Planes slow down to save fuel

[valvelifter]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/05/02/fl ... index.html




Just curious, anyone know if this is done with any of the Canadian airlines?

[Rockie]

Yes. Cost of fuel is weighed against flight time costs and these days fuel is winning. It's a balance between the need to burn as little fuel as possible and still get the job done. More interesting is how little fuel airlines like to board, again leaving just enough to get he job done.

[pilotbzh]

and I don't mind cruising @.67, Time is money....It shows that crew time is actually cheap compare to fuel burn... Time to ask for a better salary I guess

[Lommer]

"If it means that airlines can keep their costs down, keep their ticket prices down, and save a little fuel, that's fine," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director at the Consumer Federation of America.
advertisement

But others doubt the change will result in lower fares any more than previous cost cutting, such as eliminating meals or taking away blankets.

"I don't think so," Mann said. "When they took off the mystery meat, did they lower fares?

This is a problem: consumers don't believe that no meals/blankets are actually helping travelers to find lower fares. Perhaps the problem is that airlines sometimes appear to lower their fares, realize they're suddenly not making money, and then strip various services to compensate. In this day and age, it seems like cutting meals and flying slower are simply a means to keeping an airline solvent.

Ah well, if it means I can add an extra 0.2 to each flight in my logbook I'm all for it.

[Liquid Charlie]

This is not new it's been around for almost 20 years -

[200hr Wonder]

Maybe time to go back to more efficent turbo props?

[hazatude]

Maybe time to go back to more efficent turbo props?

...or sails

[flying4dollars]

this is not a new revelation nor a new secret

kind of a common sense thing more than anything..

for say 704 operators...reducing your normal fuel burn by even 100lbs/hr is like saving $78/hr, and all you're doing is increasing your ETE by a couple of minutes or so

Say one airplane does 15 hours a week, thats a savings of $1200 a week

Add that up over a year...$64K in fuel savings..per airplane. And 15 hours a week isn't much, especially if you're a busy 704 operator. So just imagine airplanes that are doing 20+ a week...

[KAG]

you folks flying King airs get as high as you can (sans RVSM) and power back to 550 LBS/HR, do a power off descent (plan on 2000 FT/MIN) not only will you go further, you will save money. Be the company hero, and save the enviroment.

[cmadude]

This is all good stuff but as the example above....15hrs or more a week equals 800hrs or more closer to overhaul. My previous company proved go fast...may save money short term but save on long term on overhauls costs to components and cycles...

[Four1oh]

This is all good stuff but as the example above....15hrs or more a week equals 800hrs or more closer to overhaul. My previous company proved go fast...may save money short term but save on long term on overhauls costs to components and cycles...

But, see, it doesn't save money in the short term, there are guys out there that think(I'm talking jets here) that by flying redline climbs and descents and cruise, and getting there 5 minutes sooner on a 1.5 hr flight is saving fuel. The fact is, at the company I used to work for, the dispatchers had to factor in a 10% overburn because so many Captains flew the 737-200 too fast. So, when they get to destination sooner, compare the burn, they pat themselves on the back because they arrived with the planned burn. When I flew with a Captain who flew Econ numbers for weight and altitude, we arrived when we were supposed to, with an extra 1000lbs over the flight plan. Go figure. Times that by 20 flights a day times 365 days a year... that's a helluva lot of fuel wasted.

[200hr Wonder]

Speaking of efficency, I was reading a very intersting artical with regards to jet efficenecy and apparently there are huge advatanges to fly a constant AOA. The AP selects an AOA to fly and Mach number be damed. So of course as you burn fuel you start to slow down a touch however the final finding was a 12%-20% increase in fuel economy. It was in a flying magazine. I will try and dig up the artical. Definatly worth a read and could be the next gen AP that we see if the benifits are as profound as I recall.

[flying4dollars]

This is all good stuff but as the example above....15hrs or more a week equals 800hrs or more closer to overhaul. My previous company proved go fast...may save money short term but save on long term on overhauls costs to
components and cycles...

not entirely...

adding 1-2 mins on your leg would SOMETIMES mean the diff between 1.0 and 1.1...but that depends on the accuracy of each watch that the captain and f/o have

[Four1oh]

This is all good stuff but as the example above....15hrs or more a week equals 800hrs or more closer to overhaul. My previous company proved go fast...may save money short term but save on long term on overhauls costs to
components and cycles...

not entirely...

adding 1-2 mins on your leg would SOMETIMES mean the diff between 1.0 and 1.1...but that depends on the accuracy of each watch that the captain and f/o have

and for that reason, here at WJ we log minutes, not 1/10's of an hour.