Thai Airways Fuel Reserves

[johnb]

Just read in the Bangkok post ( on-line) that Thai are seeking to halve the fuel reserves they carry on its aircraft as part of its " intensified efforts to reduce costs in the light of high oil prices"

DCA deputy Director Wuthichai Singhamanee said " this is fuel that is not used and there is nothing to be worried about"

Using a flight from Bangkok to London as an example, a Thai executive pointed out that halving the contingency reserve would shed about two tonnes from the 120 tonnes of jet fuel a Boeing 747-400 would use.

My quesion for the experts is if this is not a problem halving the 'extra' fuel then why did they carry twice as much extra fuel in the first place?

Johnb

[think_too_mut]

Just read in the Bangkok post ( on-line) that Thai are seeking to halve the fuel reserves they carry on its aircraft as part of its " intensified efforts to reduce costs in the light of high oil prices"

DCA deputy Director Wuthichai Singhamanee said " this is fuel that is not used and there is nothing to be worried about"

Using a flight from Bangkok to London as an example, a Thai executive pointed out that halving the contingency reserve would shed about two tonnes from the 120 tonnes of jet fuel a Boeing 747-400 would use.

My quesion for the experts is if this is not a problem halving the 'extra' fuel then why did they carry twice as much extra fuel in the first place?

Johnb

Common logic suggests that half the fuel is used - to carry the other half.

Possibly, they may shed 0.7%. Then, that's probably how much fuel that BA 777 from Beijing to London needed not to fall off the sky just before the runway?

[dekka007]

Contingency fuel is usually 5% of the trip fuel. It is used (rarely) in the event of unforecast wind changes, atc level restrictions etc. etc.

5% of the the trip fuel is a lot on a Long-haul sector.

An aircraft would normally arrive with alternate fuel (Diversion) plus reserve fuel (Holding Fuel) intact plus the contingency. So even if you use up ALL the contingency fuel on a trip (Incredibly rare on a sector of this length). you will still have enough fuel to make an approach at destination hold for 30 mins and divert to another airport and make an approach and landing there.

Bearing in mind the enroute alternates on most routes its not as dramatic as it sounds although in the perfect world - Id like full contingency.

However if the fuel is getting on the low side. there are numerous options available to the crew including in-flight fuel reduction which allows the aircraft to continue to destination with less than minimum diversion fuel if certain criteria are met. All good stuff

Edited August 22, 2008 by dekka007

[tw25rw]

Time to introduce inflight refueling for long haul airliners.

[think_too_mut]

An aircraft would normally arrive with alternate fuel (Diversion) plus reserve fuel (Holding Fuel) intact plus the contingency. So even if you use up ALL the contingency fuel on a trip (Incredibly rare on a sector of this length). you will still have enough fuel to make an approach at destination hold for 30 mins and divert to another airport and make an approach and landing there.

Is it not exactly that did not happen to that BA flight?

I am an amateur, just commenting on what I have read.

[dekka007]

Is it not exactly that did not happen to that BA flight?

I am an amateur, just commenting on what I have read.

BA038 did not run out of fuel. (Not to say fuel contamination from China is totally ruled out yet)

That was not the cause of the incident as far as the aaib information have released so far.....

My latest understanding is that currently the investigation is concentrating on the FADEC (Engine control).

Edited August 22, 2008 by dekka007

[think_too_mut]

Is it not exactly that did not happen to that BA flight?

I am an amateur, just commenting on what I have read.

BA038 did not run out of fuel. That was not the cause of the incident as far as the aaib information have released.

My latest understanding is that currently the investigation is concentrating on the FADEC (Engine control).

You can have a better insight, but, as Albert Einstain said: "If you can't explain it to a 6 year old, then you don't know it yourself".

[dekka007]

Basing my information on the AAIB (air accident investigation board) released information. Fuel starvation was not the cause of that particular incident.

The final report is not yet available. So any guess as to why is pure speculation at this point other than what the AAIB have ruled out already.

[think_too_mut]

So, Thai Airways representative is right? No worries?

[dekka007]

So, Thai Airways representative is right? No worries?

I don't know that particular companies fuel policy so difficult to comment. However i personally would not be concerned if a company reduced the contingency from 5% to 3% for example.

At the end of the day..as a skipper of the flight I take as much fuel as I want to aslong as there is a valid reason to do so.

So they may reduce the contingency to 3% but me as the skipper I may put an extra 10% of the total fuel required for weather level changes etc / delays. Ill decide how much fuel i take no one else.

I personally think on this occassion TG are wasting their time messing about at this level and it is simply a show to keep the board happy it will not endanger anything.

It may cost them more money in fact because a crew may elect to divert earlier to another airport due to this policy which will wipe out TG's money savings for the whole year in 1 diversion for a 1-2% contingency reduction.....

Edited August 22, 2008 by dekka007

[think_too_mut]

So, Thai Airways representative is right? No worries?

At the end of the day..as a skipper of the flight I take as much fuel as I want to aslong as there is a valid reason to do so.

It could be your jargon, but what is "a skipper" on an transcontinental flight?

What role that person plays and what responsibility when taking the fuel for any flight?

Commercial flying or a hobby?

[dekka007]

skipper = Captain.

Sorry.

[think_too_mut]

skipper = Captain.

Sorry.

Ok, Captain.

So what the Thai Airways office rat who has never flown a plane has said?

Could you be more specific than him?

He could say too - not enough info that we (TG) are in wrong.

Tell us he is an asshol_e or he is an informed professional, rather than beating around the bush.

[dekka007]

I cannot really comment on specific TG fuel policy ...

Edited August 22, 2008 by dekka007

[think_too_mut]

I cannot really comment on specific TG fuel policy ...

You came to this topic as an authority.

Now, it looks more like you have learned your "flying" via Microsoft flight simulator.

[dekka007]

Now, it looks more like you have learned your "flying" via Microsoft flight simulator.

Exactly where did I say I was an AUTHORITY....I simply gave an informed opinion as the OP requested.

I cannot comment on specifics of their policy because:

1. I dont work for them.

2. I have never read their fuel policy.

What do you expect me to say???

Edited August 22, 2008 by dekka007

[think_too_mut]

Now, it looks more like you have learned your "flying" via Microsoft flight simulator.

Exactly where did I say I was an AUTHORITY....I simply gave an informed opinion as the OP requested.

I cannot comment on specifics of their policy because:

1. I dont work for them.

2. I have never read their fuel policy.

What do you expect me to say???

Your obviously yet another ThaiVisa W*nker.

What was your "informed" opinion? Rubbish, anyone could have googled more than that.

Back to the amateurs.

We may hear more relevant info from them.

[dekka007]

[Felt 35]

Thai Airways International (THAI) is seeking to skimp on fuel reserves on its aircraft as part of its intensified effort to reduce costs in light of high oil prices. The national carrier wants to halve contingency fuel reserves, legally now at 5% of total fuel load on each flight, in order to reduce weight on aircraft to cut fuel burn and emissions.

The cut, which was proposed to the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), is part of more stringent fuel management being adopted at THAI. The company is toughening its cost reduction programme as it reported its worst quarterly loss since the 1997 Asian financial crisis in the second quarter of this year.

THAI executives allayed safety concerns about the proposed reduction in fuel reserves, as it is in line with practices in the European Union.

DCA deputy director general Wuthichai Singhamanee agreed, saying THAI's request was not unreasonable and therefore is permissible. ''This is fuel that is not used and there is nothing to be worried about,'' he said.

This portion is in addition to the volume needed to cover the distance on a specific flight, enabling an aircraft to fly to an alternate airport in case the airport where the aircraft is supposed to land cannot be served. The reserve is also in addition to fuel allotted to allow a plane to fly in a holding pattern for 30 minutes when landing is not possible.

Using a flight from Bangkok to London as an example, a THAI executive pointed out that halving the contingency reserve would shed about two tonnes from the 120 tonnes of jet fuel (about 960 barrels) a Boeing 747-400 normally carries.

By doing so, the airline could reduce fuel burned on that flight by about 800 kilogrammes, translating into financial savings of US$800 a flight.

With fuel prices now their biggest cost, airlines including THAI are aggressively enforcing new policies designed to reduce consumption.

Roughly 40% of THAI's total operating costs are for fuel, up from 37% last year.

THAI's fuel bill last year was about 70 billion baht with consumption of three million tonnes. As oil prices started spiking in April this year, its 2008 fuel cost is estimated at nearly 100 billion baht.

The savings arising from reducing fuel reserves could be substantial given the size of THAI's operation and network _ 82 aircraft, 18 million passengers a year and 60 destinations.

Achieving cost savings is critical for THAI, not for profitability but to stop losses from growing.

The carrier recorded a $308-million second-quarter loss, slightly worse than market expectations, on soaring fuel costs and a significant $150-million exchange loss related to its US dollar and euro borrowings, compared to a $43-million gain in the second quarter of 2007.The airline is slowing its planes by nearly 10 minutes, carrying less water, fewer newspapers and blankets, and limiting crew luggage allowances to cut fuel use and reduce weight.

THAI shares closed yesterday on the SET at 15.80 baht, down 30 satang, in trade worth 15.9 million baht.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/220808_Business...g2008_biz32.php

[Felt 35]

Hmm....to the in the know.....do this mean that if a Thai flight are due to land in Phuket but get the message from the tower that due to bad wheather they have to abort the landing and return to Bangkok he have to make it in 30 minutes...or they will be out of fuel....

[dekka007]

At the risk of being attacked yet again by the resident TV W*nkers....

The tower wont tell you where to divert to, they will inform you that the airport is closed due weather - its your choice where to go and when ie to hold or not etc.

Alternate Fuel is an amount of fuel say 5.0 tonnes or whatever is required - in your example to divert from Phuket - Bangkok. (if that was the designated diversion airport)

Reserve Fuel is an additional amount of usually 30 mins but sometimes more to Hold for 30 mins at 1500ft (Say 2.0 Tonnes) in addition to the above alternate fuel.

If the trip fuel from Bangkok to phuket is 4.0 tonnes then the contingency fuel would be 0.2kgs (5% of the trip).

SO

The additional fuel above that needed to fly from Bangkok to Phuket is 5+2+0.2 (Alternate Fuel + Reserve Fuel + Contingency) = 7.2 tonnes. A lot more than 30 mins.

This is of course simplified. TG are only talking about reducing the contingency part of the additional fuel.

Edited August 22, 2008 by dekka007

[johnb]

At the risk of being attacked yet again by the resident TV W*nkers....

The tower wont tell you where to divert to, they will inform you that the airport is closed due weather - its your choice where to go and when ie to hold or not etc.

Alternate Fuel is an amount of fuel say 5.0 tonnes or whatever is required - in your example to divert from Phuket - Bangkok. (if that was the designated diversion airport)

Reserve Fuel is an additional amount of usually 30 mins but sometimes more to Hold for 30 mins at 1500ft (Say 2.0 Tonnes) in addition to the above alternate fuel.

If the trip fuel from Bangkok to phuket is 4.0 tonnes then the contingency fuel would be 0.2kgs (5% of the trip).

SO

The additional fuel above that needed to fly from Bangkok to Phuket is 5+2+0.2 (Alternate Fuel + Reserve Fuel + Contingency) = 7.2 tonnes. A lot more than 30 mins.

This is of course simplified. TG are only talking about reducing the contingency part of the additional fuel.

dekka007

Thanks for that -

Johnb

[NotNew2You]

So, Thai Airways representative is right? No worries?

In order to fly to European, Japanese, and American airports, Thai must comply with whatever safety regulations are in place in those locations (at least on flights to those destinations...but likely just use one standard for all destinations) and I am sure that whatever the air safety regulatory agencies for these destinations allow regarding reserve fuel levels meet stringent safety standards.

[lamai04]

Time to introduce inflight refueling for long haul airliners.

Yes, for long flight if they are using half the fuel to carry the total fuel why not make a quick stop over in Dubai where i'm sure the fuel is also very cheap? Like flying for free to europe....

If the oil states are too down from the standard route, well, near the caspian sea there are some big oil exporters, cheap fuel again....

[dotcom]

In order to fly to European, Japanese, and American airports, Thai must comply with whatever safety regulations are in place in those locations (at least on flights to those destinations...but likely just use one standard for all destinations) and I am sure that whatever the air safety regulatory agencies for these destinations allow regarding reserve fuel levels meet stringent safety standards.

That would be my understanding too. There is some sort of international governing body who set those type of regulations.

What some <deleted> at DCA wants to do is of no concern.

Maybe if they get rid of the lifejackets they would pollute less too.

One thing about excess fuel. It will get used at some point in time.

[Carib]

Time to introduce inflight refueling for long haul airliners.

Yes, for long flight if they are using half the fuel to carry the total fuel why not make a quick stop over in Dubai where i'm sure the fuel is also very cheap? Like flying for free to europe....

If the oil states are too down from the standard route, well, near the caspian sea there are some big oil exporters, cheap fuel again....

Sounds good, but..

An aircraft is not a car you just pull of the road to the next gas station.

Crew working hours are limited to the international rules/standards, meaning that by making a stopover they could, at the end of an international flight/oceanic crossing, be in the cockpit too long.

You would need either a second crew or a crew change at the stopover airport. ~Think money~.

Landing and docking is a costly business too. Airports send the bill to the airline. ~Again think Money~

Traffic control and the use of them, ~costs money~.

On takeoff, a huge chunk of the " cheap fuel" is used up, and the advantage of it being cheap has almost, if not all disappeared into thin air already.~ no profit really~

Aircraft life is based upon flying hours/landings-take off`s and various other factors. Take that in to consideration too, thinking longterm and maintenance ~costs~.

And last but not least, every take of and landing is in a way somewhat of a risqué. If you don't really need to do it, just don't.

I think Dekka 007 gave a very good and clear explanation of what the fuel business is about in relation to flying, and who takes the decisions.

[tartempion]

skipper = Captain.

Sorry.

Ok, Captain.

So what the Thai Airways office rat who has never flown a plane has said?

Could you be more specific than him?

He could say too - not enough info that we (TG) are in wrong.

Tell us he is an asshol_e or he is an informed professional, rather than beating around the bush.

That's why airline (top)management are considered idiots.

I worked 9 years for an airline and believe me, you do not want to hear about their sound management decisions.

Unfortunately I am afraid this applies to most businesses.

As a consultant I worked for many types of industries and there are only so many idiots out there...

[Spee]

Just read in the Bangkok post ( on-line) that Thai are seeking to halve the fuel reserves they carry on its aircraft as part of its " intensified efforts to reduce costs in the light of high oil prices"

This is another classic case of pinching pennies and burning dollars.

In the airline business, the amount of fuel required is what it is, and barring new technology or changes in the laws of physics, this part of airline overhead isn't going to change. Airplane manufacturers are already producing the most fuel-economic aircraft in history.

If the airline is serious about cutting costs, then they need to look elsewhere. Get the <deleted>' government to do something about the fading tourist image and related problems. Make it easier for tourists to come to Thailand to spend money. Make it easier for businesses to want to come to Thailand to do business. Increase advertising. Get more bums in seats.

As one of the resident pilots suggested, one diversion per year kills the cost benefit tradeoff. And as he suggests, it is their plane. They order as much fuel as they think they will need.

In short, rather than looking for uneconomic and impractical ways to cut costs, look for ways to increase revenue.

Here's another thought. Get the airports to restructure their business models and their process flows.

I remember sitting on a fully loaded 747 at Narita, listening to the pilot chatter on Channel 10. The pilots were irate that the tower ordered them to push back, start the engines, and then had them sitting there on the ramp with all engines idling for something like 10-15 minutes. I can't imagine how many pounds of fuel were burned unnecessarily.

Why can't the airports tow the aircraft out to the end of the runway rather than making them start-up at the terminal? What can't the airports implement some sort of catapult system, similar to what is on an aircraft carrier to help get the aircraft up to speed. Why can't aircraft have disposable rocket packs to help them accelerate to 100mph, or for the first 1500 feet? Anything that helps the aircraft save fuel on the ground, or have to dial up to full throttle for takeoff should save a lot of fuel over time.

Edit:

Same thing goes after they land. There are some places like at Chicago O'Hare, where after landing it may take 15-20 minutes or more to taxi to a stand and shut down the engines. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to tow them in?

To me, this is a situation where people need to look outside the box for answers, just as Southwest Airlines did 25 years ago. They said the business model is broken and they built a new one. Federal Express invented a business model. Why can't major commercial airlines do the same thing?

The answers aren't in pennies and nickels of a few gallons of fuel being loaded before takeoff. The answers are in more revenue, and the many ways and changes for that to happen. The answers are in a revised airport business model.

I love my frequent flyer miles, and I used to fly on a specific airline because of them. But I don't see how the business model works over the long run. I had enough miles racked up over the years to take a first class and business class flight from LHR to NRT and a business class flight from LHR to BKK. That's easily $20,000 worth of flight tickets and I doubt that I spent $30,000-$40,000 in flight tickets to earn the miles. And I still have several dozen free domestic upgrade coupons and a free domestic flight in the bank. How is that a valid business model?

Edited August 22, 2008 by Spee

[cophen]

What can't the airports implement some sort of catapult system, similar to what is on an aircraft carrier to help get the aircraft up to speed.

Probably because paying passengers aren't willing to expose themselves to a 3G launch? You seem to be confusing people who've paid for a single flight with those who've signed up for a few years in the military.

[Naam]

If the trip fuel from Bangkok to phuket is 4.0 tonnes then the contingency fuel would be 0.2kgs (5% of the trip).

a typo i assume