THAI to cut flight fuel excess
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reduction of contingency fuel" doesn't mean a lot without further information. More importantly, what is the targeted landing fuel for normal operations?
For example, our 747s are planned for 10,500 Kg for landing at the destination or 7,000 at the alternate, whichever is more restrictive. If the flight is such that FAA required reserves are more, then obviously more is added. HOWEVER, liberal use of Planned Redispatch in flight often gets us right down to the company minimums, even on long-haul flights.
Our company has been employing a "Fuel Wise" program to reduce carried fuel. So far it has resulted in several diverts that would otherwise have not been made, and at least 3 times I have landed with around 5,500 Kg, which goes against another policy statement: "No flight should ever plan to land with less than 5,500 kgs." That 5,500 Kg level guarantees only 1 go-around and subsequent approach...
For example, our 747s are planned for 10,500 Kg for landing at the destination or 7,000 at the alternate, whichever is more restrictive. If the flight is such that FAA required reserves are more, then obviously more is added. HOWEVER, liberal use of Planned Redispatch in flight often gets us right down to the company minimums, even on long-haul flights.
Our company has been employing a "Fuel Wise" program to reduce carried fuel. So far it has resulted in several diverts that would otherwise have not been made, and at least 3 times I have landed with around 5,500 Kg, which goes against another policy statement: "No flight should ever plan to land with less than 5,500 kgs." That 5,500 Kg level guarantees only 1 go-around and subsequent approach...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say...
Re-release (re-dispatch) short of destination is a very valuable asset...I personally have used it for the last twenty five years.
Works fine (IF used properly), lasts a long time.
No complaints.
Have to say, however, that I have personally never had a fleet manager dictate what fuel was uplifted...they always mentioned...up to you, your're in charge.
Sorry folks, if the Commander is second-guessed, all bets are off.
Accidents/incidents might indeed follow.
Re-release (re-dispatch) short of destination is a very valuable asset...I personally have used it for the last twenty five years.
Works fine (IF used properly), lasts a long time.
No complaints.
Have to say, however, that I have personally never had a fleet manager dictate what fuel was uplifted...they always mentioned...up to you, your're in charge.
Sorry folks, if the Commander is second-guessed, all bets are off.
Accidents/incidents might indeed follow.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Smiles
Age: 68
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point8six I appreciate your remarks, but so far it seems not all carriers outside EASA are following the JAR-OPS.
As far as the comments of Rolibkk are concerned I have to agree that massive overstaffing, staff attitude and ineffective middle management remain contributing factors to tremendously high costs in TG. Granted the posted huge losses are mainly due to the fuel price crisis.
As far as the comments of Rolibkk are concerned I have to agree that massive overstaffing, staff attitude and ineffective middle management remain contributing factors to tremendously high costs in TG. Granted the posted huge losses are mainly due to the fuel price crisis.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: BKK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No its not due to fuel. Look at other airlines making profits or even increase profits (QF) in the same period. With their low cost base it should be quite easy to balance a fuel cost increase. TG always finds arguments for their losses. Get real and look at their management and operations.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the point that rolibkk has so far not mentioned is that there is a high level of corruption and 'hands in the cash register' at Thai. I have a friend who was quite senior in Thai management and told stories of huge amounts of money being misappropriated.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-release (re-dispatch) short of destination is a very valuable asset...I personally have used it for the last twenty five years.
Works fine (IF used properly), lasts a long time.
Works fine (IF used properly), lasts a long time.
A few months ago I got one redispatch flight plan that had 4 minutes of reserve fuel at the real destination. I called Dispatch, and he argued with me that there was well over 30 minutes at the redispatch destination (redispatch point was AFTER the redispatch airport). He was not inclined to listen to the reality of the 4-minute actual reserve, so I told him I was adding more fuel and hung up the phone.
Turns out I used up every bit of that original reserve plus another 1.2T due to extended low-level vectoring at the destination...
It appears Thai will save approx. $30,000,000 per year in reduced fuel burn costs spread over their fleet of 85 aircraft serving 60 plus destinations.
A significant saving and no doubt the suggester of the idea will be suitably rewarded !.
A significant saving and no doubt the suggester of the idea will be suitably rewarded !.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was desirable to have all the engines running and at stable temperature to get best performance. Probably less of an issue if you've got four and you lose one on take-off, but if you're in a twin and suddenly relying on the one you started a minute or so ago as the other one eats a large bird or throws a fan blade then it might get interesting.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llondel,
Modern jet engines hardly need any 'warm up' at all.
e.g. PW4056. Minimum oil temp 50C before advancing thrust levers to take off power. No time limit specified.
e.g. RB211. Minimum oil temp -10C before advancing thrust levers. No time limit.
Ingestion of a large bird on takeoff would be 'interesting' nonetheless.
Modern jet engines hardly need any 'warm up' at all.
e.g. PW4056. Minimum oil temp 50C before advancing thrust levers to take off power. No time limit specified.
e.g. RB211. Minimum oil temp -10C before advancing thrust levers. No time limit.
Ingestion of a large bird on takeoff would be 'interesting' nonetheless.
