Sounds like how if you fly faster you land with more fuel then they planned with you flying slower. Don't even bother pointing it out, it won't change anything.

But I will say I once read about a Citation X owner who realized how much money he could save flying the net slower than its M.92 cruise speed. Until he added in the power by the hour maintenance program and even with high fuel expenses (per gallon back then) it made more sense to go max power everywhere. So there is always more to the equation.

You've got me intrigued. I'd like to know more about whether it's better to two engine taxi.

 

When I was a new hire 727 Engineer, we typically taxied on the center engine only. JUST before takeoff, and I mean at Number 2, the Captain would say, "Spin the others..."

As an engineer, you had a lot of stuff to get done, you had to parallel the 3 generators manually and get them on line, check the hydraulic systems (all 3) make sure the fuel valves were right, Packs On, Gasper On, APU off, run a checklist and the F/O still had to set the flaps for T/O....all in about a minute or two.

There were more than a few takeoffs where I was still trying to get the generators on line as we were rolling down the runway.

Then there was a spate of middle engine failures (#2). Some said it was because we used that engine more than 1 and 3, as we always taxied on number 2, and waited to start 1+3.

Then, in 1987, a Delta 727 tried to take off from DFW with the flaps up... guess why?

Yeah.

Another rushed a last minute, two engine start, and never got all the stuff done.

That's about when CRM training started, due to that and a few other accidents at the time. We had to learn to say WAIT A MINUTE! to the Captains who would rush us at the last minute.

You guys all know we get paid 'by the minute' right?

I'm in no hurry to be the first guy to the accident scene. If you need/want to slow it down, just say something to the Captain, and tell him, "Hey, we're on the clock, we're getting paid, an extra 3 minutes will buy us the first round!"

 

Single engine taxi has always been a dubious practice. Save a little fuel and pour the coals on a cold engine. Delta owns a refinery, we make jet fuel.

 

This is an awesome thread! We could use a little less teeth gnashing and much more hanger flying.

 

And not just on takeoff. Back when we started taxiing 757's on one engine, in and out, there was one in LGA that was taxiing into the gate using only the left engine.

As he got close to the gate, but not quite there yet...he had to push the power up on the L engine to get those last 3 feet and...

WHOMPF!

Sucked in the yellow AC hose laying on the ramp by the jetway and trashed the engine!

I was sitting reserve in BOS and was called out to DH to LGA, to fly that 757 a couple days later, with the new L engine, back to ATL.

The mechanic in LGA told me it cost about $10 Million for the engine.

But think of all the fuel they saved taxiing in on one engine for 5 minutes!

 

 

Thanks all for the great responses. It is as I expected- unfortunately.
I am wrestling with the new norm.
At CAL, prior to the merger, we had the numbers always loaded before push, there was no taxi check, and the b4 takeoff check was 3 items. Our on time rate was top notch- as evidenced by the bonuses paid nearly monthly. There were 3 pieces of paper from the printer. After the merger we were suddenly unable to get off the gate on time waiting on final weights and perf- so it got pushed onto the taxi way along with a mile long (not taxi) take off check and about 8print outs that have nothing to do with a safe departure.

We have some really great fo's who are very (maybe too) motivated to get off on time-inspite of briefing to keep the pace slow and comfortable.

As Captain I am expected to respond and verify the Fmc and MCP is properly set*while*taxiing, but not to verify the flap setting or trim

I see some desk pilot trying to impress his bean counter boss fingerprints all over this.

Too bad the union is more concerned with the quality of the crew meal utensils than safety on this. They are silent.

Being a public forum I will hold short here..,

 

Back when DAL was hiring like topsy, 727 guys were farmed out for training, the quality of training was not the best. (Not the new troops fault.) Routinely pulled off to let him catch up. Alive today to talk about it.

 

Maybe it has something to do with accounting? Someone blows a motor and the engine replacement can be accounted for as a one-time special expense (even though it is happening more often). But the fuel savings they can show as an improvement in operating margin - which investors love and i'm sure mgmt gets bonuses for. Just a thought - I'm no accountant.

 

I agree with all of the above, we get a lot of paper printing out on the taxi out and one of the two pilots (the F/O usually) has to go head's down to either enter or verify everything in the FMS, then he's got a rather long taxi and T/O checklist to run, and part of that check is the Captain has to verify everything in the FMS and on the paper print out, so he's got to go head's down too. A simple departure runway change is a mess, because now both have to do it all over again, while running the 'Runway Change Checklist'.

I was not at all in favor of doing all this data loading while taxiing, but as you said, some cubicle pilot/bean counter came up with it as a way to help our On Time Departure numbers go up.

Our FOQUA data has shown there have been guys trying to take off with the flaps up, or in the wrong position, and I believe it is mostly due to this new procedure of loading the data while taxiing.

As part of my departure brief at the gate (WARTS for the Delta guys) I always include the 'Threat' of being distracted by all the crap coming off the printer at the last minute, and going heads down to load it and verify it.

I say, "If we get a runway change, or new AWABS, we will pull over and set the parking brake while we sort it all out.".

We are getting paid by the minute, I'm in no hurry to try to take off and make the next Safety Bulletin headlines.