Fuel Burn
The nearest I get is Stansted, but was there not some guideline about 30 minutes holding fuel required for Heathrow? At the end of the day it is total fuel burn that impacts the bottom line so alternate, final reserve and convenience fuel only matter in terms of the additional cost of carrying it.
Overall some interesting points have come out.
1. The sixties turboprop did the trip with more or less the same time and fuel as a comparable A319/737G
2. The Trident seems to have burned at least twice as much as the Vanguard doing the same job, although I remember it as a much more pleasant experience
I saw recently an estimate that 40% of total airline costs are now made up of fuel, obviously varying quite widely dependent on circumstances. Hopefully a sustained reduction in fuel prices together with modern technology and practices can reduce this and contribute to the survival of our employers.
Overall some interesting points have come out.
1. The sixties turboprop did the trip with more or less the same time and fuel as a comparable A319/737G
2. The Trident seems to have burned at least twice as much as the Vanguard doing the same job, although I remember it as a much more pleasant experience
I saw recently an estimate that 40% of total airline costs are now made up of fuel, obviously varying quite widely dependent on circumstances. Hopefully a sustained reduction in fuel prices together with modern technology and practices can reduce this and contribute to the survival of our employers.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is unusual to see minimum contingency fuel planned
I'd be impressed if you got 35 minutes holding out of ".3-.5T"
leder - the expression the CAA came up with was 'expect 20 minutes delay for a 'no-delay' approach'
(Aged CAA PINK)
Doug I also do not quite understand how your contingency fuel is equal to 35 minutes holding. We have a set percentage contingency amount and then an amount called extra, which is 99% blank unless ops have a special requirement and used by the captain for circumstances like expected holding or weather.
The rest of the figures make absolute sense and thank you for posting them. Incidentally the 737 like for like, being a bit lighter, uses a bit less fuel than the Airbus family. The purchase price and residual value allegedly balance things out, although not always the maintenance costs according to companies that operate both side by side.
BOAC thanks for the clarification.
The rest of the figures make absolute sense and thank you for posting them. Incidentally the 737 like for like, being a bit lighter, uses a bit less fuel than the Airbus family. The purchase price and residual value allegedly balance things out, although not always the maintenance costs according to companies that operate both side by side.
BOAC thanks for the clarification.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are sliding away from BC's thread here, but.....
- well, think about it - it can be an 'aid' for those who find themselves 'under pressure' ( erm - no names...) through loading 'extra' when if expressed as an increased trip fuel (and, of course justified) it can sometimes ring less bells.
Although 'somewhat aged' (like me) this was the CAA advice in 2000 with the relevant bit highlighted, when it was 'common practice' to increase contingency for this purpose, which is not, of course, what it is for:
SPECIAL OBJECTIVE CHECK ON AIR OPERATORS' FUEL PLANNING POLICIES - SUMMER 2000
1 Introduction
1.1 A Special Objective Check (SaC) on UK air operators' fuel planning policies was carried out in the Summer of 2000. The sac also asked questions which reflected concerns raised in letters to the Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP).
4.3.3 AIC 36/1998 recommends that adequate reserves of fuel should be carried when intending to land in the UK at certain airfields where delays should be expected at times when the associated terminal areas will be busy. This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve Fuel remaining. Concern remains that this message has still not been acted upon to the extent envisaged: in late September 2000 one controller dealt with three fuel shortage PAN calls in one shift.
4.3.4 Recommendation 2 Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
leder - again 'out of date', but from an AIC (PINK 82/2003) at a time (again) when certain 'foreign' airlines were pushing fuel carriage somewhat:
3.1 'No delay expected' means in these circumstances:
'Do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach'.
3.2 Where a delay greater than 20 minutes is expected, the controller will pass an EAT. When delays are expected to be less than 20 minutes, controllers will, when requested, give a general indication of the expected delay.
4 Traffic situations in the terminal areas can change very quickly even though 'No delay expected' will often mean precisely that,
crews should expect that on occasions some holding will be required before they are fitted into the final approach pattern.
5 It is important, therefore, that operators and crews should take a realistic view of the amount of fuel required, to satisfy the
minimum fuel overhead destination requirements.
I suspect both publications may have been 'massaged away' by pressure from operators, and please don't all shout "it's all out of date" because I need convincing that life has changed so much!
Originally Posted by Doug E
that's for people other than myself (an ordinary line pilot) to bother themselves with but as long as I have a sensible amount of fuel for the flight, given the prevailing conditions, I don't really care which column that fuel is in.
Although 'somewhat aged' (like me) this was the CAA advice in 2000 with the relevant bit highlighted, when it was 'common practice' to increase contingency for this purpose, which is not, of course, what it is for:
SPECIAL OBJECTIVE CHECK ON AIR OPERATORS' FUEL PLANNING POLICIES - SUMMER 2000
1 Introduction
1.1 A Special Objective Check (SaC) on UK air operators' fuel planning policies was carried out in the Summer of 2000. The sac also asked questions which reflected concerns raised in letters to the Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP).
4.3.3 AIC 36/1998 recommends that adequate reserves of fuel should be carried when intending to land in the UK at certain airfields where delays should be expected at times when the associated terminal areas will be busy. This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve Fuel remaining. Concern remains that this message has still not been acted upon to the extent envisaged: in late September 2000 one controller dealt with three fuel shortage PAN calls in one shift.
4.3.4 Recommendation 2 Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
leder - again 'out of date', but from an AIC (PINK 82/2003) at a time (again) when certain 'foreign' airlines were pushing fuel carriage somewhat:
3.1 'No delay expected' means in these circumstances:
'Do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach'.
3.2 Where a delay greater than 20 minutes is expected, the controller will pass an EAT. When delays are expected to be less than 20 minutes, controllers will, when requested, give a general indication of the expected delay.
4 Traffic situations in the terminal areas can change very quickly even though 'No delay expected' will often mean precisely that,
crews should expect that on occasions some holding will be required before they are fitted into the final approach pattern.
5 It is important, therefore, that operators and crews should take a realistic view of the amount of fuel required, to satisfy the
minimum fuel overhead destination requirements.
I suspect both publications may have been 'massaged away' by pressure from operators, and please don't all shout "it's all out of date" because I need convincing that life has changed so much!
