The Boeing seems to have the most restrictive speeds. 310 on climbout? They even get in the way of the 'Bus.

We don't do 290 anywhere but our CFM directed cities.

We fly (roughly) .80/325 until on the 3:1 profile.

 

Remember too that speed is built into the SYSTEM. There are times for the couriers and folks at the field stations to make, too. The system isn't built so tightly anymore that we each need to personally shave off 5 minutes here or there to make it work. Conversely--the best thing we can do for our customers and our company is fly the times the company wants--saving gas and money in the process. Why go like heck to a station in the Boeing, only to find the packages don't need to be anywhere for another 4 or 5 hours? The extra gas you just burned didn't help anyone.

Conversely--there are few places where due to the nature of the station, the time zone, and local issues--time is always an issue. On those, you'll see a "fly safe, fly fast" in the remarks. That means PLAN on .84...but of course I've seen higher. You'll see that remark many times around peak on the TLH trip (1478). 2:1 decents and best forward until 10,000 are normal when you get that release...

 

What cities are you referring too? According the FOM:

"a continuous descent until established on final reduces noise and conserves fuel. Descend at cruise mach/290KTS/250KTS unless directed otherwise by ATC or modifed by CFM."

 

Is your real name is Bill McKelvy? Because even he had it wrong. For my money, gas is not saved by judicious use of the APU. Those things burn maybe 250 pounds an hour / 6.6 ppg equals 38 gallons per hour. So if we use the APU for 45 minutes prior to engine start, at $2.00/gal, we cost the company roughly $58. However, if we elect not to run the APU, especially during the summer months, and as a result, fry some electronic component in the E&E compartment, well, that could cost in the many thousands of dollars, not to mention the long delay.

Strategically tankering fuel saves a little money, but only into select, high fuel cost airports. That saving is somewhat offset by the fact that it costs fuel to carry extra fuel.

Optimum altitude on the electric jets is calculated automatically by the CADC and the other computers. On these aircraft a savings can take place, however on non-FMS aircraft like the Boeing and some of the 10's, computing "optimum altitude" is only a part of the puzzle, because winds aloft needs to be factored into the equation to produce a real fuel savings.

Captain Bill spent his entire FedEx career trying to save gas, what with his idle 4-5 degree descents and his autopilot/autothrottle - off approaches and landings, as well as his messing with the cost index in the FMS and his not starting the APU until 20 minutes prior to push.

That said, I'd bet a months salary that he never saved a dime, and he certainly was a pain in the butt to those who had the pleasure of flying with him.

 

The barber pole is the target speed. Objective is to spend as little time in the machine as possible.

Go fast or don't go.

 

It's not just about fuel. Having flights fly certain speeds allows more predictability as to the actual arrival times. This allows for an ordered arrival and offload at the hub and integration of the freight into the system. There are a finite number of offload crews, stairs (ever have to wait for them?), etc. If everyone arrived as planned, you wouldn't see any delays for the stairs, or lack of gates being ready. This is a lot larger system than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago, and a lot more complex. Expect to see even more go into this over time.

The increase in speed to ensure ontime can be ok, but depends on what is going on in the system. You don't actually make up that much time for how much the fuel burn increases. The best idea is to ask GOC if you're running late whether it would help to have you increase speed. They do have the big picture, and will tell you whether it will help or just waste gas.

 

Speed up, slow down 100 miles out, then best forward speed to the marker. They need to fix the inbound, but I don't see where slowing us down further will get us on the ground any faster, or save any fuel. The only way to control the arrivals and save fuel will ultimately be gate holds or more runways.

 

You are correct, it's no longer in the FOM. Our CFM has this:


I guess we have our own version.

 

If you fly fast, you spend less time with the engines running. Therefore you save much more fuel by flying fast.

 

Do we really get that much smarter when we upgrade to Captain, or is it that our First Officers don't get el picture grande?