Less fuel=less weight=less loiter time=more profit

[Kauai Kid]

Just read this weekend where airlines are just putting 45 minutes of extra fuel on board because it helps out the bottom line. A number of airlines have had to declare emergencies in order to be first in line to land.

So, if you are waiting a long time on the tarmac before takeoff, and the Captain says we have a 100 knot head wind, and your flight is 30 minutes late, cinch up that seat belt really tight cause he is going to bring it in hot and hope there is enough fuel to run the thrust reversers.

Remember American's stupid saying, "We know why you fly"


Have a nice day and enjoy your flight!!!


Sterling

[Liz Wolf-Spada]

Sterling, if your flight was 30 minutes late arriving, wouldn't they refuel before taking off again? I guess I don't know when they refuel planes, but economizing to that extent doesn't sound very safe, does it?
Liz

[Talent312]

Originally Posted by Kauai Kid

Just read this weekend where airlines are just putting 45 minutes of extra fuel on board because it helps out the bottom line. A number of airlines have had to declare emergencies in order to be first in line to land.

Seen on the net:
"Remember when airlines had those... floatation devices, and fuel guages?"

[Carl D]

A few points:

- 30 minutes on the ground at idle is not the same fuel burn as 30 minutes at cruise flight.

- No crew will run the risk of running out of fuel. The headwinds, and taxi delays are generally factored into the fuel load. If it's an unexpected delay on the ground the crew will refuel. Winds and routing is well planned for, but even so the crew always has an option of landing short of destination. I admit that's rare, but it beats the alternative.

- Putting near minimum fuel on board is not a new practice, although there is more pressure on the crew to do so as of late.

[Rose Pink]

Originally Posted by Kauai Kid

Just read this weekend where airlines are just putting 45 minutes of extra fuel on board because it helps out the bottom line. A number of airlines have had to declare emergencies in order to be first in line to land.


Sterling

So, how many planes need to do this before we get a critical mass and there are too many of them declaring an emergency? They can't all be "first in line." How many have to die before someone changes this homicidal policy?

[Carl D]

Originally Posted by Rose Pink

So, how many planes need to do this before we get a critical mass and there are too many of them declaring an emergency? They can't all be "first in line." How many have to die before someone changes this homicidal policy?

How many have died?? Did I miss something on the news?

Fuel emergencies are somewhat rare. I have never heard of 2 at the same time, at the same airport.

[Rose Pink]

Originally Posted by Carl D

How many have died?? Did I miss something on the news?

Fuel emergencies are somewhat rare. I have never heard of 2 at the same time, at the same airport.

The point being that if more and more airlines do this, eventually it is going to cause problems. One or two planes having a fuel emergency is one thing but 10 or 12 stacked up, all flying on fumes, is going to result in fatalities. Fuel emergencies may be rare now, but will not be if this policy is allowed to continue.

[Carl D]

Originally Posted by Rose Pink

The point being that if more and more airlines do this, eventually it is going to cause problems. One or two planes having a fuel emergency is one thing but 10 or 12 stacked up, all flying on fumes, is going to result in fatalities. Fuel emergencies may be rare now, but will not be if this policy is allowed to continue.

FAA fuel requirements have not changed.
Trust me, there will never be 10-12 planes stacked up for the same airport running on fumes.

[stevedmatt]

Originally Posted by Carl D

Trust me.

Why should I trust you? What are your credentials?

I make it a rule to never trust someone who has to tell me to trust them.

[CatLovers]

Originally Posted by Rose Pink

The point being that if more and more airlines do this, eventually it is going to cause problems. One or two planes having a fuel emergency is one thing but 10 or 12 stacked up, all flying on fumes, is going to result in fatalities. Fuel emergencies may be rare now, but will not be if this policy is allowed to continue.

No, in reality what will happen is that if a plane sits too long on the tarmac waiting to take off and burns enough fuel so that it falls below the safe buffer level, the pilot will just return the plane to the gate for refueling. So ... there won't be planes taking off with less fuel, there will just be more delays as more planes have to refuel in order to return to safe buffer levels. It won't be a safety issue ... it will be a customer frustration issue!

["Roger"]

Here is my first hand account of what this is like.

I do agree that the plane would not have been in danger if it took off. I am sure that there are FAA regulations that require that it have a good safety margin of fuel once in the air. Still, my plane apparently reached that margin of safety and had to return to the terminal to get more fuel.

[tombo]

I don't if it is lack of fuel or what, but this site says that American Airlines has had to make 8 emergency landings in the last 2 months.

http://imairsick.com/2008/08/america...emergency.html

[Carl D]

Originally Posted by stevedmatt

Why should I trust you? What are your credentials?

I make it a rule to never trust someone who has to tell me to trust them.

FAA licensed Airline Transport Pilot.
Professional pilot 20+ years.

[azsunluvr]

FAA won't let you take off without a buffer of fuel, and pilots wouldn't do it anyway.

[Talent312]

Originally Posted by azsunluvr

FAA won't let you take off without a buffer of fuel, and pilots wouldn't do it anyway.

I'm reminded of a "45-minute" flight from JAX to FLL. We were half-way there when the pilots says that Ft.Lauderdale is shutdown due to a storm. We're in a holding pattern over the Bahamas for 90 minutes when we run low on fuel. We land in Orlando to refuel. The flight took a total of 3 1/2 hours. At FLL, all the gates are full, so we hold on the taxiway for another hour.

[california-bighorn]

From recent experience, I think CatLovers has it correct. Last month in Honolulu (Hawaiian Airlines) we had to sit on the tarmac for a couple of hours. We started to taxi toward the runway, then turned back to the gate. The pilot said we burned enough gas siting out there that we had fallen below the "safe" level of fuel and had to go back to take on additional fuel.
They are not going to take off without sufficient reserve.
However, on a previous flight, the pilot did announce our arrival would be a few minutes late because they were flying at a slower speed to conserve fuel.
Maybe they can follow some politicans advise and over inflate their tires to save gas. Just kidding!!!

[BocaBum99]

Originally Posted by Carl D

FAA licensed Airline Transport Pilot.
Professional pilot 20+ years.

Well, I guess someone owes you an apology. It sucks when calling someone out only to find they were right in the first place.

[BocaBum99]

Originally Posted by azsunluvr

FAA won't let you take off without a buffer of fuel, and pilots wouldn't do it anyway.

This is the common sense response that trumps all the fear oriented posts.

[dougp26364]

Must have been another slow news day. This report aired sometime back and it looks as if they're just dredging up old news.

Pilots are sitting on the plane along with the passengers. Something tells me they're not going to be in any more of a hurry to crash and burn that the passengers are. Now, if the planes were flown by remote control with the airline employee's flying them from safety of the ground, then I'd be concerned.

I've only had on incident where my flight had to land at an alternative airport because they were short on fuel and that was due to an unexpected thunderstorm. I've been in the hold pattern more than once in my life and I've sat on the tarmac for extended periods of time intermitantly. Once we were on the ground at JFK in a VERY long line due to a thunderstorm. It was long enough that the pilots eventually just shut the engines down to conserve fuel without returning to the gate. This was for an oversea's flight.

The problem with the news media today is that it's 24/7 news and they have to put something on and make is sensational to attract viewers and keep ratings up. The news has never been very accurate as far as I'm concerned but ti seems to gotten more into entertainment (jerry springer) and less into reporting the news.

[Carl D]

Originally Posted by BocaBum99

Well, I guess someone owes you an apology. It sucks when calling someone out only to find they were right in the first place.

Thanks for the thoughts, but I don't really mind.
I didn't give any credentials when I gave my point of view, and I wouldn't expect anyone to assume that I make a living by flying a jet.

[Carl D]

Originally Posted by CatLovers

No, in reality what will happen is that if a plane sits too long on the tarmac waiting to take off and burns enough fuel so that it falls below the safe buffer level, the pilot will just return the plane to the gate for refueling. So ... there won't be planes taking off with less fuel, there will just be more delays as more planes have to refuel in order to return to safe buffer levels. It won't be a safety issue ... it will be a customer frustration issue!

Originally Posted by azsunluvr

FAA won't let you take off without a buffer of fuel, and pilots wouldn't do it anyway.

Originally Posted by BocaBum99

This is the common sense response that trumps all the fear oriented posts.

These posts are exactly right, and what I was trying to get accross from the beginning.

[markel]

My best friend is a Captain with United. He calls the shots regarding fuel and he wouldn't put any passengers or himself or his crew in jeopardy. However, he may not be allowed to give you free peanuts or a soda during the flight???

[Ann-Marie]

When an aiplane makes an emergency landing, do they get charged by the airport? Look at all the extra money it costs the airport: foam, delays, manpower etc.

[sfwilshire]

I haven't read the other responses, so maybe this is old news, but this policy cost me a delay last Sunday. The already delayed flight taxied out at DFW and sat on the tarmac for a LONG time. The pilot finally announced that their passenger count had been off by one and that they had to resolve it.

Then he announced that there was weather potentially headed for OKC (our destination) and they were going to have to go back to the terminal for more fuel in case we were diverted to Tulsa.

I got here about 2A instead of before 11P as I expected.

Sheila

[x3 skier]

Originally Posted by dougp26364

The problem with the news media today is that it's 24/7 news and they have to put something on and make is sensational to attract viewers and keep ratings up. The news has never been very accurate as far as I'm concerned but ti seems to gotten more into entertainment (jerry springer) and less into reporting the news.

True, sad but true.

Cheers