BA's Fuel Policy & League Tables, safe or not?
 

I fly for BA.

We are under constant pressure to carry the legal minimum ammount of fuel fuel.

A recentlt introduced procedure is to ACARS the crew if the projected ZFW has dropped with around half an hour to departure, so that we can reduce our fuel onload even further.

A colleague flying SYD-BKK recently was faced with a tricky diversion and landed in Phuket with 2 Tonnes remaining.......not a lot in a B744. Oh and he had elected to take extra fuel..............2 tonnes extra!

Also, in addition to the constant pressure to reduce fuel carriage to the minimums, BA also keeps, and publishes, a "League Table" to highligh to pilots how their excess fuel carriage compares to their colleagues.

Of course that is "excess" departure fuel, not "excess" arrival fuel!!

What do the other professionals on this forum think of BA's policy? How does it compare to your airline?

I don't know why you're worrying about the new ZFW procedure. I have yet to meet a single 747 pilot or any dispatcher who has seen fuel reduced in this way. It just doesn't happen. If you don't like the fuel figure take more. I always do and have never been overruled by another crew member except to take even more extra fuel. The BKK incident is unfortunate but having your destination close due weather and your alternate close due to a broken aircrft on the same day is hardly something you can plan for except by choosing another alternate, an option which remains open to you at the briefing stage by simply asking for a flight plan with a different alternate. I have never had one refused. In short, if you want more fuel, take more. If you worry about league tables then join the majority of your colleagues who give them the scant attention they deserve.

Don`t know why you are so worried , 5 years on the airbus , l/h seat , always take a sensible amount of fuel and could`nt tell you what my special fuel code for the table is , and have never been contacted about my excess fuel
5415N

In all my years at BA I have NEVER come under any pressure on fuel and only know of 1 individual who has been called to chat about it, and they were renowned for loading fuel even on a CAVOK day all around the destination. Like most BA pilots I don't trust da management as far as I could throw them, but I can't agree with you.

As far at the ZFW policy goes I have never seen anyone use it, it is after all something dreamt up in the office to justify a management uplift

Also could you point me in the direction of where and in which publication BA publishes the so called famous "league table"?

You also ask about other people’s opinion on BAs policy, yet don't give any details on it. What do you think people are?........... Mind readers?

The more I read your post the more I think you’re a journo trawling for information
.

I have been 18 years in BA both SH and LH. I have never had my fuel carriage questioned.

I looked at the fuel tables 5 years ago out of curiosity and know of nobody who reads them let alone takes any notice of them.

It was emphasised during command training to take extra fuel if I felt it was warranted. BA's emphasis is on making everybody aware of the cost implications of excess fuel carriage and use their common sense and experience to make their judgement.

The last minute drop in ZFW procedure is a waste of paper as nobody bothers to implement yet another hare-brained idea from somebody who has only ever flown a desk.

The thread and first post are both stupid and inaccurate.

In 7 years with the company I have never met a skipper who didnt take what he (or I) were happy with as a fuel load. I've met about 3 who have seen a fuel table (& that was only for curiosities sake.) Our managers may not be geniuses (!) but they are not daft enough to push people to take less fuel than is necessary.


Edited to say MM - we crossed maybe you were one of the curious ones!

I speak as a BA Captain and presently on the 747-400. My perception is of no pressure whatsoever.

What BA are doing is preparing, using all the latest technological processes available, an accurate fuel plan taking into account the dynamics.

What is wrong with that?

As to the fuel decision, I never feel any pressure to take Flight Plan Fuel. I see it as a baseline number from which I vary the required fuel load upwards based on sensible crew decisions following a review of the data. In Shorthaul, I regularly came up with reasons to take an extra 10 minutes fuel. In Longhaul, 10 minutes extra fuel is rarely worth it, as you will have burnt about half of it on arrival in carrying it. In LH, your ability to uplift extra fuel can occasionally be limited, but that's a separate issue.

Who do you feel pressurised by? Surely not the management, all they are doing is pointing out the obvious and asking us to make sensible decisions. If someone always takes 'an extra x for mum' when the wx is CAVOK, then the office are right to ask him to explain, imho.

As to league tables, I know there is a folder in ftd, is it ever updated? How do I find out my code? And the answer is don't know and don't care. Adopt the same approach and you'll find there is no pressure.

[edited to add : crossed with the previous 2 posts]

Airbus

Stop being such a girl about it and worrying about nothing.

I'm BA LHS and have never once been asked to explain my fuel decisions and don't even know what my code is.

As for the ZFW reduction, I have not had a single ACARS at LHR and the ones at JFK have been well after the fueller has gone.

Now, back to saving my pension.

Of course it could be a fishing wind up?

Often wish I had copied the previous techlog pages from the 777 I operated about four years ago. The aircraft had done ten sectors around Africa and the Middle East carrying our wonderful prime minister. With a variety of management captains the MINIMUM arrival fuel was 30 tons! The interesting one was a ten minute sector with 32 tons remaining. The aircraft arrived at LHR with 36 tons.

We almost didn't have to refuel for our sector!

One rule for them, one for us!

Except for the one with Blair on just before the Gulf war 2.

But we won't, ahem, mention that.

BTSM

Edited as no longer relevent as previous post amended........

Ok ok

My mistake. The reply was of course to the first poster and not Topbunk

Apologies with sugar on top to Bunk

- not eye drops, then BTSM...................

Good to see Flight Deck scrapping! Willy will be pleased.

FLWM Don't think anyone is scrapping, just sorting out a misunderstanding;) and if you can read I think you will find the only one not singing from the same sheet is the starter of the thread:{

Don't let yourself be pressurised.
The company I work for produces a league table about once a year. It's quite interesting to see how much fuel others (but no names given) carry back to home base. There is no pressure on individuals after the list is published, and even if there was I assume that anybody worth their salt would ignore it. Only the captain, on the day, can decide what is an acceptable fuel load for the flight.
I can't see any harm in any company giving you it's best estimate of ZFW. We get our ZFW on the cirrus flight plan just like BA, because we are a franchise that has eleected to use the FICO/sword/cirrus system. FICO doesn't appear to allow for number of children booked, which means that a school holiday flight to a holiday destination like Canaries will typically be 2 tons (out of 15 tons) lighter than the latest FICO prediction. So, it is quite normal to load less fuel than suggested on the Cirrus after a double check with the red cap in these exceptional circumstances. Surely it's part of good flight planning to obtain the best guess at ZFW, because the fuel burn depends on it - especially on long flights.
So, well done BA for trying to give an accurate ZFW. Pity that the atmosphere and culture of intimidation makes some nervous about carrying out their normal duties.

onairbus,

You're aged 46 and your first BA thread is about not having enough fuel.

Have you just joined BA from an air force tanker squadron by any chance?

Hey, onanairbus,
Why don't you engage brain before posting. If you think you are under pressure to operate to some management edict, and you feel troubled by 'it', then go and speak to the people that are driving the initiative. Then, if you feel that, IYHO, pressure is being applied, say so, then either go to BALPA or IPA or call your lawyer. Can I recommend that you do not air your (mis-judged?) washing in public? Fuel is money, so it is no surprise that BA are keen to minimise it's use,what's your problem with that. All of my fuel decisions above cirrus have been supported - without exception. You may be surpised to note that there has been little response to your thread from low-cost operators. I wonder why? Finally, what corellation are you trying to draw between the ZFW ACARS procedure and the BKK 744 diversion?

Nurj

A colleague of mine was convinced that when a league table was being run in my company that he'd beaten the system by carrying as much as he wanted at all times then lowering his average by taking minimum fuel when the company wanted it tankered!!;)

onanairbus,
Looks like your BA colleagues do not agree with you on this one. Allow a non-BA flt crew to confirm what your colleagues are saying.
I don't know much about the operations of BA. But I have been exposed to small number of operators and beleive you me most of the respectable airlines, BA been one of them operate in a very similar manner.
If you feel under pressure I am almost certain that YOU are the one pressurizing yourself.
Rules are there to be used as guidelines for the wise but to be followed strictly by idiots.

It's just the same out here in the Land of sand, sitting on the stand SDT-30 the ZFW is given to us over the radio and we adjust the fuel load accordingly.

However, we can load more fuel if it's deamed operationally required, ie weather etc.

It does get rather stupid though and it depends who's doing your training, some people adjust it and reduce by even 100kg! :eek:

Then some bright spark comes up with the fuel saving idea ( about an egg cup full) of not starting the APU as you taxi in until you are about 2 mins from the stand...great.

Then they leave the APU running all bloody day while the A/C sits at the gate!! That makes sence then.........NOT.:confused:

Keep dicovering :)

Can't find the reference at the moment but I'm sure there was as AIC in which the CAA vetoed any company keeping fuel league tables or similar, The 'threat' was quite pointed stating that an operator would put it's licence at risk if they didn't follow the directive.

Someone tell me I wasn't dreaming!!

When I flew the DC-10 on the N-register the company I worked for used to publish "absolutely without prejudice" fuel burn tables on a monthly basis.

Now, unlike our BA colleagues, I was very interested in these tables for I wanted to learn how to operate my aircraft as efficiently as possible. I learned a lot of good techniques and was usually in the top three but I could never quite get up to Jack's standard! He was always at the top and it was almost impossible to get him to part with his deep secrets.

Provided that league tables are used in a non-threatening way then I think they are really good at getting yourself up to speed.

However, if all you want to do is p*ss fuel out the back the way you have always done and can't be bothered to get really efficient then do remember that we are now up to $74 a barrel and pensions have to be paid.

JW411

When I (heavens how I dislike that phrase!) joined BA we had the SWORD flight planning system, the forerunner to CIRRUS. Nobody trusted it and when I joined even the trainers took more fuel 'just for mother' and told trainees that the only people who took 'SWORD fuel' were management.

The company have spent much effort educating us in the whole philosphy behind the planning and made us all very aware of the cost of unjustified fuel carriage.

I know that I and my colleagues, almost to a man, take fuel carriage very seriously but have no hesitation taking extra, and in long haul we are talking several tonnes, BUT I have never in recent times seen extra fuel carried without good reason.

I do recall being told by the man himself (a manager since disgraced and left for pastures new) that he and another manager 'competed' to see who could be the most frugal captain in terms of fuel carriage, to the point of reducing flight plan contingency to absolute legal mimimums. I call that plain stupidity when one upmanship replaces common sense.

Conversely weaker individuals, such as onanairbus, can perceive league tables as unfair pressure. In BA they are not. For all our management's other faults in the case of flight safety and fuel carriage rarely will a captains decision be questioned providing one was making the best judgement given the facts on the day. The last person I can recall being questioned was a now retired 747 plonker who routinely carried an extra 20 tonnes. Even then I do not believed he stopped doing so!

The new procedure for making last minute changes by sending through the latest ZFW at ETD - 0.30 (or whatever the time is) sounds good in practice but in reality the fueller has usually gone by then and it pales into insignificance when at virtually every station in that land of frugal energy use, the USA, the APU is left running and ground power almost never used during a transit or nightstop.

The place to be in a fuel league is in the middle, unless you think you're better than the rest.;)

onanairbus..
..have you got offanairbus yet to view the vitriole?

Nurj

PS M Mouse, what a scholar.

Take the fuel load your company wants.

Divert at the first need to do soe.

Things seem to change...Strange....???.

Good luck..........

What was the close in alternate BA flight planned on which had its single runway blocked?
It is very lucky that the Captain had that two tons extra if indeed the facts are accurately reported.
I wonder if anybody makes a table of arrival fuels at LHR or anyother place and publishes it.
It seems adverse weather and an inaccurate ZFW and perfect ATC and optimum diversion flight levels are the only considerations used for an alternate fuel load in computor flight planning.
After a double Cat 3 equipment failure in Switzerland (of all places), plus back up ILS generator failure! Is it little wonder pilots do not trust their ZFW as spot on or their on the ground equipment to remain servicable or their flight ops to inform them immediately of close in diversions or destinations going out for any reason other than weather.
Last time I checked there were no gas stations in the sky for airliners.

I have seen graphs in BA inhouse fleet magazines where departure fuel over flight plan minimum and arrival fuel over flight planned arrival fuel were compared.

The articles always make interesting reading but serve to better inform rather than coerce.

The alleged jumbo story may have an element of truth. If it was BKK then Utapao is sometimes used as the fuel alternate if weather is suitable. I find the alleged figure of 2 tonnes remaining a little hard to believe and I have actually seen or heard nothing about such a diversion although it may be true. I will try and find out.

As a recently retired BA Airbus captain and an nascent lo-co captain I'll just chuck in my ha'p'orth:

I usually took SWORD/CIRRUS fuel but never felt pressure to do so, always larded the decision with dollops of airmanship, experience and common sense (don't we all?). I did glance at the league tables once or twice out of idle curiosity.

Having kept a personal record of fuel decisions and actual burn vs. planned burn during my early years on the Airbus, I observed the following: There were very few delays at out-stations so SWORD/CIRRUS outbound was sufficient for the overwhelming majority of sectors; for shorthaul sectors of up to 2.5 hours, the carriage of extra fuel cost nothing measurable when weighed against the other variables; unless it was very early in the morning or very late in the evening, a wise captain shouldn't return to LHR with anything less than 20 minutes holding capability over and above diversion and reserve fuel. Ergo, if statistical contingency gave me 20 minutes, fine; if it didn't, on it went. Strong winds or widespread fog and LVPs are a different game and usually required a tonne extra or more.

No-one ever invited me for coffee.

Three hour delay ex Gatwick due to flat batteries and fuel filter changes, and also a fuel discrepancy of 3500kgs. The reason? Prior to this sector the a/c had been allocated as the standby a/c following its last sector and not used. However the APU had been left running during this period and finally shut down after the 3500kgs in the left tank had been burnt. The batteries then obviously took the dc load and ended up flat.

A fuel filter change was required as the left engine also uses the APU fuel line. At least the hydraulics were not pressurised during towing as they use the left tank fuel to cool the fluid and operation for any period without fuel is a big no-no.

The powers that be tried to cover-up the episode, and it was only the honest refueller who suggested that from the fuel he put in the tank it must have been empty.

Many years earlier on an early morning Trident departure from C28 (those of you who remember the stands at LHR) we passed eight aircraft on the way to ours, all with the APU's running (throughout the night) and totally deserted, having not yet been allocated to a service.

Comments to our then fleet management that perhaps an engineering apprentice could be given the job of checking that all aircraft are fully shut down after their last flight of the day. As usual with most suggestions from the shop floor it was dismissed as too difficult.

Perhaps if there had been a management bonus associated with reducing overnight fuel burns something might just have been done.

Full Circle, or perhaps Fuel Circle???

Sorry haven't had time to read the whole thred,so I might be repeating whats already been said. They probably lost more money in the one diversion than they could ever hope to recoup by using min fuel everywhere. Thats the trouble with putting bean counters incharge of anything other than counting beans.

As far as publishing a league table, two things come to mind, have a competition to see who can come last, and, could this not be seen as harrasment and bullying. Its fine pointing out someones failings in the eyes of managment on a one to one basis but to publish it is a bit much. BA could probably save more money by not having to employ someone to monitor the fuel loads on the acft(that they don't actually fly on) than by having a draconian min fuel policy.

Whats next a league table for sick days, MORs, tech deffects, cups of coffee drunk on a flight.

Best foot forward

It might be best to take some time to read the whole thread before jumping in with insults. The league tables are available should anyone wish to see how they compare with the fleet average. There are no names on the list, only codes, and only each individual knows his own code.
I agree with many of my ex-colleague in that I have never heard of anyone being pressurised into taking minimum fuel. BA provides it's pilots with a vast amount of information with which to make their decisions, but the final decision is still theirs, and to the best of my knowledge, those decisions have always been supported by management. The only exception was a case where the decision was political (industrial grudge) rather than safety related.
I have been flying four engined longhaul aircarft for 37 years. In that time I have always carried whatever fuel is both safe and economic. I have never arrived short of fuel and have never been asked to explain my decisions to management.
If you get a spare moment, perhaps you should go back and read the entire thread.

Airclues

So because your time is too precious to bother reading the thread, you pontificate about a subject you obviously know little about and WE have to waste our time reading that?

I see.

Best foot forward: it appears that your other foot is stuck in your mouth...:)

BTW we do have a league table for sick days, it's called EG300 :ugh:

I agree completely with the "no pressure" posts above. I have never flown with a Captain who has been called into the office, or telephoned about fuel.

Even at Training Standards Captain I flew with had no hesitation whatsoever in taking extra when it was required. Indeed throughout my training, league tables were never mentiond and I only discovered them through the "grapevine". They are in a tatty folder in the corner and I have never seen anyone look at them.

As far as I know, they are Captains tables anyway, so "my" figures will not even exist. Most Captains I fly with let me take as much as I like on "my" sector and will give me guidance if appropriate - its all about being sensible. Took loads extra the other day on a longhaul trip, as the airport was due to shut for a short period and fog was forecast. In the end we got in burning LESS than planned fuel, so arrived with the extra intact - not a tinkle on the phone!

A member of the board I have spoken to did say that we should never feel pressure to take less fuel than we are happy with. We are paid to make those descisions, they are not. If it comes from the board, I doubt any of us have to worry.

False Capture:

"The place to be in a fuel league is in the middle, unless you think you're better than the rest".

The middle is the average. In order to establish an average everyone above it has to be above average and everyone below it has to be below average. To be exactly average is not a good place to be for one day you could be above average and the next day below average. This could be quite disturbing as any good psychologist will tell you!

I have always tried to be as professional as I can be and therefore have always tried (although not very hard) to be above the average. Since 1968 I have been assessed (in writing) as above the average. I am pleased to have retired at the age of 65 still in the top part of the spectrum.

If you are happy to spend the rest of your flying career just being average then good luck to you. Personally, I was still learning new tricks right up to the last time I put the park brake on at the end of my long and very successful career.

JW411,

What a difference between your post and that of Captain Airclues who very sensibly said that "league tables are available should anyone wish to see how they compare with the fleet average".

Not only is Captain Airclues a really nice guy but he's probably more successful than you ever were.

Fuel leagues are all about being in the middle (or average as you put it). Most pilots use them as helpful indicators as to how much fuel they carry in relation to their colleagues. Unfortunately, you get some idiots who think it's a competition to see if they can make it to the top of the league.

If you're competitive and you fancy yourself as some sort of ace then take up competition aerobatics.

By the way, if you reitired in "the top part of the spectrum" does that mean you're a former Test Pilot or even a Space Shuttle pilot?

I thought we were all above average
 

Well done JW411 on such a successful career. As a fellow survivor, I must say that I thought that we were all assessed as "above average". After all can you imagine what would happen to an airline management at a subsequent court of inquiry if they were found to have employed a "below average" pilot?

To return to the thread. Some years ago my company had in its employment a lovely man, Captain Y, based at Heathrow, who invariably carried excess fuel - he was a lifelong longhaul pilot. He was nagged about his habit on a regular basis by the flight manager.

One morning Y rang Captain X, the flight manager. "Hello X", he said. "I am just ringing to tell you that last night I took flight plan fuel." "That's wonderful news", said X. "Yes", said Y, "I'm ringing you from Manchester!"

Happy flying.

Stoic

Onan!
 

I have to agree with the thought that onan is a gutter journo looking for scraps. In 30 years of flying I have never heard of anyone being unduly pressurised to take the absolute minimum fuel on each and every occasion. We, in our moderately large airline here in UK, do have a carefully researched and well written fuel policy booklet but nowhere does it 'tell' us to stick to the PLOG fuel, regardless. It does point out, as you might expect, the costs of carrying extra fuel (moderately expensive) against the costs of the annual diversion rate (quite small)
Having said all that, I find on our European routes, using the longest SID and Star we almost always have a buffer of a few hundred kilos which gives one a warm feeling of confidence!

Speaking as a mere engineer who has dispatched BA Shorthaul aircraft for many years I must say that going back 10 years it was normal to add a tonne to the Sword figure. I reckon it happened on 90% of departures. Nowadays it is normal to take Cirrus fuel. With no bad weather around I reckon it happens on more than 90% of departures. So whether you agree with the table or not it has brought down the amount of fuel carried around Europe.