Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel

flyover · September 7th, 2004, 09:46

The WSJ did a long article about the "controversy" of reducing reserve fuel for international flights to save money. Too long to paste here and I could only find it at a registration site (sorry) someone may be able to find it somewhere else.

http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epa...7b14610a1.html

Bottom line is most captains never feel they have enough gas. But it costs money to haul extra gas. The airlines look at overall picture to find cost-effective fuel reserve, while captain's picture is his flight. Instant conflict. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/argue.gif[/img]

Screaming_Emu · September 7th, 2004, 10:26

I may just be speaking giberish, I can see how it costs extra to put extra gas in the planes, but doesn't that just mean that if you dont burn it, its less fuel that you have to put in later. Its not like if you put in extra gas that you have to burn it all.

flyover · September 7th, 2004, 10:37

[ QUOTE ]
I may just be speaking giberish, I can see how it costs extra to put extra gas in the planes, but doesn't that just mean that if you dont burn it, its less fuel that you have to put in later. Its not like if you put in extra gas that you have to burn it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to burn extra fuel to carry extra fuel. In the article, for example, they say $400 worth of fuel is burned in order to carry 7,000 lbs on an international flight.

This is an ongoing argument "fueled" by increasing fuel costs and tiny or non-existent profit margins. It's the classic "bean-counters" vs. captain conflict.

Stormflyer · September 7th, 2004, 10:39

[ QUOTE ]
I may just be speaking giberish, I can see how it costs extra to put extra gas in the planes, but doesn't that just mean that if you dont burn it, its less fuel that you have to put in later. Its not like if you put in extra gas that you have to burn it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I've been thinking! More often than not the reserve fuel won't be used, so it will still be there for a plane's next trip. I don't see how money is saved by reducing the reserve fuel.

MarineNav · September 7th, 2004, 10:46

Add "Fat" fees for overweight passengers and reduce pay for overweight flight crew members! Then we can attack luggage weight. Not that this will ever go over with the public or unions, but somehow this ought to be taken into account when setting fares & fees, especially weight is a significant factor in aircraft performance and fuel burn.

JR

adreamer · September 7th, 2004, 10:51

weight and balance... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I can see why airlines do it. I don't know how much of 1 gallon of jet-A weigh. When you carry more weight(1 gallon of 100LL weight about 6 lbs), you will need more power to takeoff --> burn more fuel. It is a very common practice at my FBO, you do not carry "full" tank of gas when you carry a lot of weight, ie: passengers or luggages.

However, I don't want to see the similar kind of accident like Air Transat.

adreamer

chperplt · September 7th, 2004, 10:51

You are correct in the sense that the fuel not used is fuel that doesn't have to be put into the airplane on the return trip.

What you are not thinking about is the weight of that fuel that has to be carried to the destination. Extra weight means more thrust needed for take off, climb, and cruise, with means a longer time to altitude, which means more fuel burned to get to altitude, which means more fuel used for the trip.

All that amounts to more money..

flyover · September 7th, 2004, 10:56

[ QUOTE ]
reduce pay for overweight flight crew members!
JR

[/ QUOTE ]

All right, now it's getting personal. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bandit.gif[/img]

MarineNav · September 7th, 2004, 11:01

Hello chperplt,

Are you talking to me? I wasn't talking about extra fuel...I was talking about fat people and luggage weight. But if you want to talk about fuel, is there a need for the captain to order more fuel if the FO and dispatch say it's enough? I don't know enough to answer that question.

Regards,

JR

Doug Taylor · September 7th, 2004, 11:02

There's a certain 'rule of thumb' about every 1000 lbs of fuel carried = a particular amount of decreased performance. I can't remember!

A lot of the time, the amount of fuel you get before you depart is predicated on being at or below your maximum landing weight upon arriving.

Kingairer · September 7th, 2004, 11:19

The one time you have to divert b/c of lack of fuel for whatever reason, youve lost all those savings.

flyover · September 7th, 2004, 11:57

[ QUOTE ]
Hello chperplt,

Are you talking to me? I wasn't talking about extra fuel...I was talking about fat people and luggage weight. But if you want to talk about fuel, is there a need for the captain to order more fuel if the FO and dispatch say it's enough? I don't know enough to answer that question.

Regards,

JR

[/ QUOTE ]

Captain, is the final authority. Since he has control of the parking brake the airplane doesn't move without the fuel load he wants. On the other hand he might expect a lively debate with the dispatcher, expecially if there are issues like takeoff weight and landing weight. In that case the dispatcher could conceivably pull his authorization for the flight. FO can get in on the debate but has no "authoritay".

C650CPT · September 7th, 2004, 15:11

I once flew with a pilot ( we were both captain rated ) who allways wanted to know ... how much fuel do we need for the mission ... and I always answered how much fuel can we carry. My point was made clear one foggy (christmas eve ) night when we got to our Mid western destination with our legal 45 min fuel reserve only to find out it was fogged in, btw it was forecasted to be VFR. By flight computer calculations if we flew the approach, the missed and then proceded to the closest option it would take 50 min. We aborted the approach, declared min fuel and proceeded to our "new" alternate, with a turn over the marker to final. After landing out of a 400 and 2 approach our low fuel lights were on. NEVER AGAIN !!! Any time after that experience he wanted to "chinse" on fuel I reminded him of that night and he let me put on the fuel I wanted. Gotta be smart out there!

Jim

flyover · September 7th, 2004, 16:58

What a luxury to be able to carry so much fuel. I flew one of the first generation biz-jets (jet commander). We filled it up every time, just made it off the runway, and then declared "min fuel" on departure control. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Wolverine · September 7th, 2004, 17:23

There's 3 worthless things in aviation: runway behind you, altitude above you, and fuel in the truck. You never know when you may need that extra runway, extra altitude, or extra fuel, but it's definitely good to have when you do.

I always load up the planes I'm dispatching with as much fuel as I can, while allowing for a full pax load. If the load is less than full, the captain has the authority and my recommendation to add as much fuel as he wants, while staying within the weight limits.

Our system tells me on each release how much fuel will be burned for each 1000lb of extra fuel added, and how much fuel costs at the departure and destination airports. In CRJs it's usually 10-25lb of fuel burned for each extra 1000lb added. I'd rather burn up 2-5 gallons (at ~$1/gallon) per trip than have the company pay for a diversion because of unexpected weather or some unexpected emergency at the destination airport.

I think of extra fuel as an inexpensive insurance policy against an expensive and very inconvenient diversion.

flyover · September 7th, 2004, 18:02

Have to agree with you.

But the company crunches the numbers and finds a few millions in savings by shaving it some. Not a safety issue really, more a passenger service issue if you have to divert.

Screaming_Emu · September 7th, 2004, 18:13

ahh, makes sense, dont really have to worry about not being able to climb because we're too heavy in the Arrow. Would take too long to get up there anyway. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

danielsexton · September 7th, 2004, 18:17

I watched the UK version of airline once, I can't remember the airline i think its Ryan Air, they got diverted to a airport in France due to weather, they had no fuel arrangements and the captain fuel up the 737 on his personal credit card to get the plane and passengers on there way.

ananoman · September 7th, 2004, 23:35

[ QUOTE ]
Our system tells me on each release how much fuel will be burned for each 1000lb of extra fuel added, and how much fuel costs at the departure and destination airports. In CRJs it's usually 10-25lb of fuel burned for each extra 1000lb added. I'd rather burn up 2-5 gallons (at ~$1/gallon) per trip than have the company pay for a diversion because of unexpected weather or some unexpected emergency at the destination airport.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true on the smaller, shorter ranged aircraft like the ERJ that weigh about 50,000 lbs and carry only about 10,000 lbs of fuel. But the large jets that go to Europe and elsewhere can carry alot more gas. In the widebody jets, you can have an aircraft with a max take off wt of 600,000 lbs or more, with about half of that being fuel. It is obviously ok to carry some extra gas around, but if you take this too far, you can burn up alot of money in the course of a year.

Mr_Creepy · September 8th, 2004, 08:49

It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands.

Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability.

flyover · September 8th, 2004, 09:55

[ QUOTE ]
It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands.

Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, if they find out there is a pilot out there that doesn't want extra fuel they may try to clone you (or just put you out to stud). [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Minnesota_Flyer · September 8th, 2004, 10:37

[ QUOTE ]
It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands.

Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admit it . . . you just don't like the dispatchers telling you what to do! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

MF

Mr_Creepy · September 8th, 2004, 14:41

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands.

Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Admit it . . . you just don't like the dispatchers telling you what to do! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
MF

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially when they don't have the right to!

A lot of dispatchers forget that the PIC is the final authority, not them.

Some airlines teach them that they make all the decisions. It is supposed to be a team effort, but the PIC has the last call of course, as he or she has to fly the plane.

September 7th, 2004, 09:46	#1
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel The WSJ did a long article about the "controversy" of reducing reserve fuel for international flights to save money. Too long to paste here and I could only find it at a registration site (sorry) someone may be able to find it somewhere else. http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epa...7b14610a1.html Bottom line is most captains never feel they have enough gas. But it costs money to haul extra gas. The airlines look at overall picture to find cost-effective fuel reserve, while captain's picture is his flight. Instant conflict. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/argue.gif[/img]

September 7th, 2004, 10:26	#2
Screaming_Emu Old Skool Join Date: May 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 3,134	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel I may just be speaking giberish, I can see how it costs extra to put extra gas in the planes, but doesn't that just mean that if you dont burn it, its less fuel that you have to put in later. Its not like if you put in extra gas that you have to burn it all.

September 7th, 2004, 10:37	#3
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] I may just be speaking giberish, I can see how it costs extra to put extra gas in the planes, but doesn't that just mean that if you dont burn it, its less fuel that you have to put in later. Its not like if you put in extra gas that you have to burn it all. [/ QUOTE ] You have to burn extra fuel to carry extra fuel. In the article, for example, they say $400 worth of fuel is burned in order to carry 7,000 lbs on an international flight. This is an ongoing argument "fueled" by increasing fuel costs and tiny or non-existent profit margins. It's the classic "bean-counters" vs. captain conflict.

September 7th, 2004, 10:39	#4
Stormflyer Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 86	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] I may just be speaking giberish, I can see how it costs extra to put extra gas in the planes, but doesn't that just mean that if you dont burn it, its less fuel that you have to put in later. Its not like if you put in extra gas that you have to burn it all. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I've been thinking! More often than not the reserve fuel won't be used, so it will still be there for a plane's next trip. I don't see how money is saved by reducing the reserve fuel.

September 7th, 2004, 10:46	#5
MarineNav Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 301	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel Add "Fat" fees for overweight passengers and reduce pay for overweight flight crew members! Then we can attack luggage weight. Not that this will ever go over with the public or unions, but somehow this ought to be taken into account when setting fares & fees, especially weight is a significant factor in aircraft performance and fuel burn. JR

September 7th, 2004, 10:51	#6
adreamer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: AZO Posts: 1,308	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel weight and balance... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I can see why airlines do it. I don't know how much of 1 gallon of jet-A weigh. When you carry more weight(1 gallon of 100LL weight about 6 lbs), you will need more power to takeoff --> burn more fuel. It is a very common practice at my FBO, you do not carry "full" tank of gas when you carry a lot of weight, ie: passengers or luggages. However, I don't want to see the similar kind of accident like Air Transat. adreamer

September 7th, 2004, 10:51	#7
chperplt Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 145	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel You are correct in the sense that the fuel not used is fuel that doesn't have to be put into the airplane on the return trip. What you are not thinking about is the weight of that fuel that has to be carried to the destination. Extra weight means more thrust needed for take off, climb, and cruise, with means a longer time to altitude, which means more fuel burned to get to altitude, which means more fuel used for the trip. All that amounts to more money..

September 7th, 2004, 10:56	#8
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] reduce pay for overweight flight crew members! JR [/ QUOTE ] All right, now it's getting personal. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bandit.gif[/img]

September 7th, 2004, 11:01	#9
MarineNav Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 301	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel Hello chperplt, Are you talking to me? I wasn't talking about extra fuel...I was talking about fat people and luggage weight. But if you want to talk about fuel, is there a need for the captain to order more fuel if the FO and dispatch say it's enough? I don't know enough to answer that question. Regards, JR

September 7th, 2004, 11:02	#10
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 39,931 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel There's a certain 'rule of thumb' about every 1000 lbs of fuel carried = a particular amount of decreased performance. I can't remember! A lot of the time, the amount of fuel you get before you depart is predicated on being at or below your maximum landing weight upon arriving.

September 7th, 2004, 11:19	#11
Kingairer Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Nomadic...World Wide Boobie Bungalow Bouncer Posts: 3,168	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel The one time you have to divert b/c of lack of fuel for whatever reason, youve lost all those savings.

September 7th, 2004, 11:57	#12
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] Hello chperplt, Are you talking to me? I wasn't talking about extra fuel...I was talking about fat people and luggage weight. But if you want to talk about fuel, is there a need for the captain to order more fuel if the FO and dispatch say it's enough? I don't know enough to answer that question. Regards, JR [/ QUOTE ] Captain, is the final authority. Since he has control of the parking brake the airplane doesn't move without the fuel load he wants. On the other hand he might expect a lively debate with the dispatcher, expecially if there are issues like takeoff weight and landing weight. In that case the dispatcher could conceivably pull his authorization for the flight. FO can get in on the debate but has no "authoritay".

September 7th, 2004, 15:11	#13
C650CPT Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Home Sweet Home! Posts: 957	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel I once flew with a pilot ( we were both captain rated ) who allways wanted to know ... how much fuel do we need for the mission ... and I always answered how much fuel can we carry. My point was made clear one foggy (christmas eve ) night when we got to our Mid western destination with our legal 45 min fuel reserve only to find out it was fogged in, btw it was forecasted to be VFR. By flight computer calculations if we flew the approach, the missed and then proceded to the closest option it would take 50 min. We aborted the approach, declared min fuel and proceeded to our "new" alternate, with a turn over the marker to final. After landing out of a 400 and 2 approach our low fuel lights were on. NEVER AGAIN !!! Any time after that experience he wanted to "chinse" on fuel I reminded him of that night and he let me put on the fuel I wanted. Gotta be smart out there! Jim

September 7th, 2004, 16:58	#14
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel What a luxury to be able to carry so much fuel. I flew one of the first generation biz-jets (jet commander). We filled it up every time, just made it off the runway, and then declared "min fuel" on departure control. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

September 7th, 2004, 17:23	#15
Wolverine Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 167	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel There's 3 worthless things in aviation: runway behind you, altitude above you, and fuel in the truck. You never know when you may need that extra runway, extra altitude, or extra fuel, but it's definitely good to have when you do. I always load up the planes I'm dispatching with as much fuel as I can, while allowing for a full pax load. If the load is less than full, the captain has the authority and my recommendation to add as much fuel as he wants, while staying within the weight limits. Our system tells me on each release how much fuel will be burned for each 1000lb of extra fuel added, and how much fuel costs at the departure and destination airports. In CRJs it's usually 10-25lb of fuel burned for each extra 1000lb added. I'd rather burn up 2-5 gallons (at ~$1/gallon) per trip than have the company pay for a diversion because of unexpected weather or some unexpected emergency at the destination airport. I think of extra fuel as an inexpensive insurance policy against an expensive and very inconvenient diversion.

September 7th, 2004, 18:02	#16
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel Have to agree with you. But the company crunches the numbers and finds a few millions in savings by shaving it some. Not a safety issue really, more a passenger service issue if you have to divert.

September 7th, 2004, 18:13	#17
Screaming_Emu Old Skool Join Date: May 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 3,134	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel ahh, makes sense, dont really have to worry about not being able to climb because we're too heavy in the Arrow. Would take too long to get up there anyway. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

September 7th, 2004, 18:17	#18
danielsexton Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CSG Posts: 186	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel I watched the UK version of airline once, I can't remember the airline i think its Ryan Air, they got diverted to a airport in France due to weather, they had no fuel arrangements and the captain fuel up the 737 on his personal credit card to get the plane and passengers on there way.

September 7th, 2004, 23:35	#19
ananoman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 916	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] Our system tells me on each release how much fuel will be burned for each 1000lb of extra fuel added, and how much fuel costs at the departure and destination airports. In CRJs it's usually 10-25lb of fuel burned for each extra 1000lb added. I'd rather burn up 2-5 gallons (at ~$1/gallon) per trip than have the company pay for a diversion because of unexpected weather or some unexpected emergency at the destination airport. [/ QUOTE ] This is true on the smaller, shorter ranged aircraft like the ERJ that weigh about 50,000 lbs and carry only about 10,000 lbs of fuel. But the large jets that go to Europe and elsewhere can carry alot more gas. In the widebody jets, you can have an aircraft with a max take off wt of 600,000 lbs or more, with about half of that being fuel. It is obviously ok to carry some extra gas around, but if you take this too far, you can burn up alot of money in the course of a year.

September 8th, 2004, 08:49	#20
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,807	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands. Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability.

September 8th, 2004, 09:55	#21
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands. Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability. [/ QUOTE ] Careful, if they find out there is a pilot out there that doesn't want extra fuel they may try to clone you (or just put you out to stud). [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

September 8th, 2004, 10:37	#22
Minnesota_Flyer Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul Posts: 1,895	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands. Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability. [/ QUOTE ] Admit it . . . you just don't like the dispatchers telling you what to do! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] MF

September 8th, 2004, 14:41	#23
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,807	Re: Airlines Reduce Backup Fuel [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's dispatchers that usually want extra fuel (in large quantities.) I always like to take an extra couple hundred pounds but they would add thousands. Pilots like to take non-revs and jumpseaters, and we don't like fuel restrictions to limit our carrying ability. [/ QUOTE ] Admit it . . . you just don't like the dispatchers telling you what to do! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] MF [/ QUOTE ] Especially when they don't have the right to! A lot of dispatchers forget that the PIC is the final authority, not them. Some airlines teach them that they make all the decisions. It is supposed to be a team effort, but the PIC has the last call of course, as he or she has to fly the plane.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode