Fuel conservation as a regional CPT

[chrisreedrules]

Ok, I'll bite.

Why wouldn't you taxi on one engine to save gas? Any number of reasons makes it a good idea.

Besides, a rising tide lifts all boats and all.

There are several operational considerations that come to mind... But I'd say it's also appropriate to single-engine taxi at least 65-75% of the time.


And to all those talking about fuel savings... some bean counter at PSA has worked out that for every 1,000lbs less of fuel you have on a CRJ, you save about (fuzzy memory on this one) something like 40lbs /hour. Now multiply that by all our daily departures. And figure that up for a month. They are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars with our fuel program. There is a reason AAG is wanting to implement our program at PDT and EVY. Not saying I particularly care for it, but it is what it is. And yes, they do keep track of habitual abusers of the single engine taxi, APU use, and over-blocking.

 

[ctab5060X]

Why wouldn't you taxi on one engine to save gas? Any number of reasons makes it a good idea.

@esa17

There are multiple reasons why sometimes I don't single-engine taxi. Some that come to mind:

Short taxi
Need additional warm up time for the engine
Contaminated ramp
Maneuverability
Heavy (if I can't easily move the airplane at break away thrust with one engine, I'll start the other one)

While single-engine taxi does save fuel, sometimes you just need both of them.

 

[ctab5060X]

And to all those talking about fuel savings... some bean counter at PSA has worked out that for every 1,000lbs less of fuel you have on a CRJ, you save about (fuzzy memory on this one) something like 40lbs /hour. Now multiply that by all our daily departures. And figure that up for a month. They are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars with our fuel program. There is a reason AAG is wanting to implement our program at PDT and EVY. Not saying I particularly care for it, but it is what it is. And yes, they do keep track of habitual abusers of the single engine taxi, APU use, and over-blocking.

@chrisreedrules

This is where I start really scratching my head about the bean counters for AAG. It seems they are on the regional partners about fuel conservation, yet at LUS...

I've routinely hauled an extra 5K per leg on a five leg day... just because...
I routinely get released with 1000lbs of "dispatch add"... just because...
No one really cares if I start the APU 30 prior, or if I start the APU pulling into the gate.

I guess they are saving money at the regional level just to spend it at mainline??

Either that or they know they can bully the wholly owned regional partners more than the mainline pilots.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

@esa17

There are multiple reasons why sometimes I don't single-engine taxi. Some that come to mind:

Short taxi
Need additional warm up time for the engine
Contaminated ramp
Maneuverability
Heavy (if I can't easily move the airplane at break away thrust with one engine, I'll start the other one)

While single-engine taxi does save fuel, sometimes you just need both of them.

These programs are great, but there does need to be operational flexibility for the stuff you quoted above.

But at my regional there were more than a couple guys I flew with that would 2 engine taxi all the time just out of spite.

Honestly wouldn't mind those guys being held accountable provided they were chronic offenders, I just doubt my regionals ability and competency to pull it off.

A better way actually would be to provide some sort of incentive to save fuel, but I'm afraid that would lead to some stupid decisions. "This is why we can't have nice things."

 

[ctab5060X]

These programs are great, but there does need to be operational flexibility for the stuff you quoted above.

But at my regional there were more than a couple guys I flew with that would 2 engine taxi all the time just out of spite.

Honestly wouldn't mind those guys being held accountable provided they were chronic offenders, I just doubt my regionals ability and competency to pull it off.

A better way actually would be to provide some sort of incentive to save fuel, but I'm afraid that would lead to some stupid decisions. "This is why we can't have nice things."

On my fleet, our SOPs say that single-engine taxi is the normal procedure, but then it goes on to give some guidelines for when to and when not to single-engine taxi. Captains here are given tons of discretion on the decision to single engine taxi or not. Same with APU usage... we are given tons of discretion, as long as it is within reason.

That being said, single-engine taxi is taught by the training department here from Day 1. By the time your first IOE is finished, single-engine taxi procedures are pretty well engrained in your normal day-to-day operation of the aircraft. At least on my fleet...

I do agree there need to be consequences for chronic offenders, but I don't know if I want the company to have access to that much detailed information.

 

[L-16B]

I've single engine taxiied once in a year on the Airbus. I was worried I was gonna mess it up as I hadn't done it since the sim.

 

[CFIscare]

There are several operational considerations that come to mind... But I'd say it's also appropriate to single-engine taxi at least 65-75% of the time.


And to all those talking about fuel savings... some bean counter at PSA has worked out that for every 1,000lbs less of fuel you have on a CRJ, you save about (fuzzy memory on this one) something like 40lbs /hour. Now multiply that by all our daily departures. And figure that up for a month. They are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars with our fuel program. There is a reason AAG is wanting to implement our program at PDT and EVY. Not saying I particularly care for it, but it is what it is. And yes, they do keep track of habitual abusers of the single engine taxi, APU use, and over-blocking.

I'm curious, what is different about PSA's fuel program? At EVY, the policy was to wait until 5 mins before pushback to start the APU, single engine taxi as much as possible, and to be dispatched when sometimes ridiculously low amounts of fuel. Not sure how they could improve on that.

 

[CFIscare]

Ok, I'll bite.

Why wouldn't you taxi on one engine to save gas? Any number of reasons makes it a good idea.

Besides, a rising tide lifts all boats and all.

Any number of reasons make it a bad idea as well. For instance, taxing at a busy and complicated airport at night, in less than ideal conditions, with a new FO? Starting both at the gate to a.) have two sets of eyes outside always and b.) not rushing your new to the airplane FO in a stressful environment. Saving gas is great, but sometimes safety (and/or comfort) makes it a secondary priority.

 

[JordanD]

Any number of reasons make it a bad idea as well. For instance, taxing at a busy and complicated airport at night, in less than ideal conditions, with a new FO? Starting both at the gate to a.) have two sets of eyes outside always and b.) not rushing your new to the airplane FO in a stressful environment. Saving gas is great, but sometimes safety (and/or comfort) makes it a secondary priority.

And there's been a few times where ground stops us on an incline and we're almost at MTOW. "Uhhh.... crap" once we try to get moving again.

 

[Lee D]

I can't imagine most major airlines spend large amounts of time micro managing data regarding a regional partner's crews. I suspect a person would really have to make himself stand out to get that sort of attention.

I can only speak from my experience, but in over a decade of regional flying, I only saw two instances where that sort of thing happened. Both pilots were doing MAJOR over blocking on nearly every leg for months. Eventually one of our mainline partners saw them as an outlier on some report and asked the CPO to look into it.

 

[GypsyPilot]

Any number of reasons make it a bad idea as well. For instance, taxing at a busy and complicated airport at night, in less than ideal conditions, with a new FO? Starting both at the gate to a.) have two sets of eyes outside always and b.) not rushing your new to the airplane FO in a stressful environment. Saving gas is great, but sometimes safety (and/or comfort) makes it a secondary priority.

Exactly. Since I upgraded I've encountered this very situation quite often... I do SE when it makes sense, but if there's any bit of unfamiliar stuff going on, I'd rather both of us have our heads outside and focused on taxiing.

 

[Adler]

At a previous "airline" everything was planned at .80. One captain had a saying, "if it aint clackin, you're slackin". Level off in cruise, he'd put down Candy Crush momentarily and bring the plane up to .84 - .85, "Hey do you guys feel that shake, that's how you know you chose the right airspeed". The company kept track fuel orders and burns, they knew he burned like an extra 10,000 lbs a trip higher than everyone else...but he got the job done and was safe so who cares.

 

[Lee D]

Exactly. Since I upgraded I've encountered this very situation quite often... I do SE when it makes sense, but if there's any bit of unfamiliar stuff going on, I'd rather both of us have our heads outside and focused on taxiing.

Especially in ORD! I never could accurately predict if I'd get a 3 minute or 25 minute taxi.

 

[JordanD]

Especially in ORD! I never could accurately predict if I'd get a 3 minute or 25 minute taxi.

"Meh, we'll probably get 28R at N5 with that huge line, let's go single engine."
Inevitably right at the bravo south it's "HEY YOU'RE NUMBER ONE FOR 32L AT TANGO TEN SWITCH TO TOWER!"
"sunnnnuva...."

 

[Lee D]

"Meh, we'll probably get 28R at N5 with that huge line, let's go single engine."
Inevitably right at the bravo south it's "HEY YOU'RE NUMBER ONE FOR 32L AT TANGO TEN SWITCH TO TOWER!"
"sunnnnuva...."

Yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about! I gave up on the single engine taxi at ORD after a very similar situation. Who doesn't like sheepishly telling the mighty, intensely busy, O'hare tower you need a few more minutes to spin up engine one?

 

[Blackhawk]

You people can do what you want. Done taxi two engines sometimes? Sure. But why in the world would I burn gas I don't need to burn.
Airlines want pilots who are team players. Are the majors really tracking the employee numbers of those who are not professional in the way they operate regional airliners? No clue. But I don't worry about it as I try to do the right thing when others are not looking, not just when they are looking.

 

[Blackhawk]

You
have apparently experienced a higher level of competency by XJT management than I experienced while I was there.

I've seen both sides. George and John- they were real tools. Their CP's office was not even on the flight line, it was on the GO. DAL was better, but man we burned through money. The CP who had an airplane named after him... well, I try not to speak poorly about the dead.
Now the current VP of Ops who was there when you where there? He seems pretty good and worked his way up the ranks. Yeah, he drinks the collide, but he seems honest and most pilots respect him. I think you know who I'm talking about.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Interesting thread. Certainly a good discussion to read as I move to the left seat soon. We don't do any single engine taxiing, but it's still interesting to read.

 

[esa17]

Any number of reasons make it a bad idea as well. For instance, taxing at a busy and complicated airport at night, in less than ideal conditions, with a new FO? Starting both at the gate to a.) have two sets of eyes outside always and b.) not rushing your new to the airplane FO in a stressful environment. Saving gas is great, but sometimes safety (and/or comfort) makes it a secondary priority.

I didn't make it clear that I didn't think you started the engine at the hold short line. My head thought "after landing" but my fingers didn't type it.

Honestly we only shut down on taxi into the ramp which besides saving fuel allows us to check redundant systems and save time. From brake release to takeoff is rarely longer than 5 minutes for us.

I've heard stories of dual engine and APU taxis with power and on the brakes. That sounds like a lickbag move to me.

 

[Cptnchia]

Are the majors really tracking the employee numbers of those who are not professional in the way they operate regional airliners? No clue. But I don't worry about it as I try to do the right thing when others are not looking, not just when they are looking.

Don't know about tracking regional partners, but they are tracking their own employees. At least at SJA. I can go look at all kinds of stats about how I operate compared to others within my base and category and vis the whole company. I have no reason to doubt that they are also tracking fuel usage. If they know exactly how much each leg should burn, and what each airplane is burning, how hard is it to attach an employee to each leg?

My personal opinion is that mainline managers are looking for any excuse to curtail or get out of agreements with regional subcontractors. Because fuel costs get passed onto the mainline partner, this is one area they are going to concentrate on.

As for SE taxi, there are times to do it, and times to not do it. Be a captain and do what you need to do.