FWZ Flt Planning System
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perkinsfield, CA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWZ Flt Planning System
Anyone familiar with this flight planning system?
We are considering switching to it but would like some feedback from other carriers please?
One comment I have heard is that it is rather "User unfriendly" and requires constant vigilance and data base upgrade depending on the package you purchase. Bare bones or all the bells and whistles (which of course becomes very expensive).
We are considering switching to it but would like some feedback from other carriers please?
One comment I have heard is that it is rather "User unfriendly" and requires constant vigilance and data base upgrade depending on the package you purchase. Bare bones or all the bells and whistles (which of course becomes very expensive).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: All Over
Age: 57
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f:Wz
Hi 1540,
As Lauderdale pointed out, what type of operation do you have? Also how many Aircraft? This will drive a price of course.
For your information there was a post covering Gulf Air and f:Wz, and the respective experience.
And as for a follow (self-evaluation) up it actually comes to the core of your Business what is your philosophy and what are you looking for in a FP system (Optimization Lido and f:Wz are the repective best on the market, or do you just want a flight plan forget optimization...then the others)?
All of them have thier respective pluses and minuses, one with full up automation to almost nothing.
As for a ranking again it is hard to do but this is what you can expect to see from the Sales guys:
Lido OC (From Lufthansa Systems...can be pricey)
f:Wz which you alread know about
Jepp (Cheap...lots of manual work)
EDS
Sabre (Ditto)
Navtech
Again search for threads covering f:Wz or also Lido OC which goes off into several areas, threads posts...but you will be back to core question and you will again have to answer what are you looking for in the software.
BigDaddyJ
As Lauderdale pointed out, what type of operation do you have? Also how many Aircraft? This will drive a price of course.
For your information there was a post covering Gulf Air and f:Wz, and the respective experience.
And as for a follow (self-evaluation) up it actually comes to the core of your Business what is your philosophy and what are you looking for in a FP system (Optimization Lido and f:Wz are the repective best on the market, or do you just want a flight plan forget optimization...then the others)?
All of them have thier respective pluses and minuses, one with full up automation to almost nothing.
As for a ranking again it is hard to do but this is what you can expect to see from the Sales guys:
Lido OC (From Lufthansa Systems...can be pricey)
f:Wz which you alread know about
Jepp (Cheap...lots of manual work)
EDS
Sabre (Ditto)
Navtech
Again search for threads covering f:Wz or also Lido OC which goes off into several areas, threads posts...but you will be back to core question and you will again have to answer what are you looking for in the software.
BigDaddyJ
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Optimization Lido and f:Wz are the repective best on the market
My advise would be that you should not believe everything you are promised during the sales call. Your fellow friends within the airline world will tell you exactly who are guilty of some serious misselling dare I say. (as some have found out the hard way in quite recent times....)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: All Over
Age: 57
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWZ Flt Planning System
Hi Lauderdale,
Let us just say that my experience has let me deal with them.
Let me see, Jepp give a nice story on how the system was built to calculate flight shots to the moon, but the darned system cannot check to see if a Airway is closed and its optimizer only a MTT does just that...but does no checks on anything (Boy do I love those FIR NOTAMS).
Therefore, when I made the optimizer statement, it meant to include checks. Of course as you saw in my post, it did mention they all have thier respective quirks.
Therefore, the statement is correct, unless you are reading it on another level (of course the other systems (ones) use route links or route strings to put a route together).
But I agree with you wholeheart that if the sales guys come a showing...better ask for a "Shoot-Out" to determine it.
However, I might add onto this, I would dare not blame the vendors...the ATC situation is an absolute comedy...oh, let me take that back "tragedy" better fits.
Sorry if I confused.com'd the issue.
Bigdaddy
Let us just say that my experience has let me deal with them.
Let me see, Jepp give a nice story on how the system was built to calculate flight shots to the moon, but the darned system cannot check to see if a Airway is closed and its optimizer only a MTT does just that...but does no checks on anything (Boy do I love those FIR NOTAMS).
Therefore, when I made the optimizer statement, it meant to include checks. Of course as you saw in my post, it did mention they all have thier respective quirks.
Therefore, the statement is correct, unless you are reading it on another level (of course the other systems (ones) use route links or route strings to put a route together).
But I agree with you wholeheart that if the sales guys come a showing...better ask for a "Shoot-Out" to determine it.
However, I might add onto this, I would dare not blame the vendors...the ATC situation is an absolute comedy...oh, let me take that back "tragedy" better fits.
Sorry if I confused.com'd the issue.
Bigdaddy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that BigDaddy
I don't think it is helpful to turn this into a "I think so and so is better than so and so" post however in regards to the quote above, I would argue that the functionality of ERAD/CRAM as well as NRP does indeed does just that. In fact I have just finished the SRS for S09 and found that Jep deals with the SRD a whole lot better from my experience than the Germanic systems. Not sure what you mean by MTT though, at my desk it stands fro Mean True Track (you gotta love ETOPS! 
).
Now in regards to your use of the word((s) 'optimizer and 'optimising' what exactly do you mean by this? Do you want to optimize on fuel burn? Time? Enroute charges? Cost? So in regards to the latter standard CI? or variable cost index? Does the system you are looking at allow you to create CI profiles for OEM ac that do not have any?
Also when do you optimize? A CFP created at -12 might not at all be the optimal plan at STD! Does a system allow you to make any LMC's to the CFP to counter act this?
Tankering - does a system to allow you to link flights? (not jusy ob and ib but follow on sectors). Fuel cost - different handlers different prices - can a system handle this?
I could go for quite a while yet - but rather than advocating one system or knocking another I would say to flight1540 take all these points above into account, as well as customer service (or technical support), system flexibility, road map etc etc.
And last but not least be wary of the teams coming out of Montreal (or Geneva)m coming to visit you in regards to fuel efficiencies, no hidden agendas there.......and we have fairies in our back garden too!
Whoops skipper calling on the old RT...better run!
Let me see, Jepp give a nice story on how the system was built to calculate flight shots to the moon, but the darned system cannot check to see if a Airway is closed and its optimizer only a MTT does just that...but does no checks on anything
).Now in regards to your use of the word((s) 'optimizer and 'optimising' what exactly do you mean by this? Do you want to optimize on fuel burn? Time? Enroute charges? Cost? So in regards to the latter standard CI? or variable cost index? Does the system you are looking at allow you to create CI profiles for OEM ac that do not have any?
Also when do you optimize? A CFP created at -12 might not at all be the optimal plan at STD! Does a system allow you to make any LMC's to the CFP to counter act this?
Tankering - does a system to allow you to link flights? (not jusy ob and ib but follow on sectors). Fuel cost - different handlers different prices - can a system handle this?
I could go for quite a while yet - but rather than advocating one system or knocking another I would say to flight1540 take all these points above into account, as well as customer service (or technical support), system flexibility, road map etc etc.
And last but not least be wary of the teams coming out of Montreal (or Geneva)m coming to visit you in regards to fuel efficiencies, no hidden agendas there.......and we have fairies in our back garden too!
Whoops skipper calling on the old RT...better run!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: All Over
Age: 57
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lauderdale,
Thanks I did get a little off track--the "thinking so and so" was based upon experience with Jepp, therefore, missing a FIR NTM (said FER) causes major harm for the EURO Area...see rejection and laughter (said with tongue in cheek of course).
As for the MTT, I meant from the Jepp Minimum Time Track, which also is the same from EDS (The old reliable Phoenix System).
As for your optimizing discussions...yes there is a lot involved, therefore the Germanic Systems do bring a different approach, which works well with some Airlines and bad for others plus variables such as behind SKED or ahead...those also need to be taken into account (as you have so well explained).
Coming back to the function you mentioned on the ERAD/CRAM from Jepp, I am at a loss because it was after my time...but prior to that...well I better not comment.
And while I am concurring most of your points coming back to 1540 I have to again agree with Lauderdale on the ponts of Customer Service, flexability, other items such as you mentioned Tankering (to include wear and tear on the Aircraft), Re-Dispatch/Reclearance/DPP and whatever new title they give it in the next 20 years, ETOPS and addition Free Flight (Ya, Right!!!!
)
But in your original post (1540) remember the FPL system is a tool and you will have to live with it for awhile, therefore you might add is the system Process Based/Systematic...because there is a lot of competing philosophies, but in the end, 50 bucks and a good German Beer (or a nice Sam Adams...Oktoberfest would do) somoeone will pull the trigger on the deal because of price.
Well back to testing...and studying (Doh--Homer Simpson like and all spelling errors in above ramblings are because of higher education/edumacation numbing the "speeling" senses!!!!!)
Bigdaddy
Thanks I did get a little off track--the "thinking so and so" was based upon experience with Jepp, therefore, missing a FIR NTM (said FER) causes major harm for the EURO Area...see rejection and laughter (said with tongue in cheek of course).
As for the MTT, I meant from the Jepp Minimum Time Track, which also is the same from EDS (The old reliable Phoenix System).
As for your optimizing discussions...yes there is a lot involved, therefore the Germanic Systems do bring a different approach, which works well with some Airlines and bad for others plus variables such as behind SKED or ahead...those also need to be taken into account (as you have so well explained).
Coming back to the function you mentioned on the ERAD/CRAM from Jepp, I am at a loss because it was after my time...but prior to that...well I better not comment.
And while I am concurring most of your points coming back to 1540 I have to again agree with Lauderdale on the ponts of Customer Service, flexability, other items such as you mentioned Tankering (to include wear and tear on the Aircraft), Re-Dispatch/Reclearance/DPP and whatever new title they give it in the next 20 years, ETOPS and addition Free Flight (Ya, Right!!!!
)But in your original post (1540) remember the FPL system is a tool and you will have to live with it for awhile, therefore you might add is the system Process Based/Systematic...because there is a lot of competing philosophies, but in the end, 50 bucks and a good German Beer (or a nice Sam Adams...Oktoberfest would do) somoeone will pull the trigger on the deal because of price.
Well back to testing...and studying (Doh--Homer Simpson like and all spelling errors in above ramblings are because of higher education/edumacation numbing the "speeling" senses!!!!!)
Bigdaddy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comeback BigDaddy!
Sounds to me that youy have not had much exposure as to where the Jepp CFP systems are currently at (for quite some years?) - and therin lies the danger in discussing other people's software without actually having recent experiences with that system. It will provide others with an o.o.d. picture of that provider.
Now in addition to this - and completely away from any point that any of the posters in this thread have made - but still very much related to my first point is that there are providers outthere who take great pleasure (and make many efforts to do so) to dish other suppliers and basically bend the thruth (....) about their competitors. Yes....you know who you are....living in Keisterbach!!! See to me, any potential provider who does that during a 'sales call' or procurement phase should not be trusted and shown the door. (with a kick to boot!)
And that is the best advice that I can give any of you outhere currently looking at the supplier market. I am sure there are those outhere (actually I know for a fact there are!) who now in hindsight wish they had followed this basic piece of aviation wisdom!
.....damn just got a crappy slot out of EDDF! Back to work I go!
Sounds to me that youy have not had much exposure as to where the Jepp CFP systems are currently at (for quite some years?) - and therin lies the danger in discussing other people's software without actually having recent experiences with that system. It will provide others with an o.o.d. picture of that provider.
Now in addition to this - and completely away from any point that any of the posters in this thread have made - but still very much related to my first point is that there are providers outthere who take great pleasure (and make many efforts to do so) to dish other suppliers and basically bend the thruth (....) about their competitors. Yes....you know who you are....living in Keisterbach!!! See to me, any potential provider who does that during a 'sales call' or procurement phase should not be trusted and shown the door. (with a kick to boot!)
And that is the best advice that I can give any of you outhere currently looking at the supplier market. I am sure there are those outhere (actually I know for a fact there are!) who now in hindsight wish they had followed this basic piece of aviation wisdom!
.....damn just got a crappy slot out of EDDF! Back to work I go!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rochester, MN
Age: 39
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used Jeppesen for a long time. The only problem, as is with all of aviation, is the cost. I also find that their customer service is not that great. i've been searching for good Fight Planning software for a long time. Their Flight planning software is really great, but for flight department management i would go with e-manage. It's nice cause you can use it for free. I've tried alot of the free trial systems out there, and not really liked any of them. If anybody has any experiences with flight department management software, could you please let me know. I think that with the current economic climate, we are all looking at costs to save our jobs! If we can bring down the costs, we can save our jobs (hopefully!)
Last edited by JB007; 21st May 2009 at 08:32. Reason: web address link removed!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPL Systems
Gents,
My experience is the our friends from Frankfurt have a fairly sound system built on old technology (INGRES) however they proclaim that they will update to a more user friendly IT system such as Oracle soon. For those who don't know, INGRES turns an emulated system, such as the ol' EDS, into a psuedo Wndows based envornment - and it is pretty clunky to use.
Their MTT (min time tracks) work well so long as their database guys are on top of NOTAMS and your own back office folk (many of them) keep the company data current. As far as optimisation is concerned, I would argue that due to the ATC environment that we find ourselves, ie- different everywhere, it is very difficult for a system to calculate a 100% optimised route. However, again, this system does it OK - but at a price.
My recommendation, having used and seen may systems, is Sabre. In basic terms, it's an updated version of EDS using a pretty nice GUI and it optimises well. It can use any 424 data you like but will need a team of guys to keep it clean. Of course this depends on your area of coverage/operation.
As far as FW-Z goes, I must admit I have not seen it but I have heard good things from users and administrators - but it does come at a price, much like Lido.
My advice is - if it doesn't feel right when you're getting the sales pitch, it probably isn't!!
Good luck.
My experience is the our friends from Frankfurt have a fairly sound system built on old technology (INGRES) however they proclaim that they will update to a more user friendly IT system such as Oracle soon. For those who don't know, INGRES turns an emulated system, such as the ol' EDS, into a psuedo Wndows based envornment - and it is pretty clunky to use.
Their MTT (min time tracks) work well so long as their database guys are on top of NOTAMS and your own back office folk (many of them) keep the company data current. As far as optimisation is concerned, I would argue that due to the ATC environment that we find ourselves, ie- different everywhere, it is very difficult for a system to calculate a 100% optimised route. However, again, this system does it OK - but at a price.
My recommendation, having used and seen may systems, is Sabre. In basic terms, it's an updated version of EDS using a pretty nice GUI and it optimises well. It can use any 424 data you like but will need a team of guys to keep it clean. Of course this depends on your area of coverage/operation.
As far as FW-Z goes, I must admit I have not seen it but I have heard good things from users and administrators - but it does come at a price, much like Lido.
My advice is - if it doesn't feel right when you're getting the sales pitch, it probably isn't!!
Good luck.
Flight Planning Systems
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And last but not least be wary of the teams coming out of Montreal (or Geneva)m coming to visit you in regards to fuel efficiencies, no hidden agendas there.......and we have fairies in our back garden too!
My recommendation, having used and seen may systems, is Sabre.
Mutt
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Intentionally Left Blank
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with Mutt on the SABRE Dispatch Manager comment. I see your boys are looking to throw it out now after a (currently) six month delay in cutover and still unresolved problems and undelivered promises. Let's face it, you get what you pay for! Mind you a decision needs to be made quickly on moving on with it (and implementing in 2011 now!!!!) or going back to JEPP as it will affect any Electronic Flight Bag solution which is supposedly now back on SABRE's radar (finally!), in 'project planning' and due to roll starting after Ramadan.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Europe, mostly
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting post
All,
Nice comments about the FEGA boys from Montreal.
I can say that certainly, f:wz was pitched; but only when asked which system in our expert opinion, after visiting many airlines and working with/evaluating many systems, was the best at producing the most optimized cost solution for a particular flight.
The reason why f:wz stands out is its architecture; it has the performance to produce truly 4D optimized CI managed speed solutions which the legacy systems (like Jeppesen, EDS, Sabre, Lido, Navtech) lack.
Give it a CI value and it will produce the best solution the industry has to offer at this time- change that CI value and re-optimization laterally and vertically will produce a different optimum solution. Set a RETA and the new solution will show a new, optimized CI value to program into the FMS.
And all this dynamically, not based on interpolation of legacy Mach tables values.
The longer-range the operation, the higher the optimization/savings per sector as compared to legacy systems.
These savings can be vastly more than what the systems costs extra compared to others, but only an on-site evaluation can produce any number to take to the bank.
Now, if your operation still relies on fixed Mach flying- don't bother spending money on a top-shelf system, stay with whatever you're using because obviously there is no interest in operational savings.
Honestly, I'm not selling the system, merely pointing out why I like it.
I can recall a DEL-NYC B777 sector where f:wz produced a 45-minute shorter route than the (legacy) in-use system; the old route was via Northern Europe, but f:wz produced one via the Mediterranean. Awsome.
Fuel and operational efficiency goes a lot further than limiting additional fuel or tuning a fuel policy. It's about total cost of the operation and this is where f:wz produces great input for the larger cost picture (delays, etc.).
Do yourself a favor and buy the IATA Fuel Book Ed. 3 from their website.
No, I don't get a commission, but it'll be the best $400 or so that you'll ever spend if your goal is to increase operational efficiency.
It's a good place to start.
Max
Nice comments about the FEGA boys from Montreal.
I can say that certainly, f:wz was pitched; but only when asked which system in our expert opinion, after visiting many airlines and working with/evaluating many systems, was the best at producing the most optimized cost solution for a particular flight.
The reason why f:wz stands out is its architecture; it has the performance to produce truly 4D optimized CI managed speed solutions which the legacy systems (like Jeppesen, EDS, Sabre, Lido, Navtech) lack.
Give it a CI value and it will produce the best solution the industry has to offer at this time- change that CI value and re-optimization laterally and vertically will produce a different optimum solution. Set a RETA and the new solution will show a new, optimized CI value to program into the FMS.
And all this dynamically, not based on interpolation of legacy Mach tables values.
The longer-range the operation, the higher the optimization/savings per sector as compared to legacy systems.
These savings can be vastly more than what the systems costs extra compared to others, but only an on-site evaluation can produce any number to take to the bank.
Now, if your operation still relies on fixed Mach flying- don't bother spending money on a top-shelf system, stay with whatever you're using because obviously there is no interest in operational savings.
Honestly, I'm not selling the system, merely pointing out why I like it.
I can recall a DEL-NYC B777 sector where f:wz produced a 45-minute shorter route than the (legacy) in-use system; the old route was via Northern Europe, but f:wz produced one via the Mediterranean. Awsome.
Fuel and operational efficiency goes a lot further than limiting additional fuel or tuning a fuel policy. It's about total cost of the operation and this is where f:wz produces great input for the larger cost picture (delays, etc.).
Do yourself a favor and buy the IATA Fuel Book Ed. 3 from their website.
No, I don't get a commission, but it'll be the best $400 or so that you'll ever spend if your goal is to increase operational efficiency.
It's a good place to start.
Max
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: GA USA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Bigdaddy says its down to what you want and what you need. The vendors all have plus and minus points. Except for fwz I have used them all (in a non glittering career including the SITA system which BigDaddy left off the list. Again I hear fwz has it pros/cons. 4D seems to be a pro but the cost and support seem to be the downside 
including the SITA system which BigDaddy left off the list. Again I hear fwz has it pros/cons. 4D seems to be a pro but the cost and support seem to be the downside
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Payload:
Great lenghty and detailed post - much appreciated by all for sure.
Just one thing though.....on the side of the FWZ box containing the installation discs does it say anything about a 18 month deployment time, 2 full time database managers required and a customer service team consisting of one (eco friendly) banana? (A German speaking banana at that....).
If not.....feel free to forward to trading standards!
Great lenghty and detailed post - much appreciated by all for sure.
Just one thing though.....on the side of the FWZ box containing the installation discs does it say anything about a 18 month deployment time, 2 full time database managers required and a customer service team consisting of one (eco friendly) banana? (A German speaking banana at that....).
If not.....feel free to forward to trading standards!