EK Single Engine Taxi Out
 

Ok Guys and Girls, let's see what the general consensus is on the single engine taxi out in DXB. At my last airline, which worked WITH the pilots, cabin crew, maintenance, flt. ops, dispatch, scheduling etc...it was a pleasure to assist in all possible ways.ie..single engine taxi out and in !!...However, I'm intrigued to know what the mindset is regarding "helping" MORE..with all of the current "liberations" of our T+C.
I know where I stand.

The appropriate response should be to taxi in and out using excess thrust whilst riding the brakes.

Just my two cents, that's all i've got left these days.

Good grief, if EK is so bad get a life; join another airline at the bottom of the seniority list and get furloughed or fired. The world is economically screwed...hello.

I will do it as much as possible!!
I want that letter telling me I belong to the 5% top-shots who do it most!! Just as the buddy who got such a letter for beeing part of the 5% elite who take the least additional fuel. Congratulations mate!!

On a more serious note:
I am not kidding, they actually send out childish stuff like that. Just how professional does that look .....

Concerning EO taxi:
Just as idle reverse, it might make sense in a few cases, but never enough to make any serious impact on fuel saving.
But let's leave the retarded continue ponder on it with FCNs, FCIs etc., at least they're not doing any more detrimental feeble-minded stuff.

Mr. Schnowzer you are exhibiting the symptoms of being a fully-programmed EK robot. An auto-pilot just how they want you. Present yourself for electro-shock therapy or alternatively a month in the civilised world and see how you feel then.

I got the impression that the idea was to do more single engine taxi into the bay, rather that out for departure.

If it is the former, thank goodness those stupid restrictions are gone, the last thing I want to think about after another through the night drudge is whether I can shut down one if I get this bay, but not if allocated another one!

Of course, if this is towards getting us to taxi to the runway on one, then I'd like to see the non-rated, non-flying "Captains" show us how to taxi a full -300ER on one without burning more fuel than running both!

From the FCI: "Taxiway's"

No one else heard of pay back tuesdays?:E

Don

On a full-ish -300, it would seem a very good way to induce a rather large fuel imbalance before takeoff, 'cos you're going to be running that operating engine at some VERY high revs to keep that baby moving.

It would also make for some 'interesting' turns into the operating engine, especially at places like JFK, one of the worst offending airfields in the EK network for long pre-departure taxi times. (Seriously, is there anyone out there who's so 'company minded' that he'd actually try taxiing out at JFK one one engine? If there is, all I can say is - Yikes!!)

Stand by for the reports of baggage containers and ground staff sent flying all over the airfield by jet blast.

I seem to recall some US airlines trying this procedure on their 3 holers back in the first 'fuel crisis' in the 70s - until someone (inevitably) forgot to light up the third engine before attempting to takeoff.

The new FCI has nothing to do with taxing OUT on one...it's only the taxi inbound. Read it again.

Maybe I'm misreading it but the FCI only refers to engine out taxi (which is what those upstairs want to us to achieve) and not single engine taxi out - there is a difference.

:confused:

Pprune is a host to many valid complaints and expressions of malcontent, providing a forum that may not otherwise be available to share indignation at poorly conceived policy. This FCI is not one of them. Sheiken Around, you need to stand nude in the room of mirrors and take a long hard look at yourself, then deliver yourself a right upper-cut for making us all look bad.

max AB

I totally agree, now we know why the FCI about behaviour needed to be sent.

CAVnotOK needs to give himself a good talking to as well.

Muppets.........

My friend James Lovegrove a Cathay B707 Captain was doing his line check.
As he turned off the runway he was told by the Check Captain to shut down a couple of engines and taxi in on the remaining two.
James was not keen to do this but was told..This is what the new fleet notice will say and if you do not do it you will fail your line check.
It was around midnight and a very dark night and it was also raining heavily.
ATC called asking them to hold clear of a taxi way to allow another aircraft to pass and as the aircraft came to a stop the two engines ran down.
The cabin crew feeling the brakes go on and the engines wind down opened the doors and quite a few Chinese passengers in a tare arse hurry took a ten foot plus header onto the tarmac a goodly distance from the terminal.
James asked the check Captain what the new fleet notice said he should now do about this.

Do about what?

A collegue who is flying the A380 told me (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that there has been an edict from on high that the Sydney direct flight must depart at the scheduled time of departure.
To accomodate this, the aircraft is being dispatched with an inefficently low cost index so the aircraft burns more fuel. On top of this the aircraft is still arriving into SYD around 45 minutes to an hour earlier than end of curfew and so holding fuel (8000 - 9000kgs) has to be loaded, with the intent of burning it, just so Emirates can claim an on time departure.
Makes the savings from single engine taxi seem pretty pathetic if this is true!!
Makes Emirates and Airbus claim that the A380 is a "environmentally green, planet saving machine" a bit more nonsense as well!!

To make this clear to those who need glasses. This FCI is NOT about taxying for departure, it is clearly reference taxi TO the gate in DXB, at previously prohibited gates. Not about anywhere else, nothing about taxying for departure....

Right got that sorted :ugh:

EGGW

Kiwi,

You must get your facts straight :}, had a look at a few past flightplans in passing, and the figure is 7-8000kgs..Not your wildly exaggerated 8-9000kgs.


Kind of puts all our cost saving into the big picture.

In my last place of employment we used to push and hold so as to register an on-time departure, but stay on the ground till departure time, slot etc

"Colleagues-
Currently we are delaying the departure time from Dubai to Sydney to avoid arriving at Sydney
before the airport opening time ( SYD curfew ends at 20:00 GMT). This practice has been causing a
great deal of disruption to our operations.
For this reason it has been decided that the Sydney flight will depart from Dubai at the published
STD.
You will also be provided with an extra thirty minutes holding fuel plus an extra 1% of the trip fuel.."

kiwi A380
 

Kiwi, if your friend is really flying the 380, he should step down and have himself examined. Here come some facts and then you can skewer me:

The 380 flies at .85 which is a bit faster than the 345 that went to SYD before. The result is that IF it departs at STD, the ETA at SYD would be a bit before curfew.

Now, some very bright people made an analysis over the last couple of months and came up with this: If the 380 arrives about 15 minutes prior to curfew, it spends less time in the hold (1st one in, once the drome opens) as if it arrives on the dot (some guys already circling). Hence, considering our usual on-time departure performance the CI is not touched. Other than that: A lower CI on an Eastbound sector will not burn more fuel. The mission cost may go up, because aircraft time cost over compensate the savings of fuel NOT burned - but you will always have more endurance.

Okay - hit me with your best hearsay and what a friend of a friend's parrot knows for sure, but you won't change the laws of physics.