|
Wingman,
Your productivity is based on actual block, not flight time. Going faster does not reduce your productivity payment. For them to squeeze another flight into your roster you still get productivity if the total block time crosses the threshold. For us its an increase of 6 to 12 kts of TAS, changing from .84/.85 to .86. So best case, on a 7 hour trip you save 10min. But only if you weren't slowed down somewhere. So if you are restricted by the 900hr/365 or 100hrs/ 28days, 18 sectors would be needed to squeeze a KWI in. Hmmmm, maybe an old 330 roster, but they were not timing out were they? If people are stupid enough to work on a day off a high cost index will not stop them. |
Costs
Whatever is driving this, and I strongly suspect the GCAA/WSJ article, it can't be crew hours. That might be a nice side benefit but no way is it the driving force. The time savings is just too small relative to the cost. I'lll take a guess that the average savings across all the sectors is around 10 minutes each. Those 10 minutes are costing hundreds of thousands of $$ every day. That's a bloody expensive KWI return every 5 months or so. These guys love money too much to waste it that way. No, a well connected official was named and shamed in the most widely read business publication on the planet. Not to mention the beloved 'Brand'. Band Aid is now applied until they can find something else. Hope it's not a tourniquet.
|
Very medical analogies, TT!
|
It is most likely a response to the WSJ article.
To increase the CI for specific flights (particularly the ones that are duty limit challenged) would an admission of guilt. A blanket CI increase would be the perfect balance of not admitting guilt and saving face. |
On my last flight we saved 10 minutes of "face" and burned 3700 kg of fuel to do so.
It's painful. |
Dont you guys think anyway that it is ridiculuos not to comunicate to your beloved pilots, WHY all of a sudden we fly faster and what the reason is? Like in the army, you dont have to know why,execute your orders.
|
Totally agree. They should have communicated why. But they are muppets. No one has turned up to to last few post recurrent wash ups lately too. Also not communicated. Just left the dudes waiting.
|
Dropp, burning an extra 3500kgs and then single engine taxiing. :ugh:
The whole situation seems totally disjointed and disorganised. |
No one has turned up to to last few post recurrent wash ups lately too. Also not communicated. Everyone's a winner. No one wants to listen to it anyway. :ok: |
Any explanations on the real reason for CI400?
Fuel price is on the up again, and CI400 is costing ~1% per flight. |
Its already been said.. But.. First hand straight from the dispatchers mouth:
They got an email from STC that it will be so. On time performance was the reason. They spend so much time juggling every cost of the flight then this. They also think its crazy. |
Quoting Boeing Aero:
the numerator of the ci is often called time-related direct operating cost (minus the cost of fuel). items such as flight crew wages can have an hourly cost associated with them, or they may be a fixed cost and have no variation with flying time. engines, aux- iliary power units, and airplanes can be leased by the hour or owned, and maintenance costs can be accounted for on airplanes by the hour, by the calen- dar, or by cycles. as a result, each of these items may have a direct hourly cost or a fixed cost over a calen- dar period with limited or no correlation to flying time. in the case of high direct time costs, the airline may choose to use a larger ci to minimize time and thus cost. in the case where most costs are fixed, the ci is potentially very low because the airline is primarily trying to minimize fuel cost. pilots can easily understand minimizing fuel consumption, but it is more difficult to understand minimizing cost when something other than fuel dominates. |
Although the schedules are padded to account for DXB ground delays, there is only so much they can pad.
It is a fact that EK's direct operating costs are below those of the European/American legacy carriers. I think that ultimately this was done to protect hub connections. EK's bread and butter is the transfer of pax and cargo, and protecting that transfer is essential to the bottom line. Hence the recent and significantly cheaper cost of fuel allows them to fly faster albeit burning slightly more, to ultimately improve OTP and reduced missed connections, without increasing the fuel bill (if the price stays under $80). And the added benefit of squeezing a few more flights out of the same crew. |
Had a cost index of 15 today.
|
Originally Posted by haveago
(Post 8972141)
Had a cost index of 15 today.
Which flight? |
Was a 330 flight to one of our glamourous destinations. There is new company notam out that basically says fly at filed speeds even if arriving early, but if late we can use unto cost index 400 to minimize arrival delay.
|
Yep.. looks like it's another thing that was here one day, gone the next.
back to normal CI's… K |
So now you have had, protect the hub, RTA, slow down, don't depart early, speed up, slow down again. Did I miss anything?
|
It is pretty clear now that the whole point of CI400 was to encourage delayed flights to make up some time en-route.
The sensible NOTAM would have read "....when operationally necessary use of up to CI400 is encouraged/permissible" :ok: instead they decided to go with "Every flight will no be planned at CI400" No explanation, nothing. :confused::confused::confused: Of course very high CI's are normal day to day ops at many other major carriers. To make up delays, protect connections, curfew arrivals etc. EK just chose to implement this in the least transparent and logical manner. |
Yep...81,000 dits ...& the chapter about moving on.
:0 f. Ps Sorry SOPS ..couldn't resist ; > |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.