777 Cost Index
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between here and there
777 Cost Index
Our airline has recently emberked on a fuel saving intiative. One of the major changes that has come from this is the change of cost index. On the 777 it translated to a change from 120 to 14. This results to a cruise speed of around M.81 vs M.84. One a couple of occasions, I have had controllers in Europe ask us to confirm our aircraft type because of the speed and even one asking if there was a problem!
I just wanted to know from other 777 pilots out there what cost indexes and/or cruising strategies/speeds you are flying?
Cheers
I just wanted to know from other 777 pilots out there what cost indexes and/or cruising strategies/speeds you are flying?
Cheers
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 25
From: ME
14????? So you are basically flying at MRC, i guess that your crew costs and mx costs are extremely low. For obvious reasons you cant compare cost indices between airlines but we have played with CI=450 outbound and CI=80 inbound, for the sake of the environment, we settled on CI=80 for all international sectors. (CI is revised on monthly basis)
Mutt
Mutt
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 838
From: Tring, UK
Although our flight planning software is reasonably sophisticated, the schedules/slots/stands take priority and we seem to fly at 0 when we're going to be too early and 100 when we might be on time or late. There was a period when we were planned at .85/320 (.87/330 Mmo/Vmo) down to South America to try and avoid having an extra crew member... didn't work very well through the ITCZ. 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
From: Australia
We us CI = 85 for all operations, with approval to bump it up to 150 if running late. On average, it comes out at about M0.835 for cruise at or close to Optimum level.
Mutt, I would have thought that operators from certain oil-rich countries would have used CI=9999
Regards,
Old Smokey
Mutt, I would have thought that operators from certain oil-rich countries would have used CI=9999
Regards,
Old Smokey
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
From: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Some nut in our company has changed the sop to CI=0 for the climb and typically CI=100 for the cruise. I personally can't understand why. There is a good reason for flyin CI 0 and a different one for flying CI 100. 
Among other things it really messes up the eta on the fmc during the climb. Since our flight plans are typically based on CI100 they don't make any sence or correlate till we insert 100 at the top of climb.
Maybe someone could help me understand why this is a good idea.... Before I pull any more hair out!!!
Among other things it really messes up the eta on the fmc during the climb. Since our flight plans are typically based on CI100 they don't make any sence or correlate till we insert 100 at the top of climb.
Maybe someone could help me understand why this is a good idea.... Before I pull any more hair out!!!
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,552
Likes: 25
From: ME
I would have thought that operators from certain oil-rich countries would have used CI=9999
Tried it.... interesting to see a B777 cruising at M860-865..... Got quite a number of questions about aircraft type The idea of burning lots of fuel just because its cheap isnt an environmentally friendly concept, so we ignore our home base fuel costs and use external costs in the calculation.
Mutt
