It even saved a bit of wear and tear on the engines, as you could arrange for them to self shut-down as you approached the gate through fuel exhaustion. Strangely, I never got a reply.

All of the gibberish we get about fuel is always retrospective. When I order fuel I'm making a prediction. World of difference.

When the fly speck existed, it had a number of outcomes. First we all thought we had to win...and that was by carrying the most fuel. It was quite some time later that an FO told me that I had it the wrong way around.

And it was easily manipulated. One flight had an intermediate landing. For cost reasons we'd tanker fuel out of the departure point, to limit the loading in the middle. But, if you offloaded ALL of the tankered fuel, that gave you a negative fuel order for the fly spec, thus making you look good. And you then took the flight planned load out of the next spot, again scoring a zero, but actually loading expensive fuel.

Fly specs disappeared very quickly indeed.

Going back even further, there was a captain nicknamed 'Vapours'. He only ever carried the flight planned fuel. His diversion rate was so high that the company ultimately created a special adjustment just for him, giving him a extra 5,000 kgs on every sector.

Keg,

are on their way next year according to a HOBO. No idea what their content or format will be.

Should be good for a laugh...

"a HOBO". There is only one. It means 'Head of Base Operations".

Clearly you haven't been to the Street for a while - there are plenty hanging around there.

You are correct. Wrong acronym - I can't keep up with the management reshuffles and operational charts. Suffice to say, the meat of what I posted is from the horse's mouth, whatever their title.

Is it? I suggest with respect that you ought get out more, dislike the message but at least do some research before dismissing out of hand what is occurring outside the Australian exceptionalism to which some people still subscribe. Control of pilot work forces is an objective that runs deep in HR circles.

The CAR 234 gives you protection to do as you see fit, yet they will take it away from you without resistance just as they are hoping; You refuse to see what may be coming. Each individual can choose what they like, however you get no choice when it comes to CAR234. Strict liability is all yours.. The road to hell is paved with good intention

Fuel ladders exist at Cathay, as other poster have pointed out, ask the pilots at Ryanair. At least in Europe we have far more alternates.

may well be on the way. Probably to be introduced with a change to contract, sold to myopic people as some sort of upside.

Just like your clumsy uniform policy; an attempt to exert control

A very succinct distinction.

Sadly though will not stop them trying and bar room bravado will ensure that despite much talk most fall into line and reduce fuel ordering. Control assured and works just fine performance managing people until one day that fuel was actually needed. The only person standing in the court being cross examined (should they survive) is the clown who gave away whatever it is they tell you for continued strict liability and all that entails in a court of law.


Union resistance or regulatory intervention....The magic eight balls says 'good luck with that'!