Your best fuel/cost savings tips
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta love being stuck behind the locos in Europe. If they are in front you are snookered. They do a lovely fully managed descent CDA at 250kts and in sight of the field then ask for a short base and final and the rest of us are on the speedbrake. No doubt pat themselves on the back for all that fuel they saved and what wonderful airman they are. Seems airmanship and a bit of respect for other operators sharing the sky has long left this industry. Instead its a bunch of lemmings who are to scared to take the fuel they require to do the job properly. One day you might actually take the time to compare the fuel flow on a high speed descent at IDLE power with your 250kt version.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hat, coat...
PS: I agree we are all in the same airspace, but people with a lot of information about operating costs (much more than it's available to an average pilot) have come up with a cost index that keeps the boat afloat, and it might be different for another airline operating same aircraft type. It's then ATC's job to adjust the speeds to keep the flow going, sometimes the slow guys have to speed and and sometimes the fast guys need to slow down.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The green procedure recommends Flaps 3. I’m pretty convinced they take the potential extra fuel burn of using more reverse thrust into considerations.
"Low power to save engine life and then full thrust if you are going to get a continuous climb.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$."
Can someone explain this. Non jet driver here. I thought the EGT would be lowest at sea level due to highest air density and that EGT climbs as you climb in altitude.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$."
Can someone explain this. Non jet driver here. I thought the EGT would be lowest at sea level due to highest air density and that EGT climbs as you climb in altitude.
Several years ago, we were investigating a particular Asian airline that had horrible time-on-wing for their 737/CFM56 engines. Mainly sort haul, they were running out of EGT margin in ~3,000 hours - at a time when the typical operator was in the range of 15,000-20,000 hour time on wing.
Come to find out, they were using max TO every single takeoff - never a derate of any kind. At around a million dollars to overhaul an engine, you'd have to save a whole lot of of fuel to justify an extra two million dollars/year in engine maintenance...
Come to find out, they were using max TO every single takeoff - never a derate of any kind. At around a million dollars to overhaul an engine, you'd have to save a whole lot of of fuel to justify an extra two million dollars/year in engine maintenance...
"Low power to save engine life and then full thrust if you are going to get a continuous climb.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$."
Can someone explain this. Non jet driver here. I thought the EGT would be lowest at sea level due to highest air density and that EGT climbs as you climb in altitude.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$."
Can someone explain this. Non jet driver here. I thought the EGT would be lowest at sea level due to highest air density and that EGT climbs as you climb in altitude.
You could save a bit of fuel and a lot of localised pollution if you used towbots to take aircraft from the gate and towed them almost to the hold point so that they minimised taxiing and waiting about with the engines running. Nice autonomous towbots ensuring you only have three minutes from startup to takeoff. Heahrow would love it!
A system called Wheel Tug has also been invented; electric traction motors in the nose wheels, powered by the APU.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference (savings) come from starting descent earlier (i.e. setting thrust to idle earlier) in a low speed descent. Since for a higher speed descent your calculated TOD will be further away than for a low speed one, you'll have cruise power for some minutes longer.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference (savings) come from starting descent earlier (i.e. setting thrust to idle earlier) in a low speed descent. Since for a higher speed descent your calculated TOD will be further away than for a low speed one, you'll have cruise power for some minutes longer.
