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

Ryanair Very Low Fuel Landing

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

Ryanair Very Low Fuel Landing

Old 4th Jun 2008, 17:13
  #61 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cotswolds, Glos.
Age: 41
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That $195/sector cost translates into around $7m/year. Cut that wastage out and save a fortune. Moreover, it nicely illustrates the essential nature of doing everything possible to really reduce fuel consumption and to thus reduce your fuel cost – not just when fuel’s bloody expensive, but at all times. If you seek to maximise operational efficiency – which is evidently a fundamental requirement – actively tackling your fuel comsumption and thus fuel cost must obviously always be of major importance.

While we’re on the topic of cost reduction, perhaps FR pilots will receive a pay cut ( ): with the present state of the industry, the demand for pilots will reduce with every capacity reduction so FR will be in a stronger negotiation
position. Not that FR pilots, particularly captains and training captains, earn much ( ): http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/about.php?page=Jobs&sec=careers&ref=app_benefits

Last edited by JulietNovemberPapa; 4th Jun 2008 at 17:52.
JulietNovemberPapa is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 18:16
  #62 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JNP, are you saying that £100.000 pa is 'not much'?
Refer to the 'What do you earn' thread and you will see that FR pilots earn a pretty good wedge.
What is your point?
rubik101 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 18:17
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cotswolds, Glos.
Age: 41
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JNP, are you saying that £100.000 pa is 'not much'?
Sarcasm, dear Watson, sarcasm.
JulietNovemberPapa is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 19:22
  #64 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's one big but to all this propaganda from the posters above, this should not be seen as a positive fuelsaving measure by Ryanair in any circumstance....Because: WE'RE NOT SAVING FUEL, WE'RE SAVING MONEY.

Example: Plog fuel 8357. Max allowable by FR SOP would normally be 8600. (Max 300 on top CP discretion) Every other sector is Tanker, so you take what you can up to 69.9.. lets say round trip: 15.0t. 2.5 hrs flight. Because of that you will burn 450 kgs extra just to save MONEY. NOT FUEL.

My point is... If we were allowed, yes ALLOWED, to carry a normal figure to land with say 3.0t both legs...THEN we would save fuel. (I do agree that many flights land with around that figure, but alot of them end up very close to 2.3t diversion fuel, especially after they've started tweaking the plogs!!)

To the guys talking frisky about landing with 1.8t...what the F are you talking about. You burn at least 600kgs on 1 approach + alt fuel is based on a straight line at opt level....come on grow up...some day you'll flame out on short final. 3.0t will keep you out of trouble.

Also, said Base Captain will send us a letter if we carry 5kgs on top of the max 300 allowable. Don't believe it? Trust me....
Company pressure...NaaaAAaahhh.
RYR-738-JOCKEY is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 20:27
  #65 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
And with the greatest of respect...........

The day someone does cut it too fine, all those little $195 per sector savings you primly mention will not be enough to cover the final bill.

Take a bit extra for Mum.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 20:59
  #66 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To the thread starter - wtf? Who are you, the pilot police? Get a life! Is this how you spend your time, preying on professional pilots hoping to screw them in public? I am far from being a fan of Ryanair, but for ******* sake, what's your problem? Why did you start this post? What did you hope to achieve?
Smudger is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 22:03
  #67 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 116 Likes on 57 Posts
If you think taking a little of bit extra fuel is expensive, try taking not quite enough. that gets real expensive real quick.
BANANASBANANAS is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 22:52
  #68 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At last! Some dissenters to the lemmings skirting the cliffs!

Well gents, personally I think the original poster did us all a favour.

Recent company much excepted, I would very much like to know what exactly makes some of you captains think you are qualified to cut these figures to the bone and ensure an acceptable safety regime at the same time? In a world of constantly changing variables in your environment, you are taking an awful lot for granted.

I passed the same double-digit number of JAA ATPL Theory exams that I assume you did, in the same surprisingly short 6 months from start to finish with or without much revision being necessary to get 75% in the multiple guess, and I don't recall there being anything in the process of obtaining the passes that would remotely qualify me to make decisions to cut fuel load as fine as some of you guys say you routinely do.

And you didn't get really get schooled and tested on these fine niceties of fuel management before you got your CPL/IR either, now did you?

So it must be something you got schooled and tested in and become absolute experts in later on, ... so that would be when you did your type rating course??

No? Too busy learning other important stuff? Or maybe yes, partially?

Oh so what we are really talking about is all that right hand seat experience under various LHS mentors, plus all that line training and sim stuff, not forgetting company SOPs that you learned from ? And how to keep the employer happy and yourself challenged and meaningfully engaged? The been there done that kind of stuff?

Real Slim, I still think I'd trust you to be spot on your numbers, because your declared MO means you recall them to your immediate grasp far more easily than most, but really, I do think it does no good here to suggest all pilots are as on the ball as you might be with these profit-critical parts of the latest guises of the job.

I have seen enough stupid mistakes littering these pages recently, and been personally subjected to rushed departures, without having to imagine you all thinking twice about fuel and then thinking twice again for MOL about how to manage to leave maximum air in your tanks by the time you've taxied in on one engine on the return sector.

Over the years, this question has arisen time and time again on PPRuNe. The answer is still the same. It has nothing to do with being green or saving fuel to do your job right. You fly jets for crying out loud. You certainly ain't ever going to come close to being greener than anyone other than Lewis Hamilton on a good day , and he actually only burns a few hundred kilos a couple of afternoons a fortnight during the summer, not double digit tonnes up the spouts, morning noon and night, nor does he do his bit of early morning overcast seeding like you so obviously do.

So, as for he rest of you, I don't care what you think your job is in relation to this thread, but it certainly is not clever to set out to save such miserly amounts of fuel by cutting the fuel loads down to limits of a hundreds of kilos when your powered flying machine weighs fifty to a hundred times more and can burn the lot very fast if you have to go around, hang around and then divert because your runway just got blocked 30 seconds before you expected to feel good about a perfectly managed return sector, particularly if there another twenty of your homebound colleagues all needing to divert in the same half hour. Yes, I am sure your ATC colleagues would help you all out of such a bind, but a lot of adrenalin would get released to manage it, wouldn't it?

Leave the latest profit maximising ideas to your accountants, let them put the prices up a bit. Meanwhile get yourselves a proper union membership instead of shouting the odds here like competing mercenary special forces, and pass all company memos suggesting you tighten up on your fuel consumption through a strong union and send copies to CHIRP as a matter of routine. Oh, ... I suppose you can't be doing any of that? ... goes against a certain grain ?

Well whatever you decide is right, please don't come here and call people like me who pay your wages morons and bashers. We have partially schooled brains too.
slip and turn is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 00:13
  #69 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Fuel in the bowser is like tits on a nun!

(Or runway behind you.)

Anyone else ...
TOPBUNKER is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 01:06
  #70 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Age: 47
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What did all this start from? read the first page and cant see where the low fuel info came from? was it just started up to have another Ryanair bashing thread?

I am F/O with FR, only got just under 200sectors at the moment, but in not one have I been even close to what I would call low fuel and never had a captain say we better not take too much in case I get in trouble, 40% of the flights we have tankered enough fuel for round trip and the others always landed with alt and final reserve plus about 20-40mins extra fuel, that really is a lot of time to find a decent runway what with us been cat3 and all.

I think your all talking crap personally, I would not take off if I was in doubt, dont need the money that bad.
virginpilot1087 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 01:16
  #71 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, But your'e just the 'driver' at the end of the day, And we comply with orders.

I have always been 'open minded' about FR.

But just recently all these stories are all coming out in the wash.

If FR want to carry min fuel that is their choice, But it may backfire on
them one day??

I don't think FR is the only operator sailing a tight ship??
BYALPHAINDIA is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 05:43
  #72 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,567
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
So who on this thread actually knows that he took min fuel?

He could have taken an extra tonne for all you know.
Right Way Up is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 06:47
  #73 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"TOPBUNKER Fuel in the bowser is like tits on a nun!"

on a lighter note....eh topbunker surely you meant t"ts on a bull? as least t"ts on a nun can be useful if your that way inclined!!!
Bearcat is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 09:12
  #74 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Folks... with the fantasy load sheets that are prepared based average assumed weights, an extra 100 or 200 kilos ain't gonna make a difference in burn on short round trip sectors. Fuel has to be pumped into the tanks sooner or later. It’s not as if it’s going to be wasted. The Fuel burn and savings is going to be the same whether you take min fuel or extra an extra 200 kilos.

A message to the Bean Counters “Create other ways to save money that do not hinder with the safety of operation!”

Message to the so called company people “Put down the Kool-aide and take the fuel you need to keep it a safe operation!”
captjns is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 09:36
  #75 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
an extra 100 or 200 kilos ain't gonna make a difference in burn on short round trip sectors. Fuel has to be pumped into the tanks sooner or later. It’s not as if it’s going to be wasted. The Fuel burn and savings is going to be the same whether you take min fuel or extra an extra 200 kilos.
Unfortunately that is simply not true, the latest figures our airline pushed out are that a 100kg of extra fuel carried on every flight costs us $390,000 a year. There are now literally millions of dollars a year to be saved in a big airline by reducing the fuel carried on every sector and it's little surprise that pilots are being pressured, directly or rather more subtly, to carry less excess fuel. As one of our Chief Pilot put it, "for all airlines, the days of carrying extra fuel because it makes us feel comfortable are over". I have to say I agree completely with that statement, if you have a decent flight planning system then sector fuel is going to be enough for most flights on most days.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 09:46
  #76 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Topslide has, again, hit the point.

We have a normal PLOG minimum fuel, D+E or CMR, of 2100kgs (the absolute minimum permitted is 2000kgs) even if the alternate is the parallel runway 2 miles away ( AMS ). The minimum fuel the computer will program for an alternate is 1100kgs: that's enough for an alternate 100nms away.

So we have at least 500kgs fat in that figure straight away plus we have 5% contingency, at least another 200kgs, hence at GS we will have at least 2800kgs without taking any extra on top of PLOG, hardly "cutting it to the bone" or " being close to the edge"!!

Some of the comments border on tabloid journalism at it's finest.
The Real Slim Shady is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 09:47
  #77 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Topslide6, in my mind, ever since you so roundly couldn't deal with my earlier withdrawn posts which I freely admit risked shifting the thread too far too soon, I'm afraid you've had me seriously questioning your provenance, old chap. I am glad you aren't here representing Ryanair.

Taking the below quoted paragraph as an example, it leaves me with the impression its from someone who won't make eye contact while they are communicating.

To the people getting their knickers in a twist, no one is suggesting you take minimum fuel everywhere everyday. I've made that point three or four times already. The point is, that on a cavok day, there is no point WHATSOEVER in putting extra fuel on board for the sake of it, or as the chap with the PPL said, 'a bit for mum'. It's not about being unsafe or standing on the edge of a cliff. It is about making sensible commercial but uncompromisingly safe decisions.
By the way, have never seen lemmings just standing on the edge of a cliff. There's usually a headlong rush involved. I say again, leave the profit-critical decisions to the accountants. Concentrate by all means on uncompromisingly safe decisions. You can't sensibly put commercial and uncompromisingly safe in the same sentence and expect to reap any dividend unless you are one.

As captjns implies, you can't even be sure what fuel you'll actually be burning until you are established in the climb and can monitor it and learn how largely or marginally fictitious your load sheet was ... CAVOK or not (whatever that has to do with it other than making you 'feel good' enough to wear your RayBans non-stop).

Real Slim, you are here to tell it how it is from your seat. That's good and doubly reassuring because you fly for the airline headlined. I don't find it reassuring however that you couple your view so easily with Topslide's. Let him paddle his own canoe. Let's see where he takes us next.
slip and turn is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 10:20
  #78 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most flight planning systems don’t take airport environments such as congestion, expected runway for departure, CTOTs, unexpected weather, or other for fortuitous events when one shows up to the desk to pick up their paperwork. Manual adjustments on the EXTRA line, which are stabs in the dark at best, are required. One airport that comes to mind is LEPA. You can be number 14 for takeoff and if min fuel were taken you have just burnt your taxi and a good portion of your contingency fuel. There are other vacation destinations that have the same problem as well as arrival delays that are not factored into the flight plan.

A number of carriers use flight planning systems that run all of flight plans early in the morning at about 05:30(Z) the day of the flight(s) without updates.

Flights occurring 12 hours after the run usually results in forecast winds, temperatures, and weather different to which was used to run the flight plans earlier in the day. Some systems may be sophisticated to alert the crew that weather data used is outdated, if the flight is plan is greater than 6 hours old. I guess you can call ops and ask them to run you a current flight plan… good luck with that.

The load sheets of today are SWAGs at best. Estimated TOW is better than using the term SWAG on the flight plan. During cruise on full flights returning from vacation spots with 185 adults, and carry-ons, along with 220 bags in the holds, take out your performance manuals and work your way back to calculate your actual weight is versus the flight plan weight. I am always very happy to assume an almost MZFW versus flight plan weight. 2 tons can make a difference of 2,000 in cruise altitude resulting in extra fuel burn too.

Again, no airline is unique to this problem. There are times you just have to look beyond the flight plan and rely on experience and common sense.
captjns is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 10:25
  #79 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grrrr
Age: 17
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm with Studi on this one. Too many in here listen to the beancounter rubbish. The fuel saving amount in a year may seem like a lot of money to some as they compare it to their private economy and think wow However, in relation to turn over it is a pittance. Safe operation is the priority, NOT to help some useless manager get his fuel bonus.
ReallyAnnoyed is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 10:27
  #80 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
slip & turn

Part of the problem here is that modern PLOG systems are very good at forcasting the fuel burn and in some cases are within 20-30kg of what happens, what most seem to over look is that the D+E/CMR (final res +alt) is in many case the very worst case you'll see as more often than not you will use less than planned fuel (ATC are much more focused on giving you direct to these days) and as was said eailer you'll have the contingency fuel on top.

Also most systems that generate plogs use the longest SID/STAR couple and dont take the weight of children (35kg) into account only adults (70/88) so the EZFW will often be at least 1000kg higher on a typical med run than the actual ZFW which will reduce burn.

I will go further: there is so much fat built into these systems that if min plog fuel 9007kg and its a nice day(wx,timeof day, route,airport)i am more than happy to take 9000kg (by reducing taxi burn) after all in the case of the classic how are you going to put 7kg in the centre tank? then how are you going to use it?

Over the last 8 years i have only ever ended up with less than CMR/D+E on 2 occasions once after a divert (having held for 40 mins) and once holding overhead destination with an EAT in good weather conditions and using my Alt fuel to hold (all safe & legal)
Facelookbovvered 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.