Costs of hard braking
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Costs of hard braking
I regularly fly into Malta, either with BA, Air Malta or Ryan Air.
It's noticeable that RA brake considerably harder than the other two airlines, to make the earlier exits and reduce taxiing time, and giving themselves an extra few minutes for the turnaround.
I assume this hard braking has a detrimental effect on the life of the brake pads and to a lesser degree disks and tyres, as it would on a car.
You'd have thought RA would want to save costs, by reducing wear and tear, and letting the plane have a gentler arrival. Even reverse thrust uses valuable fuel, so I's surprised they don't just use air brakes!
So do the advantages of a few minutes longer on the ground outweigh the increased maintenance?
Maybe I should send O'leary a suggestion
It's noticeable that RA brake considerably harder than the other two airlines, to make the earlier exits and reduce taxiing time, and giving themselves an extra few minutes for the turnaround.
I assume this hard braking has a detrimental effect on the life of the brake pads and to a lesser degree disks and tyres, as it would on a car.
You'd have thought RA would want to save costs, by reducing wear and tear, and letting the plane have a gentler arrival. Even reverse thrust uses valuable fuel, so I's surprised they don't just use air brakes!
So do the advantages of a few minutes longer on the ground outweigh the increased maintenance?
Maybe I should send O'leary a suggestion
Brakes are cheaper than reverse thrust and cheaper than time.
One has to work in cost of maintenance for all parts of an aircraft affected by means of stopping as well time allocated.
Operators are pretty savvy about these cost balances, but of course crews and passengers have their say as well.
One has to work in cost of maintenance for all parts of an aircraft affected by means of stopping as well time allocated.
Operators are pretty savvy about these cost balances, but of course crews and passengers have their say as well.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Derby
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, it also depends what type of brakes you have. Steel brakes wear quicker if you apply them hard. Carbon brakes only wear with each application so braking hard does not actually increase the rate of wear. In fact using auto brakes at a low setting along with reverse thrust can actually wear out carbon brakes quicker as the brakes modulate on and off.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe for a minute that brakes are cheaper than time. Ryanair and most other airlines pad out scheduled time to give them a chance to catch up over most small operational delays.
The excessive use of brakes is far too often associated with the "rush rush rush" syndrome common amongst many carriers, esp I suspect locos and is employed reflexively by many crews (along with M.80/320) even when ahead of the game.
Most of the time , in my experience, it's utterly pointless and indefensible.
The excessive use of brakes is far too often associated with the "rush rush rush" syndrome common amongst many carriers, esp I suspect locos and is employed reflexively by many crews (along with M.80/320) even when ahead of the game.
Most of the time , in my experience, it's utterly pointless and indefensible.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 36
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot probably wants to make sure HE/SHE makes it in on time. Not worrying about the longer term effects of braking hard. Afterall, the pilots are probably not bothered about the airline's costs since the airline doesn't seem to value the pilots. In short, it's harder to record a pilot who is braking too hard than recording whether he arrived late or not...
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a Ryanair thing, in fact whenever I fly with Monarch I get ready to be slammed against my seatbelt more than when I fly with Ryanair to the same airport.
If it was that much of a concern, I can assure you Ryanair would be straight onto their crews about it. Considering Ryanair is the very airline that would take pens from hotels where they would have conferences so they didn't have to buy pens for their office staff.
If it was that much of a concern, I can assure you Ryanair would be straight onto their crews about it. Considering Ryanair is the very airline that would take pens from hotels where they would have conferences so they didn't have to buy pens for their office staff.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also depends on the type of maintenance contract they have.
Many contracts are 'fixed price' where the agreement is to maintain X no. aircraft for X no. months for £ X.
In this case the cost of the extra brake pads is borne by the maintenance company rather than Ryanair.
Many contracts are 'fixed price' where the agreement is to maintain X no. aircraft for X no. months for £ X.
In this case the cost of the extra brake pads is borne by the maintenance company rather than Ryanair.
Are there any hard numbers about how much time can actually be saved that way? Letting the aircraft run down the runway after touchdown, then slamming the brakes in order to come to a screeching halt just in time for the desired taxiway is sure to cause much discomfort for the passengers and unnecessary loads on the brakes and other structure.
Simply putting the aircraft down in the touchdown zone and then applying a constant deceleration to make the same exit by contrast is much more convenient for the passengers and I am convinced that this second method "costs" less than 5 seconds of turnaround time. Even with a minimum time turnaround of 30 minutes on my type, this can well be accepted as much more can be gained or lost by efficient ground handling.
Simply putting the aircraft down in the touchdown zone and then applying a constant deceleration to make the same exit by contrast is much more convenient for the passengers and I am convinced that this second method "costs" less than 5 seconds of turnaround time. Even with a minimum time turnaround of 30 minutes on my type, this can well be accepted as much more can be gained or lost by efficient ground handling.
Simply putting the aircraft down in the touchdown zone and then applying a constant deceleration to make the same exit
The OP said
It's noticeable that RA brake considerably harder than the other two airlines, to make the earlier exits and reduce taxiing time, and giving themselves an extra few minutes for the turnaround.
It would be interesting to see how the economics stack up - I'd be willing to bet that some bean-counter has worked out that those extra few minutes (possibly enabling a late arrival to be turned round into an on-time departure) are worth however many cycles are lost from the brake TBO.
Without seeing the numbers, it's hard to argue with.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many contracts are 'fixed price' where the agreement is to maintain X no. aircraft for X no. months for £ X.
In this case the cost of the extra brake pads is borne by the maintenance company rather than Ryanair
In this case the cost of the extra brake pads is borne by the maintenance company rather than Ryanair
A contract will based on "costs" plus margin.....If the margin is compromised due to costs being higher than planned,- a new or re-negotiated contract will reflect this (I suspect there would be a covering clause for excessive costs, anyway)
To consider that a Mx company exists to make donations to RYR is naive in the extreme.
RYR pays it's own costs.
I'd suggest that maybe those few extra minutes saved by "burning the brakes" are well and truly offset by enabling the next departure-slot to be met....AOG costs a fortune, flying aircraft is making revenue!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a bit of google map measuring, and if you don't take the exit half way down, then it's about 2 miles down to the end of the runway, loop and back to the terminal
2 miles of taxi time, and taxi fuel
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.8...10378&t=h&z=13
2 miles of taxi time, and taxi fuel
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.8...10378&t=h&z=13
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
measuring it on google maps the runway is about 3300m long
from the North, the first exit is about 800m, which would probably involve parking the plane in baggage reclaim
The next exit is 1700m from touchdown, which must be the one RA are using.
If you miss that, it's a further 1600m to the end of the runway, a tight turn, and of course a 1600m trundle back
so 2 miles extra taxiing time, and fuel.
from the North, the first exit is about 800m, which would probably involve parking the plane in baggage reclaim
The next exit is 1700m from touchdown, which must be the one RA are using.
If you miss that, it's a further 1600m to the end of the runway, a tight turn, and of course a 1600m trundle back
so 2 miles extra taxiing time, and fuel.
There are excellent pilots and then there are the cowboy pilots. When it comes to braking after touchdown, then all things being equal, it is the cowboys that slam on the brakes and also taxi fast. It has always been thus regardless of the airline. of course the cowboys would never admit this of course.
