Fuel conservation as a regional CPT

Blackhawk said:
Just finished AQP. Something I heard several times from both a management rep and instructors. Majors are starting to track, by employee number, which regional captains are playing the fuel conservation game and which ones are going gate to gate with both engines and the APU operating the entire time. Left unsaid what they do with this information. Maybe true, maybe not. Want to risk you career?
Click to expand...

I believe it. I get a "pay activity statement" monthly and it compares my single-engine taxi, on-time performance, D-0, A+??? and a few other metrics versus other (unnamed people) in your base, aircraft type and fleet wide.

I can't see why they wouldn't, it's a "Big Data" industry.
 
ctab5060X said:
@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. :D
Click to expand...

LOL, I think of this same exact thing every single time I JS to work.....We used to get emails weekly about APU use and ECON cruise. Our ACARS in-range states "single engine taxi and APU use compliance monitored".....LUS message says "please single engine taxi". This should tell you the mindset.

Some of the stuff that comes out of this fuel guy's mouth is pretty whacky. I think the reason they don't try to implement it at mainline is that the pilots would tell the guy to shove it......but in extremely more colorful terms.
 
I've seen more push at the regional I worked for than at the current legacy, but that being said, most captains I currently fly with are much more adherent to fuel strategies(i.e., the extra 1000# for the wife and kids nonsense).

I think this has less to do with personalities but more to do with a much better run operation vs. at express.
 
Lee D said:
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? :)
Click to expand...
"Uh...we need a few minutes. We are still waiting on the flight attendants."
 
ctab5060X said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pilots are not tracked anywhere near as much as dispatchers are. At every airline Ive been at there have been people counseled on fuel use or even written up and threatened with firing. I have been counseled on fuel use at two carriers I worked for. Does not matter the justification, the bean counters only look at the numbers. Dispatchers on the low end domestically plan 30 flights and 90 on the high end. Pilots may not even fly that much in a month. A dispatcher by percentage of flights worked has a greater impact on fuel use and thus take most of the pressure from management fuel wise.

That being said, most dispatchers are in a union. How each union and dispatch group responds to the company fuel demands are why the typical L-US dispatcher goes with 2 hours plus arrival fuel on a beautiful day and why the typical L-AA dispatcher goes with 70-80 minutes arrival fuel on a beautiful day.

At the regionals, most dispatchers and pilots are young and inexperienced in airline operations or their airline career is just starting. management can get away with more pressure fuel wise as most are not in a good position to question or push the policy.

One thing of note is that with high dispatch workload in some places, there is no time for taking the extra fuel calls. L-XJT in a way was one of those places when I worked there. With 80-90 releases, no way I or most of those guys were going to play the min or low fuel game. Too many releases and other stuff to do. The extra fuel keeps the phones a little more silent.

The big thing though is not to worry about fuel usage. Attitude and aptitude are more important to a major carrier than fuel use. Just because you save fuel or burn tons of extra doesnt mean one will get to the major and another wont.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
Pilots are not tracked anywhere near as much as dispatchers are. At every airline Ive been at there have been people counseled on fuel use or even written up and threatened with firing. I have been counseled on fuel use at two carriers I worked for. Does not matter the justification, the bean counters only look at the numbers. Dispatchers on the low end domestically plan 30 flights and 90 on the high end. Pilots may not even fly that much in a month. A dispatcher by percentage of flights worked has a greater impact on fuel use and thus take most of the pressure from management fuel wise.

That being said, most dispatchers are in a union. How each union and dispatch group responds to the company fuel demands are why the typical L-US dispatcher goes with 2 hours plus arrival fuel on a beautiful day and why the typical L-AA dispatcher goes with 70-80 minutes arrival fuel on a beautiful day.

At the regionals, most dispatchers and pilots are young and inexperienced in airline operations or their airline career is just starting. management can get away with more pressure fuel wise as most are not in a good position to question or push the policy.

One thing of note is that with high dispatch workload in some places, there is no time for taking the extra fuel calls. L-XJT in a way was one of those places when I worked there. With 80-90 releases, no way I or most of those guys were going to play the min or low fuel game. Too many releases and other stuff to do. The extra fuel keeps the phones a little more silent.

The big thing though is not to worry about fuel usage. Attitude and aptitude are more important to a major carrier than fuel use. Just because you save fuel or burn tons of extra doesnt mean one will get to the major and another wont.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight as to the job being done on the other end of the phone line.
 
Derg said:
I believe it. I get a "pay activity statement" monthly and it compares my single-engine taxi, on-time performance, D-0, A+??? and a few other metrics versus other (unnamed people) in your base, aircraft type and fleet wide.

I can't see why they wouldn't, it's a "Big Data" industry.
Click to expand...

This is ok and all I reckon, but part of me can't help but think about the potential safety impact or impact on pax comfort level. We all know there are those captains out there who will be stuck waiting for a gate in the middle of the summer but won't fire up the APU because of fuel savings. This sort of informal pressure might cause some types to cut corners or make pax uncomfortable is my concern.

I believe the great majority of us operate with safety first, followed closely by crew/pax comfort, schedule and company needs in that order. I know I wouldn't let external pressures like this dictate how we manage the flight up front, but I could see some folks taking it a bit too literally.

Data is good, but applied the wrong way it could lead to unexpected consequences.
 
bike21 said:
This is ok and all I reckon, but part of me can't help but think about the potential safety impact or impact on pax comfort level. We all know there are those captains out there who will be stuck waiting for a gate in the middle of the summer but won't fire up the APU because of fuel savings. This sort of informal pressure might cause some types to cut corners or make pax uncomfortable is my concern.

I believe the great majority of us operate with safety first, followed closely by crew/pax comfort, schedule and company needs in that order. I know I wouldn't let external pressures like this dictate how we manage the flight up front, but I could see some folks taking it a bit too literally.

Data is good, but applied the wrong way it could lead to unexpected consequences.
Click to expand...

Whenever I have a fuel discussion or smart CI discussion with someone I tell them it comes down to being a PIC and putting your big boy/girl pants on. Safety first, but then as a professional I fly the airplane the way my employer wants, but I also balance that against needs of the customer. If it's hot, APU comes on, though I also write up the station for not having ground air hooked up. A:14 sounds nice, but it easily can turn into not getting off the airplane with your pink tag until A:30. Your one hour connection is now a 30 minute connection. Better sprint from A73 to B18.
 
There was a time when I thought blocking in at A:14 was great, but then it dawned on me one day how much it screws a significant number of passengers.
 
To me the short story here is if you have rules... follow them. If you have guidelines on fuel savings... follow them when you can. But when it doesn't make sense, do what's needed. Example 1: max gross weight at DEN and having to make a turn into the running engine uphill - start them both. You can always shut down another later if you're in a line of 30. Example 2: 90 degrees outside and the air conditioning cart is broken - start the APU when you're about to board. Again, gist of this is... don't break the rules unless there's a major safety issue you're willing to answer for, or if you have guidelines, be smart about how to use them.
 
I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen anyone want to single-engine taxi the 767, even when light. Usually only during taxi-in to keep brake temps low, but otherwise we spin both.
 
NickH said:
I heard Compass on the radio last night, pulling it back to .63 to save fuel. On a Friday night. Someone has failed in that young man's education.
Click to expand...
Good grief.

esa17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because saving gas is secondary to the safety of the operation, and there are circumstances in which two-engine taxi is required. Reducing jet blast is actually a greatly underappreciated reason to go out on two, especially in, say, LAX.

SFCC/UND said:
At TSA we have a couple short flights. IAD-MDT or IAD-PHL a lot of the captains and myself included just leave the apu on the whole time. Also we do 5 legs, doing nothing but those turns. So it's not uncommon for the apu to be running all day.

I've noticed that we plan 400lbs at the out stations and 800lbs at the hub for taxi. The 145 burns 400lbs per hour each engine on the ground. Luckily never had come close to the min fuel, except when in LGA.
Click to expand...
This is a genuine waste of fuel, unless circumstances (environmental, or MEL) dictate that the APU be run.
 
JordanD said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you stand that thrust lever up above 50% N1 with the terminal windows behind you (this was a Company limitation on the Skidoo until they took it out of the new SOPM because "let's be pilots"), it's hugely suspect judgment, and maybe you should just crank the other one to get un-stuck.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
This is a genuine waste of fuel, unless circumstances (environmental, or MEL) dictate that the APU be run.
Click to expand...

We leave our apu on until 10k. By then, PHL and MDT have only 15 minutes left in the flight. So just for apu cycle sake, we just leave it on. I usually try to get gpu at out stations.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Good grief.


Because saving gas is secondary to the safety of the operation, and there are circumstances in which two-engine taxi is required. Reducing jet blast is actually a greatly underappreciated reason to go out on two, especially in, say, LAX.


This is a genuine waste of fuel, unless circumstances (environmental, or MEL) dictate that the APU be run.
Click to expand...
You didn't bother reading any of the other responses did you?

Multiple other posters led me away from my erroneous position of this being only for taxi to the ramp after landing.

No need to say a magic word so you can feel good and prevent anyone from disagreeing with you.
 
SFCC/UND said:
We leave our apu on until 10k. By then, PHL and MDT have only 15 minutes left in the flight. So just for apu cycle sake, we just leave it on. I usually try to get gpu at out stations.
Click to expand...
That does make sense if the cycle count is what the Company gets dinged on, vs. the fuel, or the power-by-the-hour.
 
I'm all for single engine taxis (weather permitting) and flying CI speeds when on time. As far as the APU is concerned it will remain on unless the ground peeps give me the tools I need to turn it off. This of course only happens 1% of the time. Hell, I have yet to see air plugged into any planes at my current shop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top