40-50 Billion dollars to save an average of 10-15 minutes a flight

ozone

Well-Known Member
#22
(87,000 flights per day x 15minutes )/ 60 min/hr = 21750 hours per day saved
Fuel burn of a 737 at cruise/ hour = 5000 pounds = 735 gallons
735 gallons x 21750 hours = 15992647 gallons saved
cost of jet fuel/ gallon at a major airline = $2.00 (rounded-up average) (link: U.S. airline fuel cost 2017 | Statistic)

Daily savings = $31,985,294.12
Annual savings = $11,674,632,352.90

Someone check my math...I was never very good at math. If I am right, then ADS-B is a bargain and pays for itself in a few years; assuming that wholesale jet fuel prices stay the same. Is it really $2.00 (ish ) per gallon for jet fuel?!? That's some serious negotiating on the part of the major airlines.
 
#23
For the American economy time additional relaxing spent looknig out the window at great landscapes and clouds for passengers away from the hustle of work is not calculated. A relaxed worker gives better work output. Heck lets bring back newspapers in seatbacks !
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
#24
For the American economy time additional relaxing spent looknig out the window at great landscapes and clouds for passengers away from the hustle of work is not calculated. A relaxed worker gives better work output. Heck lets bring back newspapers in seatbacks !
I know you're trolling, but you think newspapers are gonna bring back relaxation? Cha-maon!
 

CFIT99

I'm probably commenting ironically...
#25
For the American economy time additional relaxing spent looknig out the window at great landscapes and clouds for passengers away from the hustle of work is not calculated. A relaxed worker gives better work output. Heck lets bring back newspapers in seatbacks !
c'mon man, this thread had some serious troll potential, now you're just shooting blanks...
 

RobertB

Well-Known Member
#26
How does NexGen help places like TEB not have delays? Is ADSB going to let them land on 17 or 46 and then taxi to the airport?

Things actually needed for NAS improvement:
- More pavements to land aircraft
- Better airline scheduling to reduce delays
- A route key in the terminal environment for flight amendments
- Data block entries that can go to/from the terminal and Enroute environments for coordination
- Enroute controllers to use FUSION and get significantly quicker radar updates
- Enroute controllers to be able to use divergence for climbs and descends

Besides the more pavement comment above, all of these others one could be implemented in the low millions and could improve efficiency immensely.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
#27
How does NexGen help places like TEB not have delays? Is ADSB going to let them land on 17 or 46 and then taxi to the airport?

Things actually needed for NAS improvement:
- More pavements to land aircraft
- Better airline scheduling to reduce delays
- A route key in the terminal environment for flight amendments
- Data block entries that can go to/from the terminal and Enroute environments for coordination
- Enroute controllers to use FUSION and get significantly quicker radar updates
- Enroute controllers to be able to use divergence for climbs and descends

Besides the more pavement comment above, all of these others one could be implemented in the low millions and could improve efficiency immensely.
Well with regard to pavement imagine landing an aircraft every 30-45 seconds. Time it next time ur on short final. About 200 to touch and dude is gonna be pulling off on the highspeed.
 
#28
(87,000 flights per day x 15minutes )/ 60 min/hr = 21750 hours per day saved
Fuel burn of a 737 at cruise/ hour = 5000 pounds = 735 gallons
735 gallons x 21750 hours = 15992647 gallons saved
cost of jet fuel/ gallon at a major airline = $2.00 (rounded-up average) (link: U.S. airline fuel cost 2017 | Statistic)

Daily savings = $31,985,294.12
Annual savings = $11,674,632,352.90

Someone check my math...I was never very good at math. If I am right, then ADS-B is a bargain and pays for itself in a few years; assuming that wholesale jet fuel prices stay the same. Is it really $2.00 (ish ) per gallon for jet fuel?!? That's some serious negotiating on the part of the major airlines.
87k flights per day, but only 43k talk to ATC, and only ~22k are air carrier operated. Probably 14k airline flights. Call it break even in about a decade. Of course, that's purely financial. Safety or environmental benefits aren't considered.
 

RobertB

Well-Known Member
#29
Well with regard to pavement imagine landing an aircraft every 30-45 seconds. Time it next time ur on short final. About 200 to touch and dude is gonna be pulling off on the highspeed.
Few airports have the demand to land an aircraft less than say a minute or two in trail. What you’re describing is basically a good controller working ATL, ORD, or EWR during a busy push. Even then, it relies on pilots making the first or second high speed or not having a AAL or UAL pilot rolling to the end. Hell, landing an airplane every minute is a 60 AAR. The airlines don’t want that because they would be lower and slower longer aka more fuel burn versus taking a slight delay at their origin. Example: Delta 73s complain about doing 160 because they have to config sooner and, I’d imagine, burn more fuel thus cutting into their profit sharing. The only way to land more aircraft efficiently (delays, fuel burn, etc) is to build more runways.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
#30
Few airports have the demand to land an aircraft less than say a minute or two in trail. What you’re describing is basically a good controller working ATL, ORD, or EWR during a busy push. Even then, it relies on pilots making the first or second high speed or not having a AAL or UAL pilot rolling to the end. Hell, landing an airplane every minute is a 60 AAR. The airlines don’t want that because they would be lower and slower longer aka more fuel burn versus taking a slight delay at their origin. Example: Delta 73s complain about doing 160 because they have to config sooner and, I’d imagine, burn more fuel thus cutting into their profit sharing. The only way to land more aircraft efficiently (delays, fuel burn, etc) is to build more runways.
We rarely get down to that sort of separation and we'd be on the levers waiting for the go around. 200ft to touch is a tight squeeze, and we'd be doing it (at high volume airports) as the norm. Further more we'd have electronic visability into where ATC need us, so the crew is in on the process completely and im not left guessing. Building more runways isnt possible or doesnt fix the problem in ny or dc/bwi. Reduced separation with enhanced pilot and controller awareness is the cheapest way.

Airliners want the benefits, they just dont want to pay for the equipment, but thats every time. Every damn time.

Until then if i guy wants to save the brakes and his company some money deal by taking the next high speed let them. Under next gen missing a highspeed would be a full on paperwork issue and the pilots will stop doing it immediately once we gotta asap it.

I feel like we're just gonna talk past each other. I think next gen makes the most sense, so do a lot of other people, we will see i suppose.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
#31
We rarely get down to that sort of separation and we'd be on the levers waiting for the go around. 200ft to touch is a tight squeeze, and we'd be doing it (at high volume airports) as the norm. Further more we'd have electronic visability into where ATC need us, so the crew is in on the process completely and im not left guessing. Building more runways isnt possible or doesnt fix the problem in ny or dc/bwi. Reduced separation with enhanced pilot and controller awareness is the cheapest way.

Airliners want the benefits, they just dont want to pay for the equipment, but thats every time. Every damn time.

Until then if i guy wants to save the brakes and his company some money deal by taking the next high speed let them. Under next gen missing a highspeed would be a full on paperwork issue and the pilots will stop doing it immediately once we gotta asap it.

I feel like we're just gonna talk past each other. I think next gen makes the most sense, so do a lot of other people, we will see i suppose.
Nextgen isn’t so much about running tighter at the runway as it is about running tighter in approaches airspace so there’s another plane or 2 in the conga line. Won’t do chit for controller work overload though.

The easiest way to accomplish more efficiency is instead of having a 60 hour only all 60 show up in the first 20 minutes is actually have them scheduled to show up over the full hour.

But no ATC technology will eliminate wake turbulence and so there is only so much space that can be cut.
 

bimmerphile

SuperCritical™ Member
#32
Nextgen isn’t so much about running tighter at the runway as it is about running tighter in approaches airspace so there’s another plane or 2 in the conga line. Won’t do chit for controller work overload though.

The easiest way to accomplish more efficiency is instead of having a 60 hour only all 60 show up in the first 20 minutes is actually have them scheduled to show up over the full hour.

But no ATC technology will eliminate wake turbulence and so there is only so much space that can be cut.
Just wait for variable glideslopes combined with RNPs to avoid wake. Heavies in the bottom of the stack on 2.5 deg glidepath and progressively lighter aircraft up to 3.5 deg or 4 for turboprops. Like the opposite of a MITO. Would be trickier maybe trying to sequence by weight, but computers and stuff.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
#34
Nextgen isn’t so much about running tighter at the runway as it is about running tighter in approaches airspace so there’s another plane or 2 in the conga line. Won’t do chit for controller work overload though.

The easiest way to accomplish more efficiency is instead of having a 60 hour only all 60 show up in the first 20 minutes is actually have them scheduled to show up over the full hour.

But no ATC technology will eliminate wake turbulence and so there is only so much space that can be cut.
Im lost, did someone promise next gen would solve atc self induced staffing issues? I genuinly didnt realize this was some sort of 3rd rail. Y'all are right, f next gen. It's a pipe dream from engineer wheenies that haven't done anything right since tcas.

The only thing that can be held against next gen right this second is that no one in the gubbermint will fund it. Good thing everyone already decided it was garbage ahead of time. Hate to thing we'd have this useless system AND be out of all that money.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
#35
Im lost, did someone promise next gen would solve atc self induced staffing issues? I genuinly didnt realize this was some sort of 3rd rail. Y'all are right, f next gen. It's a pipe dream from engineer wheenies that haven't done anything right since tcas.

The only thing that can be held against next gen right this second is that no one in the gubbermint will fund it. Good thing everyone already decided it was garbage ahead of time. Hate to thing we'd have this useless system AND be out of all that money.
You misunderstood me. I’m not against nextgen at all. In fact I look forward to having it in my facility (only 2 years away for the last 7 years!). I’m just saying it’s not going to help put more planes on the ground in a given amount of time than we have now.
 

bimmerphile

SuperCritical™ Member
#36
You misunderstood me. I’m not against nextgen at all. In fact I look forward to having it in my facility (only 2 years away for the last 7 years!). I’m just saying it’s not going to help put more planes on the ground in a given amount of time than we have now.
I think down the road it may be able to. Having systems onboard with live updates of traffic speed and spacing can probably move more airplanes. Although it just shifts the choke point onto the ground, with taxi flows, ramp congestion, gate availability and turn times coming into play instead.
 

RobertB

Well-Known Member
#37
We rarely get down to that sort of separation and we'd be on the levers waiting for the go around. 200ft to touch is a tight squeeze, and we'd be doing it (at high volume airports) as the norm. Further more we'd have electronic visability into where ATC need us, so the crew is in on the process completely and im not left guessing. Building more runways isnt possible or doesnt fix the problem in ny or dc/bwi. Reduced separation with enhanced pilot and controller awareness is the cheapest way.

Airliners want the benefits, they just dont want to pay for the equipment, but thats every time. Every damn time.

Until then if i guy wants to save the brakes and his company some money deal by taking the next high speed let them. Under next gen missing a highspeed would be a full on paperwork issue and the pilots will stop doing it immediately once we gotta asap it.

I feel like we're just gonna talk past each other. I think next gen makes the most sense, so do a lot of other people, we will see i suppose.
From a controller point, the previously mentioned things would improve efficiency significantly at a ridiculously low cost. Also, allowing towers to use ASDE-X for runway separation during bad weather. (Now, if they can’t visually see the high speeds, we have to keep three miles to the threshold regardless of where the preceding aircraft is located.) You could also allow aircraft to land at the same time. We could call it DARSA here in ATL. After those two additional changes plus the prior mentioned ones, you’re pretty much out of options for improving efficiency and the recently two posted ones would potentially carry huge safety concerns. We already have reduced wake turbulence separation. You can’t go much closer in trail on final unless they let us land aircraft at the same time.

NYC:
Needs more efficient pavement due to airspace constraints and volume aka a billions and billions and billions of dollar parallel runway airport at say Sandy Hook, NJ.

DC:
Doesn’t have anywhere near the demand as NYC, but you could always offset demand to IAD (down significantly as shown below), build slightly longer runways at DCA (allow larger aircraft thus more passengers), and try to convince Andrews to become like say CHS and allow commercial and GA aircraft to offset an future demand to the region.

Aircraft Operations
FY 2018:
BWI- 267,692 (2.9% increase from ‘13 and 9.6% drop from ‘03)
DCA- 297,535 (0.7% increase from ‘13 and 18.9% increase from ‘03)
IAD- 300,947 (9.8% drop from ‘13 and 18.3% drop from ‘03)

BWI- 733 flights now versus 810 in ‘03
DCA- 815 flights now versus 685 in ‘03
IAD- 824 flights now versus 1,009 in ‘03
= 132 less total flights per day to the DC area

The pavement is there just everyone wants to land at National versus Dulles or Baltimore. If traffic was offset away from DCA or the runways were lengthened to accommodate larger aircraft, there would be less delays and more passengers arriving/departing= more money for airlines.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
#38
NYC:
Needs more efficient pavement due to airspace constraints and volume aka a billions and billions and billions of dollar parallel runway airport at say Sandy Hook, NJ
They need to close EWR, LGA, and TEB and build a Denver or at least another JFK to the northwest of the city. Connect it to the city with a dedicated high speed rail line and/or expressway. And also move N90 off of Long Island if they ever want to staff it properly.
 
#39
They need to close EWR, LGA, and TEB and build a Denver or at least another JFK to the northwest of the city. Connect it to the city with a dedicated high speed rail line and/or expressway. And also move N90 off of Long Island if they ever want to staff it properly.
will never be allowed by the taxi cab drivers. Why do you think LGA and JFK are not connected by the airtrain...
 
Top