Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   Airlines slow down flights to save on fuel (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/25944-airlines-slow-down-flights-save-fuel.html)

vagabond 05-01-2008 12:21 PM

Airlines slow down flights to save on fuel
 
Is it true that you guys are slowing down or asked to slow down? The media has a poor reputation with me so why not ask the the people who actually do the work.

It would seem a moot point if the flight happens to encounter strong headwinds. Anyway, I don't mind a slightly longer flight if it can help. I already slow down when driving; I'm the one driving like grandma on I-5. :)



From Associated Press:

NEW YORK - Drivers have long known that slowing down on the highway means getting more miles to the gallon. Now airlines are trying it, too — adding a few minutes to flights to save millions on fuel.

Southwest Airlines started flying slower about two months ago, and projects it will save $42 million in fuel this year by extending each flight by one to three minutes.

On one Northwest Airlines flight from Paris to Minneapolis earlier this week alone, flying slower saved 162 gallons of fuel, saving the airline $535. It added eight minutes to the flight, extending it to eight hours, 58 minutes.

That meant flying at an average speed of 532 mph, down from the usual 542 mph.

"It's not a dramatic change," said Dave Fuller, director of flight operations at JetBlue, which began flying slower two years ago.

But the savings add up. JetBlue adds an average of just under two minutes to each flight, and saves about $13.6 million a year in jet fuel. Adding just four minutes to its flights to and from Hawaii saves Northwest Airlines $600,000 a year on those flights alone.

United Airlines has invested in flight planning software that helps pilots choose the best routes and speeds. In some cases, that means planes fly at lower speeds. United estimates the software will save it $20 million a year.

"What we're doing is flying at a more consistent speed to save fuel," said Megan McCarthy, a United spokeswoman.

United expects to pay $3.31 a gallon for fuel this year — not much less than what the average American driver pays for a gallon of unleaded at the pump. Southwest, which has an aggressive fuel hedging program, expects to pay about $2.35.

Fliers, already beleaguered by higher fares, more delays and long security lines, may not even notice the extra minutes. The extra flight time is added to published flight schedules or absorbed into the extra time already built into schedules for taxiing and traffic delays.

"If saving fuel costs me a few extra minutes out of my day, then ... my inconvenience is nothing," said Leah Nichols, a television producer who lives in San Francisco and was fresh off a flight at Newark Liberty International Airport, waiting for a train to New York. "I'm cool with that."

David Gannalo, a Phoenix financial software company executive, is more than willing to give up four minutes to help airlines cut costs.

"Anything that helps the airlines, you know, because they're going bankrupt left and right," Gannalo said. "Anything that helps them out will probably be good for the industry in the long term."

Across the board, airlines are feeling the pain of higher energy prices. For jet fuel delivered at New York Harbor, the spot price — airlines pay it when they need more fuel than they've already locked down in a contract — has jumped 73 percent in the past year, to $3.54 a gallon, according to government data.

Airlines are trying other measures as well to deal with higher fuel costs, including raising fares, adding fuel surcharges to tickets and charging extra for a second checked bag rather than a third.

It's a tough time for the airline industry. Several smaller airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection in recent weeks, many citing high fuel costs. Fuel costs have also resulted in sharp first-quarter losses by some airlines.

Not every airline is taking the slowdown approach.

"We have the flying schedule to protect," said John Hotard, a spokesman for American Airlines. He said the carrier does other things to save fuel — for instance, installing small vertical stabilizers called winglets to the ends of some aircraft wings, which boosts fuel efficiency by improving aerodynamics.

American also tries to keep its planes plugged in to ground-based power and air conditioning for as long as possible to conserve fuel, and pushes air traffic controllers to assign its flights to altitudes where they will have less headwind or greater tailwind. Many other airlines have adopted similar measures.

Slowing flights down isn't a magic bullet. It can help airlines conserve fuel, but it can also lead to greater labor and maintenance costs if airline employees work longer hours and planes spend more time in service, said Bob Mann, an independent airline consultant based in Port Washington, N.Y.

And slowing down to conserve fuel can only be pushed so far: Below a certain speed — which varies depending on the plane — an aircraft's fuel usage can actually rise.

Airlines must strike a delicate balance, seeking an aircraft's "sweet spot" on fuel use without slowing down so much that other costs, and flight delays, rise, Mann said: "Everything's a tradeoff."

Consumer advocates say the extra minutes shouldn't matter.

"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.

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?"

dundem 05-01-2008 12:37 PM

We (NK) have been using a pretty low cost index for the past few months. It doesn't do much to lower the cruise speed, which is still mostly M 0.78, but it does lower our managed climb and descent planned speeds. So it typically does add a few minutes per leg.

A320Flyer 05-01-2008 12:43 PM


Originally Posted by dundem (Post 377447)
We (NK) have been using a pretty low cost index for the past few months. It doesn't do much to lower the cruise speed, which is still mostly M 0.78, but it does lower our managed climb and descent planned speeds. So it typically does add a few minutes per leg.

Yeah...fun slow descents (260..270 kts..)

BoredwLife 05-01-2008 12:49 PM

At Horizon they just instituted reduced power settings for even the Q400. The next reported phase is to be even further reduce power settings based on wind. i.e. you have a 50 knot tail wind your gonna reduce your airspeed by 50 knots TAS to burn less fuel for the same arrival time. I just hope they dont start basing Min Total numbers on the forecast winds aloft.

phoenix 23684 05-01-2008 12:51 PM

I can say that some of us, without management, have taken it upon ourselves to slowdown, we still get there on time, just with a little more fuel. We figure it is a good thing to do, kind of like job preservation. If we help with the fuel we may avoid down sizing.

Now I fly a turbo-prop and our legs are short and over-blocked so it makes it easier to stay on schedule while not pushing the engines. It's not a huge difference only about 100-200 lbs per leg of savings, but like the govt says "a billion here, a billion there before you know it, you are taking real money"

Pilotpip 05-01-2008 01:16 PM

I'm seeing more and more flights blocked at .74 instead of .78 and I'm seeing a difference in fuel burn. The 170 burns about 150pph less per side by slowing down and it might cost all of 5 minutes. 5 minutes isn't much when you figure it's saving about 75 gallons over a 2 hour flight.

Upside, I go a few minutes over block from time to time :)

j3gibbon 05-01-2008 01:26 PM

yeah we are trying to save fuel at .77, then we get a release that states ".81 to make up time" for our on time departure so.........yeah sometimes dispatch is still a bit lost. But yeah if we look to be early some capt will slow it back to .74

p1ayn 05-01-2008 01:51 PM


Originally Posted by vagabond (Post 377438)
Is it true that you guys are slowing down or asked to slow down? The media has a poor reputation with me so why not ask the the people who actually do the work.

It would seem a moot point if the flight happens to encounter strong headwinds. Anyway, I don't mind a slightly longer flight if it can help. I already slow down when driving; I'm the one driving like grandma on I-5. :)

COMAIR has been doing that for two years now and has proven very successful. We have caught the brunt of many jokes in the air but the reality is it does save fuel and money. Happy to see everyone else getting on board and saving fuel thus possibly saving jobs from furlough

Tinpusher007 05-01-2008 02:02 PM

All our flights on the -900 are planned at M.77 I could see them asking us to fly slower though since fuel is so costly now.

DAL4EVER 05-01-2008 02:09 PM


Originally Posted by p1ayn (Post 377487)
COMAIR has been doing that for two years now and has proven very successful. We have caught the brunt of many jokes in the air but the reality is it does save fuel and money. Happy to see everyone else getting on board and saving fuel thus possibly saving jobs from furlough

Flying at Mach .62 makes sense only if you are at FL180. In the upper 20s and 30s however, every mainline plane getting behind you is way on the back side of the power curve. If the RJ burns 200 PPH per engine more at high speed but the Boeings are able to cruise more efficiently than that's what the flight planners should look at.

LifeNtheFstLne 05-01-2008 02:25 PM

You have neglected the most important thing that must be taken into consideration, and that is the departure time of my commuting flight home relative to my planned arrival time. I have not missed one yet. I would love to see the data on flight times at the end of a pairing. I've got dollars saying they're the best flight times on record.

shiftwork 05-01-2008 03:02 PM


Originally Posted by LifeNtheFstLne (Post 377521)
You have neglected the most important thing that must be taken into consideration, and that is the departure time of my commuting flight home relative to my planned arrival time. I have not missed one yet. I would love to see the data on flight times at the end of a pairing. I've got dollars saying they're the best flight times on record.

Amen....

Green Dot anyone?:D

vagabond 05-01-2008 03:04 PM

This is a companion/complementary article about the increasing use of propeller planes because of fuel costs. I don't know about anybody else, but I've always been grateful for the propeller in my little C-172. ;)


From BusinessWeek:

Queue up at Newark, N.J., for the 8:10 a.m. Continental Express flight to Baltimore, and you may be startled to find what many people consider a throwback to the 1970s: A plane driven by propellers, not jet engines. Get ready for more of them. The soaring cost of fuel is rapidly reshaping the landscape for regional flights at many airlines, leading to interest in a new generation of turboprop planes.

Most of the props are being deployed on trips of less than 500 miles. Beyond that, the economic advantages of a small jet kick in. For example, turboprops are now used heavily on routes such as Newark to Toronto; Seattle to Portland, Ore.; and San Jose, Calif., to Boise, Idaho. The two main beneficiaries of this trend are Montreal's Bombardier and the French-Italian aerospace joint venture ATR.

Alaska Air Group's regional subsidiary, Horizon Air, announced on Apr. 24 that it would convert its entire fleet to Bombardier's 76-seat Q400 prop within two years. "Through its combination of passenger comfort, speed, and efficiency, the Q400 is the best aircraft for the majority of our markets," Horizon Air President and Chief Executive Jeff Pinneo said in a prepared statement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390211/

Giggity 05-01-2008 04:33 PM


Originally Posted by vagabond (Post 377438)
Is it true that you guys are slowing down or asked to slow down? The media has a poor reputation with me so why not ask the the people who actually do the work.

It would seem a moot point if the flight happens to encounter strong headwinds. Anyway, I don't mind a slightly longer flight if it can help. I already slow down when driving; I'm the one driving like grandma on I-5. :)

Ha!! Me too!! I'm glad I'm not the only one.

phoenix 23684 05-01-2008 08:52 PM


Originally Posted by LifeNtheFstLne (Post 377521)
You have neglected the most important thing that must be taken into consideration, and that is the departure time of my commuting flight home relative to my planned arrival time. I have not missed one yet. I would love to see the data on flight times at the end of a pairing. I've got dollars saying they're the best flight times on record.

I'll second that statement, it's amazing that we can shot a visual approach at 250 kts till 5-7 miles from the airport on go home leg. Gotta love the props

FliFast 05-02-2008 05:12 PM

I'm curious how much savings is made by slowing down versus the variable cost (and some fixed) of higher time on the airframe which speeds up it's useful life and frequency of maint. checks and the cost of the increased payroll by flying longer block times.


In the International spectrum, this could be significant if you have a flight that is blocked for 7 hr 59 mins which can be flown by a two-man crew. By slowing down whether specifically from company guidance or by personal choice, the segment that is just under 8 hrs is now over 8 hrs more than 50% of the time in a 90 day snapshot thus requiring the company to change the block time to reveal it is an over-8 hr flight requiring the use of a third pilot (Relief Officer).

Next, hub and spoke schedules are a delicate balancing act. When block times need to be lengthened, this upsets the apple cart and could possibly (not definately, in the case of rolling hub scheduling) create a situation where planes now spend more time on the ground waiting for other planes to arrive with their connecting passengers.

Finally, and maybe this is an intangible cost for running over block time, but what is the cost of lost revenue from a business person that is 15-20 mins late for a meeting, misses their connection, etc. We all know many people schedule air travel in their plans with the same margin for error as a trapeze artist.i.e arrive at ORD at 1230pm, meeting downtown at 130pm.


I honestly don't know which is the better solution. Just curious if others might have some thoughts...thanks

FF

TBoneF15 05-02-2008 05:50 PM

The reality is that the slower cost index they've been throwing at us lately does not add a whole ton on to the duration of the flight. Last night on my redeye from SFO to JFK, we messed around with a bunch of different numbers and the slower ones added just a few minutes onto the ETE, and that was going all the way across the country. We were already using pretty slow numbers to begin with so it's not a massive change. It's not going to cause us to show up 20 minutes late or anything.

However, when you add up very small fuel savings times all the flights we do in a year, and it does add up over time. Just like the APU campaign going on. Few gallons here, few gallons there but multiply that by a large scale operation over time and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

stanherman 05-02-2008 10:02 PM

In the long term run it sounds like a good deal. Slow down the TAS to get better fuel economy,but even that can't REALLY dent the fuel problem. With all this technology we have today you would think that by this day and age they would of realized the fuel problem and started creating alternative fuel options. Maybe they'll just wait till fuel becomes 6$ a gallon to start to consider other options. Who knows :confused:

Boomer 05-02-2008 10:27 PM


Originally Posted by DAL4EVER (Post 377509)
Flying at Mach .62 makes sense only if you are at FL180. In the upper 20s and 30s however, every mainline plane getting behind you is way on the back side of the power curve. If the RJ burns 200 PPH per engine more at high speed but the Boeings are able to cruise more efficiently than that's what the flight planners should look at.

Delta puts the gas in Comair's tanks and Delta keeps the savings. Why would Delta insist that Comair bebop along at .62 if it's messing up mainline's operations? Comair doesn't always know who's 80 miles in trail and gaining fast.

Boomer

tomgoodman 05-03-2008 06:51 AM

Problem with flying slower
 
It doesn't work very well unless everyone else slows up too. DAL tried slowing up the MD-88s once, and we invariably wound up at the tail end of a large number of arrivals. After a long final approach, we had burned even more fuel than usual. Of course, somebody else probably saved fuel by getting in ahead of us, but I don't think that was the plan. :rolleyes:

dundem 05-03-2008 12:03 PM

The theory is that the cost index takes into account most if not all of the variables mentioned above and gives a flight profile for the lowest cost. That lowest cost just happens to result in slower speeds because fuel is so high.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:03 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands