QFA crew fuel bonus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: christchurch nz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QFA crew fuel bonus
Can anyone confirm the prevailing belief amongst NZ atcos that QFA crews are paid a fuel bonus from a fund generated by fuel savings above a certain criteria per flight?
It has the ring of truth given that QFA crews appear to request more level changes than all the other airlines put together! Generally we are happy to oblige, traffic permitting. NZCH to YBBN track - ask early!
The other interesting query - is there a QFA management edict against use of non-standard levels, or is that a choice left to the captains judgement?
It has the ring of truth given that QFA crews appear to request more level changes than all the other airlines put together! Generally we are happy to oblige, traffic permitting. NZCH to YBBN track - ask early!
The other interesting query - is there a QFA management edict against use of non-standard levels, or is that a choice left to the captains judgement?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cya, No, we are not on a fuel bonus. We're just searching for a better ride/higher ground speed for the least fuel. So I hope we are not interrupting your coffee session too much!
[ 14 August 2001: Message edited by: TheMasterBaiters ]
[ 14 August 2001: Message edited by: TheMasterBaiters ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only current edict against non-standard levels is for uncontrolled airspace. But with RVSM, aren't there enough standard levels for you guys??
As for fuel... see the R+N thread about that Siberian crash. Methinks QF has a way to go before 500kg of fuel becomes that important.
As for fuel... see the R+N thread about that Siberian crash. Methinks QF has a way to go before 500kg of fuel becomes that important.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CYA,
To understand the answers you seek you need to grasp a couple of simple facts of life.
Public servants spend other peoples money. They don't have to make a profit. Cost is no object. They get paid even if their work is of poor standard. Their employer never goes broke.
Employees of Companies have to try and help make a profit. This is so shareholders get a dividend and the company stays in business.
Take your precious Air New Zealand and its sidekick, Ansett. Losing sh*tloads of money and about to be taken over by an Asian conglomerate. No profits...good bye.
If you can grasp that, then its not too hard to see why a QF pilot may wish to save 2 tonnes of fuel, maximise his ground nautical miles per 1000 kilos of fuel, and give the punters a smooth ride.
Are you still with me??
If you would like to know more about QF policy in this regard write to:
Capt Ian Lucas
Qantas Airways
203 Coward St
Mascot. NSW. 2020
Australia.
He's a nice bloke and I'm sure would help you with some info.
Who knows you may be able to do a part time Economics degree during all that spare time you have at work.
Regards,
The Edster.
To understand the answers you seek you need to grasp a couple of simple facts of life.
Public servants spend other peoples money. They don't have to make a profit. Cost is no object. They get paid even if their work is of poor standard. Their employer never goes broke.
Employees of Companies have to try and help make a profit. This is so shareholders get a dividend and the company stays in business.
Take your precious Air New Zealand and its sidekick, Ansett. Losing sh*tloads of money and about to be taken over by an Asian conglomerate. No profits...good bye.
If you can grasp that, then its not too hard to see why a QF pilot may wish to save 2 tonnes of fuel, maximise his ground nautical miles per 1000 kilos of fuel, and give the punters a smooth ride.
Are you still with me??
If you would like to know more about QF policy in this regard write to:
Capt Ian Lucas
Qantas Airways
203 Coward St
Mascot. NSW. 2020
Australia.
He's a nice bloke and I'm sure would help you with some info.
Who knows you may be able to do a part time Economics degree during all that spare time you have at work.
Regards,
The Edster.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case you didn't understand the previous t/x from Edster, safe and efficient operation of the a/c can save heaps.
This mythical 'fuel bonus' has raised its head before. I've only worked on the flightdecks of QF a/c since the early '70's, AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A FUEL BONUS!!
G'day
This mythical 'fuel bonus' has raised its head before. I've only worked on the flightdecks of QF a/c since the early '70's, AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A FUEL BONUS!!
G'day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: christchurch nz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edster - I thought my original question was reasonably mild actually and certainly wasn't trying to take the mickey out of pilots or QFA. In point of fact kiwi controllers have a pretty good relationship with most QFA crews, who in turn seem to appreciate we are doing our utmost to provide the best possible service.
Luckily most aviation professionals aren't all arrogant dickheads like you and are able to tell the difference between a genuine question and a thinly veiled barb. You obviously feel controllers sit on their bum all day trying to devise ways of impeding your progress. In fact if I knew which aircraft you were crewing I probably would do just that!
Might I respectfully suggest you visit an atc centre in the near future to see life on the other end of the microphone - you might just be surprised and learn a little respect for fellow aviation professionals.
Nuff said........
Luckily most aviation professionals aren't all arrogant dickheads like you and are able to tell the difference between a genuine question and a thinly veiled barb. You obviously feel controllers sit on their bum all day trying to devise ways of impeding your progress. In fact if I knew which aircraft you were crewing I probably would do just that!
Might I respectfully suggest you visit an atc centre in the near future to see life on the other end of the microphone - you might just be surprised and learn a little respect for fellow aviation professionals.
Nuff said........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas chaps/chapesses,
A question along similar lines.
Domestically, I often see Ansett depart slightly in front of Qantas for same destination. Enroute, Qantas pilots seem to flog the aircraft at higher speeds/lower levels with (it seems to us) the aim of becoming number 1 for arrival (presumably using a heap more fuel). Sometimes it works! Sometimes it doesn't!
Anyone out there want to tell us more.
A question along similar lines.
Domestically, I often see Ansett depart slightly in front of Qantas for same destination. Enroute, Qantas pilots seem to flog the aircraft at higher speeds/lower levels with (it seems to us) the aim of becoming number 1 for arrival (presumably using a heap more fuel). Sometimes it works! Sometimes it doesn't!
Anyone out there want to tell us more.
Nunc est bibendum
Cya, I think I'll apologise for some of our guys 'uneasiness'. I think most QF blokes are so used to being belted in this forum that some of them may have mistook your question for another attempt at sticking the boot into QF and their crews.
AusATC, yep we tend to burn the extra gas down low going between SYD-MEL and BNE. Normally it is schedule retention. The SYD-MEL is impossible with 34 in use in SYD and down low can save up to five minutes depending on the prevailing winds. The reason you will see us catching AN is because they are invariably higher and therefore lower TAS and higher headwinds means closing speeds often in excess of 60 knots (but I guess I don't need to tell you that.)
Maybe with their terminal being a bit closer to 34R in SYD, the extra three or four minutes it takes us to taxi to where they start from is the difference in the equation. We NEED to make up those few minutes, AN don't!!
It is interesting how this 'time pressure' starts to play on you though. I've watched blokes change levels for four knots of better performance. Break even wind trade is generally considered but there is a subtle impact on the operation due to the never ending 'got to make up time' scenario!
Interestingly, come late November, you may see QF crews starting to fly the filed altitude more and more. EBA time!!
AusATC, yep we tend to burn the extra gas down low going between SYD-MEL and BNE. Normally it is schedule retention. The SYD-MEL is impossible with 34 in use in SYD and down low can save up to five minutes depending on the prevailing winds. The reason you will see us catching AN is because they are invariably higher and therefore lower TAS and higher headwinds means closing speeds often in excess of 60 knots (but I guess I don't need to tell you that.)
Maybe with their terminal being a bit closer to 34R in SYD, the extra three or four minutes it takes us to taxi to where they start from is the difference in the equation. We NEED to make up those few minutes, AN don't!!
It is interesting how this 'time pressure' starts to play on you though. I've watched blokes change levels for four knots of better performance. Break even wind trade is generally considered but there is a subtle impact on the operation due to the never ending 'got to make up time' scenario!
Interestingly, come late November, you may see QF crews starting to fly the filed altitude more and more. EBA time!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: christchurch nz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Keg and others.
Of course we as controllers have been made acutely aware by our masters that we are now employed by a "Corporation" and NOT the NZ Govt! My observation of my workmates is that most will do their damnedest to honour a request - on our new Oceanic gear some requests are easier than others to put into the machine - changes of FL are easy, reroutes can be a nightmare and if the controller is busy he will probably take a little while to respond - basically we tend to deal with the easiest requests first.
At present in NZ we only have one controller in charge of ALL the NZ Oceanic FIR. Obviously in the middle of one of the 4 trans-tasman peaks every day he can get rather busy, which once again will slow down the response time to any requests. In late 2001 we hope to be in a position to move to 2 sectors - Tasman and Pacific, probably going back to 1 sector from 2200 until 0630.
We would like to see more aircrew visiting us to see how we might be able to help their operation - both sides usually learn something actually.
My last word on the mythical fuel bonus ( promise!!) - actually we all had sneaking admiration for such a clever idea!!
[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: cya ]
Of course we as controllers have been made acutely aware by our masters that we are now employed by a "Corporation" and NOT the NZ Govt! My observation of my workmates is that most will do their damnedest to honour a request - on our new Oceanic gear some requests are easier than others to put into the machine - changes of FL are easy, reroutes can be a nightmare and if the controller is busy he will probably take a little while to respond - basically we tend to deal with the easiest requests first.
At present in NZ we only have one controller in charge of ALL the NZ Oceanic FIR. Obviously in the middle of one of the 4 trans-tasman peaks every day he can get rather busy, which once again will slow down the response time to any requests. In late 2001 we hope to be in a position to move to 2 sectors - Tasman and Pacific, probably going back to 1 sector from 2200 until 0630.
We would like to see more aircrew visiting us to see how we might be able to help their operation - both sides usually learn something actually.
My last word on the mythical fuel bonus ( promise!!) - actually we all had sneaking admiration for such a clever idea!!
[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: cya ]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CYA,
A mutual discussion can have major benefits.
I recently spent some time on a non-airline adventure with one of our TAAAA[?]TS trainers who operates from MEL CTR. It was interesting to hear his side of CPDLC with TAAAA.....[you get the message] and as you have a different interface in NZ, no doubt there would be other hassles in attempting to achieve a common aim.
G'day
A mutual discussion can have major benefits.
I recently spent some time on a non-airline adventure with one of our TAAAA[?]TS trainers who operates from MEL CTR. It was interesting to hear his side of CPDLC with TAAAA.....[you get the message] and as you have a different interface in NZ, no doubt there would be other hassles in attempting to achieve a common aim.
G'day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: christchurch nz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather - good points. I haven't had the luxury of being able to visit adjacent centres for many years, although reciprocal visits are in the pipeline for all Auckland and Brisbane controllers - an excellent idea for obvious reasons. We all operate CPDLC to an international standard, so there will be little if any difference in that respect.
I presume it is understood by aircrew that although there can be a number of simultaneous ADS connections to a variety of users other than ATC, there can only ever be one active CPDLC connection.
Some months ago now we finally automated information transfers on every aircraft between New Zealand and Australia which has removed the need for countless phone calls. Of course we still have to coordinate wx divs, block levels, non-std levels etc, and subsequent clearance requests for such things as level changes after the auto info transfer has been passed (approx 38 mins prior to mutual FIR bdy est). Interestingly I understand this automated transfer of info between Nz and Oz is much more efficient than the transfer of info between Brisbane centre and Melbourne centre, which is still done by phone.
Ironically these very improvements in technology are actually a bit of a double- edged sword, in that we are finding problems with having too much info to try and remember. Oh for the simple days of radar with 5 miles and 1000 feet! That more or less highlights the difference in workload between todays Radar and Oceanic controllers - undoubtedly terminal and approach radar is busier than Oceanic, however Oceanic control is much more complex with highly technical equipment plus a higher knowledge level required to perform the job.
Probably mirrored by some of the changes in modern cockpit procedures and equipment...
[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: cya ]
I presume it is understood by aircrew that although there can be a number of simultaneous ADS connections to a variety of users other than ATC, there can only ever be one active CPDLC connection.
Some months ago now we finally automated information transfers on every aircraft between New Zealand and Australia which has removed the need for countless phone calls. Of course we still have to coordinate wx divs, block levels, non-std levels etc, and subsequent clearance requests for such things as level changes after the auto info transfer has been passed (approx 38 mins prior to mutual FIR bdy est). Interestingly I understand this automated transfer of info between Nz and Oz is much more efficient than the transfer of info between Brisbane centre and Melbourne centre, which is still done by phone.
Ironically these very improvements in technology are actually a bit of a double- edged sword, in that we are finding problems with having too much info to try and remember. Oh for the simple days of radar with 5 miles and 1000 feet! That more or less highlights the difference in workload between todays Radar and Oceanic controllers - undoubtedly terminal and approach radar is busier than Oceanic, however Oceanic control is much more complex with highly technical equipment plus a higher knowledge level required to perform the job.
Probably mirrored by some of the changes in modern cockpit procedures and equipment...
[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: cya ]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney,NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards making up time at lower levels, when on the 767 a few years ago, AN would always sit up at the planned level. At QF we would try for the most advantageous level.
One flight ex BNE to CNS AN took off 7 mins in front climbed high into a jetstream and sat there. We stayed low GS was 120kts better and where in the crew bus on the way to the pub when the AN aircraft came over the fence.
ATC even told AN about the GS diff and offered him a lower level. Same sorts of savings in time was common to PER.
Why didn't AN take the faster levels?
I'm not sure, but I think they get paid by the hour.
One flight ex BNE to CNS AN took off 7 mins in front climbed high into a jetstream and sat there. We stayed low GS was 120kts better and where in the crew bus on the way to the pub when the AN aircraft came over the fence.
ATC even told AN about the GS diff and offered him a lower level. Same sorts of savings in time was common to PER.
Why didn't AN take the faster levels?
I'm not sure, but I think they get paid by the hour.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edster -
You typify what so many people despise about Qantas pilots!
I'd prefer to think it's the minority giving the rest a bad name, but sometimes I wonder.
Do you all have to be Geoff Dixon clones or is there something in the water-fountain there?!
You typify what so many people despise about Qantas pilots!
I'd prefer to think it's the minority giving the rest a bad name, but sometimes I wonder.
Do you all have to be Geoff Dixon clones or is there something in the water-fountain there?!
Nunc est bibendum
So EB, you focus on the one QF guy who may have mistaken where this thread was going and tarnish the whole QF gang like that.
What about the other QF contributors on this very thread that didn't act to your dislike or do you forget about them so you can continue thinking that all QF drivers are dropkicks?
Yours is the response that typifies your usual QF knockers. Those with a big chip on their shoulders.
What about the other QF contributors on this very thread that didn't act to your dislike or do you forget about them so you can continue thinking that all QF drivers are dropkicks?
Yours is the response that typifies your usual QF knockers. Those with a big chip on their shoulders.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld Aust
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to the many contributors to this thread (except for one) for sharing much good information. It was refreshing to see a thread where we can all learn something by some carefull reading and infosharing. Hope to see some more.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EB, cya, et al, just remember this:
For every QF pilot out there who seems like Edster, there's another one of us who has to endure sitting next to him for 4 or 5 hours at a time!! So please, don't lump us all in the same basket.
There is no fuel bonus, however QF Captains do (long-haul at least, to my recent knowledge) get their fuel uplifts monitored and compared to the company flight planned fuel. They periodically receive a printout showing their average fuel uplifts (in excess of company flt plan fuel) relative to their peers.
Obviously this is the company way of trying to exert no-so-subtle pressure on them to minimise any additional fuel they might want, but every Captain I've flown with treats these things with no small amount of contempt, and voraciously guards their right to put on whatever fuel they believe necessary (as they should).
We don't flog around at high speeds or low levels or multiple different levels for any reason other than trying to achieve a reasonable balance between fuel burn and schedule (which is easier said than done with you ATC guys)
For every QF pilot out there who seems like Edster, there's another one of us who has to endure sitting next to him for 4 or 5 hours at a time!! So please, don't lump us all in the same basket.
There is no fuel bonus, however QF Captains do (long-haul at least, to my recent knowledge) get their fuel uplifts monitored and compared to the company flight planned fuel. They periodically receive a printout showing their average fuel uplifts (in excess of company flt plan fuel) relative to their peers.
Obviously this is the company way of trying to exert no-so-subtle pressure on them to minimise any additional fuel they might want, but every Captain I've flown with treats these things with no small amount of contempt, and voraciously guards their right to put on whatever fuel they believe necessary (as they should).
We don't flog around at high speeds or low levels or multiple different levels for any reason other than trying to achieve a reasonable balance between fuel burn and schedule (which is easier said than done with you ATC guys)
