BoilerUP

I can't speak for current practice, but when I was at AWAC they didn't SE taxi because of the stress SE taxi put on the running engine (large throttle inputs to get moving which results in large temp changes), to include the infamous "coking". What crews did do was shut both engines down whenever there was a long delay, which would require cranking both up, pulling forward 100 feet in line, and shutting them both down.

If the delay wasn't very long or there'd be quite a bit of movement in the line, it was easier to leave them both turning than constantly doing shut down & restart procedures.

That, combined with a large percentage of FLX takeoffs, FLX climbs to 10,000ft, and generally treating the engines as if they're freaking gold have provided the data for the chart above (which is derived from data collected by GE).

I do suspect that if AWAC was on the hook for every drop of fuel burned that they'd investigate SE taxi more...but they're not so they work to control costs they ARE responsible for (maintenance). I also don't doubt for a second beancounters of the same ilk as those who crunched the figures for AWAC know exactly how much fuel an AWAC flight burns on a particular segment vs. PSA and that those increased costs will play a role in any additional flying that MIGHT MAYBE POSSIBLY SOME TIME be given to AWAC.

Another thing AWAC has in its favor that PSA doesn't is the ability to finance new planes if necessary...Airways would likely rather spend their funds on mainline planes that generate more revenue than new planes for PSA/PDT.

But hey, I'm no accountant and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and PSA was always awesome to me when I jumpseated so hopefully there isn't any "hate" on the part of the average PSA/PDT crew toward AWAC pilots who have been forced to eat from the same schize sandwich.