Fuel Restrictions

[F9DXER]

One company that I know of had a policy that they'd like you to land with an hour in the tanks. And on solid vfr days, no alternate.

Well being, the company dispatcher that I am, (), I'd put an alternate on then the system would still add some extra fuel to bring up to an hour. Of course I'd get talked to about the alternate. I'd just ask them which one is more important?

Also on my Friday, all fuel must go.

 

[TAF_Master]

Eh it's a middle ground.

If the fuel is needed and your outcomes are arrive with company minimum fuel or near it get in and fuel with cheaper gas, fuel to company mins or near that and divert and spend tens of thousands on gas and pax accomodations, or put on the gas, not need it after all and land 12.0 and only uplift half of the cheaper gas... youve picked the 2nd best option.

Well needed fuel is needed fuel. Never go light on that, could be a FAR issue as well as an inconvenient or expensive company outcome issue.

I was referring more to "feel good" fuel. I actually remember one manager who called it "captain don't call me" fuel. Had to laugh at that characterization of it.

 

[DaWolf85]

Well needed fuel is needed fuel. Never go light on that, could be a FAR issue as well as an inconvenient or expensive company outcome issue.

I was referring more to "feel good" fuel. I actually remember one manager who called it "captain don't call me" fuel. Had to laugh at that characterization of it.

I've also heard it called emotional support fuel.

 

[I Like IKE]

I've also heard it called emotional support fuel.

That's what I call it. But unless it means we're bumping people, I don't argue. Except those times when the captain asks for more fuel because he didn't even look at his release to see that he's tankering 10,000lbs.

 

[Frenchie]

There was a man by the name of Tom McDonald at PSA who came in and gave us a talk during ground school about fuel and the difference in thinking about fuel in pounds vs minutes...and how tanker and/or alternate fuel was calculated by Dispatch monitor.
It was probably one of the more enlightening discussions I've ever heard about fuel. In two years of dispatching, I never got any sort of pushback on fuel from anyone except captains who decided to just "fill 'er up"

I am always interested in learning something new, do you remember what the talk was?

 

[A1TAPE]

You would think airlines would be like whats more expensive? Adding fuel or having to pay out when a flight diverts and takes a cancel on the ground for crew timeout or other issue. Granted times that by x amount of flights and usually the fuel numbers outweight all other possible expenses aside from labor costs. Of course knowing the airlines they would throw the delay/cnx on weather so that they dont have to compensate pax for anything other than getting them rebooked on the next flight to their destination. When customers buy a ticket and thus agree to the contract of carriage it states that the airline HAS to get you to your destination. It says nothing about HOW to get you there.

 

[flynryan692]

You would think airlines would be like whats more expensive? Adding fuel or having to pay out when a flight diverts and takes a cancel on the ground for crew timeout or other issue. Granted times that by x amount of flights and usually the fuel numbers outweight all other possible expenses aside from labor costs. Of course knowing the airlines they would throw the delay/cnx on weather so that they dont have to compensate pax for anything other than getting them rebooked on the next flight to their destination. When customers buy a ticket and thus agree to the contract of carriage it states that the airline HAS to get you to your destination. It says nothing about HOW to get you there.

A diversion is cheaper than carrying unnecessary fuel. I was recently involved in some work on this topic recently. If you've got a reason to carry extra, by all means add it on and remark it (with detail and not some generic comment that doesn't explain why to the crew), but fuel alone is not a plan and simply adding "what-if" fuel to all your flights is bad 'spatchin. Additional fuel should be intentional, and the reasons it is needed should be accounted for on the release. If the PIC requests it, add it and remark exactly that and let the chief pilots deal with the PIC. We shouldn't min fuel everything because it is cheaper than cost of carriage, but it also doesn't mean take an hour of extra feel good fuel and make up some generic remark to slap on the release, either.

 

[Empennagie]

A diversion is cheaper than carrying unnecessary fuel. I was recently involved in some work on this topic recently. If you've got a reason to carry extra, by all means add it on and remark it (with detail and not some generic comment that doesn't explain why to the crew), but fuel alone is not a plan and simply adding "what-if" fuel to all your flights is bad 'spatchin. Additional fuel should be intentional, and the reasons it is needed should be accounted for on the release. If the PIC requests it, add it and remark exactly that and let the chief pilots deal with the PIC. We shouldn't min fuel everything because it is cheaper than cost of carriage, but it also doesn't mean take an hour of extra feel good fuel and make up some generic remark to slap on the release, either.

Agree completely. Carrying fuel because of "these specific items" is great and why we are involved compared to Europe.

Carrying the same fuel and alternate policy no matter the weather is the problem I see. I've often heard the "carrying fuel is cheaper than a diversion" but it's been used by the same guys (pilot and dx) that use the one side fits all fuel mentality.

Honestly being smart about fuel planning, both adding when needed and not adding when not need, is job security and proves the effectiveness of dispatchers. You are there to be safe, then efficient. One is not detrimental to the other.