How to let $1.2 billion go to waste every year

[TWAnr]

Posted by Smilin' Jack on his board:

Let me say this...... In October of 2001, shortly after September 11, Bill Compton asked Hugh Schoezel to analyze how American Airlines was using fuel in comparison to how TWA used fuel. When you take in to account single engine taxi (2 minutes saved per flight leg by starting the second engine while taxiing to the runway), alternate fuel procedures, re-release fuel procedures, fuel use procedures (including APU burn), and fuel purchase procedures, the savings to American Airlines was to be, a conservative, $1.2 Billion dollars per year. This analysis was given to Bill Compton who gave it to Don Carty who was supposed to give to his people. Does anyone remember this? What happened? Where did the ball stop rolling? Someone must know the answers!!

AA needs to change....maybe by getting rid of the people that shot this down.

http://smilinjackcom.siteprotect.net/cgibi...ic;f=6;t=000685

 

[air_guy]

----------------
On 4/23/2003 1045 PM TWAnr wrote:



Posted by Smilin' Jack on his board:


Let me say this...... In October of 2001, shortly after September 11, Bill Compton asked Hugh Schoezel to analyze how American Airlines was using fuel in comparison to how TWA used fuel. When you take in to account single engine taxi (2 minutes saved per flight leg by starting the second engine while taxiing to the runway), alternate fuel procedures, re-release fuel procedures, fuel use procedures (including APU burn), and fuel purchase procedures, the savings to American Airlines was to be, a conservative, $1.2 Billion dollars per year. This analysis was given to Bill Compton who gave it to Don Carty who was supposed to give to his people. Does anyone remember this? What happened? Where did the ball stop rolling? Someone must know the answers!!


AA needs to change....maybe by getting rid of the people that shot this down.




----------------​

Some people just waste earth space, not you TWAnr but whoever wrote that quote. AA fuel expenses are around 2B a year. I doubt that operational procedures such as using one engine or APU will cut that by 1.2B Most of TWA operational practices have been implemented where possible. The savings were in the 50M range but of course that varies as fuel price varies.

 

[TWAnr]

Here is a reply post by a TWA MD80 (S80) captain who has undergone the training and crossed over the fence to the AA operating certificate:

1) Single engine taxi. No appreciable difference in procedure.

2) Alternate Fuel. I typically land at STL with 7000 lbs.; they have not put unrequired alternates on my flight plans.

3) APU burn. External is hooked up everywhere I have been and I see no difference in APU usage.

4) Fuel Purchase Procedure. TWA had NO hedge. AA does some. I''m not sure how TWA had any advantage there.

5) Fuel Use Procedure. AA actually recommends slowing to LRC from the flight plan Mach if the flight is going to arrive early. I don''t think LLC has adopted that yet.

The only thing I see that AA is deficient in from a fuel use standpoint is their higher use of power back on S80, the engines start earlier and there is a lot wait for clearance in DFW.

My flights operate just as fuel efficient from gate to gate EXCEPT for the occasional powerback.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the savings could be $1.2 BILLION today.
Rough figures. $1.2B at 4000 flights a day and 365 days a year equals about $821 per flight. At $1 per gallon that''s about 5500 lbs of fuel that could be saved per flight?

And over half the S80 fleet is not operated much differently than at LLC...

All we "hear" may not be true...

 

[Wretched Wrench]

At my station, the pilots are racing for the tram long gone before ext power is plugged in, if ever, and the APU and packs continue to consume fuel for hours.

 

[SWORD]

It was $1.2 MILLION, not $1.2 BILLION.

 

[WXGuesser]

Trust me, AA tries to be as careful as they can about fuel usage. Dispatch doesn''t put additional fuel on unless the meteorological situation calls for it (T-storms or other WX concerns that would require alternates, and then they use the closest possible alternates).

That''s the reason AA Weather Services is co-located with Dispatch (at least for the moment); so the dispatchers can ask those questions when they need to.

TANSTAAFL

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 4/24/2003 309 PM SWORD wrote:

It was $1.2 MILLION, not $1.2 BILLION.

----------------​

Ahh...that explains it.

It''s annoying that so many people confuse the two - namely newscasters.

It''s possible to shave $1.2 million off a $2 billion fuel tab (don''t know how likely it is, but it is possible).

Impossible to shave 60% off the annual fuel consumption (unless, of course, AA grounded 60% of the fleet).

 

[air_guy]

----------------
On 4/24/2003 3:30:50 PM FWAAA wrote:

----------------
On 4/24/2003 309 PM SWORD wrote:

It was $1.2 MILLION, not $1.2 BILLION.

----------------​

Ahh...that explains it.

It''s annoying that so many people confuse the two - namely newscasters.

It''s possible to shave $1.2 million off a $2 billion fuel tab (don''t know how likely it is, but it is possible).

Impossible to shave 60% off the annual fuel consumption (unless, of course, AA grounded 60% of the fleet).

----------------​

Well I read the post again and the poster was trying to make a big deal about it... even suggesting that someone gets fired for inaction.... its easy to quote whatever bull and point fingers.....

 

[FWAAA]

Hey - I''m well aware of the poster''s intent.

 

[chris]

Howdy,

FWIW,

It''s not 1.2 million either. AA FLT OPS has said that if 75% of the daily departures used single engine taxi it would save $36 million per year. That''s just for SE taxi.

There are other items that AA has implemented in the last two years, don''t know what they are worth.

They have also reportedly said that LLC''s fuel use is still lower than the AA side. I don''t know if they know why, but I sure don''t.

I do know they could save more.