£30 a Minute!
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: uk
£30 a Minute!
According to the Chris Evans radio programme (so it must be true), it costs £30/minute in fuel to hold whilst awaiting an approach into Heathrow.
Let's see, 4 stacks, 6 levels available equals 24 aircraft holding.
Bingo!! £720 a minute disappearing in circles!
Let's hope the well motivated staff don't have to slow things down at all when that new Tower is eventually opened.
Let's see, 4 stacks, 6 levels available equals 24 aircraft holding.
Bingo!! £720 a minute disappearing in circles!
Let's hope the well motivated staff don't have to slow things down at all when that new Tower is eventually opened.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
From: uk
If the aircraft in question were Medium Twinjets (have aguess which ones I mean) burning Shell unleaded (purchased on the forecourt in the UK) then it'd be about right. Either that or the aircraft in question all have 8 engines and have the gear down.
What was the agenda of the chap who came up with that one?
What was the agenda of the chap who came up with that one?
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,843
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
Interesting that someone is trying to put the cost on this into public discussion - it is something that I have been wanting to know for ages.
If the govt wants to cut back on fuel emissions, one option is to set a maximum number of a/c in the hold of LTMA at any given time. Of course that is never going to happen.
If the govt wants to cut back on fuel emissions, one option is to set a maximum number of a/c in the hold of LTMA at any given time. Of course that is never going to happen.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,266
Likes: 1
From: Berkshire, UK
Some of us can remember the days when a certain well-known airline insisted on holding when all stacks were empty simply because they didn't have the staff to man the stands! I trust those days are long gone..
One problem, so I was told, is that passengers want to arrive at certain times. Hence much holding early morning and in the evening but often during the middle of the day there are quiet periods..
One problem, so I was told, is that passengers want to arrive at certain times. Hence much holding early morning and in the evening but often during the middle of the day there are quiet periods..
Joined: Oct 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,207
Likes: 351
From: London UK
Certainly some holding near to 6.00 am inbound from those who arrive with no night slot (or they have them but want to save them for a suddenly-needed middle of the night movement).
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: southeast
Cost of flying......
I was recently told that the cost of operating the average passenger airliner, for an airline, is around £54.00 per minute.
This includes such things as fuel, staff costs etc I assume...I don't think it includes amortisation or delay losses due to lost rotations etc.
This includes such things as fuel, staff costs etc I assume...I don't think it includes amortisation or delay losses due to lost rotations etc.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Let's see:
For A320 variants - average burn per holding pattern = 180kg or 36kg/min.
36kg = 45lt = 9.899 gallons
9.899 gallons x USD 1.728 = USD 17.105 = GBP 9.00
So, £9 per minute for a modern, efficient, medium shorthaul jet which far outnumbers the heavies in the skies around London.
Now take an representative passenger load of 120. That's 7.5p per minute per passenger or £4.50 per hour.
In an hour, a family car might cover 70 miles at 35 mpg which is 2 gallons.
The cost of 2 gallons of 4-star is:
£0.88 x 4.5459 x 2 = £8.00
The jet begins to look good doesn't it?
And before anyone tells me, I know that Jet A1 isn't taxed!
Chris Evans is a p*****r.
For A320 variants - average burn per holding pattern = 180kg or 36kg/min.
36kg = 45lt = 9.899 gallons
9.899 gallons x USD 1.728 = USD 17.105 = GBP 9.00
So, £9 per minute for a modern, efficient, medium shorthaul jet which far outnumbers the heavies in the skies around London.
Now take an representative passenger load of 120. That's 7.5p per minute per passenger or £4.50 per hour.
In an hour, a family car might cover 70 miles at 35 mpg which is 2 gallons.
The cost of 2 gallons of 4-star is:
£0.88 x 4.5459 x 2 = £8.00
The jet begins to look good doesn't it?
And before anyone tells me, I know that Jet A1 isn't taxed!
Chris Evans is a p*****r.
Last edited by Wingswinger; 26th February 2007 at 20:00.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
HD/WHBM,
As far as I know, it is still SOP in that airline not to arrive more than 20 minutes early. I think now though it's virtually unseen by TC as judicious adjustment of cruising speed now achieves the result.
Let's hope the well motivated staff are given a decent flight data display system that is not loaded with so many bugs that both the Heathrow ATC Technical Committee and SRG express surprise and concern.
Oh no, too late.
As far as I know, it is still SOP in that airline not to arrive more than 20 minutes early. I think now though it's virtually unseen by TC as judicious adjustment of cruising speed now achieves the result.
Let's hope the well motivated staff don't have to slow things down at all when that new Tower is eventually opened.
Oh no, too late.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: Ireland
Lads relax.. The reason Chris Evans brought this up is purely based on the fact he recently acquired a new A319 and he plans to fly it himself.
I guess he wanted to get his head clearly around the numbers.
I guess he wanted to get his head clearly around the numbers.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: England
Why not build a new runway, cap LHR's movements to roughly what they are now, and there you have it - reduced holding, less fuel burn, less carbon emissions, less delays. The greenies are happy, operators are happy, public who arrive with less delay are happy. Where is the problem? I'm sure i'm missing something........
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Joined: Jul 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 2,317
From: UK
Agreed Baron. The one thing green lobby and "NIMBY's" seem to (convieniently) forget is the effect the amount of holding has on emmissions. It could be plausibly argued that additional runway capacity in the South East will infact reduce emissions because of improved flow = reduced delays = less emissions. So aren't the anti's actually making the situation worse...?
At some point a runway WILL be built in the SE England. Fact. The inevitable public enquiry into the second runway at STN will delay it by a couple more years at least - probably be ready 6-12 months after the Olympics have finished
Aviation will only ever be a small part of the solution to global warming ..... because it is only a small part of the problem - another point convieniently the greens.
I do not deny that we must all do our bit - and I do. But I'm tired of being depicted as the anti-christ by certain elements (many of whom are hypocrites...) because of my chosen career.
A4
At some point a runway WILL be built in the SE England. Fact. The inevitable public enquiry into the second runway at STN will delay it by a couple more years at least - probably be ready 6-12 months after the Olympics have finished
Aviation will only ever be a small part of the solution to global warming ..... because it is only a small part of the problem - another point convieniently the greens.
I do not deny that we must all do our bit - and I do. But I'm tired of being depicted as the anti-christ by certain elements (many of whom are hypocrites...) because of my chosen career.
A4
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
Why not build a new runway, cap LHR's movements to roughly what they are now, and there you have it - reduced holding, less fuel burn, less carbon emissions, less delays.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: England
Gonzo,
They would surely be happier with that, than not building anything at all? Atleast if you did build a new strip (even with capped movements), the operators would be more efficient, reduce their costs (fuel) and not have bored pilots flying around in the hold for ages!!
The greenies would also be happier, although they wouldnt understand at first, because there would be less pollution from holding aircraft, both in the air and on the ground. Everyones a winnner??
Of course, the best solution (for me as a pilot) would be to build runways at LGW/LHR/STN!!! I doubt that will happen!!
They would surely be happier with that, than not building anything at all? Atleast if you did build a new strip (even with capped movements), the operators would be more efficient, reduce their costs (fuel) and not have bored pilots flying around in the hold for ages!!
The greenies would also be happier, although they wouldnt understand at first, because there would be less pollution from holding aircraft, both in the air and on the ground. Everyones a winnner??
Of course, the best solution (for me as a pilot) would be to build runways at LGW/LHR/STN!!! I doubt that will happen!!
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
Sorry, I meant that the operators wouldn't be happy that millions and millions of there money (through charges) was used to build a new runway, and yet they aren't permitted to use any of the extra capacity.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
From: SX in SX in UK
In an hour, a family car might cover 70 miles at 35 mpg which is 2 gallons.
The cost of 2 gallons of 4-star is:
£0.88 x 4.5459 x 2 = £8.00
The cost of 2 gallons of 4-star is:
£0.88 x 4.5459 x 2 = £8.00
