At out stations it can be quite pricey. Upwards of $7/gal at some of the places I would go on the East Coast when regular jetA was around $2.50.

So an extra 500 lbs is 75 gallons, at $3.50/gal that is $260 on just that one flight.

That was how it was explained to me at least.

Just curious where the 3.50 came from. Is that the average cost of jetA?

$3.50 is retail but airlines buy JET A in bulk from wholesalers (Usually WorldFuel Corp) and it is in the neighborhood of $1.50-2 a gallon right now.

I wonder how much fuel is burned waiting for rampers?

"BTW, for those that don't know, once it's determined that the flight is weight restricted, ops will not approve a jumpseater for any reason. Even if it can be determined later that weight will allow it."

I can't fix Envoy, but when y'all flow, leave that "lesson learned" and any trepidation about adding fuel behind. It ain't like that at mainline, no one is going to say "boo" about adding fuel, and with very rare and easily dealt with exceptions, everyone will gladly do what ever you can think of to ease any weight restrictions in order to get butts in seats. Jumpseats and nonrevs included. All ya' gotta' do is ask, and have a plan, and let 'em know what you want.

Same idea goes for training, dealing with crew schedule to a large degree, dealing with the flight office, etc., from what I have heard and seen.

Well RW just sent an email out apologizing and saying the guy was reprimanded.

I just sent in an application for the new job posting.

On the 175. Engine idle fuel burn is 500 lbs/hour and the APU burns 250/hour. In other words, 12.5 lbs a min.

Someone mentioned earlier....mainline guys look at you with surprise if asked about company pressure on fuel. Never have to arm wrestle with the dispatcher for more. Plus, 2 engine start at the gate is common practice. An Airbus or 737 burns 3x as much fuel AT IDLE than the 175 does in cruise.

At hubs yes; outstations no.

Like I said I saw $7/gal once and that was with fuel at $2.50.

Roughly 1600 lbs at idle (800/side) on the Airbus give or take. 737 is similar.

You only burn 500 lbs an hour total at cruise? I don't think that is anywhere near correct.

Our avg taxi time in DFW is around 12 minutes.

With the APU running (400 lbs/hr) and one engine running (800 lbs/hr) you're at 1200 lbs/hr. Not accounting for increased fuel flow to SE taxi on the operating engine.

In most scenarios it's a wash or close to it.

^^^^^^^^THISSSSSSSSSS^^^^^^^^^ ORD! How much was pay for the GPUs??? Yet Ramper connect it but don’t plug it in often! I hear the GPU cart running but no power at many times WTFlip!

Majority of crew members I’ve flown with want to save fuel. Some reason Management think pilot are the problem. I don’t understand why!????[/QUOTE]



Agreed. There are more effective ways to conserve costs where it applies to fuel. Programs like these require a team effort, stating pilots will be on a list for requesting more fuel is simply a bully approach.

How about:
Dispatchers and Pilot groups education regarding the new policy, why, etc

Ensure the flight plans at least account for the correct expected crossing altitudes on the arrivals (especially). Fuel burn is higher at the lower altitudes however, they have us flight planned at 18000 on the base leg coming into ORD as an example. They claim the flight plan software builds it that way. Well.......... fix it.

Ramp/Airport Ops should ensure Ground power is available at all gates, PC air should be available at all gates both of these should be connected within 5 mins of block in

Reduction of APU usage at gate till 15 mins prior to departure, there’s fuel savings there, there’s noise abatement that makes working around the airplane a little more less risky, both pilots/ramp/mx/support personnel can benefit from this

They should be reminded no one is taking the extra fuel home, it stays in the a/c for the next flight

All I’m saying is there should be a wholesome approach and not an attack on any single group

I am sure others can add more that can be done, again a wholistic approach is needed. Communication of any plan works best we for all involved.

Just my $.02

Oh RE email was an attempt to cover the company in the event a legal issue arises

AAG & Envoy management has failed miserably here again and has only antagonized the pilot group even furthermore.

Keep up the good fight my brothers and sisters, don’t be discouraged and always remain professional


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk