Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Fuel prices soaring, how is your airline coping with that?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Fuel prices soaring, how is your airline coping with that?

Old 27th Jun 2008, 09:45
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,569
Received 8 Likes on 2 Posts
Our CI on the minibus has been reduced to pretty much as low as its worth going. Its getting to the point where we will have to accelerate to 250 kts decending below 10!
Right Way Up is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 10:18
  #62 (permalink)  
F14
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fuel price is future price for next month.

Whats more interesting is when are the current fuel Hedge contract due to expire and what happens then???

Also who has money in the bank from the "good times"???
F14 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 14:47
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm lucky in so far as one of my kids has a sonic screwdriver. (Doctor Who).

I take it to work and use it to power the aircraft. I wish I knew what the guys above me on the fuel league are doing!


Really though the fuel costs what it costs. Make the travelling public pay what it costs, market forces will then dictate. Oh and then US will invade the whole of the Middle East under some spurious reason.




Nearly forgot to mention what a prat MOL is!
silverhawk is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 15:28
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thats a bit light,
Long grass and all that!

His latest comments with regards to who might not make it over this current fuel problem is a classic "attack is the best form of defence!".
Deflecting the heat away from the real problem that at the end of the day the Ryans didnt hedge or in MOP terms (bringing myself to his level) , he F88ked up.

I hope no one looses there job but im off for my flack jacket and hard hat which i bought during the fall out the last time!

regards

Keepitlit
keepitlit is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 08:20
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: cheshire
Age: 69
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As an air traffic controller, the evidence of the current fuel price is all too apparent. A recent incident at EGCC blocked one R/W and depleted the fire service. Within 5 minutes, two shuttles ex EGLL and EGKK elected to divert (fire service down time was not specified).
More recently, an IT operator was told to expect a delay at DAYNE, to which the response was " I can only hold for 10 mins", and later stated that his alternate was R/W 23L (declared landing R/W was 23R).
I must say that I wasn't aware that crew could specify their alternate as a different R/W at their intended destination!
My gut feeling is that it will only be a matter of time before there is a major (fuel related) incident as a result of operating practices which have evolved due to higher fuel prices.
skyman01 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 13:20
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,565
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
skyman01

Your 23L/R pilot probably won't have declared the other runway as a formal alternate for planning purposes (although in some circumstance that is allowable..).

In general terms if there is good weather ( actual and forecast) at the Destination and the max ATC delay is known it is permissable (under some rule sets) to use the diversion fuel to continue to hold (Diversion fuel: the fuel required for a go-around at the destination, transit to the alternate and make an approach to land at alternate ) as long as his/her landing at the destination is assured with a minimum of 30 minutes Reserve fuel left in tanks. It's known as "committing". Most operators allow it - and incidentally it's one of the reasons pilots sometimes get a little upset if ATC start rolling/sliding EATs when we are in the hold....

In your case at EGCC if the pilots had committed to EGCC and then you asked for their alternate then it would indeed have been the other runway.

It's not just confined to the IT operators, most, if not all airlines/Authorites allow this, and it has been allowable for years.

Last edited by wiggy; 28th Jun 2008 at 15:47. Reason: To make the post make sense!
wiggy is online now  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 13:42
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 76
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Everyone is complaining about the ever rising price of oil, food and other commodities, so why doesn't someone (i.e. Governments) do something about it?? Because they do not want to.

The current price rise is caused by the futures industry forward buying commodities in US Dollars. The futures industry have no idea of what the (failing) dollar will be worth in 6 or 12 months time when they have to physically pay or be paid for the stuff, so they hare hedging their bets.

Easiest solution is to dump the US dollar as the "international" trading currency and use a more stable currency - such as the Euro.

Saddam Hussein showed how vulnerable the dollar was in 2002 when he started selling oil in Euros, OK it cost him US$ 270 million to make the change, but look what it did to the US economy. They had to invade Iraq in order to stop him and the other oil producers who were considering so doing. OPEC since November 2007 sells oil in a basket of currencies. Iran is selling oil in Euros - and now being threatened. What is going to happen when Russia starts - they have said that they will only trade in Euros - and Russia soon will be the biggest producer of oil in the world.

FACT: Between March 2004 and March 2008 the US Dollar price of oil rose 70%. The EURO price rose from 65 euros to 67 euros - a 2 euro rise which amounted to less than 4%!!!!

Haiti, India and The Phillipines have all had food riots - why??? Because their currencies are pegged to the US Dollar. Saudi Arabia prior to November 2007 was experiencing 14% inflation because the Rial is pegged to the US Dollar.

It doesn't hurt the US much as all they do is cut down some more trees to make paper on which they print the "green backs". The US Dollar is a "fiat" currency - backed by nothing - basically worthless paper (just like the Zimbabwe Dollar) but we are all forced to use the US Dollar.

Scrap using the US Dollar as an "international currency" and prices will fall.
coineach is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 15:48
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Facelookbovvered,

Just out of interest, where do your hedging facts and figures come from?
Tags is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 17:00
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the "reward" for the "contest" winner? What fate awaits the loser? Tea, bring your own biccies?

My company (UK IT) encourages PLOG fuel, but I've never heard of anyone getting a call from the suits to justify any extra.

Edited to add "Screw the fuel contest"...I agree with you Enjoy the view. Some new keen base manager perhaps...he/she won't last long

Last edited by 763 jock; 28th Jun 2008 at 17:14.
763 jock is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 21:16
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We reduced our CI now on 737 classic and NG to 13, which means a 253 kias descent speed and rather low cruise speeds. Had a short sector today with a planned cruise level of 290, the ECON cruise speed was 236 kias in a -700 , guess i need to take more papers up front to help passing the time (and no, we dont get payed for blocktime, we get payed for standard blocktime which didn't increase, so much fun making a loss each sector).
Denti is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 23:59
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jet fuel price monitor
Jet Fuel Price Monitor
fire wall is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 08:02
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually according to JAR OPS you can 'commit' to a single runway airfield.



Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.375

In-flight fuel management

(a) In-flight fuel checks.

(1) A commander must ensure that fuel checks are carried out in flight at regular intervals. The remaining fuel must be recorded and evaluated to:

(i) Compare actual consumption with planned consumption;

(ii) Check that the remaining fuel is sufficient to complete the flight; and

(iii) Determine the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination.

(2) The relevant fuel data must be recorded.

(b) In-flight fuel management.

[(1)] If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination is less than the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, along the diversion route to an alternate aerodrome and at the destination alternate aerodrome, when deciding [whether] to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert, so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel.

The interesting thing is this statement reads along the lines of an en-route check and not along the lines of holding at destination. Of course some would argue that holding at destination is also en route.

Perhaps there is a part of JAR OPS which mentions using alternate fuel in the hold at destination.........?? Anyone know where it is ??

PJ2
puddle-jumper2 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 08:33
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination is less than the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, the commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, along the diversion route to an alternate aerodrome and at the destination alternate aerodrome, when deciding [whether] to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert, so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel.
While the wording is (probably deliberately) 'woolly', I think a sensible interpretation which should not be 'challenged' by an eager lawyer would be:

"an in-flight fuel check" - this is worded to ensure this 'adjustment' can only be made AFTER take-off, thus preventing anyone PLANNING to commit.

"must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome..........................so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel." - to me this means if I am looking at a single runway, with NO other option, I have not fulfilled the intent of the wording since blockage of that runway could lead to 'less than final reserve fuel'. The only way to avoid that would be to declare an emergency and have the runway 'open' for you alone.

I know the argument that the div runway could block, but now we are getting to 'double problems' which aviation traditionally does not cater for.

"to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert," to me means I have to make the decision BEFORE I arrive at CMR at destination and if I judge it not sensible to 'commit' I should initiate a div. IE Not, "Oh dear, I seem to have found myself at Glasgow without Edinburgh fuel, and I've just gone past Edinburgh" (PS it's been showing on the PLOG/FMC for an hour or more). This means if you decide to press on to a single runway KNOWING you will not have adequate div fuel on arrival, you are taking a big risk with your career. In my time I have twice had to g/a and divert from short finals due to runway aborts ahead at single runway airfields.
Flagon is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 09:18
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flagon,

Totally Agreed, particularly the last paragraph. Your applying common sense and experience to the situation, which is what's needed.

The issue though is JAR OPS does allow you to 'soldier on' to destination knowing you will arrive with FFR......as long as you have done all the checks it recommends you are legally allowed to do it.

I would liked to have seen the same common sense applied to JAR OPS...... instead of what we have at the moment.
puddle-jumper2 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 09:26
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your applying common sense and experience to the situation,
- blimey - let's hope Dogma doesn't read that.

The point of my post was that by being 'woolly' it allows the commander to do just that, in other words empowers him/her to take that 'risk' should it be 'necessary'. 99 times out of 100 it all works out well and we all go home thinking what smart bunnies we've been, 'getting away' with squeaking in below CMR, but when it goes wrong, JAROPS is there to beat you with.
Flagon is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 09:32
  #76 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a thought

If MOL didn't hedge his fuel costs he must have cost Ryanair a fortune this year.
Has be blow-jobbed his bonus?
sky9 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 09:32
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FRying
Does anybody have a clue as to how much one ton of kerosene is worth nowadays ????? Or 100 liters ?
Originally Posted by firewall
Regional prices and history can be seen here.
BillS is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 10:23
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flagon,

That's where I'll have to disagree with you.

I don't think it should be 'woolly' at all.
I think like most things in aviation it should be clear cut and set in stone. It should represent a minimum safety requirement and not rely on the commander's experience as a last safety net.

Otherwise there's no point in having regulations........."through away the MEL....I know best"
puddle-jumper2 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 10:53
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PJ- don't get me wrong - I agree with you 100%. I was merely trying to explain why I thought it was worded that way. My 'operating logic' is visible in my first post. Don't forget how many 'vested interests' there are in any joint policy document and how difficult it is to get a meaningful result. Just look at the weasel-wording/statements on Zimbabwe over the years, especially from South Africa. (Apologies for thread drift!!!). Look also at how many other 'vague' rules etc there are in a Captain's life and how the Albatross always comes to sit on his/her shoulders.

I still think the INTENT in the wording is clear.
Flagon is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2008, 11:00
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wooly or "Open to Interpretation"

PJ2

You will find that the regulations are constructed in such a way that compliance may be achieved in many ways subject to how an individual, or company, or authority chooses to interpret the legislation.
The Real Slim Shady is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.