Thai Airways Fuel Reserves

[Carib]

Catapult systems, just as rocket assisted take off will put considerable strain on the aircraft structure. Commercial aircraft are not built to be catapulted or rocket launched. With the rocket launch system there are also other risques to be taken in consideration. Basically they are just a piece of fireworks, and we all know that they don't always do what we want it to do, or at the moment's we would like them to really do it. Military aviation has proofed that a lot of times already.

Towing an aircraft to the take off position has been considered, but part of the safety checks are done on the way to the take off position, brakes, ground steering, and systems which can only be checked with engines running and of course also it is needed for pre warming of engines. ( everything depends on type of engine or type of aircraft. ) Taking off with cold engines is not the most sensible thing to do.

I do agree that ground traffic control is sometimes to much in a hurry to have everything lined up, with engines running.

[rheinwiese]

Reducing the fuel reserves to me its a severe safety issue, and the passengers safety must always go 1st.

TG would be better off to retire their aging A300 fleet and switch to modern, fuel efficient aircrafts.

This will help to reduce the fuel bill significantly.

They have ordered 787's to replace those old Airbuses, but they are due for delivery in a couple of years only.

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

[dekka007]

QUOTE (dekka007 @ 2008-08-22 22:02:06)

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

Indeed should read 0.2ton or 200kgs.

Top of the class for observation - of course it was a deliberate mistake to see who was paying attention

[GeorgeW]

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?

Your point about them needing to think outside the box is certainly valid, even if the specific ideas you suggested may not work, someone with a lot of knowledge of the industry should be able to come up with better ways to make the airlines more profitable.

About the frequent flyer awards, your assumption that your free flights are really worth $20,000 is likely incorrect. The main purpose of frequent flyer awards, from the airline's standpoint, is to only give people awards on flights where the seats would likely otherwise be empty. So if they manage their awards carefully it should only cost them the price of the extra fuel and food for the award passenger, which is very little. If people could get award tickets on any flight they wanted, then your assumption would be valid.

[Naam]

QUOTE (dekka007 @ 2008-08-22 22:02:06)

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

Indeed should read 0.2ton or 200kgs.

Top of the class for observation - of course it was a deliberate mistake to see who was paying attention

that goes without saying

[NotNew2You]

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.

[Ricardo]

Perhaps they might also consider cutting-back on 'freebie' tickets ?

It is one thing, for airline employees to fly free subject-to-load, but entirely unprofitable to fly all sorts of politicians & well-connected hi-so hangers-on & their families at the eventual-expense of the paying customer.

Or look at making more refuelling-stops, in the Gulf or wherever, so that they don't have to carry the fuel all the way to Europe or the States, before burning it. Admittedly this also has implications for crewing.

Best of all, just sell the airline, to the Arabs, and let them worry about it in future !

[dekka007]

Or look at making more refuelling-stops

Landing charge, Navigation Charges, ground service charges, met/handling agent charges. Totally cancel the fuel-stop benefits. much much cheaper to carry the fuel

[lomatopo]

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 occasion 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.....

A very astute observation (bolded), and I agree. Probably not a whole lot of operational change but more to show they are taking action to control costs. dekka007: Please ignore the more annoying members here, and add them to your IGNORE list, and please keep contributing your very valuable posts. I am under the impression you are a professional twin-jet captain or FO.

For U.S. carriers the requirement is to carry enough fuel to reach your destination, or a diversion airport, based on the flight plan and current weather forecast, plus enough fuel for another 45 minutes of flight at cruising speed.

Note that TG's President is a 25+ year employee with the national carrier, a former pilot and he spent many, many years in flight operations. Most of the day-to-day management are aviation professionals, while the BoD is where the political, social and military appointees reside attempting to 'manage' the airline.

[dekka007]

Please ignore the more annoying members here, and add them to your IGNORE list

Its far more entertaining to keep them off your ignore list and watch them make fools of themselves - hours of fun

[Spee]

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.

G-forces could easily be modulated. Carrier aircraft are subjected to the g-force because they only have the length of a football pitch to get airborne. When the Saturn-V moon rocket was launched, the astronauts were subjected to almost 9 G's at peak. When the Shuttle is launched, maximum G-loading for the crew is 3-4 G's. A catapult system could readily be modulated to be within stresses that the airframe and passengers could handle. The catapult doesn't need to go the whole way. It would be just an assist to get the aircraft up to 100-125mph or so. As for strength, I would suspect that a 747 or 777 undercarriage and structure is every bit as strong or stronger than a fighter aircraft.

Here's another out of the box thought. A mechanized and automated towing system could be designed and utilized. From the terminal to the runway, aircraft could be mechanically and/or electrically pulled through an automated system controlled by the tower or even by computer. This would minimize engine wear and tear and fuel consumption on the ground. Assuming a sound design, this could conceivably eliminate human error on the ground traffic control, which has caused many catastrophic accidents.

I really suggested the rockets as a tongue in cheek suggestion. There is an element of risk, but it is also relatively proven and mature technology.

The same thing goes with landings. Why are use of thrust reversers mandatory? Obviously if the aircraft comes in long, then they are needed. But why can't an aircraft on normal approach just coast down the length of the runway letting drag and friction slow the aircraft to the point where brakes could work. Then at the end of the runway, the engines are shut down and the aircraft are towed in, again saving wear and tear on the engines as well as fuel.

The point I'm trying to make is that the amount of fuel taken on board is not really a relevant factor in an airline's profitability, or lack thereof. The typical airline business model is flawed, as is that of the airport.

Getting back to the OP, if Thai Airways really wants to improve their revenue management and cash flow, they need to adjust their business model. How do they get more people into seats and run their airline at a lower cost? It sure isn't by whether to load another 1000 pounds of fuel or not. If any of the corporate operations directors really believe it, then IMHO they need to be sacked for incompetence.

The Thai government needs to go on a big marketing campaign to give Thailand a facelift. And they need to do something about the increasingly bad reputation about safety, police corruption, etc. They need to make people want to not only fly to Thailand, but to fly on Thai Air. To me, this doesn't take marketing genius. It just takes a fundamentally sound strategy, and a willingness by people at all levels to implement the strategy.

[dekka007]

Why are use of thrust reversers mandatory? Obviously if the aircraft comes in long, then they are needed. But why can't an aircraft on normal approach just coast down the length of the runway letting drag and friction slow the aircraft to the point where brakes could work. Then at the end of the runway, the engines are shut down and the aircraft are towed in, again saving wear and tear on the engines as well as fuel.

Actually use of reverse thrust is not mandatory. It's use is basically of necessity:

1. Runway Length is limiting - ie without it the aircraft does not have enough runway to stop - Narita Rwy 34r for example.

2. Contamination of Runway - Water,Snow,Ice etc. decreases the effectiveness of brakes.

3. Save Brake wear - Carbon Brakes are VERY VERY VERY expensive for aircraft.

4. Reverse thrust is the MOST effective way of stopping an airplane at high speed (More than brakes) especially with a heavy widebody.

5. Runway occupancy time, ATC may request that you vacate at a intermediate point not the end of the runway for traffic or other reason.

Most will deploy reverse in Idle if not required which removes the forward thrust component from the engines but does not use any fuel etc. only if required will >reverse idle be used.

Runway occupancy time if every airplane had to roll to the end would suffer terribly resulting in arrival delays - more holding etc. resulting in more fuel burn.

Towing to the ramp from the runway is just not practical...for many many reasons.

Taxi fuel although can be high - cost saving in this area is again minor, with solutions including 1 engine taxi (Some minor implications to this) and delay starting of Auxilary power unit (APU) until necessary.

If you take the taxi fuel for say a 20min taxi and APU usage on your average widebody a/c your looking at around 0.4t.

Now the Total fuel required for say Hong Kong to Narita will ball park figure 35.0t. Taxi fuel although a factor is not such a great saving area - although agreed 100 a/c saving 100kgs per day is a saving - its not that major in the grand scheme of things....

Edited August 23, 2008 by dekka007

[Crushdepth]

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" huh.gif

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?

I was on a late nighte TG flight yesterday (Brisbane to Bangkok) that had to make an unexpected stop in Darwin to let off a sick passenger. Even though it wasn't really much out of the way - maybe a 30 minute diversion - we couldn't take off again until they had refueled. Must be cutting it pretty fine.

Of course, this was Darwin and nobody could be found to refuel the plane until 6am, either!

[dekka007]

we couldn't take off again until they had refueled. Must be cutting it pretty fine.

Refuel needed because of unexpected Descent/Approach into Darwin. Takeoff and climb required out of darwin (The most fuel hungry aspect of a trip). There would have been Insufficient fuel for this in original Bangkok-Brisbane fuel calculations.

Therefore new flightplan issued for Darwin - Brisbane with its fuel requirements calculated for this trip and diversions etc. so refuel needed to cover all legal requirements for the new journey.

Bit of a pain tho I agree. Dont worry tho they were in no way cutting it fine.

Edited August 23, 2008 by dekka007

[Spee]

Why are use of thrust reversers mandatory? Obviously if the aircraft comes in long, then they are needed. But why can't an aircraft on normal approach just coast down the length of the runway letting drag and friction slow the aircraft to the point where brakes could work. Then at the end of the runway, the engines are shut down and the aircraft are towed in, again saving wear and tear on the engines as well as fuel.

Actually use of reverse thrust is not mandatory. It's use is basically of necessity:

Runway occupancy time if every airplane had to roll to the end would suffer terribly resulting in arrival delays - more holding etc. resulting in more fuel burn.

Towing to the ramp from the runway is just not practical...for many many reasons.

Taxi fuel although can be high - cost saving in this area is again minor, with solutions including 1 engine taxi (Some minor implications to this) and delay starting of Auxilary power unit (APU) until necessary.

If you take the taxi fuel for say a 20min taxi and APU usage on your average widebody a/c your looking at around 0.4t.

Now the Total fuel required for say Hong Kong to Narita will ball park figure 35.0t. Taxi fuel although a factor is not such a great saving area - although agreed 100 a/c saving 100kgs per day is a saving - its not that major in the grand scheme of things....

Thanks for the thoughtful insights to a someone uneducated in the ways of piloting. It's enlightening information, and at the same time confirms what I've felt all along, that the airlines' problems have nothing to do with fuel loading.

Although I do admit that I'm surprised about the various aspects of ground operations. In your educated and experienced opinion, do airport ground operations generally run as efficiently as possible, relative to helping airlines with their bottom line? Or are their ways that airports could run better and save airlines operating money in the process?

[lamai04]

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?

Your point about them needing to think outside the box is certainly valid, even if the specific ideas you suggested may not work, someone with a lot of knowledge of the industry should be able to come up with better ways to make the airlines more profitable. About the frequent flyer awards, your assumption that your free flights are really worth $20,000 is likely incorrect. The main purpose of frequent flyer awards, from the airline's standpoint, is to only give people awards on flights where the seats would likely otherwise be empty. So if they manage their awards carefully it should only cost them the price of the extra fuel and food for the award passenger, which is very little. If people could get award tickets on any flight they wanted, then your assumption would be valid.

Uhm, Milan-Bangkok=12.000 miles= 1200E

Free ticket 80.000 miles= 7 trip=8400E spent.

That was an average when the fuel surcharge was not used, only airport cost, max 60E.

More or less a 10% discount if fliying with the same Airline/alliance, but still getting a free ticket in high season or it is worthless.

Now Lufthansa charge 350E for free ticket, AirFrance/KLM 440E.

Not sure if it is of any interest anymore, december ticket must be payd NOW to get the last seats, so if oil stay at 120$ instead of 147$ they will cut the surcharge and a payed flight in 2 month time will be cheaper.

I have the feeling that very soon we will be using the free miles to pay for the baggage, the corridor seat and the beer....

Edited August 23, 2008 by lamai04

[lamai04]

Or look at making more refuelling-stops

Landing charge, Navigation Charges, ground service charges, met/handling agent charges. Totally cancel the fuel-stop benefits. much much cheaper to carry the fuel

I was thinking of a refueling only airport, no passenger traffic, in Uzbekistan for example for very long flights only form BKK to UK........

[Ricardo]

Or look at making more refuelling-stops

Landing charge, Navigation Charges, ground service charges, met/handling agent charges. Totally cancel the fuel-stop benefits. much much cheaper to carry the fuel

But presumably at some price for fuel, the trade-off does become worth considering, also I suspect fuel-costs might be lower in the Gulf than in Swampyboom ? Perhaps that tipping-point is near ?

[lomatopo]

Or look at making more refuelling-stops

Landing charge, Navigation Charges, ground service charges, met/handling agent charges. Totally cancel the fuel-stop benefits. much much cheaper to carry the fuel

But presumably at some price for fuel, the trade-off does become worth considering, also I suspect fuel-costs might be lower in the Gulf than in Swampyboom ? Perhaps that tipping-point is near ?

Jet fuel (A-1) is a refined (distillate) product, and a commodity so prices tend to vary by delivery date rather than geography. Middle Eastern crude oil yields only 10% distillate while North Sea crude yields 25%. Further jet fuel is an expense which airlines just need to pass on to consumers, if they wish to make a profit, or in the case of most carriers, lose less money. This is done currently via fuel surcharges, an additional line item on the ticket price. The fear for the industry is that higher fares mean fewer customers so rather than increase/change fuel surcharges daily they are looking at any possible ways to reduce fuel costs.

The fuel burned on take-off and climb to final flight level after a fuel stop would be more than off-set any economies achieved by carrying less fuel for a non-stop flight, within the paramters of most long-haul flights.

I did see the VS was intending to implement towing to/from the ramp but never saw that they actually did this, and this would be airport dependent of course.

[Spee]

Further jet fuel is an expense which airlines just need to pass on to consumers, if they wish to make a profit, or in the case of most carriers, lose less money. This is done currently via fuel surcharges, an additional line item on the ticket price. The fear for the industry is that higher fares mean fewer customers so rather than increase/change fuel surcharges daily

The concept of the fuel surcharge is the silliest thing I've heard of in my entire life. When you go to a restaurant, do they pass on a food surcharge? When you go to the tailor, do they charge you a cloth surcharge? Why don't the airlines just set the price of their ticket and leave it at that?

While we're on the price of tickets, if the governments are interested in helping the airlines, why don't they get rid of the <deleted>' taxes. There are some fares where the taxes can be 20-30% of the airline fare. How screwed up is that? The same thing goes with other regulations. Why should an airline have to go to a government to get permission to fly from point A to point B? They should be allowed to drive their own business and fly where they want to fly.

To me, the airlines of today are like the US auto industry of 40 years ago. They force feed the same product upon the consumer and make no attempt to refine and improve their business models. The Southwest Airlines model has been the biggest force in US domestic airlines over the last 30 years. They created new markets and a new way of serving the customer and prospered because of it.

FWIW ...

The history channel had a 1-hour "Modern Marvels" episode on Saturday night and the subject was "Oil." There was a statement made that airplane fuel accounts for 9% of consumption of all oil produced.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Spee

[geriatrickid]

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.

$800? That's less than the revenue generated by 1 seat on a rountrip. Here's an idea for TG. Instead of exercises in bad PR and futility, how about you generate the revenues needed to pay for that fuel? All you have to do is stop giving away the freebies to everyone that has no relationship to the airline. That means the mia noi of certain people don;t get a discounted or free ticket. That also means that General XXX doesn't pay for a cheap seat but get upgraded to F etc. etc.

what's that you say? Too logical? Impossible when the airline is considered the plaything of the well connected? air canada used to have the same problem with politicians and cronies back when it was a crown corporation. it was privatized and now rapes everyone equally.