Airlines running fuel margins thin

[[email protected]]

Heres a report from WABC that apparently aired on Good Morning America
this morning:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5747236

appears the airlines are using minimum fuel as much as possible to
reduce fuel burns and costs. Seems to me that some good glider
experience could become a hiring requirement at the majors if they
keep this up.

[Alistair Wright]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Heres a report from WABC that apparently aired on Good Morning America
> this morning:
> http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5747236
>
> appears the airlines are using minimum fuel as much as possible to
> reduce fuel burns and costs. Seems to me that some good glider
> experience could become a hiring requirement at the majors if they
> keep this up.
>
You're thinking of the 'Gimli Glider' then? That was just good old
fashioned miscalculation, but the fact that the first officer was an in
practice glider pilot saved a lot of lives that day.

Alistair Wright
Scotland

[Udo]

They have been doing for years.
The last time I was up front in an Airline Cockpit as a guest (before
9/11) during a none stop flight from Duesseldorf to Toronto, a
decision by the crew was made regarding a precautionary fuel stop.
Even though the flight could have gone the distance with ease, there
would not have been the legal amount of reserve fuel on board at
arrival in Toronto. Everybody was ticked off. But the winds were much
higher then forecast even though a different altitude was requested to
mitigate
some of the effect.

Udo

On Nov 8, 11:18 am, wrote:
> Heres a report from WABC that apparently aired on Good Morning America
> this morning:http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5747236
>
> appears the airlines are using minimum fuel as much as possible to
> reduce fuel burns and costs. Seems to me that some good glider
> experience could become a hiring requirement at the majors if they
> keep this up.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 11:17 am, "Alistair Wright" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...> Heres a report from WABC that apparently aired on Good Morning America
> > this morning:
> >http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5747236
>
> > appears the airlines are using minimum fuel as much as possible to
> > reduce fuel burns and costs. Seems to me that some good glider
> > experience could become a hiring requirement at the majors if they
> > keep this up.
>
> You're thinking of the 'Gimli Glider' then? That was just good old
> fashioned miscalculation, but the fact that the first officer was an in
> practice glider pilot saved a lot of lives that day.
>
> Alistair Wright
> Scotland

No im saying that if they keep it up its only a matter of time before
they genuinely run one out of gas. from what i have found so far, i
can only find one genuine run out of gas previously, by a south
american airline headed to JFK. They landed out and managed to fly
the nearly new (under 100 hrs) 737 out at a later date. Others are of
course Gimli, and the Air Transat (I think) flight that deadsticked
into the Azores after a bad connection leaked out a bunch of gas, and
there was one other fuel starvation that was because of a hijacking.

[Cats]

On Nov 8, 4:18 pm, wrote:
> Heres a report from WABC that apparently aired on Good Morning America
> this morning:http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5747236
>
> appears the airlines are using minimum fuel as much as possible to
> reduce fuel burns and costs. Seems to me that some good glider
> experience could become a hiring requirement at the majors if they
> keep this up.

There are several airline pilots who are active members at Portmoak...

[Nyal Williams]

One of the neworks had a program last week titled A
Day in the Life of American Airlines. They talked
about no longer ferrying fuel back and forth, but they
are not going to cut the margins enough to run out
of fuel; that way absolute bankruptcy lies. Imagine
the class-action suits!

At 20:18 08 November 2007, Cats wrote:
>On Nov 8, 4:18 pm, wrote:
>> Heres a report from WABC that apparently aired on
>>Good Morning America
>> this morning:http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5
>>>747236
>>
>> appears the airlines are using minimum fuel as much
>>as possible to
>> reduce fuel burns and costs. Seems to me that some
>>good glider
>> experience could become a hiring requirement at the
>>majors if they
>> keep this up.
>
>There are several airline pilots who are active members
>at Portmoak...
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 2:24 pm, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
> One of the neworks had a program last week titled A
> Day in the Life of American Airlines. They talked
> about no longer ferrying fuel back and forth, but they
> are not going to cut the margins enough to run out
> of fuel; that way absolute bankruptcy lies. Imagine
> the class-action suits!
>

no, they wont push it so far that they are sure to run out of gas, but
they will push it right to absolute minimum.

from the article:

"Take the case of Newark Liberty International, where in a six month
period in 2005 just five flights landed under minimum or low fuel
conditions. Compare that to a similar period in 2007 in which 73
flights came into Newark with minimum fuel. "

an increase of over 14 times in the course of a year. so the airline
is giving them minimum fuel and then if they encounter any sort of
delay they are cutting into thin reserves. apparently the captains
lack the necessary backbone to tell dispatch that they need more gas.
instead they just blindly follow company policy and whatever dispatch
tells them. so much for being the final authority for the safety of
flight. maybe they all just secretly want to be glider pilots.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 8, 12:56 pm, wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:17 am, "Alistair Wright" >
> wrote:
>
>
>Its only a matter of time before
> they genuinely run one out of gas. from what i have found so far, i
> can only find one genuine run out of gas previously, by a south
> american airline headed to JFK.
>

United ran one dry near Portland, OR sometime in the late 1960s.

I think it's unlikely that anyone will run out in a domestic US
operation,
carrying 45 minutes of reserve fuel. Worst case: land short of the
destination, at an airport. The real issue is crossing the ocean.
This
does not include mismeasurement, fuel leaks, or the like.

[Nyal Williams]

Dont say that! (I'm headed to Australia.)

I can't seriously imagine their shorting fuel loads
on these flights; the conversation by American was
about hauling a full load both ways east/west coast
instead of re-fueling at both ends.

At 21:54 08 November 2007, wrote:
>On Nov 8, 12:56 pm, wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 11:17 am, 'Alistair Wright'
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Its only a matter of time before
>> they genuinely run one out of gas. from what i have
>>found so far, i
>> can only find one genuine run out of gas previously,
>>by a south
>> american airline headed to JFK.
>>
>
>United ran one dry near Portland, OR sometime in the
>late 1960s.
>
>I think it's unlikely that anyone will run out in a
>domestic US
>operation,
>carrying 45 minutes of reserve fuel. Worst case: land
>short of the
>destination, at an airport. The real issue is crossing
>the ocean.
>This
>does not include mismeasurement, fuel leaks, or the
>like.
>
>
>
>

[Mike the Strike]

Two recent experiences. A US Airways (America West) flight I was on
that was put on a holding pattern inbound to Phoenix had to divert to
California after ten minutes because of low fuel. We were stuck on
the ground for two hours while they refueled. Then we got put on
weather hold on our second attempt into Phoenix a half hour later and
had to divert to Tucson, again because of low fuel.

A month later, a Southwest flight I was on was delayed at the gate,
and the captain entertained us with his weight and balance data
(honest). It included the fact that we carrying a full load of fuel
on a short flight because Southwest buys fuel where it's cheapest and
carries it on board if the carrying cost is low.

Guess which airline is getting my business?

Mike

[Frank Whiteley]

On Nov 8, 3:52 pm, wrote:
> On Nov 8, 12:56 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:17 am, "Alistair Wright" >
> > wrote:
>
> >Its only a matter of time before
> > they genuinely run one out of gas. from what i have found so far, i
> > can only find one genuine run out of gas previously, by a south
> > american airline headed to JFK.
>
> United ran one dry near Portland, OR sometime in the late 1960s.
>
> I think it's unlikely that anyone will run out in a domestic US
> operation,
> carrying 45 minutes of reserve fuel. Worst case: land short of the
> destination, at an airport. The real issue is crossing the ocean.
> This
> does not include mismeasurement, fuel leaks, or the like.

I have an unattributed report from a former USAF pilot pal that a
sleeping crew flew a freighter past LAX and ran out of fuel on the way
back after a wake-up selcall. Glided in successfully. I've known air
crews to haul enough fuel to bypass expensive fuel stops for cheaper
options.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/noengine.htm has a few other out of fuel
events and power loss events.

Frank Whiteley

[brtlmj]

> they genuinely run one out of gas. from what i have found so far, i
> can only find one genuine run out of gas previously, by a south
> american airline headed to JFK.

In 1979 Pan Am flight to JFK diverted to Newark and ran out of fuel
while taxing.

B.

[J a c k[_2_]]

wrote:


> ...apparently the captains lack the necessary backbone to tell
> dispatch that they need more gas. instead they just blindly follow
> company policy and whatever dispatch tells them.


I wouldn't bet on that.


Jack

[[email protected]]

On Nov 9, 3:52 am, J a c k > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > ...apparently the captains lack the necessary backbone to tell
> > dispatch that they need more gas. instead they just blindly follow
> > company policy and whatever dispatch tells them.
>
> I wouldn't bet on that.
>
> Jack

With the upheaval in the Airline business, there has been much
pressure to lower costs, and prevent waist. As a life long Airline
pilot, I can look back over many instances where that "little extra
for the wife and kids" made the difference between landing at the
destination, and diverting to "land short".

Statistical however, the bean counters make a surprisingly good
argument concerning the system-wide cumulative effects of each flight
"wasting" that portion of the extra that is consumed (as a result of
increased fuel burn due to higher weight). This would account for why
southwest might tanker fuel more that america west, the shorter the
leg, the less the waste of carrying excess fuel.

One thing I know for sure from personal observation, once a pilot has
the "Disease" (as I describe it to my co-pilots), this orthodoxy of
thinking seems to result in the success of the flight being weighed
with an obsessive over-emphasis on how much fuel was saved.

It all boils down to who you feel you work for. If your first loyalty
is to the company, you are much more likely to "have the disease". If,
however, you feel your fiduciary responsibility is to the folks in the
back, you get to know the voice of the dispatchers a bit better,
because we are not allowed to add more than a modest amount on the
computer, above that amount, we must "defend" our request directly
with dispatch.

I know of at least one other Capt at Warner Springs who spend as much
time on the phone as I do. ;-)

[J a c k[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Nov 9, 3:52 am, J a c k > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > ...apparently the captains lack the necessary backbone to tell
>> > dispatch that they need more gas. instead they just blindly follow
>> > company policy and whatever dispatch tells them.
>>
>> I wouldn't bet on that.
>>
>> Jack
>
> With the upheaval in the Airline business, there has been much
> pressure to lower costs, and prevent waist. As a life long Airline
> pilot, I can look back over many instances where that "little extra
> for the wife and kids" made the difference between landing at the
> destination, and diverting to "land short".
>
> Statistical however, the bean counters make a surprisingly good
> argument concerning the system-wide cumulative effects of each flight
> "wasting" that portion of the extra that is consumed (as a result of
> increased fuel burn due to higher weight). This would account for why
> southwest might tanker fuel more that america west, the shorter the
> leg, the less the waste of carrying excess fuel.
>
> One thing I know for sure from personal observation, once a pilot has
> the "Disease" (as I describe it to my co-pilots), this orthodoxy of
> thinking seems to result in the success of the flight being weighed
> with an obsessive over-emphasis on how much fuel was saved.
>
> It all boils down to who you feel you work for. If your first loyalty
> is to the company, you are much more likely to "have the disease". If,
> however, you feel your fiduciary responsibility is to the folks in the
> back, you get to know the voice of the dispatchers a bit better,
> because we are not allowed to add more than a modest amount on the
> computer, above that amount, we must "defend" our request directly
> with dispatch.
>
> I know of at least one other Capt at Warner Springs who spend as much
> time on the phone as I do. ;-)


Contrary to the apparently recent awakening of a letter-to-the-editor
writer in Airline Pilot magazine, the power to "Just say no" has been
around since day one and is certainly one of the more useful tools.
Those four stripes and the union dues that go along with them don't mean
much if we don't run the show on our own terms when it comes down to the
basics of fuel, weather, etc. There are other ways to get the point
across in addition to parking it, of course.

I enjoyed it, but I don't miss it.

I do like the way we do it at my glider club--every member is the safety
officer, so a wheel doesn't turn unless everybody on the scene is happy
with the arrangement.



Jack