Fuel prices soaring, how is your airline coping with that?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost index is by no means straight-forwards. If you do your servicing on flying hours then flying more slowly will bring forward the next major check and costs. If your crew can only fly 900 hours a year and they are near that then every percent reduction in speed increases your pilot costs proportionately.
If you're a shorthaul LoCo operator then you may be getting 12 sectors a day per aircraft. Reduce speed and you may only get 11 and an expensive nightstop, or 10 per aircraft and need more aircraft to fly the programme. Paying your cabin crew an allowance of £x per flying hour? well that has just gone up as well. Does your first flight leave at the same time as your competitors but get in 10 minutes later? Which one will the businessman book to get to his meeting.
On the 737 we were regularly refused higher levels because we could not keep up with the 744's who we already up there increasing costs. It's very easy to have one man looking at fuel in isolation and making bad decisions by losing the overall picture.
If you're a shorthaul LoCo operator then you may be getting 12 sectors a day per aircraft. Reduce speed and you may only get 11 and an expensive nightstop, or 10 per aircraft and need more aircraft to fly the programme. Paying your cabin crew an allowance of £x per flying hour? well that has just gone up as well. Does your first flight leave at the same time as your competitors but get in 10 minutes later? Which one will the businessman book to get to his meeting.
On the 737 we were regularly refused higher levels because we could not keep up with the 744's who we already up there increasing costs. It's very easy to have one man looking at fuel in isolation and making bad decisions by losing the overall picture.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can count on Gordon Brown not doing anything to help the industries or the people of this country!!! He is far to busy on thinking up new ways to stealth tax us and U.K. industries.
If something is not done soon there will be no more industry in the U.K., people are struggling to live and soon they will not even be able to afford to travel to work.
With Gordon Brown and the Goverment doing everything they can to RAISE taxes I can only see one outcome for the U.K.
Only a few will survive if this continues
If something is not done soon there will be no more industry in the U.K., people are struggling to live and soon they will not even be able to afford to travel to work.
With Gordon Brown and the Goverment doing everything they can to RAISE taxes I can only see one outcome for the U.K.
Only a few will survive if this continues
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact of the matter is :
The Worldwide Credit Crunch is no longer the driving factor behind the world's economic issues, but the price of oil is.
The price of oil started creeping up as the value of the US dollar started decreasing. It is a standard hedging practice. What has happened since then is not so standard. Oil is up over 50% in a year and cannot keep rising forever.
Even if there is a lack of development funding for new wells and drilling from OPEC members, that will not matter.
If Oil remains on an upward curve, the WHOLE WORLD economy will suffer and the inevitable collapse in Oil price as consumption collapses will be dramatic and painful.
The only thing that may happen is that the weak airlines go bust as oil rises and the strong reap the benefits in the aftermath.
The world needs air transport. It is not going to stop, but it does need a shake out of weak players.
And perhaps the City and Wall Street boys are going to need to get used to having a very weak US Dollar and falling oil prices at the same time. The Hedge is about to be broken in my view.
The Worldwide Credit Crunch is no longer the driving factor behind the world's economic issues, but the price of oil is.
The price of oil started creeping up as the value of the US dollar started decreasing. It is a standard hedging practice. What has happened since then is not so standard. Oil is up over 50% in a year and cannot keep rising forever.
Even if there is a lack of development funding for new wells and drilling from OPEC members, that will not matter.
If Oil remains on an upward curve, the WHOLE WORLD economy will suffer and the inevitable collapse in Oil price as consumption collapses will be dramatic and painful.
The only thing that may happen is that the weak airlines go bust as oil rises and the strong reap the benefits in the aftermath.
The world needs air transport. It is not going to stop, but it does need a shake out of weak players.
And perhaps the City and Wall Street boys are going to need to get used to having a very weak US Dollar and falling oil prices at the same time. The Hedge is about to be broken in my view.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Here's an idea out of left field.
Why don't airlines invest in their own coal liquefaction plants?
http://www.engr.pitt.edu/pcc/Missing%20Papers/243.pdf
A one billion dollar plant would amortise its cost in a few years at current prices. You make the plant big enough to supply more than your needs, and you sell the excess to other airlines, which then pays for your return fuel from other countries back to home base.
Current costs of the process are about 35USD per barrel of oil.
Supplies of coal will last for hundreds of years. Or is there something I have missed?
Why don't airlines invest in their own coal liquefaction plants?
http://www.engr.pitt.edu/pcc/Missing%20Papers/243.pdf
A one billion dollar plant would amortise its cost in a few years at current prices. You make the plant big enough to supply more than your needs, and you sell the excess to other airlines, which then pays for your return fuel from other countries back to home base.
Current costs of the process are about 35USD per barrel of oil.
Supplies of coal will last for hundreds of years. Or is there something I have missed?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Camel jockey
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only problem capt kremin is that the oil companies would squash them like a bug, theres more to it than just digging the stuff up and refining it, theres distribution, storage and then deliverary to the ramp.... now all the oil companies have that all in place, to set it up would be a hugh investment only to have say the tanker drivers say no we will not drive your trucks because our union that has all the shell or bp etc contracts said no.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OVER THE RAINBOW
Age: 74
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Kremin, we already uplifting fuel from coal in Joburg but guess what.....same price as normal crude as they market link the price (so if airlines where smart, they would make more money from selling the product of the coal/gas process but not to themselves as airlines but into the marketplace.... profit margins airlines as a % even in good years are pitiful)
............................................................ ...................................
Sasol says its synthetic fuel approved for jet use
Wed Apr 9, 2008 4:32pm BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
JOHANNESBURG, April 9 (Reuters) - South Africa's Sasol (SOLJ.J: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's biggest maker of fuel from coal, said on Wednesday its synthetic jet fuel has been approved for use in commercial airliners.
"Sanctioned by global aviation fuel specification authorities Sasol CTL will be the first fully synthetic fuel to be approved for use in commercial airliners," Sasol said in a statement.
It said emissions from engines burning Sasol's jet fuel are lower than those from jet fuel produced from crude oil.
The approval covers jet fuel produced at Sasol's Synfuels facility at its plant in Secunda in South Africa.
The company said it would also submit jet fuel products produced at its Oryx plant in Qatar, a joint venture gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Nigeria and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) ventures in the United States, China and India.
"Research is also underway to find an effective process to produce synthetic fuel from biomass to further improve environmental sustainability," Sasol said.
Shares in Sasol closed 0.6 percent lower at 409.25 rand on Wednesday. (Reporting by Marius Bosch)
............................................................ ...................................
Sasol says its synthetic fuel approved for jet use
Wed Apr 9, 2008 4:32pm BST Email | Print | Share| Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
JOHANNESBURG, April 9 (Reuters) - South Africa's Sasol (SOLJ.J: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's biggest maker of fuel from coal, said on Wednesday its synthetic jet fuel has been approved for use in commercial airliners.
"Sanctioned by global aviation fuel specification authorities Sasol CTL will be the first fully synthetic fuel to be approved for use in commercial airliners," Sasol said in a statement.
It said emissions from engines burning Sasol's jet fuel are lower than those from jet fuel produced from crude oil.
The approval covers jet fuel produced at Sasol's Synfuels facility at its plant in Secunda in South Africa.
The company said it would also submit jet fuel products produced at its Oryx plant in Qatar, a joint venture gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Nigeria and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) ventures in the United States, China and India.
"Research is also underway to find an effective process to produce synthetic fuel from biomass to further improve environmental sustainability," Sasol said.
Shares in Sasol closed 0.6 percent lower at 409.25 rand on Wednesday. (Reporting by Marius Bosch)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CV
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision on how much fuel a PIC takes is insignificant as long as it is within reason.
Some pilots do use more fuel than others on a consistent basis and that is what the pilot community needs to look into before the bean counters come in with dipsticks.
Some pilots do use more fuel than others on a consistent basis and that is what the pilot community needs to look into before the bean counters come in with dipsticks.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
One of the Best articles I've seen written
One of the best Articles I've seen written on this manufactured state of affairs
Read and digest all ye faithful
Read and digest all ye faithful
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re #92
Ah! An enlightened one on PPRunNe. It's all an illusion created by a few.
Another good site: WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM
Another good site: WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gods Chosen Country
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair fuel cost saving
Ryanair are attempting a novel way to save during diversions. Claim the cost of the diversion from the destination airport. Weather is supposed to be better organised apparently. Oh and make them pay for the PAX costs too.
How long before they are holding a gun to the PAX heads onboard and a hat in the other hand !
How long before they are holding a gun to the PAX heads onboard and a hat in the other hand !
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere on a dodgy name badge
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claim the cost of the diversion from the destination airport.
I insisted on the same when negotiating with a new airport who wanted us to operate to / from there rather than a major 40 miles away.
"Us" incidentally isn't Ryanair.
If the wx is good and it has 2 independant runways then no alt is required.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the regulations the payload/range bit doesn't apply..........some companies do add the proviso to their own regs though.
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless: OPS 1.295
Selection of aerodromes
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours, and
(ii) Two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and useable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height +500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km;
(ii) Two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and useable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height +500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km;
