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 5th Jun 2008, 10:38
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
However, in relation to turn over it is a pittance.
Quite agree, but profit and loss has nothing whatsoever to do with turnover and everything to do with costs versus income, ie. margins. A rapid increase in any cost goes straight to the bottom line which is why so many airlines have gone bust recently and formerly very profitable ones (Ryanair for instance) are openly saying that their profits are going to be much reduced.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 11:10
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cotswolds, Glos.
Age: 41
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
I disagree: I believe it's the duty and responsibility of everyone to seek ways to reduce costs.

Nothing should be done to jepodise a safe operation. However, I firmly believe that such cost reduction and a safe operation can concurrently be achieved.

As Tesco says: "Every little helps."

If we use Shady's $195 saving/sector, that'd translate into around $7m/year saving. If FR has around 1000 pilots and every penny of that saving was given to every pilot on an equal basis, that'd be an additional $7000/year/pilot. However, in general FR pilots get paid a lot, so I'm not advocating a pay rise, but rather merely illustrating the possibilities of this "pittance."
JulietNovemberPapa is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 11:48
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I didn't remove your post slip and turn, the mods did. They then removed my reply. I can only assume they did so as it was a spotters post which had no bearing on the thread at all.
You assume a lot Topslide6, and that is what worries me most if you represent any common theme.

Personally, I am very pleased at the airing this whole question is getting in the current $130 climate. Are you?

Thanks facelookbovvered for continuing to add data. The 70/88 number is a case in point. It varies by airline in agreement with their regulator doesn't it? Does it change every time the airline puts up the hold baggage charge or every time the airports relax their pre-security weighins? Nope, don't think so.

The pressures on the accuracy of those 70/88 figures vary constantly with the airline model, the landside monitoring on the day, the weather (how much clothing the pax are sporting), last week's latest baggage charging regime, and seasonal reasons for travel. My last flight saw me pass through security with a 15kg bag. I don't mind admitting it. Was I endangering the aircraft? Someone tell me, please. I was prepared to dump the overload if challenged because the baggage charge was more than the value of what I was carrying but I knew it was unlikely. On my return I was down to 12kg and in that case had I spotted any new weighing machine never before encountered I'd have transfered a kilo to my pockets and held the other kilo (a heavy book) in my hand. This time I didn't grab 2 more kilos from Duty Free, 2 from Boots (cheap water) and another 2 from Pret, but I have done many times in the past.

It's not only the airlines and crews that play complex games with the margins. It's also the hoards of discerning new passengers that these new models have created who think nothing of bending the arbitrary rules on baggage weights.

PS What's a child in an airline's book thesedays? I have two. One isn't even a teenager yet but is already average adult height and weighs in at a good 55-60kg. Her brother isn't yet 15 but is six feet tall and wears mens large size jackets because his shoulders as almost as broad as mine.

I am 100kg in my socks. In my winter coat with pockets full I probably go 110 at least before I pick up my bag.

None of us look obese. I again suggest that the only way you will know how much a load of traffic like me and mine weighs is when you monitor fuel burn in the climbout. But then you guys know that too.

Nice to know there's still plenty of 'fat' in the calculations on a good day.
slip and turn is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 11:48
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It may seem insignificant individually, but 150kgs at todays price of around $1300 tonne is $13*15 = $195 per sector.

Multiply that by, in Ryanair's case alone almost 1000 sectors per day and that's $195 000 per day wasted.

Factor in Easyjet, Baby, BA, Virgin, Jet2 etc and you are looking at hundreds of thousands of $ per day simply discarded.
I may have missed something here but it is that type of perverse mathematics which cause the bean counters and idiot 'managers' to push us ever closer to the edge!

The fuel you put in the tanks only costs you what is costs to carry it if it is still in the tanks when you land!!!!! = bugger all. That 150 kgs costs 3kgs per hour to carry - thats all. It would cost $195 whether you put it in the tanks at a or b (+/- cost differential).

For those who don't recognize tongue in cheek ....here it comes......you could even put it down to hedging as the price will probably have gone up by the time you land.....so you are actually saving the company money!!
Finman is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 12:10
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boston USA
Age: 68
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fuel you put in the tanks only costs you what is costs to carry it if it is still in the tanks when you land!!!!! = bugger all. That 150 kgs costs 3kgs per hour to carry - thats all. It would cost $195 whether you put it in the tanks at a or b (+/- cost differential).
Most sensible recent comment in my view. This cannot be the best way of achieving cost savings by reducing overall wieght of the aircraft at take-off. The bean-counters might as well insist on all passengers going to the toilet at the gate!
jewitts is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 12:11
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All these number crunchers with a calculator can come up with some amazing theories and scenarios. It's what bean counters do.

Many years ago in a UK major charter airline, after the pilots had left upstairs and been replaced by said B.Ctr's., someone heard about this extra weight = extra fuel. They calculated the weight of an orange on every meal tray, multiplied it by the number of trays per year = total extra a/c weight per year = total extra fuel burnt per year. He showed that removing the orange more than paid his inflated salary. Not only did they save the cost of the orange but also the fuel QED.

I wonder what RYR's B.Ctr's would come up with becasue they limit pax baggage to 15kgs instead of 20kgs? Wow that would be a huge amount. When will all others follow and lower baggage allowance?

Will cabin crew be weight limited? Don't even think about pilot fitness regimes. Lose 5kgs in a month or pay excess baggage charge. Ouch.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 12:20
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boston USA
Age: 68
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder what RYR's B.Ctr's would come up with becasue they limit pax baggage to 15kgs instead of 20kgs? Wow that would be a huge amount. When will all others follow and lower baggage allowance?
Come to think of it, there only one short step to weighing luggage, handbaggage and person, all at the check-in counter. Then charge each passenger by the amount of fuel used. MOL, I claim copyright on the idea!
jewitts is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 12:39
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Come to think of it, there only one short step to weighing luggage, handbaggage and person, all at the check-in counter"

I've long held the belief that charging should be based on total weight being carried. But, as a slim passenger with only hand baggage, I would wouldn't I! In fact, dont limit this to just air travel....extend it to all vehicles. It must take more energy (= fuel burn + emmissions) to transport a 120Kg person than a 60Kg one.

It would take a brave business person to try and get that idea through though :-) Mind you, there's one carrier I can think of that would probably give it a go.....
gpn01 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 12:48
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cotswolds, Glos.
Age: 41
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I recall my grandfather telling me that many years ago he was always weighed (for weight-and-balance reasons) before flying to and from the Channel Islands.
JulietNovemberPapa is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 13:00
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ecosse
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In 1954 my parents went to the Isle of Man on board a Dragon Rapide.
They had to split the newlyweds front and back for weight-and-balance reasons
The old dear wasn't too chuffed - first flight and all
The Listener is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 13:13
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Finman

I don't disagree that it may still be in tanks when you land, however, it is still fuel that you don't need to carry, hence you are spending money unnecessarily.

Using your increased burn figure still gives close on $6 per flight hour extra cost: $6000 per day, $180 000 per month on a 1000 sector day for a single airline.

There is so much fat in the planning already that routinely carrying an extra 300kgs for the wife and kids costs a huge amount of money.

No one disputes the wisdom of carrying extra fuel for perceived contingencies, weather, common delays, notams etc but the prudence of routinely adding excess fuel is what we are discussing.
The Real Slim Shady is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 14:06
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simple question... Why are so many Kool-aide drinkers so hell bent on saving the company money versus protecting their own safety and security as well as the safety security of their crewmembers and passengers’, along with insuring their airman's certificate? Do you think that your company will come to bat for you before the JAA, IAA, CAA, or FAA if you land with 800-kgs in the tanks? At the end of the day, they will say that was contrary to our manuals, and his/her behavior was contrary to our SOP as well as NNPs.

Last edited by captjns; 5th Jun 2008 at 14:17.
captjns is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 14:11
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cotswolds, Glos.
Age: 41
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Our duty and responsibility upfront is to fly safely... if all the safety aspects of the operation have been met, we then might find the time to make also economical sound decisons."
I agree with you: no one disputes the fact that the number-one responsibility is to ensure safety, and it's obviously a case of ensuring safety first and then trying whatever possible to increase efficiency and cost reduction. But I believe that pilots have a responsibility and duty to do what they can to minimise fuel consumption by, for example, seeking optimum flight routings, speeds and levels, and by not regularly taking more fuel that necessary beyond what's required for possible eventualities, weather, delays, etc., and to do whatever they can to increase aircraft productivity. (I firmly believe that it's the responsibility and duty of every employee to seek ways to improve efficiency and reduce costs.) I dare not mention what I think about pilot productivity.
JulietNovemberPapa is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 14:44
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the very early days of flying, when winds en-route and weather at destinations were unknown, or at best, a guess, pilots would routinely calculate the fuel needed for the journey, then add a bit extra. No science involved, simply instinct and experience. 20 Gallons in case the wind is bad, 20 gallons in case the weather is bad and 20 gallons for Mum.
Now I feel better and off I go!
Here we are in the 21st century and some of you seem to apply the mind set of the pilots referred to above. Very professional and modern, I am sure!
So all the progress made in the last 100 years in flight planning, weather forecasting, route planning, STARS, approach plates, performance monitoring and historical evidence count for nothing with you people.
Ballcocks to all that information and technology, I'm still taking some for my Mum!
If your company did introduce a reward system for fuel efficiency, you would soon be walking the walk instead of talking the talk.
Correct fuel loads are simply that, correct. They are safe and efficient, which is all that is required.
You cannot be more safe than safe.
rubik101 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 15:10
  #95 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is an awful lot of entrenched anti-management 'venom' and illogicality here. May I suggest that you regularly review your arrival (landing) fuel against company minimum, be that CMR or a 'minimium' figure as above. You may be surprised, and may find that your uplifts are - in general - uneccessary. Sure, there will be that one trip when it all goes to pooh, but then, would 15% extra have really been enough? 20%? Why not fill to 16200/21800 (737) EVERY trip, just in case x, y, z? The Classic 737 checklist says do not try the gear up drill with less than 3800kg on board - are you going to plan that as your minimum at the IAF? That is what we are employed for, to try and establish a safe operation, based on what it is reasonable to expect. Forget Contingency - JAROPS allow you to burn that at any time after engine start - eg taxi delays. All we need is a pragmatic approach to uplifting 'extra', thought out and discussed, with justification, with the other crew. not a random figure, like 600kg regardless of weather, time, route etc.

These 'scare stories' of being in dire staights just because you did not uplift 'xxx extra' are ludicrous and not supportable. You always have the diversion option if you are not arriving with minimums. As professionals we have to be capable of managing our fuel states as we flog around the world. There are a lot of posters here, 'journos' or flt simmers - who knows - who do not exhibit this ability.
BOAC is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 16:18
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Come to think of it that way, any single kg above 0 you land with was an unnecesary surplus. You only needed fuel you actually burned.
criss is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 16:38
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't see how the increasing fuel price should have an effect on the fuel loads people have considered safe for many years - I personally think that there will be consequences to the added pressures we are seeing.Tell you what lets give everybody with 3000hrs a 737 command - stick em with a 200hr cadet and leave them option-free on every non tanking sector - Super.

It might be nice if the real pilots posting here would stop imposing their idea of what a reasonable fuel load should be on others who have spent many years making up their own minds on this subject.

As for everything being so much better and easier than in the 'old days'? You're having a laugh!
Stan Woolley is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 17:30
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stan, who said anything about 'better' in the old days? You seem not to have read the post properly and have completely missed the point. I was trying to point out how very 'Wells Fargo' such an approach to aviation used to be.
We have all the benefits of modern technology, accurately computed flight plans, weather data, forecasts etc. yet still you and others on this thread seem to think that you can second guess all of this expensive information and still feel the need to bung on a few hundred or even a ton or two extra just because you feel like it.
I fail to see just how you and others like you can consider it professional to gaily pluck imaginary numbers out of thin air and argue that you are being 'safe', or 'safer' than me, you are not; you are being wasteful and you know it.
You choose to try to justify your ostrich like stance with woolly and spurious arguments about gear problems or holding for 30 minutes. All that and more is already loaded into your aircraft if you take the calculated PLOG fuel.
I agree that if you fly into LHR at 0700 Local each day then you will know historically that holding is the norm but if you are working for a real airline, they will already have calculated and allowed for such a situation.
I have been flying for over 30 years on short haul around Europe in all weathers and very rarely take more than 300 kg extra, and then only if the destination is at or close to minimums. Otherwise I take PLOG fuel rounded up to the next hundred. This on over 9000 flights.
How often have I diverted due to fuel shortage?
Never.
How often have I landed at my destination with less than 2000kg in my B737?
Twice, and then not less than 1800kg.
Unsafe? You tell me.
rubik101 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 17:55
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rubik101

Unsafe? I don't know.

Sorry but I thought that you were implying that you felt lots of things had improved over the years whic I took to mean 'better'?

You are certainly experienced (in Europe)but I know plenty very experienced pilots who don't agree with you.

I do object to someone with a very narrow band of experience telling me I am unprofessional though.
Stan Woolley is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 17:55
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 80
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: 115

"We have all the benefits of modern technology, accurately computed flight plans, weather data, forecasts etc."

Y'all hear that the Gimli Glider was just retired?
Robert Campbell 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.