Guidance Material and Best Practices for

Fuel and Environmental Management

Effective October 2011

5th Edition
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for
Fuel and Environmental Management
Effective October 2011

International Air Transport Association

Montreal — Geneva 5th Edition
 NOTICE
DISCLAIMER. This guidance material is provided to al-
low airlines to identify potential areas for fuel and envi-
ronmental efficiency, and is not meant to imply that any
action should be taken until further research has been
undertaken, appropriate risk and safety evaluation con-
ducted, regulatory authority obtained, and relevant air-
line policies, practices, or documentation amended.

The material contained in this document represents a com-

bination of inputs from a number of professional airline
and air traffic control sources, and is written from the per-
spective of “aviation professional to aviation professional”.

With over 50 airline visits conducted since the 1st Edi-

tion it quickly became obvious that we as an industry
have a lot to share. If available at all, industry. Best Prac-
tices have not been adequately shared among industry.
Stakeholder managements have not been given any vis-
ibility to the measurement and magnitude of the impact
on its cost base and hence have not dedicated the atten-
tion and resources that it deserves. Towards our commit-
ment in improving operational efficiencies as also meeting
our environmental challenges, best practices must become
entrenched in the company’s work ethic are here to stay!

Some airlines, pilots, engineers, dispatchers, and

controllers may already be practicing these tech-
niques. Others may have evaluated them and as-
sessed that they are not suitable in their environment.

IATA encourages you to review the material, to evaluate

whether or not the noted procedures could be safely ap-
plied in your area, and to provide suggestions or share ad-
ditional material aimed at further enhancing professional
awareness of the critical importance of fuel conservation.

© International Air Transport Association. All Rights Re-

served. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
recast, reformatted or transmitted in any form by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy-
ing, recording or any information storage and retriev-
al system, without the prior written permission from:

Senior Vice President

Safety, Operations & Infrastructure
International Air Transport Association
800 Place Victoria
P.O. Box 113
Montreal, Quebec
CANADA H4Z 1M1

Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management
Ref. No: 9791-05
ISBN 978-92-9233-662-2
© 2011 International Air Transport Association. All rights reserved.
Montreal — Geneva
 Table of Contents

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................................xi

Index of Tables .............................................................................................................................................xiii
1 FOREWORD..............................................................................................................................................1
2 FUEL MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS .........................................................................................................3
2.1 Fuel Management and Safety..........................................................................................................3
2.2 Fuel Management and the Environment ........................................................................................3
2.2.1 The Environment .........................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Emissions ....................................................................................................................................4
2.2.2.1 CO2 and H2O Emissions ......................................................................................................4
2.2.2.2 NOx and Other Emissions ....................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Emission Calculations .................................................................................................................5
2.2.3.1 Top-Down Approach: Estimates of CO2 and H2O................................................................5
2.2.3.2 Calculation of NOx Emissions ..............................................................................................6
2.2.3.3 Detailed Approach: Estimates of other Emissions...............................................................6
2.2.3.4 Sample Airline Pollution .......................................................................................................7
2.3 Emissions Trading Schemes ..........................................................................................................7
2.3.1 What is an Emissions Trading Scheme? ....................................................................................7
2.3.2 EU Emissions Trading in Europe ................................................................................................8
2.3.2.1 What is a Monitoring Plan? ..................................................................................................9
2.3.2.2 What should be covered in the Emissions Monitoring Plan?...............................................9
2.4 Economic Impact of Efficient Fuel Management ..........................................................................9
2.5 Basic Facts Regarding Fuel Consumption ..................................................................................10
3 FUEL EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ...................................................11
3.1 Fuel Efficiency must be a Corporate Effort .................................................................................12
3.1.1 Executive Sponsorship..............................................................................................................12
3.1.2 The Fuel Efficiency Manager.....................................................................................................12
3.1.3 The Fuel Team ..........................................................................................................................13
3.1.4 Measuring Fuel Efficiency .........................................................................................................13
3.2 Management of Change .................................................................................................................14
3.2.1 Control and Sustain...................................................................................................................14
3.3 Communication ..............................................................................................................................15
3.4 Data Requirements.........................................................................................................................15
3.4.1 Airline Data Sources..................................................................................................................16
3.5 Understanding and Utilizing Airline Data Sources .....................................................................17
3.5.1 Flight Operations - Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) .....................................................................17
3.5.1.1 Flight Data Recorders ........................................................................................................17
3.5.1.2 Quick Access Recorder (QAR) ..........................................................................................17
3.5.1.3 Using FDM Data.................................................................................................................18
3.5.1.4 Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) ............................19
3.5.2 Maintenance Information Systems (MIS) ..................................................................................19
3.5.2.1 Aircraft Performance Monitoring (APM) .............................................................................20
3.5.2.2 Engine Condition Trend Monitoring (ECTM)......................................................................21
3.5.2.3 Airframe Drag.....................................................................................................................22
3.5.3 Dispatch - Flight Planning Systems (FPS) ................................................................................22
3.5.4 Operations Control Data Systems.............................................................................................22
3.6 Fuel Management Information (FMI).............................................................................................23
3.6.1 Developing Fuel Data and Statistics .........................................................................................23
3.6.2 Using Statistics in Fuel Management........................................................................................24
3.6.2.1 Performance Based Sector Risk Analysis .........................................................................25

iii
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

3.6.3 Fuel Efficiency Statistical Measures......................................................................................... 27

3.6.3.1 Individual Aircraft Statistics ............................................................................................... 27
3.6.3.2 Fuel on Board (FOB) / Uplift.............................................................................................. 28
3.6.3.3 Fuel over Destination (FOD) ............................................................................................. 29
3.6.3.4 Alternate Selection and Planning ...................................................................................... 29
3.6.3.5 Fuel Performance of Flight Crews..................................................................................... 29
3.6.3.6 Planning Efficiency of Flight Dispatchers.......................................................................... 30
3.6.3.7 Estimated Zero Fuel Weight (EZFW) and Payload Optimization...................................... 30
3.6.3.8 Fuel Cost for various routes .............................................................................................. 31
3.6.3.9 Taxi delays and Gate Hold................................................................................................ 31
3.6.3.10 Effectiveness of New Procedures ..................................................................................... 31
3.7 Fuel Efficiency – Success Factors............................................................................................... 31
3.7.1 Prerequisites for Success......................................................................................................... 31
3.7.2 Reasons for Potential Failure ................................................................................................... 32
4 GENERIC AIRLINE ................................................................................................................................ 33
4.1 Generic Airline Fleet...................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Fuel Budget .................................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Fuel Penalty.................................................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Weight Factor Calculations .......................................................................................................... 34
4.5 Total Potential, Target and Actual Savings................................................................................. 37
5 MANAGEMENT OF APU UTILIZATION................................................................................................ 39
5.1 Determining APU Utilization ......................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Factors Influencing APU utilization ............................................................................................. 40
5.3 APU Utilization Reduction Program ............................................................................................ 41
5.3.1 APU Fuel Consumption - Developing a Baseline..................................................................... 42
5.3.1.1 APU Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 42
5.3.1.2 Data and Information Inventory......................................................................................... 43
5.3.2 Allocation of APU Utilization ..................................................................................................... 44
5.3.2.1 APU Baseline – Ground Operations ................................................................................. 45
5.3.2.2 APU Baseline – Flight Operations..................................................................................... 45
5.3.2.3 APU Baseline - Maintenance Operations ......................................................................... 46
5.4 APU Utilization Target Improvement ........................................................................................... 46
5.5 Optimization of APU Utilization.................................................................................................... 47
5.5.1 Reducing APU Utilization – Ground Operations....................................................................... 47
5.5.1.1 Additional GPU / PCA Resources ..................................................................................... 47
5.5.1.2 Ground Operations Policy and Procedures ...................................................................... 50
5.5.2 Reducing APU Utilization - Flight Operations........................................................................... 52
5.5.2.1 Flight Operations Policy and Procedures.......................................................................... 52
5.5.2.2 Air Conditioning Operations (Packs) ................................................................................. 53
5.5.3 Reducing APU Utilization – Maintenance Operations.............................................................. 55
5.5.3.1 Maintenance Policy and Procedures................................................................................. 55
5.5.4 Summary APU Fuel Consumption Reduction .......................................................................... 56
6 OPERATIONS CONTROL & FLIGHT DISPATCH ................................................................................ 57
6.1 Flight Planning Process................................................................................................................ 57
6.1.1 Flight Planning Considerations................................................................................................. 57
6.1.2 Route selection and planning ................................................................................................... 57
6.1.3 Limitations of Legacy Flight Planning Systems ........................................................................ 58
6.1.4 Flight Planning System Investment .......................................................................................... 58
6.1.5 Best in Class Flight Planning.................................................................................................... 59
6.2 Cost Index Flight............................................................................................................................ 61
6.2.1 Cost Index Optimization ........................................................................................................... 61
6.2.2 Cost Index Calculation Methods............................................................................................... 62
6.2.3 Optimized Cost Index ............................................................................................................... 63

iv
 Table of Contents

6.2.4 Cost Index Calculations.............................................................................................................63

6.2.4.1 Time Dependent Maintenance Cost ..................................................................................64
6.2.4.2 Crew Cost ..........................................................................................................................64
6.2.4.3 Cost Index Calculations .....................................................................................................65
6.2.5 Dynamic Cost Index ..................................................................................................................65
6.2.5.1 Impact of non-Optimized Cost Index Operation.................................................................66
6.2.6 Route Specific Cost Index .........................................................................................................73
6.2.7 Mission Management and Delay Cost Management ................................................................73
6.2.7.1 The schedule......................................................................................................................75
6.2.7.2 On-Time performance........................................................................................................75
6.2.7.3 Tactical Cost Index Delay Cost Management....................................................................75
6.2.7.4 Impacts of Cost Index on Schedule Development.............................................................79
6.2.8 Vertical and Lateral Flight Path Optimization ............................................................................80
6.2.9 Best in Class Flight Planning – Optimized Lateral, Vertical & Speed Optimization ..................81
6.3 Operations Control.........................................................................................................................82
6.3.1 Best in Class Operations Control Practices ..............................................................................82
6.3.2 Improved Situational Awareness – Flight Watch.......................................................................83
6.3.3 Increased Pilot Confidence .......................................................................................................85
6.4 Dispatch Initiatives to Reduce Landing Fuel Loads ...................................................................86
6.4.1 Contingency Fuel Requirements EU Ops .................................................................................86
6.4.1.1 Best in Class Contingency Fuel – Airlines Operating under EU-OPS Regulations ..................87
6.4.1.2 Best in Class Contingency Fuel – Performance Based Measures ...........................................87
6.4.2 Unprotected Contingency (A to B) for 5% or 3% ERA based calculation .................................89
6.4.3 FAR International B043/B343 10%-5% (A to B)........................................................................90
6.4.3.1 FAR Part 121 Regulations International Operations..........................................................91
6.4.4 Decision Point Planning (EU-OPS) Re-Dispatch (FAR) Operations.........................................92
6.4.5 EU-OPS 1.255 Reduced Contingency Fuel Option ..................................................................93
6.4.6 Re-Dispatch under FAA FAR Regulations ................................................................................95
6.4.7 Dispatch Additional Fuel............................................................................................................96
6.4.7.1 Best in Class Dispatcher Extra Fuel ..................................................................................98
6.4.8 Alternate Airport Selection Policies ...........................................................................................98
6.4.9 Cost Index “0” to Alternate ......................................................................................................102
6.4.10 No Alternate Airport – IFR Operation ......................................................................................102
6.4.10.1 Federal Air Regulations (FAR) No Alternate Operations ................................................ 102
6.4.10.2 EU-OPS 1.295 Selection of Aerodromes........................................................................ 103
6.4.10.3 Best In Class No Alternate Operations ...................................................................................104
6.4.11 Final Reserve (30 Minutes @ 1500ft Holding Fuel Flow) Optimization ..................................104
6.4.12 Flight Planning System Fuel Bias ...........................................................................................105
6.4.13 Over Tankering........................................................................................................................106
6.4.14 Standard Taxi Fuel Loading ....................................................................................................107
6.5 Load Planning.............................................................................................................................. 109
6.5.1 Center of Gravity Management ...............................................................................................109
6.5.2 Zero Fuel Weight Error............................................................................................................110
6.5.3 Best in Class Load Planning ...................................................................................................112
7 FLIGHT OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 113
7.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 113
7.2 Electronic Flight Bags (EFB)...................................................................................................... 114
7.2.1 Use of Electronic Flight Bags ..................................................................................................114
7.2.2 EFB used as Fuel Efficiency Tool ...........................................................................................114
7.2.3 Use of EFB for fuel data collection..........................................................................................115
7.3 Pilot Additional Fuel.................................................................................................................... 115
7.3.1 Risk Assessment.....................................................................................................................116
7.4 In-Flight Fuel Management ......................................................................................................... 116
7.4.1 Types of Fuel...........................................................................................................................116

v
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

7.4.2 Pre- Flight Fuel Requirements................................................................................................ 116

7.4.3 Fueling .................................................................................................................................... 117
7.4.4 Pre-Departure Fuel Management Consideration ................................................................... 117
7.4.5 In-Flight Risk Management..................................................................................................... 118
7.4.6 Risk Management Factors...................................................................................................... 118
7.4.7 In-Flight Fuel Monitoring......................................................................................................... 119
7.4.8 Alternate Fuel Management ................................................................................................... 119
7.4.9 Pre-Descent Fuel Assessment ............................................................................................... 119
7.4.10 Diversions ............................................................................................................................... 119
7.4.11 After landing fuel recording..................................................................................................... 120
7.5 Flight Crew and Tactical Mission Management........................................................................ 120
7.6 Flight Management System Programming................................................................................ 121
7.7 Engine-Out Taxi-Out.................................................................................................................... 122
7.7.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 124
7.7.2 Sample Taxi Fuel Burn and Pollution ..................................................................................... 125
7.7.3 Taxi speeds ............................................................................................................................ 125
7.7.4 Choice of Departure Runway vs. Taxi times .......................................................................... 125
7.8 Reduced Takeoff Flaps ............................................................................................................... 125
7.8.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 126
7.9 High Cost of Full Thrust Takeoff................................................................................................ 126
7.10 Reduced Acceleration Altitude .................................................................................................. 126
7.10.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 127
7.11 Climb-Out Considerations .......................................................................................................... 127
7.12 Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) ........................................................................................ 128
7.12.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 128
7.13 Flight Profile Management.......................................................................................................... 128
7.13.1 Track Management................................................................................................................. 128
7.13.2 Cruise Speed Management.................................................................................................... 129
7.14 FMS Descent Profile Management............................................................................................. 129
7.15 Energy Management and Tradeoff............................................................................................. 130
7.15.1 Distance, Speed and Altitude Trade-off ................................................................................. 130
7.15.2 Descent Profile Wind Corrections........................................................................................... 131
7.15.3 Landing Weight Consideration ............................................................................................... 131
7.15.4 Engine Anti-Ice ....................................................................................................................... 131
7.15.5 Penalties for Early/Late Descent ............................................................................................ 131
7.15.6 Descent Profile Management for non-FMS Aircraft................................................................ 132
7.16 Constant Descent Operation (CDO)........................................................................................... 132
7.16.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 134
7.17 Low Noise Low Drag Approach ................................................................................................. 134
7.17.1 FMS Arrivals ........................................................................................................................... 134
7.17.2 Decelerated Approaches (Low Noise Low Drag) ................................................................... 135
7.17.3 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 137
7.17.4 High Head Winds on Final...................................................................................................... 137
7.18 Reduced Landing Flaps .............................................................................................................. 137
7.18.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 138
7.19 Idle Reverse on Landing ............................................................................................................. 138
7.19.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 139
7.20 Engine-Out Taxi-In....................................................................................................................... 139
7.20.1 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 140
7.21 Pilot Technique and Fuel Efficiency .......................................................................................... 140
7.22 Fuel Conservation Documentation ............................................................................................ 142

vi
 Table of Contents

8 MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING ..................................................................................................... 143

8.1 General.......................................................................................................................................... 143
8.1.1 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................143
8.2 Aircraft Performance Monitoring ................................................................................................. 143
8.2.1 APM Data Variation.................................................................................................................147
8.2.2 APM Degradation Slope..........................................................................................................148
8.2.3 Unusual APM long-term Trends ..............................................................................................148
8.2.4 Comparing Aircraft age and APM degradation .......................................................................149
8.2.5 Segregation of APM and ECTM ..............................................................................................149
8.2.6 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................151
8.2.7 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................151
8.3 Maintenance Program and Planning............................................................................................ 152
8.3.1 Air Conditioning System - ATA 21...........................................................................................152
8.3.2 Flight Controls - ATA 27 ..........................................................................................................152
8.3.3 Fuel System - ATA 28 .............................................................................................................154
8.3.4 Instruments - ATA 31 ..............................................................................................................154
8.3.5 Pneumatic System - ATA 36 ...................................................................................................154
8.3.6 Structure and Doors – ATA 51-57...........................................................................................155
8.3.7 Engines – ATA 72 ...................................................................................................................155
8.3.8 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................157
8.3.9 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................157
8.4 Time Dependent Maintenance Cost............................................................................................. 157
8.5 Aircraft Weight Reduction............................................................................................................ 160
8.5.1 Fuel Penalty Calculation..........................................................................................................160
8.5.2 Weight & Balance - ATA 8.......................................................................................................160
8.5.3 Fly Away Kits or Flight Spares ................................................................................................161
8.5.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................161
8.5.5 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................161
8.6 Airframe Drag Reduction.............................................................................................................. 161
8.6.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................167
8.6.2 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................168
8.7 Engine Health Monitoring and Compressor Core Wash............................................................. 168
8.7.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................175
8.7.2 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................175
8.8 Engine Build Standard ................................................................................................................. 175
8.8.1 Engine Off-Wing Repair ..........................................................................................................175
8.8.2 Engine On-Wing Monitoring ....................................................................................................177
8.8.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................178
8.8.4 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................178
8.9 APU Build Standard...................................................................................................................... 178
8.9.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................179
8.9.2 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................179
8.10 Aircraft Configuration Upgrade.................................................................................................... 179
8.10.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................180
8.10.2 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................180
8.11 Fleet Replacement ........................................................................................................................ 180
8.11.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................185
8.11.2 Measuring and Monitoring.......................................................................................................185
8.12 Maintenance Training ................................................................................................................... 185
8.13 Fuel Conservation Documentation .............................................................................................. 185

vii
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

9 GROUND OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 187

9.1 Ground Operations – Fuel Efficiency Program ........................................................................... 187
9.2 APU Utilization – Ground Servicing ............................................................................................. 188
9.2.1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 188
9.3 Potable Water Servicing ............................................................................................................... 188
9.3.1 Potential Savings.................................................................................................................... 189
9.3.1.1 Factors Influencing Potential Savings ............................................................................. 190
9.3.2 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 191
9.3.2.1 Sample Matrix to manage Potable Water Uplift .............................................................. 191
9.3.3 Measuring and Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 192
9.4 Lavatory Servicing........................................................................................................................ 193
9.5 Fueling........................................................................................................................................... 193
9.5.1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 194
10 COMMERCIAL ..................................................................................................................................... 195
10.1 Marketing and Fuel Efficiency.................................................................................................... 195
10.1.1 Schedule Development and Aircraft Utilization ...................................................................... 196
10.1.2 Fuel Penalty to Carry Additional Weight................................................................................. 197
10.2 Commercial Equipment Weight ................................................................................................. 197
10.2.1 Cargo (ULD) ........................................................................................................................... 197
10.2.2 Catering and Duty Free Equipment........................................................................................ 199
10.2.3 Commercial Equipment Potential Savings ............................................................................. 199
10.2.4 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 200
10.3 Onboard Weight........................................................................................................................... 200
10.3.1 Catering Weight...................................................................................................................... 200
10.3.1.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 201
10.3.2 Duty Free ................................................................................................................................ 201
10.3.2.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 202
10.3.3 Magazines .............................................................................................................................. 202
10.3.3.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 203
10.3.4 Onboard Supply Inventory...................................................................................................... 203
11 TOTAL POTENTIAL SAVINGS ........................................................................................................... 205
11.1 ABC Airlines Emission Reduction Potential............................................................................. 207
11.2 Saving Contribution by Discipline ............................................................................................. 207
12 ROLE OF AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN IMPROVING FUEL EFFICIENCY................................ 209
12.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 209
12.1.1 Strategic Management ........................................................................................................... 210
12.1.2 Possible Environment and Fuel Champion Accountabilities .................................................. 210
12.2 Technology and ATM .................................................................................................................. 211
12.3 At the Airport................................................................................................................................ 211
12.4 At the Gate.................................................................................................................................... 212
12.5 Taxiing and Departure................................................................................................................. 212
12.6 Climb ............................................................................................................................................. 213
12.7 Cruise............................................................................................................................................ 213
12.8 Speed Control and Heading Vectoring...................................................................................... 214
12.9 Direct Routing .............................................................................................................................. 214
12.10 Descent ......................................................................................................................................... 215
12.11 Holding.......................................................................................................................................... 215
12.12 Approach and Landing................................................................................................................ 216
12.13 What Can Air Navigation Service Providers do? ..................................................................... 217
12.14 What Can Air Traffic Controllers Do?........................................................................................ 218

viii
 Table of Contents

13 IMPLEMENTATION OF FUEL EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES .................................... 219

13.1 Fuel as a Corporate Initiative ..................................................................................................... 219
13.2 Fuel Efficiency Implementation Policy...................................................................................... 219
13.3 Continuous Improvement Program ........................................................................................... 220
13.3.1 The DMAIC Process................................................................................................................220
13.4 IATA Documentation ................................................................................................................... 220
14 IATA ENHANCED OPERATIONAL SUPPORT: COLLABORATION FOR REAL RESULTS........... 221
14.1 IATA’s Fuel Program ................................................................................................................... 221
14.1.1 The Significance of Fuel..........................................................................................................221
14.1.2 Fuel Hedging and Efficiency....................................................................................................221
14.1.3 The IATA Green Teams ..........................................................................................................221
14.1.4 IATA Fuel Program Objectives................................................................................................221
14.1.5 IATA’s Fuel Program ...............................................................................................................221
14.1.6 Practical support......................................................................................................................222
14.2 Fuel Efficiency Consulting ......................................................................................................... 222
14.2.1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................222
14.2.2 Methodology............................................................................................................................222
14.2.3 Benefits....................................................................................................................................223
14.3 Fuel Efficiency and Conservation Training .............................................................................. 223
14.3.1 Background .............................................................................................................................223
14.3.2 Course objectives....................................................................................................................223
14.3.3 Skills development ..................................................................................................................223
14.3.4 Participation.............................................................................................................................224
14.4 IATA Fuel Efficiency & Implementation Regional Workshops ............................................... 224
14.4.1 Targeted Audience ..................................................................................................................224
14.4.2 Benefits....................................................................................................................................224
14.5 IATA Remote Support ................................................................................................................. 224
14.5.1 Objective..................................................................................................................................224
14.5.2 Fuel Efficiency Webinars.........................................................................................................224
14.5.3 Benefits....................................................................................................................................225
14.6 The IATA Fuel Quality Pool (IFQP) ............................................................................................ 225
14.6.1 Objective..................................................................................................................................225
14.6.2 Improving Safety and Quality Control .....................................................................................225
14.6.3 Common Objectives ................................................................................................................225
14.7 IATA De-Icing / Anti-Icing Quality Control Pool (DAQCP)....................................................... 226
14.7.1 Objective..................................................................................................................................226
14.7.2 Improving Efficiency and Cost Control ....................................................................................226
14.7.3 Benefits....................................................................................................................................226
14.8 The IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO) and IATA Ground Operations
Manual (IGOM) ........................................................................................................................................ 227
14.8.1 Objective..................................................................................................................................227
14.8.2 Program Principle....................................................................................................................227
14.8.3 ISAGO Goals and Benefits......................................................................................................227
14.8.3.1 For Airlines: ..................................................................................................................... 227
14.8.3.2 For Ground Services Providers:...................................................................................... 227
14.8.3.3 For Regulatory and Airport Authorities: .......................................................................... 227
14.8.4 The ISAGO Audit Pool ............................................................................................................228
14.8.5 Joining ISAGO.........................................................................................................................228

ix
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

14.9 IATA Technical Fuel Group (TFG).............................................................................................. 228

14.9.1 Objective................................................................................................................................. 228
14.9.2 Benefits for Members ............................................................................................................. 228
14.10 The IATA Alternative Fuel Program ........................................................................................... 229
14.10.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 229
14.10.2 Benefits of the Initiative to the Industry .................................................................................. 229
15 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................... 231

x
 Table of Figures
FIGURE 1: CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT ON ARCTIC ICE PACK .................................................................................... 4 
FIGURE 2: TYPICAL AIRLINE DATA WAREHOUSE AND FUEL INFORMATION DATA SOURCES ..................................... 16 
FIGURE 3: DIGITAL FLIGHT DATA RECORDER (DFDR)......................................................................................... 17 
FIGURE 4: QUICK ACCESS RECORDER (QAR) ..................................................................................................... 18 
FIGURE 5: DETAIL OF FDM FOR THE TAXI OUT PHASE ......................................................................................... 18 
FIGURE 6: DETAIL OF FDM FOR THE APPROACH PHASE ....................................................................................... 19 
FIGURE 7: APM DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESS ................................................................................................... 21 
FIGURE 8: PLANNED VS. ACTUAL LANDING FUEL IN MINUTES OF ENDURANCE ....................................................... 25 
FIGURE 9: STATISTICAL ARRIVAL FUEL - MAJOR DESTINATION AIRPORT................................................................ 27 
FIGURE 10: PLANNED TO ACTUAL LANDING FUEL COMPOSITION AND ALTERNATE DISTANCE ................................. 29 
FIGURE 11: ZFW VARIANCE WIDE BODY FLEETS................................................................................................. 30 
FIGURE 12: B744 TAXI TIME & FUELS ................................................................................................................. 31 
FIGURE 13: B747-400 WEIGHT FACTOR LINEAR REGRESSION CHART .................................................................. 35 
FIGURE 14: A330-200 WEIGHT FACTOR LINEAR REGRESSION CHART .................................................................. 36 
FIGURE 15: A320-200 WEIGHT FACTOR LINEAR REGRESSION ............................................................................. 36 
FIGURE 16: APU UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................... 45 
FIGURE 17: OPTIMIZED FLIGHT INCLUDING AIRSPACE ACCESS COSTS .................................................................. 61 
FIGURE 18: COST INDEX VS. FUEL COST ............................................................................................................. 63 
FIGURE 19: COST INDEX PERFORMANCE GAINS OVER FIXED MACH FLIGHT .......................................................... 66 
FIGURE 20: TIME - BLOCK FUEL TRADE-OFF RELATIVE TO CONSTANT MACH ........................................................ 67 
FIGURE 21: A330-300 FUEL & TIME COST CHANGE WITH COST INDEX ................................................................. 68 
FIGURE 22: A320-200 FUEL & TIME COST CHANGE WITH COST INDEX ................................................................. 69 
FIGURE 23: B747-400 FUEL & TIME COST CHANGE WITH COST INDEX ................................................................. 69 
FIGURE 24: B777-200ER FUEL & TIME COST CHANGE WITH COST INDEX ............................................................ 70 
FIGURE 25: B737-700 FUEL & TIME COST CHANGE WITH COST INDEX ................................................................. 70 
FIGURE 26: CRJ-200 FUEL & TIME COST CHANGE WITH COST INDEX .................................................................. 71 
FIGURE 27: CRJ-200 FUEL & TIME CHANGE WITH COST INDEX & MACH SPEED .................................................... 72 
FIGURE 28: DELAY COST PROFILES .................................................................................................................... 77 
FIGURE 29: A330 FUEL COST VS. TIME AND COST INDICES .................................................................................. 78 
FIGURE 30: FAA AIRPORT DEMAND CHART ......................................................................................................... 85 
FIGURE 31: AIRPORT DEMAND CHARTS FOR FAA SUBSCRIBERS .......................................................................... 85 
FIGURE 32: EU-OPS REDUCED CONTINGENCY OPTION - FUEL EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE ........................................ 88 
FIGURE 33: RE-DISPATCH TECHNIQUE ................................................................................................................ 93 
FIGURE 34: REDUCTION IN CONTINGENCY FUEL THROUGH RE-DISPATCH ............................................................. 93 
FIGURE 35: FUEL MI SUMMARY OF LANDING FUEL LOADS .................................................................................... 97 
FIGURE 36: FUEL MI EXAMPLE OF VERY GOOD ALTERNATE AIRPORT SELECTION ............................................... 100 
FIGURE 37: FUEL MI EXAMPLE WERE ALTERNATE AIRPORT SELECTION COULD BE IMPROVED .............................. 101 
FIGURE 38: FLEET TAXI FUELS & TAXI TIMES .................................................................................................... 107 
FIGURE 39: FLEET TAXI FUEL & TIMES BY DEPARTURE STATION ........................................................................ 108 
FIGURE 40: AFT CG EFFECT ON SPECIFIC RANGE ............................................................................................. 109 
FIGURE 41: FUEL MI STATISTICS FOR ZFW VARIANCE – WIDE BODY FLEETS ..................................................... 111 
FIGURE 42: FUEL MI STATISTICS FOR ZFW VARIANCE – NARROW BODY FLEETS ................................................ 111 
FIGURE 43: OFP ZFW VARIANCE CALCULATIONS.............................................................................................. 112 
FIGURE 44: CONVERSION FACTORS .................................................................................................................. 117 
FIGURE 45: ENGINE TAXI POLLUTION FOR NARROW BODY AIRBUS FLEET ........................................................... 125 
FIGURE 46: CONTINUOUS DESCENT OPERATION (SOURCE ICAO)...................................................................... 133 
FIGURE 47: DECELERATED APPROACH TECHNIQUE ........................................................................................... 136 
FIGURE 48: FUEL BURN VARIATION BETWEEN PILOTS ........................................................................................ 142 
FIGURE 49: GENERIC APM PROCESS FLOW ...................................................................................................... 145 
FIGURE 50: GENERIC APM MAINTENANCE PROCESS FLOW ............................................................................... 146 
FIGURE 51: CAUSE AND EFFECT GRAPH............................................................................................................ 146 
FIGURE 52: APM DATA VARIATION ................................................................................................................... 147 

xi
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

FIGURE 53: APM DEGRADATION SLOPE ............................................................................................................148 

FIGURE 54: UNUSUAL APM LONG-TERM TREND ................................................................................................148 
FIGURE 55: FLEET AGE TO APM COMPARISON ..................................................................................................149 
FIGURE 56: APM VS. ECTM DATA COMPARISON PLOT ......................................................................................150 
FIGURE 57: APM FLEET DATA ..........................................................................................................................151 
FIGURE 58: SPOILER FLOAT INDUCED BY EXCESSIVE AUTOPILOT INPUT ..............................................................153 
FIGURE 59: TIME DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE COST STRUCTURE ........................................................................159 
FIGURE 60: CRITICAL AIRFRAME AREAS FOR INCREASED DRAG ..........................................................................163 
FIGURE 61: ROUGHNESS OF AIRFOIL & OTHER SURFACES .................................................................................164 
FIGURE 62: EXAMPLES OF POOR PATCHING TECHNIQUES ..................................................................................165 
FIGURE 63: EXAMPLES OF SKIN ROUGHNESS ....................................................................................................166 
FIGURE 64: EXAMPLES OF VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT .....................................................................................167 
FIGURE 65: CLEAN COMPRESSOR AIR FLOW .....................................................................................................168 
FIGURE 66: CONTAMINATED COMPRESSOR AIR FLOW ........................................................................................169 
FIGURE 67: TRADITIONAL ENGINE WASH METHODS ...........................................................................................169 
FIGURE 68: NEXT GENERATION ON-WING ENGINE WASH...................................................................................170 
FIGURE 69: ENGINE CORE WASH EFFECT ON V2500 ENGINE TEMPERATURE MARGIN ........................................171 
FIGURE 70: ENGINE CORE WASH EFFECT ON PW 4000 ENGINE TEMPERATURE MARGIN ....................................172 
FIGURE 71: ENGINE CORE WASH EFFECT ON GE 90 ENGINE TEMPERATURE MARGIN .........................................172 
FIGURE 72: FREQUENT ENGINE WASH VERSUS WASHING ON-CONDITION ...........................................................173 
FIGURE 73: ENGINE WASH FREQUENCY ............................................................................................................174 
FIGURE 74: ENGINE WASH GAINS .....................................................................................................................175 
FIGURE 75: FLIGHT PHASES DIAGRAM ...............................................................................................................181 
FIGURE 76: CO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS DIAGRAM ............................................................................................182 
FIGURE 77: HIGH INTEGRATION AIRCRAFT STUDY ..............................................................................................183 
FIGURE 78: MODERN MATERIALS CARBON AND FIBERS ......................................................................................184 
FIGURE 79: UNDUCTED FAN ENGINE (PROPFAN)................................................................................................184 
FIGURE 80: INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLINE CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL SAVING POTENTIAL.........................................207 
FIGURE 81: LTBA SOUTH RUNWAY COMPLEX ...................................................................................................217 
FIGURE 82: THE DMAIC PROCESS ...................................................................................................................220 
FIGURE 83: IATA FUEL EFFICIENCY METHODOLOGY............................................................................................223 

xii
 Index of Tables
TABLE 1: HOURLY EMISSION RATES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE ......................................................................................... 7 
TABLE 2: ANNUAL POLLUTANT REDUCTION FROM A 1% REDUCTION IN FUEL CONSUMPTION .................................... 7 
TABLE 3: ANNUAL POLLUTION LEVELS MANAGED BY PILOTS................................................................................... 7 
TABLE 4: CITY-PAIR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 26 
TABLE 5: SAMPLE FUEL BURN ANALYSIS B744 FLEET OPERATIONS ..................................................................... 28 
TABLE 6: ANNUAL FUEL BUDGET FOR ABC AIRLINES ........................................................................................... 33 
TABLE 7: ABC AIRLINES FUEL PENALTY .............................................................................................................. 34 
TABLE 8: ABC AIRLINES FUEL PENALTY IN US$ .................................................................................................. 34 
TABLE 9: APU UTILIZATION FOR ABC AIRLINES ................................................................................................... 42 
TABLE 10: APU FUEL CONSUMPTION IN GROUND OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 45 
TABLE 11: APU FUEL CONSUMPTION IN FLIGHT OPERATIONS ............................................................................. 46 
TABLE 12: APU FUEL CONSUMPTION IN MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS .................................................................. 46 
TABLE 13: GROUND OPERATIONS APU UTILIZATION BY CATEGORY OF OPERATION (PRESENT OPERATION).......... 48 
TABLE 14: TARGET IMPROVEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL GPU/PCA RESOURCES........................................................ 49 
TABLE 15: TARGET IMPROVEMENT GROUND OPERATIONS – POLICY AND PROCEDURES ........................................ 51 
TABLE 16: TOTAL GROUND OPS APU REDUCTION POTENTIAL ............................................................................ 52 
TABLE 17: FLIGHT OPERATIONS APU FUEL BURN – OPTIMIZED OPERATION ........................................................ 53 
TABLE 18: POTENTIAL APU FUEL BURN REDUCTION – NO PACK OPERATION....................................................... 54 
TABLE 19: POTENTIAL APU FUEL BURN REDUCTION – SINGLE PACK OPERATION ................................................ 54 
TABLE 20: POTENTIAL APU FUEL BURN REDUCTION – MAINTENANCE .................................................................. 56 
TABLE 21: TOTAL POTENTIAL APU FUEL SAVINGS FOR ABC AIRLINES ................................................................ 56 
TABLE 22: TYPICAL PILOT TIME COSTS ............................................................................................................... 64 
TABLE 23: TYPICAL FLIGHT ATTENDANT TIME COSTS ........................................................................................... 65 
TABLE 24: COST INDEX CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................... 65 
TABLE 25: EFFECTS ON FUEL AND CO2: OPTIMIZED COST INDEX .......................................................................... 72 
TABLE 26: OPTIMIZED COST INDEX TOTAL SAVINGS ............................................................................................. 73 
TABLE 27: ROUTE SPECIFIC COST INDEX ............................................................................................................ 73 
TABLE 28: HIGH SPEED COST INDEX TO OFFSET DELAY COSTS FUEL COST INCREASE ......................................... 79 
TABLE 29: HIGH SPEED COST INDEX TO OFFSET DELAY COSTS $ GAIN ................................................................ 79 
TABLE 30: IMPROVEMENT FROM OPTIMIZED LATERAL & VERTICAL ROUTE SELECTION ........................................... 81 
TABLE 31: COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING TOOL FOR AIRPORT STATUS ......................................................... 84 
TABLE 32: EU-OPS 5% VERSUS 3% RCF CONTINGENCY FUEL CALCULATION ..................................................... 89 
TABLE 33: EU-OPS 5% VERSUS 3% RCF CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION SAVINGS .......................................... 89 
TABLE 34: UNPROTECTED CONTINGENCY FUEL 3% CALCULATIONS ..................................................................... 90 
TABLE 35: UNPROTECTED CONTINGENCY FUEL 3% - TARGET IMPROVEMENT ....................................................... 90 
TABLE 36: UNPROTECTED CONTINGENCY FUEL 5% CALCULATIONS ..................................................................... 90 
TABLE 37: UNPROTECTED CONTINGENCY FUEL 5% - TARGET IMPROVEMENT ....................................................... 90 
TABLE 38: FAR B343 CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION CALCULATIONS ............................................................... 92 
TABLE 39: FAR B343 CONTINGENCY FUEL REDUCTION - CALCULATED SAVINGS .................................................. 92 
TABLE 40: RE-DISPATCH UNDER EU-OPS .......................................................................................................... 94 
TABLE 41: RE-DISPATCH OPERATION UNDER EU-OPS – CF REDUCTION ............................................................. 95 
TABLE 42: RE-DISPATCH OPERATION UNDER EU-OPS – POTENTIAL SAVING ....................................................... 95 
TABLE 43: RE-DISPATCH UNDER FAA REGULATIONS - REDUCTION IN 10% RESERVE FUEL REQUIREMENTS ........... 95 
TABLE 44: RE-DISPATCH UNDER FAA REGULATIONS - CF REDUCTION ................................................................. 96 
TABLE 45: RE-DISPATCH UNDER FAA REGULATIONS - POTENTIAL SAVINGS ......................................................... 96 
TABLE 46: DISPATCHER ADDITIONAL FUEL .......................................................................................................... 98 
TABLE 47: ALTERNATE AIRPORT SELECTION...................................................................................................... 101 
TABLE 48: USE OF COST INDEX ZERO CRUISE SPEED TO THE ALTERNATE .......................................................... 102 
TABLE 49: NO ALTN AIRPORT OPERATIONS CALCULATION OF FUEL REDUCTION ............................................... 104 
TABLE 50: NO ALTN AIRPORT OPERATIONS - PROJECTED SAVINGS .................................................................. 104 
TABLE 51: HOLD FUEL OPTIMIZATION ................................................................................................................ 105 
TABLE 52: FLIGHT PLANNING FUEL BIAS ERRORS .............................................................................................. 106 

xiii
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

TABLE 53: EFFECTS OF OPTIMIZING TANKER OPERATIONS TO REDUCE OVER TANKERING ...................................107 
TABLE 54: STATISTICAL TAXI FUEL LOADS .........................................................................................................108 
TABLE 55: AFT CG POSITION CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................110 
TABLE 56: PROJECTED EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FROM OPTIMIZED CG ...........................................................110 
TABLE 57: EZFW PLANNING ERRORS TOTAL POTENTIAL ...................................................................................111 
TABLE 58: EZFW TARGET IMPROVEMENT AND PROJECTED SAVINGS .................................................................112 
TABLE 59: OPTIMIZATION OF PILOT ADDITIONAL FUEL .......................................................................................115 
TABLE 60: TOTAL TAXI-OUT FUEL COST ............................................................................................................123 
TABLE 61: ENGINE-OUT TAXI-OUT OPERATIONS POTENTIAL SAVINGS ................................................................123 
TABLE 62: ENGINE-OUT TAXI-OUT SAVINGS ......................................................................................................124 
TABLE 63: REDUCED TAKEOFF FLAP SETTINGS .................................................................................................126 
TABLE 64: REDUCED ACCELERATION ALTITUDES ON TAKEOFF............................................................................127 
TABLE 65: CONTINUOUS CLIMB OPERATIONS PROCEDURES SAVINGS .................................................................128 
TABLE 66: CDO POTENTIAL FUEL AND EMISSION SAVINGS.................................................................................134 
TABLE 67: LOW NOISE LOW DRAG APPROACHES ...............................................................................................136 
TABLE 68: REDUCED FLAP LANDINGS ................................................................................................................138 
TABLE 69: IDLE REVERSE LANDINGS .................................................................................................................139 
TABLE 70: ENGINE-OUT TAXI-IN POTENTIAL SAVINGS ........................................................................................140 
TABLE 71: ENGINE-OUT TAXI-IN SAVINGS..........................................................................................................140 
TABLE 72: PILOT TECHNIQUE ............................................................................................................................141 
TABLE 73: FUEL PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH CONTROL SURFACE RIG .............................................................154 
TABLE 74: FUEL PENALTY FOR MISSING COMPONENTS ......................................................................................154 
TABLE 75: TYPICAL ENGINE DETERIORATION LOSSES ........................................................................................157 
TABLE 76: TYPICAL TIME DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE COSTS CHECK LIST ...........................................................158 
TABLE 77: EXAMPLE OF POTENTIAL TIME DEPENDENT MAINTENANCE COST........................................................159 
TABLE 78: FUEL PENALTY .................................................................................................................................160 
TABLE 79: TYPICAL WEIGHT REDUCTION TARGETS ............................................................................................160 
TABLE 80: AIRCRAFT WEIGHT REDUCTION SAVINGS ..........................................................................................161 
TABLE 81: FUEL PENALTY FOR 5MM SURFACE MISS-MATCH ...............................................................................165 
TABLE 82: PENALTIES FOR MISSING SEALS........................................................................................................165 
TABLE 83: PENALTIES FOR SURFACE PATCHES ..................................................................................................165 
TABLE 84: PENALTIES FOR SKIN ROUGHNESS ....................................................................................................166 
TABLE 85: PENALTIES BY TYPE OF AIRCRAFT DETERIORATION............................................................................166 
TABLE 86: AERODYNAMIC DETERIORATION ........................................................................................................167 
TABLE 87: ENGINE CORE WATER WASH IMPROVEMENT .....................................................................................171 
TABLE 88: ENGINE CORE WATER WASH EFFICIENCY GAIN .................................................................................173 
TABLE 89: ENGINE SFC BUILD STANDARD.........................................................................................................177 
TABLE 90: APU SFC BUILD STANDARD .............................................................................................................178 
TABLE 91: CONFIGURATION UPGRADE AND CHANGES .........................................................................................180 
TABLE 92: LIST OF AIRCRAFT GENERATIONS ......................................................................................................180 
TABLE 93: POTABLE WATER MAXIMUM UPLIFT ...................................................................................................189 
TABLE 94: POTABLE WATER POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT APPLYING IATA STANDARD .............................................190 
TABLE 95: POTABLE WATER POTENTIAL SAVINGS ..............................................................................................191 
TABLE 96: SAMPLE MATRIX FOR WATER UPLIFT CONTROL PROGRAM .................................................................192 
TABLE 97: POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN FUEL CONSUMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH GROUND OPS OVER-FUELLING ........193 
TABLE 98: CARGO ULD EQUIPMENT POTENTIAL WEIGHT REDUCTION ................................................................198 
TABLE 99: CATERING/DUTY FREE TROLLEYS POTENTIAL WEIGHT REDUCTION ....................................................199 
TABLE 100: COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT POTENTIAL WEIGHT REDUCTION .............................................................199 
TABLE 101: CATERING SERVICE WEIGHT REDUCTION ........................................................................................201 
TABLE 102: DUTY FREE WEIGHT REDUCTION ....................................................................................................202 
TABLE 103: MAGAZINES WEIGHT REDUCTION ....................................................................................................203 
TABLE 104: POTENTIAL SAVINGS ABC AIRLINES ................................................................................................206 
TABLE 105: POTENTIAL EMISSION REDUCTION BASED ON ESTIMATED FUEL BURN SAVINGS ................................207 
TABLE 106: GPU, APU AND AIRCRAFT ENGINE OPERATING COSTS ...................................................................212 

xiv
1 FOREWORD
Dear Colleagues,

As the aviation industry looks to the future, fuel efficiency and emission
reduction play a dominant role in meeting the business challenges
presented by global financial uncertainty. To assist in meeting these
challenges, since 2005IATA has adopted ambitious targets to mitigate
CO2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation. This means an
average improvement in fuel efficiency for airlines of 1.5% per year
from 2009 to 2020.

To date, the IATA Fuel Efficiency Campaign or “IATA Green teams”

have assisted over 100 airlines in developing successful fuel efficiency
and conservation efforts, and has helped the industry to reduce CO2
emissions by 41 million tonnes. This effort has helped member airlines
avoid fuel costs contributing to corporate financial viability in tough
financial times.

In 2011, IATA launched a new Fuel Efficiency Implementation regional workshop program aimed at
supporting the airlines with the structuring and implementation of their fuel efficiency programs across the
globe. The program enabled fuel efficiency training to over 60 airlines to date. IATA has also enhanced its
remote support by organizing webinars for over 100 airlines thus far to learn operational efficiency and also
by making the IATA benchmark report available online to registered members.

As a further extension of the continuing fuel efficiency effort, I am proud to present the fifth edition of IATA’s
“Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management”, designed to provide our
member airlines with valuable information to launch, monitor, expand and improve their internal fuel
conservation programs.

The 2011 edition features lessons learned, notably expanding the traditional core areas of flight operations,
flight dispatch and maintenance, as well as including new sections addressing emerging Emission Trading
Schemes (ETS), ground operations, commercial weight reduction, ATM considerations and fuel program
implementation. There is a strong focus on ATM modernization.

The new edition also details IATA’s fuel and environmental support services, providing member airlines
valuable fuel management support from industry benchmarking data to quality control. I would like to thank
the member airlines, OPC members and the IATA team of experts that contributed to the creation of this
guide. To obtain more information about IATA’s fuel efficiency efforts, please consult our website at
www.iata.org/fuel. Also, IATA’s fuel savings implementation team would like to emphasize that if you need
support on implementing specific items listed within this guide, then please contact…

Best regards,

Günther Matschnigg
Senior Vice President,
IATA Safety, Operations & Infrastructure

1
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

2
2 FUEL MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS
2.1 Fuel Management and Safety
IATA recognizes that safety is the first priority and that any recommended fuel conservation procedure
discussed in this document should only be undertaken when consistent with safety.

As with all prudent business and operational decisions, airlines must undertake the necessary risk
assessment analysis before implementing any new procedure.

Managing fuel accurately and efficiently on the part of the airline and Flight Crews improves safety resulting
from:

 Additional attention to planning

 High accuracy of the flight planning system, and precise execution of the flights
 Increased situational awareness
 Operational discipline to follow the flight plan
 Availability of appropriate analytical tools and statistics
 Adequate training for pilots and other operational personnel
 A feedback mechanism to inform employees of airline policy, efficiency targets and performance
data within specified timelines

By accurately managing fuel, airlines can:

 Exercise proper risk management by insuring that sufficient fuel is carried to high-risk airports, and
less fuel to airports where it is not necessary
 Minimize the risk of unplanned fuel diversions
 Ensure that Flight Crews and Dispatchers maintain a safe and efficient approach to fuel
management
 Monitor the use of fuel reserves for purposes other than intended, such as the improper use of
alternate fuel while an alternate airport is still required
 Develop a Fuel Management Information System, which permits the tracking of fuel usage and the
monitoring of deviations of flight plan fuel

2.2 Fuel Management and the Environment

2.2.1 The Environment

Aircraft engines produce a variety of emissions, which are similar to other emissions resulting from fossil fuel
combustion. These emissions have an effect on the areas in the immediate vicinity of the airport, as well as
global impact on the atmosphere. The atmospheric environmental impacts associated with aviation
emissions include climate change (global warming and ozone depletion), acidification, and deterioration of
local air quality.

The principal aircraft emissions are carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor (H2O in the form of condensation
trails), nitrogen oxide (NOx), smoke (soot), sulfa particles, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.
Approximately 92% of aircraft engine exhaust is normal atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen.

Recent global weather measurements indicate a trend of increasing temperatures in the atmosphere that
contributes to global warming and threatens to change the landscape and livelihood of various species. In
general, there is disagreement in the scientific community on the exact impact of human activity on climate
change, and more specifically of aviation’s contribution to this impact.

3
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

For example, and specific to the aviation industry, water vapor trails (contrails) created by an aircraft may
have an effect on climate change, but recent research is inconclusive in determining if this is a net warming
or cooling effect on the earth.

It is important that the aviation community continue to demonstrate that the industry is prepared to implement
initiatives to minimize the impact on the environment, and demonstrate an ongoing commitment to reduce
emissions in the atmosphere. Today’s modern aircraft emit 50% less carbon monoxide and 90% less smoke
and unburned hydrocarbons than 50 years ago. As well, 40% less Nitrogen oxide is discharged into the
atmosphere when compared to 1981 aircraft engines. While historically notable, the worldwide focus on
industry emissions is based on recent performance. Significant further reductions in emissions are possible
through a comprehensive fuel efficiency and conservation effort within each airline and across the industry.

Figure 1: Climate Change effect on Arctic Ice Pack

Every program that addresses fuel conservation has the potential to reduce emissions and have a positive
impact on the environment. Airlines are urged to continue to develop and implement initiatives under a
corporate Fuel Conservation Program that serve to protect the environment, as well as reduce associated
fuel cost to the airline. Such programs must be complemented by an internal campaign to increase
awareness and create a corporate culture that focuses on fuel efficiency and the resultant reduced
emissions and cost savings.

2.2.2 Emissions
2.2.2.1 CO2 and H2O Emissions
There are two major products of fuel combustion: CO2 and H2O. The volume of these compounds produced
from 1 ton of jet fuel amounts to:

 3.15 tons of CO2 and 1.239 tons of H2O.

Changes in the chemical composition of aviation fuels and a less than complete chemical reaction
(combustion) may slightly affect the amounts of CO2 and H2O as shown above.

4
 Fuel Management Concepts

2.2.2.2 NOx and Other Emissions

A number of other products are emitted from the burning of jet fuel in significantly smaller quantities than
CO2 and H2O. These are: NOx, particulate matter (smoke, soot), hydrocarbon gases (volatile organic
compounds – VOCs), CO, and SO2. The amount of these products, although very small compared to CO2
and H2O, can vary significantly depending on a number of parameters including fuel composition, jet engine
type, type of operations (flying and technical), and ambient air conditions. It is important to realize that the
emission levels of these compounds become very important when discussing local emissions in the area
surrounding the airport.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the third largest byproduct of fuel combustion by weight. There is no simple
formula that can be used to approximate NOx because the calculation depends on a number different and
potentially conflicting parameters. At high altitudes, aircraft NOx emissions trigger the formation of ozone,
which acts as a greenhouse gas. However, this increase in ozone may lead to a decrease in methane,
another even stronger greenhouse gas. While the magnitude of this combined effect remains uncertain, the
net climate change effect attributed to NOx from aircraft at altitude is believed to be positive. At ground level,
emissions of NOx (together with SO2) may contribute to ground level ozone formation and acidification.

Engine manufacturers have been working successfully to reduce fuel consumption and increase combustion
efficiency. To achieve this goal, combustion occurs at higher temperatures in the jet engine. However,
higher combustion temperatures may lead to unwanted reactions between oxygen and nitrogen; reactions
that produce nitrogen oxides.

The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) hosts the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank on its’ web site
(http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=702&pagetype=90). All emissions data reported on
this site have been derived from data provided from engine manufacturers as part of the aircraft engine
certification process.

The ICAO databank is the most comprehensive and detailed emissions database available for all aircraft jet
engines. However, it is important to realize that the emissions data were obtained under well-prescribed
testing conditions. In many instances, these conditions do not represent current operational practices and
account only for the Landing and Takeoff (LTO) cycle. There are a number of limitations associated with the
database. For example, the effect of engine use and resultant deterioration over time on engine emissions,
as well as the impact that engine maintenance and overhaul play on combustion (and the production of
various pollutants) are not clearly defined.

One example of variation due to operational procedures is the de-rated thrust takeoff when an aircraft uses
less than 100% power during takeoff. The result is fewer pollutants emitted than the information recorded in
the ICAO databank would indicate. Another variable is the time the aircraft stays in each of the phases of the
LTO cycle. Finally, the databank does not consider cruise level emissions although an aircraft normally
spends the most time in this phase of flight. While the databank is an excellent source of emissions
information, caution should be exercised when attempting to extrapolate emissions data from the LTO cycle
elements to cruise conditions. Currently, the industry is working to develop a methodology to better predict
certain engine emissions.

2.2.3 Emission Calculations

2.2.3.1 Top-Down Approach: Estimates of CO2 and H2O
To estimate the global emissions of an airline an accurate accounting of the airline’s total fuel consumption is
required. The impact on the quantity of CO2 and H2O emissions can be estimated as a direct result of
specific fuel reduction initiatives and fuel conservation programs.

A simple calculation can be used to estimate CO2 and H2O levels produced by applying the basic formula
that the burning of 1 ton of jet fuel produces 3.15 tons of CO2 and 1.239 tons of H2O.

5
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

2.2.3.2 Calculation of NOx Emissions

Calculation of NOx emissions from aircraft has been done in numerous 3D inventories (e.g. [Gardner et
al.,1998; Baughcum et al., 1996; Eyers et al., 2004]). The so-called "P3T3" method has been described as
the most accurate model to estimate NOx and other emissions. However, this method requires detailed
sensitive internal engine data, which is only available through engine manufacturers. A comprehensive
review of the methods can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/aviation_et_study.pdf (pg. 52).

The aforementioned reference describes that such a calculation requires the followings: a known aircraft
type, flying a defined route from a departure point to an arrival destination, at specified altitudes. From this
information, the fuel flow can be calculated with either proprietary or public-domain models or data (e.g.
PIANO, BADA). Established algorithms can then be used to calculate NOx emissions from the fuel flow using
the ICAO engine certification data, along with temperature and humidity corrections from sea level to altitude
(e.g. [Gardner et. al., 1998]). There are two principle algorithms in widespread usage - the DLR-2 fuel-flow
method [Deidewig et al., 1996] and the Boeing-2 method [Baughcum et. al., 1996; DuBois and Paynter,
2006].
2.2.3.3 Detailed Approach: Estimates of other Emissions
The following parameters play a significant role in estimating aircraft emissions:

 Sulfur content of fuel: determines the SO2 emissions level

 Flying operations: de-rated thrust level or other takeoff, landing and cruise conditions have an impact
on fuel burn and aircraft emissions. The higher the takeoff thrust level, the higher the combustion
temperature, which results in increased NOx levels. At the same time, combustion becomes more
efficient resulting in less particulates of HC and CO.
 Engine type: depending on the type of engine, different levels of emissions will be produced. The
ICAO database provides levels of emissions for all aircraft engines
 Technical operations: required fuel flow in an aircraft engine can increase by approximately 1% per
year as engine performance deteriorates having flown a certain number of hours since the last
engine overhaul
 Ambient conditions: depending on the air properties (temperature, density, pollution etc.), emission
levels may vary significantly.
 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU): the APU is primarily responsible for fuel consumption while the aircraft is
parked on the ground; the impact on regional level emissions can be significant.

Different assumptions for de-rated takeoff can be used based on the ICAO engine certification data. For
example, a de-rated takeoff can be assumed to be similar to the data provided for a lower thrust similar
engine (e.g. CFM56-7B22). Currently, there is no industry-approved methodology to estimate emissions for
the complete flight cycle (although the industry is considering a universally approved methodology based on
ICAO standards).

6
 Fuel Management Concepts

2.2.3.4 Sample Airline Pollution

A typical aircraft produces the following pollution per hour:

Burn Rate
Pollution per Aircraft Kg/ FH CO2 H2O EI NOx HC CO
(kg/hr)
A330-300 5,692 17,930 kg 7,052 kg 150 kg 0.00 kg 0.91 kg
A320-200 2,918 9,190 kg 3,615 kg 68 kg 0.29 kg 1.46 kg
B747-400 10,674 33,622 kg 13,225 kg 264 kg 0.32 kg 5.44 kg
B777-200 6,744 21,244 kg 8,356 kg 221 kg 0.20 kg 2.16 kg
B737-700 2,578 8,120 kg 3,194 kg 45 kg 0.26 kg 1.29 kg
CRJ-200 1,383 4,358 kg 1,714 kg 13 kg 0.07 kg 0.00 kg
ATR 72 720 2,268 kg 892 kg 0 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg

Table 1: Hourly Emission Rates by Aircraft Type

A 1% fuel saving for a B777-200 or A330 aircraft flying approximately 4,750 hours per year will reduce fuel
consumption by:

 320 metric tons for the B777-200 and 270 metric tons for the A330-300

A 1% fuel saving will decrease the annual emission of pollutants by the following amounts:

B777-200 A330-300
1008 tons of CO2 850 tons of CO2
396 tons of H2O 335 tons of H2O
Table 2: Annual Pollutant Reduction from a 1% Reduction in Fuel Consumption
As discussed later in this document, flight crews have the potential to significantly impact overall emissions
on each flight. A pilot flying 700 hours per year would have an opportunity to impact on the following levels of
pollution each year:

Pollution Managed per Pilot

CO2 H2O EI NOx HC CO
Kgs/Year
A330-300 12,550,966 kg 4,936,713 kg 105,348 kg 0 kg 638 kg
A320-200 6,433,258 kg 2,530,415 kg 47,586 kg 204 kg 1,021 kg
B747-400 23,535,405 kg 9,257,259 kg 184,547 kg 224 kg 3,810 kg
B777-200 14,870,700 kg 5,849,142 kg 154,750 kg 142 kg 1,511 kg
B737-700 5,684,242 kg 2,235,802 kg 31,399 kg 180 kg 902 kg
CRJ-200 3,050,426 kg 1,199,834 kg 9,374 kg 48 kg 0 kg
ATR 72 1,587,600 kg 624,456 kg 0 kg 0 kg 0 kg

Table 3: Annual Pollution Levels Managed by Pilots

2.3 Emissions Trading Schemes

2.3.1 What is an Emissions Trading Scheme?

 Emission trading is a market-based scheme for environmental improvement that allows participants
to buy and sell emissions allowances, i.e. rights to emit a fixed amount of emissions per year.
 Emission trading allows established emission goals to be met in the most cost-effective way by
letting the market determine the lowest-cost pollution abatement opportunities.
 At the end of each trading year, participants have to hand over (“surrender”) allowances
corresponding to their actual emissions in that year.
 Participants can either sell unused allowances to other participants in the scheme or must buy the
allowances needed to cover their extra emissions from other participants on the open market.

7
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Example: an airline joins the trading scheme in 2012 and is given allowances to emit 1 million tons of
CO2 for that year.
 If that airline only emits 0.8 million metric tons in 2012, it can sell 0.2 million metric tons
worth of allowances to another airline in the scheme
 If that airline emits 1.2 million metric tons in 2012, it would have to buy the right to emit the
extra 0.2 million metric tons from another company in the scheme (e.g. airline, factory,
power plant, etc.).

2.3.2 EU Emissions Trading in Europe

On 2 February 2009, European Union legislation came into force incorporating aviation into the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) effective in 2012 (Directive EC/2008/101). Virtually all airlines with
operations to, from and within the EU fall under the scope of the directive, including non-EU airlines.

In preparation for aviation’s inclusion in the EU ETS, the European Commission (EC) has
developed guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of aviation activity data (ton-kilometers and CO2
emissions). Under the guidelines, airlines captured by the EU ETS must meet certain requirements. In
summary, these airlines will have to:

 Submit monitoring plans by the end of August 2009

 Monitor ton-kilometres and CO2 emissions from 1 January 2010
 Report ton-kilometres data by 31 March 2011
 Report CO2 emissions data by 31 March 2011
 Apply for free emissions allowances by 31 March 2011
 Surrender allowances for 2012 emissions by 30 April 2013

It should be noted that the date for initial submission for monitoring plans has been extended several times.
Based on revised dates authorized by the EU the timing for the above benchmark activity may change.

The intention is for the EU ETS to serve as a model for other countries considering similar national or
regional schemes, and to link these to the EU scheme over time. Therefore, the EU ETS may form the basis
for wider, global, action.

On 5 August 2009 the European Commission compiled a list of aircraft operators that have undertaken
relevant aviation activity in the EU on or after 1 January 2006, specifying the administering Member State for
each aircraft operator. The list is to be finalized by the end of August 2009, but may be extended depending
on the Member State. An up to date list can be found at the following site:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:219:0001:0094:EN:PDF

On 16 April 2009 adopted the legislation for monitoring, reporting and verification.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009D0339:EN:HTML

According to the monitoring and reporting guidelines, the Commission can establish an electronic standard
protocol for reporting of emissions and ton-kilometers from operators and aircraft operators.
While some States are still questioning the legal status of the EU to implement this policy, they are
nevertheless recommending that resident airlines comply with the legislation and submit their
monitoring/reporting plans to the appropriate Member State.

8
 Fuel Management Concepts

2.3.2.1 What is a Monitoring Plan?

Aircraft operators were required to submit two monitoring plans to their administering Member State per
above timetable:

 How the aircraft operator intends to monitor and report fuel consumption (the emissions monitoring
plan), and,
 Ton-kilometre data (the ton-kilometre monitoring plan)

In 2010, all data had to be monitored and reported in accordance with the submitted monitoring plans.

The Commission published an electronic template for submission of the required monitoring plans:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/mrg_templates_en.htm

2.3.2.2 What should be covered in the Emissions Monitoring Plan?

In addition to data identifying the aircraft operator, contact details of the aircraft operator and other
administrative information the emissions monitoring plan should include the following information:

 A list of aircraft types in the fleet, the number of aircraft per type and the fuel calculation method per
aircraft type.
 An indicative list of the additional types and number expected to join the fleet
 A description of the procedures, systems and responsibilities used to update the list over the
monitoring year.
 A description of the procedures used to monitor the list of flights operated.
 A description of the data acquisition and handling activities, and quality control and assurance
activities, including maintenance and calibration of the measurement equipment.
 A description of the methods used for monitoring (and transmitting, storing and retrieving) fuel
consumption data, including:

 The chosen methodology for the calculation of fuel consumption.

 The procedures for measurement of fuel uplifts and fuel in tanks.
 The procedure to ensure the total uncertainty of fuel measurement will comply with the
monitoring and reporting requirements.
 The procedure for measurement of fuel density, and the emission factors used for each type
of fuel used.

Further details can be found at the following site:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/mrg_templates_en.htm

The information presented here is based on European Commission materials and is provided for guidance
purposes only. For the latest information, and its applicability to your airline, please refer to the EC website
and communications, as well as with your own airline’s professional advisors.

2.4 Economic Impact of Efficient Fuel Management

For most airlines, fuel is the largest budget item, even ahead of employee wages. In most cases, fuel
represents from 25% to 40% of the total airline budget. Airlines that have an aggressive fuel saving program
can reduce their overall fuel budget by 3% to 5%. Fuel savings directly affect the bottom line. In an
environment of extreme competition, airlines that manage fuel efficiently will have a definite competitive
advantage. Because of low profit margins common in the industry, to compensate for each dollar wasted in
fuel burn, airlines must generate 15 to 20 dollars in additional revenue to achieve the same profit. All
departments, including Flight Operations, must be accountable for efficient fuel management.

9
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

The following fundamentals are required to minimize overall corporate operational costs (fuel, delay cost,
missed connections, etc.):

 Effective Communications
 Efficient Procedures
 Adequate Training
 Proactive Management of each flight
 Continuous Monitoring of performance
 Coordinated Situational Awareness on every flight

For example, pilots slowing flights that are scheduled to arrive early will save fuel, reduce emissions, and
likely minimize ramp and gate congestion as well. In this example, having pilots work toward on-time arrivals
can help to improve ground staff efficiency and customer service, as well as reduce fuel consumption.

Airlines must also sensitize government regulators to the additional costs as well, as the negative impact on
fuel and emissions, which result from outdated regulations, inefficient ATC route structures, and excessive
ATC restrictions. Some of the factors that contribute to an increase in fuel consumption and resultant
emissions include insufficient ATC staffing, inadequate and antiquated equipment, inefficient and
cumbersome procedures, unnecessary route or altitude restrictions, restrictive and inflexible noise
abatement procedures, and inadequate communication facilities.

Lastly, it is important to instill a fuel conservation culture throughout the corporation. In 2011 the cost of fuel
peaked at US$ 140 per barrel (August 2011 data) and the forecast average fuel price for 2011 is now US$
128 per barrel. Several factors contribute to continued high prices:

 Many oil-producing countries are politically unstable

 With the rapid economic growth of Asia, the demand is expected to remain high
 The weakness of the US dollar is forcing the petroleum producing countries to maintain high prices
to preserve their purchasing power
 Political uncertainty leading to supply chain concerns in key oil producing nations continues to foster
uncertainty in the market place
 Finally, if the trend is maintained, pollution taxes on fuel consumption will continue to increase the
effective cost of fuel.

For these reasons, it is expected that the cost of fuel will not abate in the near future and the negative impact
on the airlines’ budgets will continue. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to develop and foster a
corporate culture that aggressively promotes every effort to improve fuel efficiency.

2.5 Basic Facts Regarding Fuel Consumption

In tough financial times, there is a tendency for airlines to perform reduced maintenance on their fleet due to
the high cost of aircraft down time or acquisition of spare engines. Regular maintenance contributes to an
airplane’s improved fuel efficiency. During normal line operation, for every 3,000 hours of flight time or 1,000
cycles, new airplanes will lose approximately 1% efficiency. After a few years of operation, the fuel burn
performance of an aircraft will tend to stabilize at 5 - 7% above the baseline for new aircraft performance
levels, and in some extreme cases this figure may rise to 10%.

Major engine overhauls will normally recover approximately ½ of the efficiency degradation compared to a
new engine. Engine wash, airframe control rigging, buffing and good paint condition can also reduce fuel
burn by 1% to 2%.

Performing timely and comprehensive engine and aircraft maintenance can have a significant impact on fuel
efficiency and aircraft/engine life, as well as a positive effect on financial results dependent on the cost of
fuel.

10
3 FUEL EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Effectively managing and efficiently utilizing fuel are among the major challenges facing the modern aviation
industry. Fluctuating fuel price and supply, ever-increasing financial competition and emerging worldwide
environmental consciousness have forced most airlines to consider and / or develop some type of fuel
management program for their operations. With fuel accounting for a major percentage of airline operating
expense, and with environmental regulations growing in complexity and potential cost, airline managers
need to know where and how fuel is being used, as well as understand how to efficiently use fuel so as to
control and limit the financial impact of fuel expense on corporate financial results.

To be truly effective, an airline Fuel Efficiency Improvement / Fuel Management program must be driven by
executive and management support, comprehensive in corporate scope and involvement, systematic in
approach and design, and accurately measured and continuously monitored.

A well-defined and appropriately measured Fuel Efficiency Program is essential to the long-term viability and
financial success of any airline. An airline needs clearly established corporate Fuel Efficiency objectives,
goals, and operational performance measures in order to effectively manage the significant financial impact
associated with cost of fuel, as well as the potential for dramatic, often unpredictable, variation in a major
cost component of airline operations.

Along with knowledgeable and committed executive leadership, good (high quality) and timely data is
essential to good management in modern business. Good data should support good business analysis which
in turn should support good management practices, and ultimately enable good business decisions and
associated actions. Good data should enable meaningful statistical analysis, answer relevant business
questions, identify problem areas or areas for improvement, focus management attention and action, as well
as track the effectiveness and value of corrective action. Good data is the foundation for performance
measurement, management reporting, business case development and related planning activities, and
corporate decision-making.

The Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program can be broken down into four sequential phases:

Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Perform
Establish Fuel Plan Manage
Gap
Program Implementation Implementation
Analysis

The objective of this manual is to describe how to set a baseline and target for a successful fuel efficiency
program. Current company policy and procedures related to the use of fuel will provide the baseline against
which to measure future fuel efficiency improvements. The gap analysis in each of these individual areas
covered by this manual will establish saving targets for a future improvement program.

Major elements of Phase 0 – Perform Gap Analysis are:

 Identify Project Manager (Fuel Efficiency Manager)

 Create the Fuel Team
 Identify and collect required data for the analysis
 Establish baseline and potential savings for each fuel efficiency improvement initiative
 Establish preliminary saving targets

The other three phases are covered in detail in the IATA Fuel Program Implementation Guidance Material.

11
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

3.1 Fuel Efficiency must be a Corporate Effort

Implementing Fuel Efficiency Improvement (and Emissions Reduction) must be a corporate-wide, cross-
functional effort to effectively develop and manage a comprehensive and successful program.

A corporate fuel initiative is necessary in order to align with other corporate objectives and gain executive
support and visibility. Cross-functional coordination, sponsored by corporate leadership, helps to minimize
errors and speed the process of implementation. Addressing the Fuel Efficiency program in this manner
helps prevent a silo-based (sub-optimum) approach. The implementation process is better controlled.

Optimally, with appropriate senior management support and employee involvement, communication,
coordination, creativity and innovation are fostered and promoted.

A comprehensive Fuel Efficiency Improvement / Emissions Reduction program requires a systematic

approach to development, implementation, and management including:

 Demonstrated Executive Commitment and Involvement

 A dedicated, corporate-level Fuel Efficiency Program Manager
 A company-wide initiative led by a cross-functional Fuel Efficiency Implementation Team
 A comprehensive measurement capability (good data)/ Fuel Metric System
 Utilization of proven change management methods and tools
 An ongoing program to Sustain and Control improvements
 A process to Leverage and Communicate success

3.1.1 Executive Sponsorship

The Executive Sponsor of the Fuel Efficiency / Emissions Reduction Program should be a company officer
with sufficient authority and responsibility to provide corporate support for the Fuel Efficiency Manager and
the Cross-Functional Fuel Efficiency Implementation Team. The Executive Sponsor must provide oversight
of the program and related work efforts to mitigate and resolve obstacles or issues which may prevent
successful implementation of the fuel management programs.

The Executive Sponsor normally appoints the corporate Fuel Efficiency Manager and may also appoint an
executive steering committee to assist the Fuel Efficiency Manager.

A corporate Fuel Team should be comprised of representatives from all areas of the company that can
contribute to fuel savings, and should be led by a corporate Fuel Efficiency Manager who is fuel
knowledgeable, corporately credible and project leadership capable.

3.1.2 The Fuel Efficiency Manager

The Fuel Efficiency Manager position at an airline is typically a Vice President or General Manager reporting
to the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer of the airline. The corporate Fuel Efficiency
Manager should possess the following qualifications:

 Cross-functional airline knowledge

 Strong interpersonal skills
 Respect of colleagues
 Strong leadership and management skills
 Project management and change management experience

The Fuel Efficiency Manager should be responsible for the planning and control of the procurement and use
of aviation fuel in order to safely, efficiently and environmentally responsibly meet the operational
requirements of the airline. The Fuel Efficiency Manager’s principle duties are to:

 Coordinate the airline’s fuel programs

12
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

 Involve all functions and services necessary to meet corporate fuel-related objectives
 Establish accountability for the implementation of the airline’s fuel programs
 Ensure achievement of corporate fuel-related goals
 Ensure allocation of material, human and financial resources to implement fuel-related corporate
policies, controls and programs
 Ensure measurement systems are established and maintained
 Establish performance-based financial and administrative controls for fuel programs
 Lead the management of change and fuel efficiency communications

A corporately empowered “Fuel Efficiency Manager”, with complete control of the fuel efficiency program, is
more likely to get things done in an expeditious and comprehensive manner. In addition, the Fuel Efficiency
Manager should be a stand-alone position, not assigned as an additional duty. Both the position and value to
the company require constant focused attention.

3.1.3 The Fuel Team

In developing a program for efficient fuel use, many corporate functions and operational departments are
involved. A cross-functional, multi-talented “Fuel Team” is required to coordinate and manage individual
elements of the process, as well as optimize the program across the airline. Rather than working fuel
efficiency initiatives separately within their respective departments, Fuel Team members perform the same
functions, but integrated into a team effort focused on overall corporate fuel efficiency results. In this way,
they share joint responsibility for airline fuel efficiency with a wider range of skills, expertise, and experience.
The Fuel Team’s efforts must be coordinated throughout the airline and consider all aspects of the fuel
efficiency program’s implementation. Team members should represent their departmental requirements, but
also work as a team to mitigate departmental issues and obstacles (silos), addressing Fuel Efficiency
projects as corporate issues, rather than departmental projects.

The core of the fuel team is usually composed of representatives from:

 Flight Operations  Airport / Ground Operations

 Flight Dispatch  Cabin Service
 Operations Control  Cargo
 Maintenance & Engineering

The core team is expected to expand the group with representatives and expertise from supporting functions
when necessary. The Fuel Team is often supported by representatives from:

 Flight Safety  Network Planning

 Finance  Training
 Human Resources / Labor Relations  Commercial (Product Delivery)
 Fuel Purchasing  Crew Scheduling
 Information Technology

Team collaboration helps address cross-functional issues in implementation and problem solving. Where
issues remain, executive assistance can be called upon to overcome obstacles.

3.1.4 Measuring Fuel Efficiency

A basic tenet of modern management states that “you cannot manage what you cannot measure”. A well-
structured fuel statistics database is an absolute requirement to enable an airline to efficiently manage fuel
consumption. It is imperative that airlines develop and maintain a Fuel Management Information (FMI)
System that is able to generate real-time data and statistics detailing fuel consumption in every phase of
airline operations.
Operational data availability varies greatly from airline to airline. Some have fully integrated systems, which
provide extensive data. Other airlines collect data manually, which is time consuming, often resulting in

13
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

limited data availability and poor data quality. There is often similar disparity among data sources within an
airline. Modern aircraft fleets generate substantial electronic data, while related flight dispatch and
maintenance data sources may be manual in nature.

The result is that most modern airlines are “data rich and information poor”. The challenge for an airline is to
be able to analyze multiple data sources in a logical manner, derive the desired information, and apply it in
the day-to-day operation. Sheer volume of data, disparate data sources, ill-defined levels of data reliability,
and timeliness of data availability, all contribute misuse or ineffective use of available data to determine
needed information and support desired action.

Whatever the data sources, whatever the level of technological capability, in order to develop and support an
effective ongoing Fuel Efficiency improvement program, the airline fuel-related data system must enable the
Fuel Team to:

 Baseline current state

 Identify improvement opportunities and value
 Implement continuous improvement actions where indicated
 Track performance and monitor progress, or lack thereof

3.2 Management of Change

Fuel Efficiency is a complex corporate program involving multiple activities, functions, departments and
divisions within an airline. Blending the myriad of fuel-related corporate activities into a comprehensive,
cohesive, and effective corporate fuel program requires a structured management process. There are a
number of recommended “change management” approaches aimed at coordinating, measuring, and
controlling complex business activities, all designed to integrate a variety of corporate efforts and activities,
across numerous functions and levels in the organization, into a structured process that supports a specific
corporate goal or objective.

To ensure success, it is important that Fuel Efficiency Implementation programs follow an organized and
disciplined project management methodology. The Fuel Efficiency Manager and the individual fuel
implementation project managers must understand successful project management is not just the application
of a list of techniques, but the intelligent application of sound principles.

This manual will not address the various change management alternatives utilized in modern management
practices other than to state that it is essential for the success of any Fuel Efficiency Improvement effort that
a structured change management process be implemented and sustained on an ongoing basis.

3.2.1 Control and Sustain

In order to sustain fuel efficiency improvement efforts, it is important that management control be formalized
in the planning process through the use of an organized methodology that includes:

 Documented and detailed implementation plans

 Clear assignment of responsibility and accountability
 Detailed time lines with defined milestones
 Accurate measurement and tracking results to plan
 Quantification of periodic and cumulative financial benefit to the airline

It is essential to have a well-designed, well-coordinated, accurately measured, and constantly monitored plan
to ensure sustained results.

In addition, the Fuel Team must establish goals that are measurable, achievable, and, highly visible with
specific responsibilities and accountabilities assigned. Accountability and responsibility equates to attention

14
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

and focus. Without specific individual accountability and responsibility, tasks do not have the proper focus
and they will likely not be performed in the most efficient manner.

In order to make the desired improvement permanent, new processes must be constantly monitored,
reviewed and reinforced until they become the fully accepted way of doing business.

It is also recommended that, after an effective Fuel Efficiency Program is established, airlines should
consider forming a corporate Fuel Efficiency structure as a permanent part of the management organization.

3.3 Communication
Communication is a key ingredient in the success of any fuel efficiency effort. Good communication creates
buy-in and supports advocates for change.

The Fuel Team should monitor and control progress toward defined goals. Progress should be published
and success celebrated when attained. Publication of the goals and related progress, as well as recognition
and celebration of success, will help to assure the entire company that the program is progressing towards
desired goals, the goals are obtainable, and success is a realistic expectation.

A formal Communication Plan should provide a timeline (synchronized to the project implementation plan) for
when communications should be released, the composition of the communications, the target of the
communications and those responsible for issuing the communications.

Communication has to reach and be understood by all concerned personnel. This means that
communication should be adapted to the culture and work level of the individuals it is intended to reach.

Existing corporate communications channels should be leveraged as much as possible for affected
individuals to learn, understand and trust what is happening during the change. Communications should
include employee-familiar written, video or display media. Communications may also take the form of group
meetings.

As fuel efficiency implementation projects begin to produce results, it is important to identify and celebrate
the success. This assists program implementation by:

 Generating corporate visibility  Motivating personnel

 Supporting change management  Maintaining momentum

The Fuel Team should regularly monitor and publish performance results to re-assure employees that the
change is worthwhile pursuing for the airline and its employees. Quick wins give attention and impetus to the
overall Fuel Efficiency project by demonstrating corporate action and success.

Success should also be rewarded. Personal and team recognition through corporate communications is one
form of reward. Other methods of compensation or success recognition may also be considered.

Recognizing and communicating positive results are critical to implementing a successful fuel efficiency
program and institutionalizing the change.

3.4 Data Requirements

Fuel related data could come from many sources:

 onboard aircraft reporting systems

 engine-monitoring systems
 maintenance planning systems
 flight dispatch systems

15
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 fuel management systems

 financial reporting systems
 as well as external industry data sources

Effectively analyzing and managing all of this data is a major challenge facing modern airline fuel managers.
Intense competition, government regulation, media scrutiny, and public attention, all reinforce the need for
useful and timely data to support management of an effective airline Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Control
Program.
3.4.1 Airline Data Sources
As noted, data sources and data processing capabilities will vary from airline to airline, but modern aircraft
technology, regulatory compliance requirements, financial reporting standards, and internal management
activities have generated significant improvement in airline data compilation, analysis, and reporting. The
large volume of available and required data generally drives the creation of a centralized data warehouse for
an airline.

An effective Data Warehouse combines data from multiple sources into one common structure, giving the
data consistency for producing reports, as well as for analyzing and viewing data population segments. A
comprehensive Fuel Efficiency program will make extensive use of fuel information contained in the data
warehouse.

A typical airline data warehouse will contain most, if not all, of the data feeds outlined below. Sources may
be direct or indirect, automated or manual, and internal or external, but essential airline data will be typically
be accumulated in a central data warehouse, ideally with direct access for all operational and business units.

Figure 2: Typical Airline Data Warehouse and Fuel Information Data Sources
As noted above, there is no shortage of data collected and available to airline fuel managers. The key is
discerning the appropriate source, content, and use of the available information. Regulatory requirements
mandate the collection and reporting of significant flight operations and maintenance data. This data can
form the basis for many Fuel Efficiency initiatives, and can also serve to support many other cost-effective
business decisions for an airline.

16
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

3.5 Understanding and Utilizing Airline Data Sources

The following are some of the major fuel information data sources typically in use at many airlines. It will be a
task of the Fuel Team to identify data sources within their airline, how best to access the system data, and
how to effectively use that data in addressing specific fuel efficiency initiatives.
3.5.1 Flight Operations - Flight Data Monitoring (FDM)
The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) onboard the aircraft records many different operating conditions of the flight.
By regulation, modern aircraft must monitor numerous important parameters such as time, altitude, airspeed,
heading, and aircraft attitude.

Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) is also specified as a requirement in Annex 6,3.6.3 of the ICAO Amendment 26
for aircraft over 27 tons and recommended for aircraft over 20 tons. Additionally, the IOSA audit ORG 3.3.3
states “The Operator should have a program for gathering safety data through systematic observations of
flight crew performance during normal line operations.”

Because of these requirements, FDM is used extensively by Flight Operations and/or Quality Departments
within airlines. When addressing issues associated with Flight Safety, operational Flight Data Monitoring
(FDM) is often referred to as Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) utilizing actual flight data to
enhance flight safety.

FDM systems can also be used to provide detailed information as to how fuel is being used, as well as to
measure the effectiveness of flight operations fuel saving initiatives and procedures. New technology FDRs
can record the status of more than 1,000 in-flight characteristics that can be used to support fuel efficiency
program data requirements.
3.5.1.1 Flight Data Recorders
The Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR), the infamous “black box”, and Quick Access data Recorder (QAR)
are onboard aircraft recording systems used to capture, communicate, and analyze operational data
generated by an aircraft. While historically used to aid in the investigation of accidents and incidents, these
systems leverage modern satellite communication capabilities to constantly monitor all aircraft operational
parameters, including fuel utilization. These programs can also be used to establish statistics regarding
operational compliance with fuel saving initiatives.

Figure 3: Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR)

3.5.1.2 Quick Access Recorder (QAR)
A basic problem of all flight data analysis systems is that the data generated onboard the aircraft needs to be
accessible for analysis by people on the ground. This requirement necessitates that a large amount of data

17
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

be transferred post flight. By design, the FDR is not easily accessible, and requires an extended ground time
to access and extract the recorded data.

Quick Access Recorders (QAR) have been developed to record data in parallel with the crash protected
flight data recorder. The QARs use storage media that can be removed and replaced during an aircraft
turnaround process. Ease and timeliness of access, as well as a high reliability, make the QAR an effective
option for fuel data retrieval purposes.

Figure 4: Quick Access Recorder (QAR)

3.5.1.3 Using FDM Data
Typically, FDM programs are used to monitor performance against defined exceedances, and are used to
extract only related data. FDM programs should be adapted for use in support of all fuel management
objectives. Detailed flight profiles should be developed to define the optimal parameters for each phase of
aircraft operation, in-flight and on the ground. Within each of the identified phases, relevant data snapshots
need to be defined in order to identify appropriate data to extract in support of fuel efficiency monitoring
programs.

In Figure 5 and Figure 6 below, two flight phases (Taxi out and Approach) are highlighted to illustrate
potential fuel values that could be extracted in the respective phases of aircraft operation to support
development of a fuel efficiency monitoring program. Standard FDM software would need to be adapted in
order to allow such selective data extraction, however, all of the necessary data can be captured in either the
DFDR or the QAR. Once the recommended information has been extracted from the FDM data sources,
detailed analysis can be performed comparing the actual operation results in relation to efficient fuel burn
standards or expected trend values.

Figure 5: Detail of FDM for the Taxi Out Phase

18
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

Figure 6: Detail of FDM for the Approach Phase

FDM data provides an accurate and efficient way to manage fuel efficiency associated with the operation of
the aircraft. Statistical data and fuel efficiency analysis should be conducted for entire fleets in order to
produce appropriate fuel metrics to support performance-monitoring programs which help reduce fuel
consumption and lower emissions.
3.5.1.4 Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS)
ACARS is a digital data link system for transmission of short, relatively simple messages between aircraft
and ground stations via radio or satellite. Airlines can make extensive use of the operational data from
ACARS including the OUT, OFF, ON and IN times (OOOI), as well as the fuel data recorded during the
various phases of the flight.

ACARS and other modern air to ground communication systems can be used to transmit additional fuel
related information on a real-time basis. Such information can be used to trigger flight plan alterations in-
flight, corrective action at the destination station, or longer-term required maintenance as needed.
3.5.2 Maintenance Information Systems (MIS)
With the advancement of aircraft technology, most modern Maintenance Departments use very elaborate
maintenance information systems (MIS). These systems can also help to acquire data for a fuel efficiency
improvement program. MI Systems are adaptable to track a wide range of data generated from the

19
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Maintenance and Engineering organization and applied processes, including aircraft weight changes,
specific onboard system performance, and engine fuel efficiency. A modern MIS can also assist in efficiently
operating aircraft fleets by providing fuel performance monitoring data. Such data can also feed a data
warehouse system allowing all relevant parties within the airline to access the data to develop the best
possible conclusions for their respective tasks and areas of responsibility (i.e. Flight Planning System).
3.5.2.1 Aircraft Performance Monitoring (APM)
Aircraft Performance Monitoring (APM) data measures the technical fuel efficiency of the aircraft from a
Maintenance and Engineering perspective. APM data compares the actual cruise fuel performance of an
individual aircraft with the specified baseline performance when the aircraft was originally delivered to the
airline. Once benchmarked, an airline can monitor how much fuel is being burned, how efficiently the fuel is
being consumed, as well as how the specific aircraft performance is trending as compared to expectation.

APM provides data to monitor the degradation of the aircraft fuel burn performance over time. The monitored
degradation encompasses the entire aircraft including the airframe, engine and systems. The data for the
APM calculations are normally drawn from ACARS downloads. ACARS data is captured several times during
the flight from various sensors throughout the aircraft systems, down linked to a ground-based station and
distributed via a server system. Within the airline the data is processed using dedicated APM software. The
results of these calculations are used to update the airline’s Flight Planning System (FPS) and the aircraft
Flight Management Computer (FMC) system. Continuous cruise performance monitoring can give airlines
the information needed to:

 Adjust the baseline performance levels used for flight planning

 Adjust the flight management computer (FMC) fuel required projections so that the correct amount of
fuel is loaded on each and every flight
 Identify normal deterioration for a fleet of airplanes
 Match the airplanes with best fuel performance to the longest routes
 Validate performance degradation for extended twin-engine operations (ETOPS) critical fuel
reserves planning
 Increase flight crew confidence in flight plan accuracy, and ideally decrease the amount of
discretionary fuel requested and loaded
 Identify high fuel burning airplanes for possible maintenance actions

APM data can be used by the Maintenance Department to identify the worst performing aircraft based on
fuel burn deterioration. Prioritization of the aircraft in a fleet according to fuel burn will help to identify the
aircraft in greatest need of maintenance action, as well as the type of corrective actions needed to recover
the deteriorated performance. It is important that the Maintenance Department be closely involved in the
APM process. The problems detected by the APM process may be engine performance problems, airframe
drag, or simply due to sensor problems or incorrect fuel burn calculations. See the flowchart in Figure 7
below for a generic depiction of the APM process.

20
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

Figure 7: APM Data Management Process

3.5.2.2 Engine Condition Trend Monitoring (ECTM)
Engine Condition Trend Monitoring is a standard process used in aviation maintenance to determine engine
health and monitor engine performance. Aircraft engine trend monitoring is based on periodical recording of
the outputs of engine condition sensors to track the overall trend in fuel efficiency for each engine. ECTM
can identify poor performing engines and help define the cause of aircraft, fleet, or system fuel performance
deterioration (highlighted in APM data), as well as help focus corrective action where needed.

The results of the performance trends predict the need for engine maintenance. A number of parameters and
values are compared to predetermined nominal values to identify specific parameter values that exhibit
abnormal trends over time. Monitoring the results will provide alerts for exceedances and help identify the
need for possible maintenance action.

21
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Engine trend monitoring allows the airline to concentrate on ‘management by exception’ focusing on
significant anomalous trends, and by building understanding and confidence in other changed (but normal)
behavior of the engines.

Engine trend monitoring data should be used in parallel with the APM data help to define the cause for
aircraft fuel performance deterioration.

It should be noted that ECTM processes and systems must meet the requirements of EASA OPS 1 or FAR
Part 121 regulations, as well as any other applicable rules and regulations for the specific airlines operation
and maintenance organization.
3.5.2.3 Airframe Drag
Airframe drag is the resistive or opposing force to thrust. Friction and pressure forces acting on airframe
surfaces produce this resistive force as aircraft speed increases. The majority of the airframe drag is a result
of the way the aircraft is designed. As such, a majority of airframe drag can only be changed by
modifications to the aircraft itself.

Over time a small amount of additional drag will build up and add to the total drag of a new aircraft. This
additional drag can be caused by the deterioration of surface finishes, the misalignment of joints, control
surfaces and aircraft doors, as well as non-flush surface fasteners and aircraft skin repairs, fluid leaks, and
accumulated dirt etc.

All airframe drag caused by technical discrepancies or other deteriorations as described above should be
addressed and corrected by the Maintenance and Engineering (M&E) department (see Chapter 8). APM can
be used by M&E to detect such drag related fuel burn increases, as well as to devise corrective actions.
3.5.3 Dispatch - Flight Planning Systems (FPS)
A reliable and accurate source of fuel data is the airline’s flight planning system. Capturing the applicable
flight plan fuel values, aircraft weight and planned time elements provides an essential source of information
to enable analysis of many required fuel efficiency program components including flight planning efficiency
and compliance with flight operations fuel-optimization procedures.
3.5.4 Operations Control Data Systems
A multi-faceted, fully integrated, and well-coordinated airline operations control process can provide an
“information rich” environment to support a comprehensive corporate fuel efficiency program. A well-
structured Operations Control Center (OCC) function would include SME representatives from the following
key fuel-related operational disciplines:

 Flight Dispatch
 Load Control
 Maintenance Control and Aircraft Routing
 Short-term schedule management
 Hub and Station coordination
 Passenger and Cargo management

The associated OCC systems and databases can provide extensive operational plan and actual data from
which to measure and support fuel efficiency program initiatives. Each of the core disciplines should
contribute to the planned operational efficiency of the flight, track actual performance against plan for their
respective discipline, and integrate the information into an appropriate database to support measurements
targeting fuel efficiency of the airline.

22
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

3.6 Fuel Management Information (FMI)

An essential part of successful fuel policies and practices is the ability of the airline to communicate its fuel
policy goals to all individuals involved in the use and management of fuel, and to provide them with access to
the real-time fuel reports and statistics.

At many airlines a lack of executive management support has prevented the development of good fuel
management information systems. Executive leadership needs to support fuel efficiency, both personally and
fiscally, by providing the corporate commitment in resources to develop, train, communicate, and manage a
comprehensive fuel management information program. Without this support, it is impossible to manage fuel
efficiently, nor to hold people accountable for their performance, resulting in poor fuel management.

Additionally lack of access to fuel statistics often leads airline operational managers to believe there is little
they can do to improve on fuel efficiency, or that a fuel surcharge on tickets is necessary to compensate for
increases in fuel price. Managers and supervisors should be trained to effectively utilize the Fuel MI system
and the information it contains as a vital part of fuel conservation program development and establishing the
associated management accountability. Fuel Key Performance Indicators (KPI) should be developed for
each department, and specific responsibilities should be assigned to appropriate individuals within each
organization. KPI reports should be generated automatically and distributed across all departments. This will
create awareness of how fuel is being consumed, identify specific inefficiencies, and allow improvement
targets to be established and tracked to determine the effect on the airline’s overall budget.

As noted herein, modern management principles include a common theme. “You cannot manage what you
cannot measure”. In order to control and sustain an effective fuel efficiency program within the airline,
managers and supervisors must have access to accurate information about how much fuel is being uplifted
and how fuel is being consumed across the entire airline enterprise. The basis of a good fuel information
system is to compare planned parameters with actual flight performance data. It is also recommended that
Flight Dispatchers and Pilots have real-time access to flight-sector performance reports and statistics, and
review this information during the pre-departure planning for each flight operation.
3.6.1 Developing Fuel Data and Statistics
Many factors affect the fuel burn of each flight, including season, day of week, time of day, gate & runway
configuration and level of training of Flight Crews, Dispatchers and Load Planners. The objective of the Fuel
Management Information (FMI) systems should be to acquire accurate detailed fuel burn information in order
to optimize fuel usage on every flight. Used in conjunction with other flight information sources such as
Airport Traffic Demand charts, graphical traffic display, traffic advisories, weather and NOTAM information,
fuel consumption can be optimized resulting in reduced cost and improved safety.

Many departments within an airline can use the fuel management information. Effective, fuel policies and
practices require that managers and supervisors have easy and immediate access to operational data
concerning fuel planning and consumption.

Section 3.5 discusses various sources of airline operational and fuel related data. Transmissions from the
aircraft, plus data extracted from the FDM system, should be fully utilized to capture accurate fuel data from
each aircraft on every flight. This may require additional software in order for the aircraft and the ground
systems to receive and parse data into the flight tracking and fuel management information programs. At a
minimum, it is recommended that airlines develop data messages that send fuel quantity data at the
following events in the life cycle of each flight:

 “OUT” event (as the aircraft pushes back from the parking position)
 Taxi event (as the aircraft initiates ground maneuvers under its own power)
 “OFF” event (at the application of takeoff trust on the departure runway)
 The “ON” event (aircraft touch down on arrival runway)
 The “IN” event (aircraft parked at the gate and engines shut down)

23
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Periodic positional data should also be gathered throughout the flight to include latitude/longitude,
time, altitude, appropriate speed information and remaining fuel quantity.

As many airline fleets are in a transitional state where not all aircraft have the digital systems or data
transmission capabilities to send required fuel data, provision must be made to accommodate these older
aircraft and capture meaningful data about each flight. Typically, this will require Pilots to enter required data
in a trip report and route these reports back to Flight Dispatch or Engineering Department for manual data
entry into the fuel information system. Alternatively, this data can be added to routine Flight Movement
Messages (MVT) and en-route positional reports (AIREP), which can then be processed by ground support
systems to extract the reported fuel values and route them to the fuel management system. This data can
then be compared with the planned values captured from the flight planning system to assess the fuel
performance of the flight.
3.6.2 Using Statistics in Fuel Management
A comprehensive Fuel Management Information system should enable the real-time tracking of:

 plan versus Actual for all plan times and fuel burns
 Alternate used and No Alternate Application
 Alternate Fuel
 Contingency Fuel % and amount
 Final Reserve Fuel
 Additional Fuels for ETOPS, MEL, etc.
 Extra Discretionary Fuel Dispatchers
 Extra Fuel Pilots
 Fuel top-off amounts
 Tanker operations: “Yes No” indicators
 Tanker fuel amounts and resultant cost saving or additional expense
 Planning Accuracy - Estimated Zero Fuel Weights
 Actual aircraft Center of Gravity on the flight
 En-route flight path performance for lateral track, time, speed, altitude, fuel burn
 Destination Weather conditions forecast at the time of dispatch
 Destination weather conditions at the landing of the flight.

Once the data has been gathered and analyzed, it is important to ensure that all departments that need
information on fuel consumption can access real-time Fuel Management Information. Providing easy access
to good quality data on how fuel is being used enables flight managers and supervisors to perform
appropriate assessments for the development and day-to-day management of fueling policies, as well as
ensure they are properly applied to the real world operation.

To illustrate, the following chart tracks the variance between planned and actual amount of fuel remaining on
landing. Determining how much extra fuel (or minutes of flying) above plan and regulatory requirements, as
well as the components of the extra fuel (i.e. contingency fuel), can assist the responsible Dispatch and
Flight Operations managers in identifying areas for potential corrective action.

24
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

Figure 8: Planned vs. Actual Landing Fuel in Minutes of Endurance

Acquiring and understanding this data will enable airline managers to perform the necessary statistical
analysis of fuel requirements and usage, which can then form the basis for a comprehensive risk analysis for
each flight sector. The primary purpose of such an analysis is to identify low risk sectors from high risk
sectors with regard to fuel planned and required for the specific sector and flight. These statistics should then
be used for the determination of all aspects of operational fuel policies concerning:

 En-route contingency requirements

 Arrival Fuel requirements

Low Risk Sectors: actual flight times and fuel burns are very close to planned. As such, these sector values
should be reviewed for judicious reductions in planned landing fuels.

Higher Risk Sectors: flight times and fuel burns are less predictable. Such sectors require the use of
statistics to develop (increase) appropriate “contingency fuels” to compensate for the sector uncertainty.

Fuel Information System analysis should also be used to develop statistics for the determination of the
correct amount of fuel to be loaded on a flight and to generate the 90% and the 99% coverage values
required under EU-OPS for the implementation of full statistical contingency fuel calculations.

IATA analysis of fuel data from many airlines indicates that, in most cases, none of the additional fuel being
uplifted above the regulated (required) contingency fuel is actually being consumed, and is therefore being
carried for no valid operational reason. Good statistics on flight time and fuel performance also helps to
increase Flight Crew and Dispatcher confidence in both the accuracy of their flight planning system and the
fuel policies of the company. Such data can also be used to form the basis for the development of Fuel
Management Training Programs for Pilots and Dispatchers.
3.6.2.1 Performance Based Sector Risk Analysis
Best in Class operators are using Performance Based Methodologies to determine risk associated with
reducing landing fuel loads as part of their Fuel Efficiency Programs.

Regulators are also beginning to recognize the value of performance based methodologies. ICAO has
recently drafted revisions to Annex 6, and the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (FPFMM).
These documents refer to performance-based methods as follows:

Performance-based method: a risk-based approach towards the setting or application of the minimum
performance requirements of a system or process, which facilitates the implementation of variable
regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations.
Note: Performance-based methods are supported by proactive operator processes that constantly monitor
the real-time performance, hazards and safety risks of a system.

25
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Performance-based regulatory oversight: a method, supplementary to the compliance-based oversight

method, taken by a State’s Civil Aviation Authority, which supports the implementation of variable regulations
or variations from existing prescriptive regulations, based on the demonstrable capabilities of the operator
and the incorporation of risk-based methods for the setting or application of minimum acceptable
performance requirements.
Note: Performance-based regulatory oversight components rely on State processes that constantly monitor
the real-time performance, hazards and risks of a system to assure that acceptable levels of safety are not
degraded in an air transportation system.
Current EU-OPS regulations permit an operator to apply statistical calculation methods for calculating
contingency fuel. Two years of good quality data are required in-order to apply the statistics under this rule.
Regulatory language and requirements notwithstanding, airlines today can use their Fuel Information data to
perform detailed Risk Assessments for all of their city-pairs and for major destination airports. These
statistical calculations are typically based around:

 Analysis of actual fuel burn to planned fuel burn to determine Fuel Burn ∆
 Convert Fuel Burn ∆ into an Endurance Time value in minutes using Holding Fuel Flow @ 1500 feet
altitude
 Calculate the 90% and 99% coverage (confidence level) in minutes of required endurance:
 City-Pair by flight identifier
 Major Destination by arrival time in UTC

StdDev 
Fuel Burn  Fuel  Planned  Min Dvrt 
Nbr of  Delta in  Delta  Land Fuel  Fuel 
Flts City‐Pair Mins Mins Mins Mins 90% Mins 99% Mins
608 AAA‐BBB 1.7 8.1 108.2 58.5 11 23.0
Table 4: City-Pair Statistical Analysis
For this example, the data shows that the average fuel over burn on the City-Pair for this individual flight is
1.7 minutes of fuel (based on Holding FF @ 1500ft); the Standard Deviation is 8.1 minutes. However flights
are landing with an average of 108.2 minutes of fuel. The average Minimum Divert Fuel (Burn to ALTN plus
Final Reserve) of 58.5 minutes which results in each flight having an average of 49.7 minutes of additional
fuel that could be burned before a diversion might be required. The statistical data (608 daily flights) shows
that at the 90% confidence level only 11 minutes of extra fuel is being consumed while at the 99% the over
burn is 23 minutes.

The opportunity for improving fuel efficiency performance is to use the statistics to make better discretionary
fuel loading decisions and in turn lower the landing fuel loads.

The potential range for fuel load reduction in the example above is:

 under Low Risk scenarios (90% confidence coverage) to reduce from 108.2 minutes down to 69,5
minutes of endurance
 in Higher Risk situations (99% confidence coverage) reduce from 108.2 minutes down to 81.5
minutes of endurance

There is a considerable body of evidence that indicates that at many high volume airports the airport terminal
area environment, rather than the en-route environment, drives most of the over consumption of fuel. This is
especially true in North America where optimistic scheduling practices and terminal area congestion can
cause relatively large swings in arrival performance. Calculations of the statistics for 90% and 99%
confidence level coverage should be based on all flights arriving into the airport during each arrival hour.

26
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

Statistical Analysis Arrival Fuel Loads
120.0

100.0
Fuel Endurance  in Minutes (Hold  FF @ 1500Ft)

80.0

60.0
Burn Variance
Avg Landing Endurance
Min Dvrt
40.0
90% Target
99% Target
20.0

0.0

‐20.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Arrival Time ‐ UTC

Figure 9: Statistical Arrival Fuel - Major Destination Airport

The statistics above show fuel loads expressed as fuel endurance in minutes using Hold FF @ 1500ft for
each hour of the day. The average burn variance (actual burn – planned burn) identifies that most flights are
over-burning a small amount.

The 90% and 99% coverage values are then calculated and used to set target arrival fuel loads for both 90%
and 99% confidence levels (90% value + Minimum Divert Fuel, 99% value + Minimum Divert). These values
can then be plotted against the actual Landing Fuel Loads.

The Targets for improvement are:

 for Low Risk operations reduce landing fuel loads to meet the 90% target values
 for Higher Risk operations reduce landing fuel loads to meet 99% target values
3.6.3 Fuel Efficiency Statistical Measures
Detailed and accurate statistical information can enable operational managers to monitor and control a wide
variety of operational and planning variables, which will ultimately impact the overall fuel efficiency
performance of the airline.
3.6.3.1 Individual Aircraft Statistics
Flight planning systems normally use a performance correction factor to match the system to specific
individual aircraft performance. The ability to track each aircraft accurately is of utmost importance in
accurately planning fuel load, particularly for long-range flights. In the case where 100 tons of fuel is
consumed during a long-range flight, a 1% error in planned fuel burn performance will result in the carriage
of one ton of unnecessary fuel. This could reduce payload by as many as 10 passengers or one ton of cargo.
In some cases, it could force an en-route fuel landing, or arriving at destination with less than regulation fuel.
Precisely tracking and managing an aircraft’s specific fuel-burn is critical to achieving fuel efficiency. The
accuracy of fuel burns from the flight planning system is a major factor in establishing Flight Crew
confidence. Consistent inaccuracies lead crews to make their own decisions about aircraft burn corrections.
Typically, these situations result in more fuel than necessary being requested and loaded to compensate for
the lack of confidence in the accuracy of flight planning system.

27
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

This lack of accuracy also affects other fuel efficiency measures such as APM (Section 3.5.2.1). If the fuel
bias is inaccurate, the wrong drag bias will be entered into the FMS causing incorrect assumptions in the
APM performance values, which in turn result in erroneous flight performance correction calculations. Left
unresolved, this loop of inaccurate information from APM to Flight Planning system to FMS can cause the
errors to be compounded further reducing pilot confidence, thus resulting in more additional fuels being
loaded.

Accurate aircraft fuel statistics regarding correction factors should also be used to identify the worst
performing aircraft based on fuel burn deterioration. Such information will support refined aircraft routing and
planning to assign aircraft with the best fuel burn to long distance flights resulting in a more fuel efficient flight
and improved/reduced fuel reserves.

Average
Average Average of
of Flt of Flt Average Adjusted Average Average of Average of Average
Count of Tim e Tim e of Burn Burn of Burn Adjusted Contingency of Planned
Org APT Fleet Dest APT Fleet Delta Delta % Delta % Delta % Delta Burn Delta Rem aining Extra Fuel
E111 B744 K111 86 3.7 0.80% 1.47% 1.35% 1113 1021 1186 1708
E222 B744 X111 293 4.8 0.68% 1.06% 0.79% 1348 1010 2458 1477
K111 B744 E111 49 7.4 1.88% 1.82% 0.59% 1144 372 760 4513
K222 B744 B111 106 2.5 0.40% 1.10% 1.05% 1239 1200 2176 423
K333 B744 B222 91 -4.6 -0.55% 0.60% 2.17% 931 3331 2350 1076
N111 B744 X111 12 -1.2 -0.20% 0.54% 1.25% 538 1299 2495 527
B333 B744 X111 1 2.0 0.82% 0.28% 0.07% 113 27 1107 650
B111 B744 K222 110 9.3 1.78% 0.19% -1.13% 160 -1010 2539 1962
X111 217 -0.5 -0.12% 0.72% 1.23% 491 845 1561 1153
X222 B744 X111 4 -0.8 -0.21% 0.10% 1.47% 56 829 1631 175
X333 B744 X111 2 0.5 0.29% -2.60% -1.02% -753 -294 2193 404
B222 B744 K333 93 10.4 1.57% 0.45% -0.49% 521 -557 2970 2360
X111 146 1.0 0.54% 0.94% 1.16% 281 349 726 1188
X444 B744 X111 1 2.0 1.72% 0.20% 0.50% 37 94 963 1405
Y111 B744 X111 1 5.0 4.07% -0.55% -2.86% -108 -561 1108 3142
G333 B744 X111 4 1.8 2.27% 2.75% 0.29% 328 26 672 8673
X111 B744 E111 106 4.6 0.62% 1.82% 1.96% 2566 2775 903 1275
E222 247 7.5 0.95% 1.81% 1.59% 2672 2363 996 3565
N111 11 1.1 0.21% -0.18% 0.80% -184 784 3186 -85
B333 1 0.0 0.00% 2.32% 1.74% 908 684 269 101
B111 196 2.4 0.67% 0.14% 0.07% 82 48 1730 463
X222 4 -0.8 -0.22% -0.75% 0.40% -403 223 2043 2821
X333 1 -3.0 -1.69% -1.53% 3.01% -431 846 1837 -262
B222 185 1.7 0.89% 0.66% 0.63% 193 188 818 1518
G333 5 3.0 3.92% 1.23% -0.77% 161 -104 839 15258
G111 148 3.1 0.76% 0.19% 0.08% 127 51 1968 390
G222 224 3.4 0.83% -0.25% -0.16% -185 -115 2408 101
G111 B744 X111 141 1.2 0.29% 0.17% 0.61% 119 426 1986 846
G222 B744 X111 220 3.7 0.87% 0.64% 0.33% 458 242 1712 880
N Total 2815 3.4 0.70% 0.75% 0.71% 774 757 1775 1352
Grand Total 2815 3.4 0.70% 0.75% 0.71% 774 757 1775 1352

Table 5: Sample Fuel Burn Analysis B744 Fleet Operations

Note: Performance correction factors should be adjusted during the initial aircraft introduction to match the
manufacturer’s claimed performance with the optimization algorithms of the flight planning system. Individual
aircraft performance factors should also be adjusted when an aircraft comes out of heavy maintenance,
engines have been replaced or overhauled, and during periods of heavy crew training.
3.6.3.2 Fuel on Board (FOB) / Uplift
Accurate tracking of planned to actual fuel loads can assist with fuel slip verification and fuel
billing/accounting. It will also help identify where Flight Crews are adding fuel without coordinating with Flight
Dispatch or Load Control. Additional fuel that is not included in the flight plan weights results in non-
optimized vertical and lateral flight profiles.

28
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

3.6.3.3 Fuel over Destination (FOD)

Tracking the FOD will help monitor the flight planning efficiency and measure the fuel burn impact and cost
of carrying unnecessary fuel. It will facilitate a statistical approach to fuel planning and provide guidelines to
Flight Crews and Dispatchers when boarding additional fuel.

Note: excessive landing fuel will also increase wear and tear on the aircraft (brakes, engines).
3.6.3.4 Alternate Selection and Planning
A robust Fuel MI system can highlight the cost of designating excessively long (distant) arrival alternates
during the flight planning process. Some Dispatchers will use distant alternate airports, or the ones with
which they are familiar, rather than use the most cost efficient alternate determined by the risk analysis of the
actual probability of a diversion. If a diversion is unlikely, and an alternate airport must be carried to satisfy
regulatory requirements, select the closest suitable alternate. In modern aviation, for airlines with properly
managed flight planning and operations, diversions should be rare occurrences. Modern and reliable aircraft
equipped with auto land capabilities, better airport facilities, improved accuracy of weather reporting,
improvements in communications, and pro-active Operations Control policies have all contributed to
significant reductions in diversions across the industry.

A320 Planned verses Landing Fuel 
4000 130.0

128.1
3500

125.0
3000

122.2
121.8
Min DVRT  Fuel
2500
119.8 120.0 Planned Land Fuel

Dist to Altn NM
Fuel in Kilos

118.2 Actual Land Fuel
118.0
2000 117.2 2nd Altn Extra Fuel
116.8
Extra Fuel
115.0 ALTN Dist
1500
113.7 Linear (Min DVRT Fuel)
Linear (Planned Land Fuel)
1000 Linear (Actual Land Fuel)
110.0

500

0 105.0
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 

Month

Figure 10: Planned to Actual Landing Fuel Composition and Alternate Distance
3.6.3.5 Fuel Performance of Flight Crews
An accurate Fuel MI system will permit the monitoring of individual flight crew fuel management
performance. While the approach should be based on the principle of non-jeopardy, it is possible to
determine the fuel efficiency of specific captains by monitoring a statistically significant number of flights.
Crews that fall in the extreme of either category, above or below flight plan, should warrant close attention
from Flight Operations management. Reducing the fuel burn per crew by one percent can result in
approximately US$ 75,000 annual saving for each aircraft in the fleet (A320 or B737). The information
gained from monitoring fuel performance of flight crews should be used to encourage pilots to be more
attentive to fuel efficiency, help the airline focus fuel training programs, monitor compliance with fuel saving
SOPs, as well as identify the good performers. The Fuel MI system could provide feedback to individual
captains on how well they manage fuel compared to the average crew.

29
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

The fuel MI system can also identify the consistent loading of additional fuel (planned or unplanned) by flight
crews. Typically, there is limited statistical information available to flight crews during the flight-planning
phase. As a result, crews tend to request more fuel that is statistically required. At a system level, this results
in a significant increase in fuel consumption associated with the extra weight. However, the fact remains that
very little of this ad hoc extra fuel is actually consumed or required. Making Fuel MI data available to the
Flight Crews, and promoting positive feedback regarding individual crew performance, will result in increased
confidence in planned fuel loads, and reduce overall fuel consumption for the airline.
3.6.3.6 Planning Efficiency of Flight Dispatchers
In addition to planning the most cost efficient route and minimizing over-flight charges (which in a good flight
planning system is automatic), dispatchers must make significant efforts to optimize discretionary fuel and
reduce costs, while at the same time minimizing the risk of diversions. In addition to maintaining an accurate
flight planning system, the airline must provide dispatchers with the appropriate tools, including statistical
information, accurate up-to-date weather information, and air traffic information (Airport ATC Demand Charts
and graphical flight watch). Some dispatchers systematically plan unnecessary discretionary fuel resulting in
significant additional costs, which are incompatible with proper risk management techniques (Section 3.6.2).
Carefully monitoring the fuel components of each flight plan will enable the airline to train and counsel
individual dispatchers in cost-efficient flight planning policies and techniques.
3.6.3.7 Estimated Zero Fuel Weight (EZFW) and Payload Optimization
Dispatchers, and often pilots, tend to overestimate the Estimated Zero Fuel Weight (EZFW) in order to avoid
the last minute requirement for additional fuel and/or revised flight plans. This results in the boarding of
unnecessary fuel, which is costly, especially on longer flights where it can affect payload. Accurate EZFWs
are an important part of the planning process. Errors have an effect on all aspects of the flight plan and flight
execution. A good fuel monitoring system can help identify planning errors, and calculate the cost of carrying
the additional fuel.

ZFW Variance
‐4000.0 8000
‐3765.3

‐3500.0 7000

‐3000.0 6000

‐2500.0 5000
Variance in Kilos

Flight Count

‐2041.4
‐1885.2 Average of ZFW Delta
‐2000.0 ‐1870.3 4000
‐1689.9 Count of Fleet
‐1610.8 ‐1624.8
‐1500.0 3000

‐1000.0 2000

‐500.0 1000

0.0 0
Widebody Fleet ZFW Variance

Figure 11: ZFW Variance Wide Body Fleets

One recommended solution, particularly on long-range flights, would be the implementation of a fuel top-up
policy. Here a flight is “base loaded” with the planned fuel load minus, say, 5000 kg. As the flight loading and

30
 Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program Requirements

boarding progresses, a better determination of final ZFW and appropriate block fuel adjustment can be
made, while still allowing sufficient time to complete the fueling top-up in time for an On-time departure.
3.6.3.8 Fuel Cost for various routes
Routes have to be re-assessed continuously and their cost impact evaluated. Detailed Fuel MI can help
monitor unwarranted route or altitude restrictions on certain flights, identify fuel inefficient airports, as well as
document and support arguments for airspace and procedure changes with Regulatory authorities
3.6.3.9 Taxi delays and Gate Hold
In addition to accurately loading the correct taxi fuel at specific airports, closely monitoring taxi times can
help analyze the impact on on-time performance. Accurate taxi times and taxi fuel will help discourage ad
hoc fuel additions by Dispatchers and Crews, as well as facilitate the monitoring and analysis of block time
components for improved scheduling.

Taxi Time & Fuel
1600 35.0

1400 30.0

1200
25.0

1000
Fuel in Kilos

20.0 Average of Planned  Taxi Fuel

800 Average of Taxi Out  fuel
15.0 Average of Taxi Out  Minutes
600
Average of Taxi In  Minutes
10.0
400

200 5.0

0 0.0
B744 Taxi Performance By Departure Station 

Figure 12: B744 Taxi Time & Fuels

3.6.3.10 Effectiveness of New Procedures
Accurate Fuel MI can be used to monitor the impact of introducing new fuel management procedures,
updated navigation changes, improved communication and flight control procedures, and other changes to
aircraft systems or engine overhauls.

3.7 Fuel Efficiency – Success Factors

As detailed above, a successful Fuel Efficiency Improvement / Emissions reduction Plan has certain basic
requirements, as well as common failure points.
3.7.1 Prerequisites for Success
 Corporate and executive Commitment
 A knowledgeable and empowered Fuel Efficiency Manager and Fuel Team
 Comprehensive Cross-Functional planning and execution
 Appropriate Resource allocation
 Comprehensive, timely, and useful Data sources
 Establishment of meaningful tracking Metrics
 Setting prioritized Goals
 Targeted and Measureable efforts
 Assigned Responsibility and Accountability
 Corporate Implementation expertise
 A structured Change Management Plan
 A comprehensive Communications Plan

31
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

3.7.2 Reasons for Potential Failure

 Lack of corporate commitment and support
 Lack of knowledgeable, focused fuel program management
 Lack of project planning and implementation expertise
 Limited or no interaction and cooperation between departments
 No individual accountability
 Lack of accurate and useful data
 Inadequate time and resource allotment
 Minimal communication and employee involvement
 One time focus, no follow through, not-sustained effort

32
4 GENERIC AIRLINE
As a means to detail and quantify the savings potential for the various initiatives that are discussed within
this document, we have created a generic airline named ABC Airlines. This airline has a typical fleet mix
composed of Boeing, Airbus, Regional Jets and turboprop aircraft that are then flown in a mix of long haul
and short-range operations. The fuel burn figures indicate typical fuel burns and for individual airlines, they
should be adjusted to represent the airline’s actual fuel burn for each type of aircraft to represent their
operational specifics. Typical airline profiles for number of cycles and average stage lengths have been
applied to these fleets to create realistic operating conditions. Current price structured for items such as
Crew cost, maintenance costs and the price of fuel are then added to establish the “operating costs” for our
Generic Airline. From this data we are able to quantify the achievable fuel savings and its value in U.S.
dollars and the environmental impact in metric tons for the various initiatives identified.

4.1 Generic Airline Fleet

Using the sample fleets and applying an average fuel price of US$ 2.506 per U.S. gallon the annual fuel
budget for ABC Airlines details as follows:

4.2 Fuel Budget

As a baseline measure for the airline Fuel Efficiency Implementation program, the airline’s fuel budget is a
projection of the total fuel volume to be consumed in the airline’s planned operations for a specified period
(generally a year, or operational season) converted to a total cost to the airline based on the anticipated
average cost of fuel for the respective operating period.

To determine the total fuel budget, the fleet size is multiplied by planned aircraft hours and then multiplied
by average fuel burn per hour to determine required mass, and subsequently multiplied by fuel cost per
mass measure (kg, pounds). Changes to aircraft type, flight hours, aircraft fuel consumption rate, or fuel
price must be normalized in any analysis, comparison, or measurement involving the fuel budget.

Fuel Savings Calculator - ABC Airlines

US$/Gal. US$/Kg US$/Lt US$/lb. CO2 Constant
Fuel Price
$2.506 $0.825 $0.656 $0.374 3.15 CO2/ kg
Number Flt Hrs Total Flt Hrs Flt Burn Burn per Fleet CO2 Total Budget
Aircraft Types
Aircraft per A/C/Yr per Fleet/Yr Kg/Hr Kg/Yr Metric Tons US$
A330-300 12.0 4,760 57,120 5,500 314,160,000 kg 989,604 t $259,182,000
A320-200 28.0 2,645 74,060 2,645 195,888,700 kg 617,049 t $161,608,178
B747-400 06.0 4,733 28,398 10,300 292,499,400 kg 921,373 t $241,312,005
B777-200 12.0 4,852 58,224 6,500 378,456,000 kg 1,192,136 t $312,226,200
B737-700 28.0 2,730 76,440 2,385 182,309,400 kg 574,275 t $150,405,255
CRJ-200 22.0 2,000 44,000 1,200 52,800,000 kg 166,320 t $43,560,000
ATR 72 22.0 2,000 44,000 650 28,600,000 kg 90,090 t $23,595,000
Total Taxi Burn 50,862,747 kg 160,218 t $41,961,766
Total APU Burn 31,011,012 kg 97,685 t $25,584,085
Total 130 382,242 1,526,587,259 kg 4,808,750 t $1,259,434,488

Table 6: Annual Fuel Budget for ABC Airlines

This establishes an annual fuel budget of US$ 1,259 M for ABC Airlines.

4.3 Fuel Penalty

The fuel penalty and the associated cost of fuel in $, are primary input parameters for the determination of
the associated impact to an operation when weight is either added to, or removed from, a flight. The fuel
penalty analysis starts with the determination of a weight factor that is determined by calculating the change
in fuel burn (penalty or savings) for the transport of a unit of weight per flight hour for a given fleet type.

33
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Fuel burn is obviously a function of aircraft and engine type but is also a function of weight, stage length,
flight profile and speed (Cost Index). As a general principle, the weight factor varies from between 2.5%
and 5.0% of the weight change per flight hour. This means that the fuel burn increases or decreases
between 2.5% and 5.0% of the weight change per flight hour. Once the weight factors have been calculated
for each fleet these factors can be used to determine the total change in fuel burn for adding or removing
weight from the fleets and identify the fuel penalty in kgs (or pounds) for each fleet. The fuel penalty is equal
to the weight factor * flight hours * weight change. For ABC Airlines the fuel penalty is as follows:

Number Total Flt Hrs Weight Factor Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Fuel Penalty (kg/yr)
Fuel Penalty
of Aircraft per Fleet/Yr % 1kg - A/C 1kg - Fleet
A330-300 12.0 57,120 3.5% 167 kg 1,999 kg
A320-200 28.0 74,060 3.1% 82 kg 2,296 kg
B747-400 06.0 28,398 4.3% 204 kg 1,221 kg
B777-200 12.0 58,224 3.8% 184 kg 2,213 kg
B737-700 28.0 76,440 3.6% 98 kg 2,752 kg
CRJ-200 22.0 44,000 2.0% 40 kg 880 kg
ATR 72 22.0 44,000 1.9% 38 kg 836 kg
Total 130 382,242 12,197 kg

Table 7: ABC Airlines Fuel Penalty

The cost in US$ can then be easily determined by multiplying the fuel penalty by the fuel cost. In this case
Kgs of fuel * cost of 1 Kg of fuel:

Number Weight Factor Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Cost Penalty (US$)

Fuel Penalty
of Aircraft % 1kg - Fleet 1 kg - Fleet
A330-300 12.0 3.5% 1,999 kg $1,649
A320-200 28.0 3.1% 2,296 kg $1,894
B747-400 06.0 4.3% 1,221 kg $1,007
B777-200 12.0 3.8% 2,213 kg $1,825
B737-700 28.0 3.6% 2,752 kg $2,270
CRJ-200 22.0 2.0% 880 kg $726
ATR 72 22.0 1.9% 836 kg $690
Total 130 12,197 kg $10,062
Table 8: ABC Airlines Fuel Penalty in US$
The cost of weight calculations as shown above do not include factors such as the related wear and tear on
the aircraft or the gain or loss of revenue derived from increasing or decreasing the allowable cabin load for
a flight. Such gains or losses are considered as “intangible” potential losses or gains that the airline might
accrue from the implementation of a fuel efficiency recommendation, but are not factored into the potential
savings in the Fuel Book calculation model.

4.4 Weight Factor Calculations

To determine the weight factors for your airline, you must first collect historical data for flight operations
over several months. The larger the sample the more accurate the resulting weight factor will be. Data
should be collected for the following values for each flight:

 Fleet type
 Actual Flight Time
 Actual Fuel Burn
 Actual ZFW
 Actual Landing Fuel (ON event).

34
 Generic Airline

Microsoft Excel can be used to manage the data and perform the calculations necessary to arrive at the
weight factors. Load the flight data into an Excel spreadsheet and proceed as detailed below:

 Calculate Actual Landing Weight (AZFW + Actual Landing Fuel)

 Calculate Actual Burn per hour (actual fuel burn / actual flight time [in Hours {HH.d}])

The weight factor differs as a function of fleet type, flight time and weight. Calculations need to separate
each fleet into discrete datasets and then subdivide into discrete flight time increments, usually broken into
1-hour blocks (<=1 Hour = 1 Hour, btw 01:00 & 01:59 = 2 Hour). Airlines that have significant historical
data may find that they can further refine the weight factors by grouping their flights into smaller time
brackets of 0:30 min or 0:15 min, rather than 1 hour brackets.

For each fleet and each flight time bracket create an X & Y scatter chart that plots:

 Actual landing weight on the X axis **

 Actual burn per hour on the Y axis **
 Add a trend line to the data using the linear regression option
 Selected the “display formula” option for the trend line

The resulting display presents the slope or rate of change (%) of the fuel burn/hour as a function of landing
weight change – The Weight Factor.

Note: it will be necessary to “clean” the data and remove outliers in the data sample.

B744 weight factors

4 Hours = 3.9%
7 Hours = 4.1%
8 Hours = 4.1%
12 Hours = 4.7%

Figure 13: B747-400 Weight Factor Linear Regression Chart

35
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

A332 Weight Factors

2 Hours = 2.3%
3 Hours = 2.6%
4 Hours = 2.7%
10 Hours = 3.1%
11 Hours = 3.1%

Figure 14: A330-200 Weight Factor Linear Regression Chart

A320-200 weight factors

1 Hour = 2.4%
2 Hours = 3.0%
3 Hours = 3.5%

Figure 15: A320-200 Weight Factor Linear Regression

36
 Generic Airline

4.5 Total Potential, Target and Actual Savings

The airline fuel budget and the fleet fuel penalty values are key baseline values for any fuel efficiency
program. For each fuel efficiency initiative that will be evaluated, additional baseline values must be
determined based on historical data:

 Define specific fuel consumption values for all specific initiatives using the current procedures in
place. In the following chapters this will be referred to as Baseline.
 For all initiatives identify the best case scenario based on revised processes and best practices for
improvement. This will be the Potential Saving expressed in mass. In real airline operations this
potential saving can very rarely be achieved due to various external and internal factors, e.g.
regulations, operational restrictions, weather, ATM or compliance with published procedures.
 Define a realistic Target Improvement percentage taking into account all factors that will prevent the
achievement of the potential savings.
 The savings can then be estimated as follows:

 Fuel Burn Reduction = Potential Savings * Target Improvement %

 CO2 Emission Reduction = Fuel Burn Reduction * 3.15
 Financial Savings = Fuel Burn Reduction * Fuel Price

The objective is to convert the operational data into financial based information that the Fuel Team can use
to determine the relative cost and potential financial benefit associated with proposed fuel initiatives.

It is essential that data be collected and analyzed before any initiative can be started. Within each identified
initiative the Fuel Team should identify:

 The data elements needed to track the initiative – Operational Performance Measures (OPMs) and
how these will roll up to support corporate KPIs
 Determine how much data is needed before the initiative can be started
 Clearly identify current performance for the specific improvement target - current behavior Baseline
 Identify the Total Potential Improvement (100% Performance)
 Identify Target % (achievable) of Operations

The identified baselines are starting points for measurement of progress. The complexity of each individual
initiative Baseline (current behavior) will be a function of how much data is on hand. A simple baseline might
be a single data point such as the average APU hours per cycle for a given fleet however many aspects of
fuel performance are affected by seasonal differences:

 Alternate fuel loads

 Extra fuel
 APU usage

Seasonal baselines (example: Avg Altn Fuel/Month) will allow for month to month and eventually year to
year comparisons of performance.

Once the initiative is underway it is critical to measure actual performance and identify change in from the
baseline values and quantify results in Kgs of fuel reduction and $ saved. Day-to-day monitoring of actual
performance against targets will ensure that trends are correctly identified and used to ensure that the
initiative is achieving the desired result.

For more details on implementing a fuel efficiency program refer to the “IATA Fuel Program Implementation
Guidance Material”.

37
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

38
5 MANAGEMENT OF APU UTILIZATION
The APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) is a basic power source for the aircraft, both as an additional or auxiliary
power source in the air, as well as a primary power source while the aircraft is parked on the ground (where
no alternative power is available).

From both a fuel efficiency and related cost reduction standpoint, a major opportunity for improvement in
airline fuel efficiency is the reduction of APU utilization. For most airlines, APU operation is typically an area
of high utilization, high fuel consumption, and costly maintenance. APU fuel consumption typically averages
2% – 2.5% of an airline’s total fuel budget. Depending on model, age, and operating parameters, APU
utilization also represents considerable maintenance expense both in time and resources.

The objective of this portion of an overall airline fuel efficiency program is to reduce the utilization of APU as
a primary aircraft power source on the ground, if, and where, there are alternative, less expensive sources of
ground power.

While a significant opportunity, management of APU utilization is also a major problem to control for most
airlines primarily because no one department “owns” or controls APU utilization and management. The APU
is used by many operational departments (Flight Operations, Maintenance, Ground Operations) to support
essential aircraft activities (i.e. engine start and taxi), to provide passenger comfort if no ground conditioned
air is available, as well as to facilitate maintenance servicing and a variety of servicing activities on a daily
basis (i.e. cabin cleaning, catering).

As a starting point in evaluating the fuel efficiency improvement, emissions reduction, and cost savings
potentials related to APU operations, consider the following cost and emission comparisons:

 APU fuel consumption and related emissions average 10x – 20x more than alternative ground power
options
 APU use averages 4x the cost of GPU/Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) Operation
 APU use may average 10x the cost of Jetway power/PCA

These cost relationships are purely for illustration purposes. There are many types of APUs and there are
many factors which impact the cost of operation. Individual airlines may have higher or lower costs of
operation. Establishing actual cost will involve assessing the network plan and overall airline operations, the
airline’s cost of money, specific GSE equipment required, contract provisions with service providers, airport
gate lease provisions, and airport use fees and regulations.

While the cost reduction potential regarding APU use is significant, the costs to develop alternative sources
may also be significant. The challenge in developing the financial justification to fund a change will be to
accurately identify all of the costs and benefits which will influence the expected financial results associated
with a reduction in APU utilization fuel initiative. In determining potential fuel and cost savings from this
initiative, the Fuel Team will need to assess the cost to own / fuel / maintain the APU compared to the cost /
benefit of alternative power sources including:

 Purchasing / Leasing Ground Power (GPU) and Ground Air Conditioning units (PCA) - cost to own,
lease, operate, maintain, repair, replace GPU/ PCAs
 Having Service Companies provide GPU/PCA as part of aircraft servicing contract
 Contracting / Utilizing airport Jetway power and air conditioning, where available

To illustrate, the cost of APU operations will average $200 - $250 per hour for a typical airline fleet-mix (fuel
and maintenance). Ground power and air conditioning units range in price from $50,000 - $150,000
depending on size of aircraft and onboard electrical compatibility. However, at an active airport or gate with
an aircraft schedule requiring 8–10 hours of APU usage per day, the financial payback period would normally

39
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

be approximately one year. Contract service or airport use fees will vary by airport, but will normally average
one-half to one-third of the cost for APU operation.

5.1 Determining APU Utilization

Despite significant demonstrated cost and emission saving potential, IATA studies have determined that
most airlines far underestimate their APU utilization and related costs. Typically,

 APU utilization is not tracked at a user level, as a result:

 there are no measurements to determine actual source of utilization

 there is no clear accountability for the associated operational costs

 Establishing control and accountability is difficult as

 multiple departments use the APU with no process for transferring control
 there are no coordinated policies for APU operation, or they are largely ignored
 there are no clear lines of responsibility as to who is to control APU use

 IATA assessments find that total actual cost of APU utilization far exceeds company belief at a
system level

5.2 Factors Influencing APU utilization

A number of operational and business considerations influence overall APU utilization, including:

 Operational Policy – standard procedure, training, monitoring, compliance – when, how long, under
what conditions the APU is to be operated
 Ground Power (GPU) and Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) availability and aircraft electrical compatibility –
company owned / leased equipment, or contracted services.
 Airport Services – gate or pad operations, Jetway power and cabin air conditioning
 Available Data – aircraft and corporate IT systems to provide / support required data collection,
analysis, and reporting to enable effective management and control
 Financial Impact – cost of APU fuel and maintenance, compared to cost of GSE to own, lease,
maintain, repair, replace, upgrade, or contract services

Company policy and the availability of alternative ground power / air conditioning are major contributors to
excessive APU utilization. To effectively control APU utilization, policies for the operation of the APU should
be clearly defined and coordinated across the various departmental lines which can influence APU
utilization, including flight crew, maintenance personnel, airline ground personnel, and contracted ground
handling companies.

Some essential factors or policies to address during the program development phase include:

 Minimum APU start time prior to departure with no GPU/PCA available (by aircraft type)
 Minimum start time with adequate GPU/PCA available
 Cabin temperature standards which authorize APU use for customer comfort (exceptions to normal
company policy)
 Company policy regarding APU usage, or GPU availability, during

 aircraft transit, turnaround, layover, remain overnight (RON)

 maintenance activities
 aircraft cleaning
 aircraft repositioning

40
 Management of APU Utilization

 GPU/PCA resources available/contracted at home base and/or major hub operations

 GPU/PCA resources available/contracted at what % of down-line cities served, for what level of
scheduled flight activity

As noted above, availability of suitable ground power is often a major determinant in the ability to reduce or
minimize APU utilization at a system level. However, IATA frequently observes that although alternative
ground power sources are readily available on a Jetway, in the gate area, or in remote parking areas, the
APU is left to run continuously throughout the aircraft turnaround process. The justification for APU utilization
is frequently stated as aircraft turn-time efficiency. Turn-time should not be impacted by APU operations if
reliable ground power is available, and proper aircraft handling processes are followed. To illustrate, in
airports where APU operation is limited by airport regulation, research of operational data does not indicate
any appreciable difference in turn-time performance, despite not being permitted to run the APU during the
aircraft turnaround process.

Further, the need for APU operation is often justified by a perceived need to continuously maintain cabin
temperature at a certain level. However, in areas or seasons of moderate climate, or in a short ground time
operation, APU utilization can be optimized with minimal impact on customer comfort, with the exception of a
limited number of excessively hot or cold days. This scenario is further improved if there is pre-conditioned
air (PCA) available on the Jetway, or thru GSE support.

More often than not, the actual reason for continuous APU utilization, in lieu of GPU and PCA, is employee
ease of process or convenience. Proper training and management oversight can help to minimize
unnecessary use of the APU.

In summary, the requirements for APU use will vary for each airline based on several factors, including

 Operating environment - station turn-time and ambient temperatures

 Aircraft parking locations – gate, remote pad
 Availability of fixed or mobile GPU and Air conditioning (PCA) equipment – company owned/leased,
thru contract service providers, or airport resources (on Jetway or pad)
 Available power source compatibility with aircraft systems
 Ground support staffing levels and qualified manpower resources
 Contracted ground support service agreements and pricing
 Airport gate or pad lease, use agreements and fees

Each of these factors must be reviewed in a comprehensive cost/benefit assessment to determine the
appropriate financial, service, and operational balance to support corporate business objectives in
addressing the potential for APU utilization reduction.

5.3 APU Utilization Reduction Program

There are basically two major components of an effective APU reduction program:

 Changes to policy, procedures, processes, and performance

 Changes to available alternative resources (GPU/ PCA)

With regard to policy and procedures, each operational department or function will need to assess their
respective roles and responsibilities in controlling APU utilization, and determine how best to contribute to an
overall APU utilization reduction program. Representation on the Fuel Efficiency Team with regard to APU
reduction initiatives will require a broad spectrum of company disciplines to coordinate an effective program.
Potential changes to when and how the APU is operated will directly involve Ground Operations, Flight
Operations, Maintenance, and Contract Service providers.

However, as a corporate initiative, it will also be necessary to determine the current inventory of ground
power and air-conditioning resources already owned / leased / contracted in the airline’s operational system.

41
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

In addition, the airline will need to assess the availability of, and potential to obtain, additional GPU/PCA
resources either through purchase, lease, or contract.

Developing or controlling alternative power resources will require participation from Supply Chain (contract
management, and purchasing), Finance (capital equipment / GSE), Engineering (aircraft compatibility), and
corporate Safety.

Supply Chain will need to determine availability and cost of ground power services from existing service
providers or airports, as well as the cost to purchase / lease required equipment in the open market. Finance
must determine appropriate financial “cost / benefit” implications associated with capital investment, leasing
arrangements, and return on investment (ROI).

Developing an effective APU fuel efficiency program is a complex effort requiring significant cross-divisional
cooperation and labor-intensive observation in order to:

 Develop an accurate baseline to determine actual current usage rates and cost
 Allocate APU use to responsible operational department - conduct a representative number of
observations to determine where, why, how long, who is using the APU
 Review current policies, procedures, training for all operational departments
 Determine level of compliance with existing company policies
 Inventory and price available alternative resources
 Establish realistic targets for improvement
 Develop realistic quick-win, short-term, and long-term recommendations
 Create required data base for monitoring and managing improvements
5.3.1 APU Fuel Consumption - Developing a Baseline
The initial/baseline calculation for APU utilization begins with the airline’s total APU usage statistics, burn
rates, and APU related fuel consumption. As noted herein, specific APU utilization data may not be tracked
or calculated within the airline’s normal data reporting systems. As an example, the airline may only track
total fuel consumed on a flight, not specific APU fuel consumption. The airline may need to compare industry
benchmarks to assist in estimating appropriate APU run times. If conclusive burn rate data is not available
internally, the airline should consult the aircraft or APU manufacturer to obtain a standard APU burn rate.
Long-range aircraft tend to have high APU utilization per cycle, and short-range aircraft typically have low
APU utilization per cycle, but have high total APU usage per day. For the sample ABC Airlines, the pre-
reduction-initiative or baseline annual APU utilization and fuel cost is shown below. (Note: As maintenance
costs vary widely from airline to airline, APU maintenance cost is not included in this example).

Total APU Costs APU Hrs APU Hrs APU Hrs Burn APU Hrs per A/C Total APU Fuel
Present APU Fuel Burn Present CO2 Emissions Metric Tons
Present Operation per Cycle per Yr per FH kg/hr per Yr Cost in US$
A330-300 2.10 19,102 0.33 210 1,592 4,011,336 kg 12,636 t $3,309,352
A320-200 1.22 58,755 0.79 125 2,098 7,344,400 kg 23,135 t $6,059,130
B747-400 2.85 11,081 0.39 450 1,847 4,986,360 kg 15,707 t $4,113,747
B777-200 2.68 21,708 0.37 312 1,809 6,772,896 kg 21,335 t $5,587,639
B737-700 1.25 49,700 0.65 110 1,775 5,467,000 kg 17,221 t $4,510,275
CRJ-200 0.61 24,290 0.55 100 1,104 2,429,020 kg 7,651 t $2,003,942
ATR 72 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 kg 0t $0
Total 0 184,636 0 0 0 31,011,012 kg 97,685 t $25,584,085

Table 9: APU Utilization for ABC Airlines

5.3.1.1 APU Data Sources
The most accurate way to determine accurate APU fuel burn is to monitor and track actual APU hours and
multiply the results by the specific APU fuel burn per hour. Actual APU hours can be recorded and reported
in several different ways.

42
 Management of APU Utilization

There are numerous aircraft configurations that may support APU tracking. Many APU aircraft installations
feature an APU hour-meter or an electronic control unit (ECU) for the APU engine. The hour-meter and the
ECU data can be read using different techniques depending on the aircraft configuration. On some aircraft,
APU hours can be accessed by the use of a Portable Maintenance Access Terminal (PMAT) or similar
device. On other aircraft types, the Multifunction Control Display Unit (MCDU) in the cockpit can be used to
download and access this information.

Some airlines monitor the APU hours of utilization indirectly by using a ratio of APU hours to aircraft hours or
cycles calculation. This method will obviously not allow monitoring actual change in APU operations as the
APU hour totals will only vary as a function of a change in aircraft hours or cycles.

The most effective fuel efficiency projects leverage actual APU hour information extracted from an APU hour
meter or ECU to monitor and track APU utilization.

For aircraft APU installations that do not have APU hour-meters or ECUs installed, and cannot be retrofitted,
the actual APU use should be recorded manually by the use of the flight or maintenance tech logs.

Regardless of data source or collection method, the basic APU data requirements include:

 Departure station and Destination station

 APU On Time
 Aircraft Out-Time, APU off time, Aircraft Off-Time
 Aircraft On-Time, APU start time, Aircraft In-Time, APU off time
 APU utilization in service/handling activities (on/off times)
 APU fuel consumption per hour

Because APU utilization data is heavily aircraft and maintenance related, and the associated ground power
utilization information is typically dispersed throughout the airline system, IT will need to play a big part in
determining the existing data sources, and how best to access / mine those sources for initiative-relevant
information.
5.3.1.2 Data and Information Inventory
In addition to specific APU utilization data, aircraft data, flight data, and fuel consumption information to
support APU utilization analysis and metrics should be available through the airline’s flight and maintenance
technical data reporting systems.

Determining the actual purpose and allocation of APU operations will require observation of a representative
sample of related flight crew procedures, aircraft servicing processes, maintenance activities.

Determining current and alternative sources of power will require a survey of each airport regarding company
internal resources, airport provided power and air conditioning, service company equipment and capabilities,
as well as market availability and pricing of lease or purchase equipment. The survey should assess:

 Aircraft compatibility with available GPU / PCA

 Airport provided services and aircraft parking locations (jetway power, pre-conditioned air / PCA,
gate or pad operations)
 Operating environment / climate (for customer and maintenance servicing)
 Standard ground times for turnaround operations
 Availability of functional ground service equipment and qualified manpower resources at each station
served (company internal and service contractors)
 Financial considerations (capital resources, lease terms)
 Contract pricing (service charges from vendors, airport authorities)

43
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

5.3.2 Allocation of APU Utilization

As noted above, the major problem in developing an APU utilization reduction effort is that the APU is used
by many operational departments (Flight Operations, Maintenance, and Ground Operations), often with no
direct operational, budgetary, or financial responsibility. For an APU fuel efficiency initiative to be effective, it
is important to accurately track and allocate APU utilization to determine the actual reason for use, the
potential for reduction, and the accountable management department that can affect the needed change.
This allocation should reflect the amount of time the APU is required to be run as a “direct result” of required
Flight Operations procedures, in support of Ground handling and servicing, or to facilitate required
Maintenance activities.

As an example, if the flight crew runs the APU throughout aircraft turnaround servicing because no GSE is
available, that time should be attributable to Ground Operations, and not Flight Operations. If the APU is left
to run during turnaround operations, per company policy regardless of ground power availability, that time is
also attributed to Ground Operations. If maintenance is required to run the APU in order to conduct
maintenance activities, such APU usage should be allocated to Maintenance. If the Flight Crew is required to
run the APU before departure pushback to facilitate onboard electronic alignment, that APU time should be
charged to Flight Operations. If the APU is required to provide cabin air conditioning in accordance with
company policy that time should be attributed to Ground Operations. If the flight crew elects to run the APU
for air conditioning or aircraft preparations in excess of company standards that time should be attributed to
Flight Operations.

The key in allocating or attributing the actual APU use to a specific department is consistency of the
allocation. The objective is to determine a realistic % of total APU utilization attributable to each major
operational discipline’s services, activities, and policies in order to establish responsibility and accountability
for controlling the respective portions of APU utilization and managing potential change initiatives.

At a detail level, it is necessary to develop specific APU usage information by aircraft type, by flight, by
airport, by operation being performed, all with the goal of determining exactly how, when, where, who, and
how long the APU is operated in each phase of airline operations. This data will be critical to the financial
analysis required to develop the APU portion of the airline’s overall fuel efficiency /emissions reduction
program.

For illustration purposes in this manual, numerous IATA assessments indicate that for most airlines APU
utilization is broken down approximately as follows:

 70% is associated with functions controlled by Ground Operations (i.e. cabin air conditioning,
turnaround servicing, cleaning, repositioning).
 20% is attributable to Flight Operations (pre-departure preparations, aircraft pushback and engine
start, taxi-out, taxi-in)
 10% is attributable to Maintenance activities (general servicing, troubleshooting, aircraft repair,
remote parking areas, special engine run-ups)

44
 Management of APU Utilization

10%

20%
Ground Operations
Flight Operations
Maintenance
70%

Figure 16: APU Utilization Distribution

While this generic allocation may be used as a good reference point or benchmark comparison, each airline
should develop an accurate APU allocation for their specific operations. That is the only way to establish
clear lines of responsibility and accountability, as well as measure and manage needed change.

Best in class airlines have very detailed and automated APU hour usage recording systems that allow
allocating the APU hours to actual users. Having good APU statistics is essential for a successful APU
utilization reduction program.
5.3.2.1 APU Baseline – Ground Operations
As discussed above, Ground Operations APU utilization essentially is associated with servicing and handling
the aircraft on the ground in preparing for flight and as well as in post-flight processing. Applying the
appropriate Ground Operations allocation of APU utilization to total ABC Airlines APU utilization will enable
the calculation of an APU use baseline specific to Ground Operations (for this example = 70% of total use).

Ground Ops APU Fuel Burn Ground Ops APU Present APU Fuel Present CO2 Emissions Present APU Fuel
APU Hours per Cycle
Present Operation Hours per year Burn Metric Tons Cost in US$
A330-300 1.47 13,371 2,807,935 kg 8,845 t $2,316,547
A320-200 0.85 41,129 5,141,080 kg 16,194 t $4,241,391
B747-400 2.00 7,757 3,490,452 kg 10,995 t $2,879,623
B777-200 1.88 15,196 4,741,027 kg 14,934 t $3,911,347
B737-700 0.88 34,790 3,826,900 kg 12,055 t $3,157,193
CRJ-200 0.43 17,003 1,700,314 kg 5,356 t $1,402,759
ATR 72 0.00 0 0 kg 0t $0
Total 129,245 21,707,708 kg 68,379 t $17,908,859

Table 10: APU Fuel Consumption in Ground Operations

Using this Ground Operations baseline, the Fuel team can then assess the potential for fuel consumption
reduction associated with specific Ground Operations APU initiatives.
5.3.2.2 APU Baseline – Flight Operations
From a Flight Operations (or flight crew) perspective, the primary reasons for APU utilization are related to
pre-departure preparations, aircraft pushback and engine start, taxi-out and taxi-in, and post-arrival
procedures. On occasion, the Flight Crew may also operate the APU to support cabin air conditioning for
customer comfort. Applying the sample allocation for ABC Airlines @ 20% for Flight Operations related
activities:

45
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Flt Ops APU "APU on" Time "APU on" Time "APU on" Time "APU on" Time Total Flt Ops Flt Ops APU CO2 Emissions
FOPS Present
Fuel Burn prior to after during during APU Fuel Burn Metric Tons
APU
Present Block Out Block-In Taxi-Out Present per Fuel Cost in
Taxi- In Minutes Hours per year Present
Operation Minutes Minutes Minutes year US$
A330-300 15' 04' 04' 02' 3,790 795,900 kg 2,507 t $656,618
A320-200 10' 03' 02' 01' 12,843 1,605,333 kg 5,057 t $1,324,400
B747-400 20' 05' 04' 03' 2,074 933,120 kg 2,939 t $769,824
B777-200 15' 04' 04' 02' 3,375 1,053,000 kg 3,317 t $868,725
B737-700 10' 03' 02' 01' 10,603 1,166,293 kg 3,674 t $962,192
CRJ-200 05' 02' 02' 01' 6,637 663,667 kg 2,091 t $547,525
ATR 72 00' 00' 00' 00' 0 0 kg 0t $0
Total 39,321 6,217,313 kg 19,585 t $5,129,284

Table 11: APU Fuel Consumption in Flight Operations

5.3.2.3 APU Baseline - Maintenance Operations
For purposes of the manual, Maintenance requirements for APU utilization are estimated at 10% of total
APU hours. Each airline will differ based on number of maintenance stations, availability of maintenance
hangar facilities, GSE availability to support remote parking maintenance requirements, as well as local
climate conditions. In-depth observation will enable an accurate accounting of maintenance APU utilization
requirements compared to actual APU utilization.

Maintenance
APU Present Present CO2 Present APU
APU Fuel Burn Present APU
Operation Emissions Fuel Cost in
Present Fuel Burn
Hours per year Metric Tons US$
Operation
A330-300 1,940 407,478 kg 1,284 t $336,170
A320-200 4,784 597,988 kg 1,884 t $493,340
B747-400 1,250 562,661 kg 1,772 t $464,195
B777-200 3,137 978,676 kg 3,083 t $807,407
B737-700 4,308 473,861 kg 1,493 t $390,935
CRJ-200 651 65,068 kg 205 t $53,681
ATR 72 0 kg 0t $0
Total 16,070 3,085,733 kg 9,720 t $2,545,729

Table 12: APU Fuel Consumption in Maintenance Operations

5.4 APU Utilization Target Improvement

After establishing the actual percentage of airline APU hours and fuel consumption attributable to Ground
Operations, Flight Operations and Maintenance Operations, and factoring in related data (ex: current
GPU/PCA availability, potential to acquire additional GPU/PCA resources, operating and climate conditions),
it is then possible to establish realistic airline target APU utilization improvement levels based on the:

 type of changes needed and/or possible

 time required to institute recommended resource or policy changes
 required investment in equipment, infrastructure upgrades, or contract services
 extent of required employee, or service provider, communication or training programs

Working in conjunction with appropriate operations department management, targets should be set which
reflect meaningful, aggressive, but achievable goals.

After determining the APU allocation (% of use) and the potential or target improvement (%) for each
operational discipline, apply these calculations to the airline total APU utilization to calculate the potential fuel
consumption reduction (kgs) and savings (US$) associated with the target reductions in APU utilization.

After completing a Target Improvement assessment and related calculations for the operational divisions or
departments, develop an appropriate list of initiatives that will enable achievement of the “Target” fuel

46
 Management of APU Utilization

consumption reductions. Identify recommended operational improvements (best practices), changes to

current policy or service standards, and/or system upgrade enhancements, such as modern GSE or
IT/infrastructure. Establish the data programs and metrics to facilitate tracking actual results associated with
each initiative in progressing towards expected target improvement.

It is important to remember that every initiative will require time to develop and implement. Plan performance
levels and improvement targets must be set accordingly to ensure an accurate measure of progress and to
prevent unrealistic expectations from hampering initiative success.

5.5 Optimization of APU Utilization

As discussed above, there are basically two major components of an effective APU reduction program:

 Changes to policy, procedures, processes, and performance

 Changes to available alternative resources (GPU/ PCA)

However, changes to policy and procedures will have minimal effect on system APU utilization unless
adequate GPU/PCA equipment resources are strategically available throughout the airline’s operation. For
the most part, each of the operational departments will rely on ground equipment resources to support their
ability to optimize APU utilization in their respective policies, procedures, and operational requirements.

While optimization of APU utilization is a multi-department collaborative effort, the assessment of current
GPU/PCA resources, the determination of cost/effective potential resources, and the development of the
associated business case to acquire additional resources will typically begin with Ground Operations.
5.5.1 Reducing APU Utilization – Ground Operations
As the majority of APU usage is on the ground, and the Ground Operations department typically has a
presence or representation at each station served on the airline network, the tasks of determining current
APU utilization, as well as available and potential alternative resources, will largely fall to ground operations
management.

For each airport served, initial detailed data gathering should:

 Inventory current GPU / PCA resources and contracts

 Assess potential sources of alternative GPU / PCA support
 Track APU usage by aircraft type, service performed, operational requirement
 Determine frequency of flights, timing/schedule of operations
 Identify how, when, where, who, and how long the APU is operated
 The following sections will discuss the two major phases of Ground Operations APU utilization
reduction:
 Additional GPU/PCA resources
 Improved operational procedures
5.5.1.1 Additional GPU / PCA Resources
As discussed in Section 5.2, the availability of GPU and PCA resources is a major determinant in the
effectiveness of an APU fuel reduction program. The availability and financial practicality of obtaining
alternative power sources in lieu of APU use is largely determined by the size and scope of the airline’s
operation at each airport served.

In developing an APU utilization reduction initiative it is essential to determine:

 Which stations will enable achievement of the overall APU use reduction target
 An appropriate alternative resource solution for each station (own/lease/contract)
 Financially recommended business case solutions

47
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Availability of corporate financial resources to support business case options

For purposes of this example for ABC Airlines:
 20% of current flights are at stations supported using GPU/PCA
 (Average APU use = 15 minutes = 12 minutes out for pushback and engine start, and 3 minutes in
transitioning to gate/parking and ground power)
 60% of APU hours of operation are at stations with sufficient flight frequency to warrant/support
GPU/PCA purchase or lease
 20% of APU hours of operation are at stations with low flight frequency which suggest contracting a
servicing company to provide GPU/PCA

To illustrate, the following table breaks down ABC Airlines’ current APU use for its whole fleet mix into:

 Stations already equipped and using GPU routinely to support ground operations
 Stations with high-frequency of flights, but without GPU / PCA support
 Stations with low-frequency of flights and without GPU / PCA support

APU Utilization by No of Sched Scheduled Current APU

No of Ground Ops APU
Category of Aircraft APU hrs Flights per Flights Fuel Burn by
Stations by Hours per year
Operation Type per cycle Station per Completed Station
Category Present
Present Operation year % Category
Current GPU Ops A330-300 0 5 364 0.990 468.468 98378.280
No GPU Hi Freq Stn A330-300 2 15 365 0.990 9712.980 2039725.715
No GPU Lo Freq Stn A330-300 2 10 180 0.990 3189.780 669853.800
Subtotal A330-300 9,095 13371.2276 2807957.795
Current GPU Ops A320-200 0 5 1,824 0.985 2245.800 280725.000
No GPU Hi Freq Stn A320-200 1 20 1,456 0.985 29013.917 3626739.662
No GPU Lo Freq Stn A320-200 1 32 310 0.985 9868.912 1233614.000
Subtotal A320-200 48,160 41128.6293 5141078.662
Current GPU Ops B747-400 0 2 362 0.975 176.475 79413.750
No GPU Hi Freq Stn B747-400 2 9 260 0.975 5604.003 2521801.269
No GPU Lo Freq Stn B747-400 2 8 103 0.975 1976.364 889363.800
Subtotal B747-400 3,888 7756.84182 3490578.819
Current GPU Ops B777-200 0 4 405 0.995 402.975 125728.200
No GPU Hi Freq Stn B777-200 2 15 324 0.995 11101.993 3463821.968
No GPU Lo Freq Stn B777-200 2 15 108 0.995 3691.251 1151670.312
Subtotal B777-200 8,100 15196.21949 4741220.48
Current GPU Ops B737-700 0 5 1,592 0.970 1930.300 212333.000
No GPU Hi Freq Stn B737-700 1 17 1,410 0.970 24732.447 2720569.208
No GPU Lo Freq Stn B737-700 1 30 261 0.970 8126.757 893943.270
Subtotal B737-700 39,760 34789.50435 3826845.478
Current GPU Ops CRJ-200 0 5 1,832 0.960 2198.400 219840.000
No GPU Hi Freq Stn CRJ-200 1 22 1,095 0.960 11650.849 1165084.906
No GPU Lo Freq Stn CRJ-200 1 9 730 0.960 3153.600 315360.000
Subtotal CRJ-200 39,820 17,003 1,700,285 kg
Total 148,823 129,245 21,707,966 kg

Table 13: Ground Operations APU Utilization by Category of Operation (Present Operation)
Note: High or low frequency is a function of the number of aircraft operations, as well as the associated
number of hours of APU utilization at that airport. For large aircraft, high frequency may only be one or two
flights per day but when associated with a high frequency of smaller connecting aircraft operations, produces
significant total daily APU use at an airport. The basic consideration is whether the type or frequency of
operation and the total APU requirement will support a positive cost/benefit evaluation for that gate or airport.

48
 Management of APU Utilization

Having identified hours of APU utilization and fuel burn by aircraft type, classified airports by frequency of
flight operation and current availability of GPU, and calculated related total volumes of current APU fuel
consumption, it is then possible to calculate baseline potential savings and set specific initial targets for
improvement associated with the acquisition of alternative aircraft power and air conditioning resources
(buy/lease/contract).

It is important to set realistic objectives based on size and scope of the specific airport operations, as well as
corporate financial resources to support the recommended GPU/PCA resource change. For ABC Airlines the
initial APU fuel consumption target improvement for ground operations has been defined as follows:

 For stations already using GPU - reduce APU run-time by 10%

 For High Frequency stations - convert largest operations to GPU / PCA and reduce APU run time by
50%
 For Low Frequency stations - contract out operations to Airport Service Providers and reduce APU
run time by 40%
Ground Ops
Ground Ops APU Fuel Current APU Fuel Ground Ops
APU Usage Potential Fuel
Consumption by Burn by Station CO2 Reduction APU
Aircraft Type Reduction Savings
Category of Operation Category / Potential Metric Tons Fuel Savings
Target kg/yr
Optimized Operation Improvement in US$
Improvement %
Current GPU Ops A330-300 98,378 kg 10% 9,838 kg 31 t $8,116
No GPU Hi Freq Stn A330-300 2,039,726 kg 50% 1,019,863 kg 3,213 t $841,387
No GPU Lo Freq Stn A330-300 669,854 kg 40% 267,942 kg 844 t $221,052
Total A330-300 2,807,958 kg 1,297,642 kg 4,088 t $1,070,555
Current GPU Ops A320-200 280,725 kg 10% 28,073 kg 88 t $23,160
No GPU Hi Freq Stn A320-200 3,626,740 kg 50% 1,813,370 kg 5,712 t $1,496,030
No GPU Lo Freq Stn A320-200 1,233,614 kg 40% 493,446 kg 1,554 t $407,093
Total A320-200 5,141,079 kg 2,334,888 kg 7,355 t $1,926,283
Current GPU Ops B747-400 79,414 kg 10% 7,941 kg 25 t $6,552
No GPU Hi Freq Stn B747-400 2,521,801 kg 50% 1,260,901 kg 3,972 t $1,040,243
No GPU Lo Freq Stn B747-400 889,364 kg 40% 355,746 kg 1,121 t $293,490
Total B747-400 3,490,579 kg 1,624,588 kg 5,117 t $1,340,285
Current GPU Ops B777-200 125,728 kg 10% 12,573 kg 40 t $10,373
No GPU Hi Freq Stn B777-200 3,463,822 kg 50% 1,731,911 kg 5,456 t $1,428,827
No GPU Lo Freq Stn B777-200 1,151,670 kg 40% 460,668 kg 1,451 t $380,051
Total B777-200 4,741,220 kg 2,205,152 kg 6,946 t $1,819,250
Current GPU Ops B737-700 212,333 kg 10% 21,233 kg 67 t $17,517
No GPU Hi Freq Stn B737-700 2,720,569 kg 50% 1,360,285 kg 4,285 t $1,122,235
No GPU Lo Freq Stn B737-700 893,943 kg 40% 357,577 kg 1,126 t $295,001
Total B737-700 3,826,845 kg 1,739,095 kg 5,478 t $1,434,754
Current GPU Ops CRJ-200 219,840 kg 10% 21,984 kg 69 t $18,137
No GPU Hi Freq Stn CRJ-200 1,165,085 kg 50% 582,542 kg 1,835 t $480,598
No GPU Lo Freq Stn CRJ-200 315,360 kg 40% 126,144 kg 397 t $104,069
Total CRJ-200 1,700,285 kg 730,670 kg 2,302 t $602,803
Total 21,707,966 kg 9,932,035 kg 31,286 t $8,193,929

Table 14: Target Improvement for additional GPU/PCA Resources

Note: Fully GPU supported operations will still require some APU utilization for pushback, engine start, and
aircraft power transition upon gate arrival). Projected savings associated with installing or contracting GPU
capability must be adjusted to reflect these ongoing APU operational requirements.

By acquiring additional ground power and air conditioning resources the estimated fleet fuel burn savings for
ABC Airlines is 9,932,035 kgs/yr, or US$ 8,193,929 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The
corresponding CO2 reduction is 31,286 metric tons per year. The potential monetary savings on fuel will
need to be reduced by the cost to acquire the necessary additional resources.

49
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

After totaling the data from the Target Improvement calculations for each aircraft operating at the airport, the
results can then be used to support the associated business case development to support the acquisition of
APU alternative GPU/PCA resources. Thorough research, good data, and clearly measureable benefits are
the keys to a good business case. Fuel efficiency and cost benefits associated with an APU utilization
reduction program are relatively easy to quantify and will support an effective cost/benefit analysis process.
Presuming sufficient flight activity to support GPU/PCA utilization, such resource acquisitions typically result
in a relatively short payback period with a very positive return on investment (ROI).
5.5.1.2 Ground Operations Policy and Procedures
In addition to managing GPU/PCA resource requirements, Ground Operations (in conjunction with Flight
Operations and Maintenance) can also facilitate significant APU utilization reductions through efficient
processes, good operational communication and coordination, and consistent adherence to well-designed
SOPs.

In assessing airline APU operations, IATA frequently sees the following problems:

 Unattended aircraft with the APU running, often overnight

 APU air conditioning cooling provided to airplanes not in service
 Poor coordination of aircraft arrival and departure processes:

 Ground power not connected in a timely manner upon aircraft arrival

 Shortage of ground personnel to properly utilize available GSE
 Aircraft operating APU where GPU/PCA readily available

 Inadequate SOPs and training for ground handling personnel

 Maintenance performed on aircraft with APU running instead of GPU
 Incompatible or unreliable gate/jetway power

In developing a comprehensive initiative to improve Ground Operations efficiency with regard to APU
utilization, the fuel team will need to assemble the basic airport logistical information discussed in Section
5.3.1, as well as assess the potential for reduction by evaluating:

 Current company policies with respect to APU operation on the ground by all operational personnel
(flight crew, ground handlers, mechanics)
 Current utilization of the APU in ground handling and servicing to include aircraft turnaround
processes, aircraft repositioning movements, and standard layover or RON services such as
cleaning, loading, and fuelling
 Control processes, if any, to control/limit/manage APU utilization while on the ground
 Directives to contracted ground handling companies regarding APU utilization, how communicated,
how monitored
 Awareness of standard data and servicing policies at the operational level by company agents or
contracted service company personnel
 Actual compliance with stated company policies and procedures through focused observations
 Possible alternatives to current operations, policies, procedures
 Baseline information to provide a point of reference to be used in the observation portions of the
analysis to verify level of real-world compliance
 Detailed explanations and data which track required deviation from policy

From a Ground Operations perspective, some essential policies and procedures to evaluate or establish
during the APU fuel efficiency program development phase include:

 Minimum APU start time prior to departure with no GPU/PCA available (by a/c type)
 Minimum start time with adequate GPU/PCA available

50
 Management of APU Utilization

 Cabin temperature standards which authorize APU use for customer comfort (exceptions to normal
company policy)
 Company policy regarding APU usage and GPU/PCA availability, during

 aircraft transit, turnaround, layover, RON

 maintenance activities
 aircraft cleaning
 aircraft repositioning

 Process to alert and coordinate ground crew support for timely handling of aircraft arrival and
departure to minimize APU run-time
 Efficient processes to connect and disconnect ground power and air conditioning as quickly as
possible upon aircraft arrival at the gate or pad, and to facilitate aircraft pushback as soon as
cockpit departure procedures are complete
 Process to communicate ground equipment availability/status to arriving flight crews in order to
coordinate APU use while on a gate or remote parking pad
 Process to alert the responsible management or control function when the APU is being used
outside of defined parameters
 Preventative maintenance and daily serviceability check programs to ensure adequate GPU/PCA
resources are available as needed to minimize APU usage

Airlines should review all of their contracts with airports and ground handling companies. IATA has frequently
observed that airlines pay airports and ground handling contractors to supply ground power and air
conditioning services, but use the APU to support their operations either due to lack of awareness of the
contract specifications at the operational level or due to poor performance on the part of the contracted
service provider. In either scenario, the airline is being penalized financially, and should develop a
coordinated corporate program for managing ground handling contracts regarding APU utilization, including
compliance monitoring and related performance clauses.

As part of an ongoing APU cost reduction program, airlines should establish a process to conduct routine
Cost/Benefit analysis to address APU/GPU requirement changes in future schedules. Proper planning will
ensure required equipment is in position when needed, and will also maximize the fuel and cost benefits to
be derived from reduced APU operations.

After measuring the current state of operations, the potential for reduction in APU use from the various policy
changes and/or performance improvements, as well as the number of flights and type of aircraft to be
affected by the changes or improvements, it is then possible to calculate a Target Improvement value (%, kg,
minutes) associated with cost efficient Ground Operations policies and procedures.

Utilizing the Ground Operations APU baseline information shown in Table 10, and excluding the savings
associated with transitioning to GPU/PCA support as discussed in Section 5.5.1.1, the fuel team can
establish Target Improvement levels and measures specifically associated with changes to Ground
Operations policy, procedures, performance, and/or adherence.

Ground Ops APU Ground Ops Present Net APU Fuel Burn Ground Ops APU Potential Fuel CO2 Reduction Fuel Savings
Policy & Procedure APU Burn Additional GPU/PCA Target Improvement Savings kg/yr Metric Tons US$
A330-300 2,807,958 kg 1,510,316 kg 15% 226,547 kg 714 t $186,902
A320-200 5,141,079 kg 2,806,191 kg 15% 420,929 kg 1,326 t $347,266
B747-400 3,490,579 kg 1,865,991 kg 15% 279,899 kg 882 t $230,916
B777-200 4,741,220 kg 2,536,069 kg 15% 380,410 kg 1,198 t $313,838
B737-700 3,826,845 kg 2,087,750 kg 15% 313,163 kg 986 t $258,359
CRJ-200 1,700,285 kg 969,614 kg 15% 145,442 kg 458 t $119,990
ATR 72 0 kg 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 21,707,966 kg 11,775,931 kg 1,766,390 kg 5,564 t $1,457,271

Table 15: Target Improvement Ground Operations – Policy and Procedures

51
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

By implementing cost-efficient ground operations policies and procedures the estimated fleet fuel burn
savings for ABC Airlines is 1,776,390 kgs/yr, or US$ 1,457,271 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram.
The corresponding CO2 reduction is 5,564 metric tons per year.

Combining the benefits to be derived from a comprehensive program to acquire additional GPU/PCA
resources with the benefits to be achieved through improved process and procedures can result in significant
fuel burn and fuel cost reduction.

Ground Ops APU Additional GPU/PCA Policy & Procedure Potential Fuel Savings CO2 Reduction Fuel Savings
Total Reduction Savings Savings kg/yr Metric Tons US$
A330-300 1,297,642 kg 226,547 kg 1,524,190 kg 4,801 t $1,257,456
A320-200 2,334,888 kg 420,929 kg 2,755,817 kg 8,681 t $2,273,549
B747-400 1,624,588 kg 279,899 kg 1,904,486 kg 5,999 t $1,571,201
B777-200 2,205,152 kg 380,410 kg 2,585,562 kg 8,145 t $2,133,089
B737-700 1,739,095 kg 313,163 kg 2,052,258 kg 6,465 t $1,693,113
CRJ-200 730,670 kg 145,442 kg 876,113 kg 2,760 t $722,793
ATR 72 0 kg 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
Total 9,932,035 kg 1,766,390 kg 11,698,425 kg 36,850 t $9,651,201

Table 16: Total Ground Ops APU Reduction Potential

Through targeted acquisition of additional GPU/PCA resources along with implementation of more efficient
APU fuel burn ground operations policies and procedures the estimated fleet fuel burn savings for ABC
Airlines is 11,698,425 kgs/yr, or US$ 9,651,201 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding
CO2 reduction is 36,850 metric tons per year.
5.5.2 Reducing APU Utilization - Flight Operations
As explained in Section 5.3.2.2, Flight Operations use of the APU is primarily related to pre-departure
preparations, aircraft pushback and engine start, taxi-out and taxi-in, and post-arrival procedures.

In situations where APU use is required and cannot be avoided, the flight crew (as well as ground crews and
maintenance personnel) can significantly reduce APU fuel burn by managing the aircraft air conditioning
system output (pneumatic) to match climate conditions and/or passenger comfort cabin temperature demand
(packs on or packs off).
5.5.2.1 Flight Operations Policy and Procedures
Excessive APU usage by Flight Crews is often the result of inadequate communication and coordination with
Ground Operations. The following items contribute to the high use of the APU:

 Poor coordination of the arrival and departure processes with ground personnel
 Flight crews unaware that ground servicing equipment is available and/or has already been paid for
as part of a servicing contract or gate lease
 Crews departing the aircraft after completing their flight duties and leaving the APU running with no
turnover to the resident ground personnel
 Unnecessary operation of APU during taxi, takeoff and landing
 Inadequate SOPs regarding use of APU pre-departure, during taxi, post-arrival
 Lack of APU policy training and related APU fuel efficiency program involvement of flight crew
personnel

A comprehensive review of Flight Operations APU utilization and potential for reduction should include:

 Type of aircraft, flight frequency, aircraft power requirements

 Current utilization in each phase of flight crew operation of the APU, including pre-departure
preparations, taxi-in/out, post-arrival processes
 Correlation of availability of required GPU/PCA at each station served
 Current Flight Operations policies with respect to APU operation on the ground

52
 Management of APU Utilization

 Evaluation of actual compliance with published Flight Ops policies and procedures
 Capability or process to communicate ground equipment availability/status to arriving flight crews in
order to coordinate APU use while on a gate or remote parking pad
 A detailed explanation and database to track deviations from policy
 An assessment of possible alternatives to current operations, policies, or procedures

Numerous aircraft reporting systems can provide the necessary data to measure and track actual APU use
and related fuel burn associated with Flight Crew preparations for departure, taxi, and arrival (Section
5.3.1.1).

Understanding where, on which aircraft, and for how long the APU is being used can focus the Flight Ops
department on potential corrective action. Refer to Table 11 for the baseline APU Fuel Consumption in Flight
Operations.

As part of an overall Flight Operations APU reduction program, revised SOPs, targeted training, routine crew
communications, and inter-departmental coordination should focus on establishing:

 Minimum APU start time prior to departure with no GPU/PCA available (by a/c type)
 Minimum start time with adequate GPU/PCA available
 Cabin temperature standards which authorize APU use for customer comfort (exceptions to normal
company policy)
 Company policy regarding APU use during aircraft transit, turnaround, layover, RON
 Process to alert and coordinate ground crew support for timely handling of aircraft arrival and
departure to minimize APU run-time
 Process to communicate ground equipment availability/status to flight crews in order to coordinate
APU use while on a gate or remote parking pad
 Process to alert the responsible management or control function when the APU is being used
outside of defined parameters

Flight crew adherence to well-designed policy and procedures, along with proper ground operations support,
can enable Flight Operations to significantly reduce related APU usage as detailed below in Table 17.
Recognizing the variability in aircraft handling operations and airport operating conditions, it is understood
that “optimized” operations are not always possible on every flight. For this reason, target improvement
levels should be based on the type of aircraft, the total time of APU operation required, and the likely
operating conditions to be encountered. Regardless, even modest improvements can result in significant
reductions in APU utilization by Flight Operations.

By executing well designed flight operations policies and procedures the estimated fleet fuel burn savings for
ABC Airlines is 871,469 kgs/yr, or US$ 718,962 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding
CO2 reduction is 2,745 metric tons per year.

Target "APU Target "APU Target "APU Target "APU FOPS Potential
FOPS APU APU FOPS Burn FOPS Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction FOPS APU
on" Time on" Time on" Time on" Time APU
Optimized prior to Block prior to Block In during Taxi In during Taxi Out Fuel Savings in Fuel Savings in
Optimized Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons
Operation Out Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes kg US$
A330-300 10' 03' 03' 01' 541,212 kg 254,688 kg 50% 127,344 kg 401 t $105,059
A320-200 05' 02' 01' 01' 903,000 kg 702,333 kg 25% 175,583 kg 553 t $144,856
B747-400 10' 04' 03' 02' 554,040 kg 379,080 kg 50% 189,540 kg 597 t $156,371
B777-200 10' 03' 03' 01' 716,040 kg 336,960 kg 50% 168,480 kg 531 t $138,996
B737-700 05' 02' 01' 01' 656,040 kg 510,253 kg 25% 127,563 kg 402 t $105,240
CRJ-200 02' 01' 01' 01' 331,833 kg 331,833 kg 25% 82,958 kg 261 t $68,441
ATR 72 00' 00' 00' 00' 0 kg 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
Total 3,702,165 kg 2,515,148 kg 871,469 kg 2,745 t $718,962

Table 17: Flight Operations APU Fuel Burn – Optimized Operation

5.5.2.2 Air Conditioning Operations (Packs)
The APU is not only a source of electrical power, but also provides pneumatic (bleed air) support to enable
cabin air conditioning of the aircraft while on the ground.

53
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

The use of bleed air for air conditioning the aircraft increases APU fuel consumption considerably. In
situations when APU utilization is required, either for electrical power and air conditioning, or to augment
inadequate ground air conditioning resources, the load / demand on the APU should be minimized and bleed
air used only when necessary for passenger comfort or specified maintenance tasks.

When no passengers are on board and the ambient temperature is moderate, but the APU is required for
electrical power, it is possible to reduce the APU fuel burn by turning off all or one of the Pressurization and
Air Conditioning “Packs”. Using pneumatics / “packs” only when necessary can minimize the pneumatic load
by as much as 35%.

By implementing “No Pack” operations, the estimated fleet fuel burn savings for ABC Airlines is 2,680,408
kgs/yr, or US$ 2,211,336 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is
8,443 metric tons per year.

Note: The calculations below reflect target improvement and potential savings based on current total ABC
Airlines APU use reduced by Flight Operations optimized operation of the APU as a standalone initiative. As
other APU fuel efficiency initiatives reduce total airline APU utilization hours, the potential “no pack” and
“single pack” impact will obviously be reduced. However, from an APU fuel reduction “quick win” perspective,
reducing “pack” use is a relatively simple process to implement without the need for additional GPU / PCA
resources or inter-departmental cooperation and support.

Flight Ops APU Fuel Savings Remaining Potential Savings Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
"No Pack" Operation No Pack kg APU Hrs kg/yr Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings US$
A330-300 70 kg 16,524 1,156,708 kg 30% 347,012 kg 1,093 t $286,285
A320-200 30 kg 51,531 1,545,936 kg 30% 463,781 kg 1,461 t $382,619
B747-400 158 kg 9,850 1,556,237 kg 30% 466,871 kg 1,471 t $385,169
B777-200 135 kg 19,413 2,620,755 kg 30% 786,227 kg 2,477 t $648,637
B737-700 35 kg 43,736 1,530,760 kg 30% 459,228 kg 1,447 t $378,863
CRJ-200 25 kg 20,972 524,297 kg 30% 157,289 kg 495 t $129,763
ATR 72 0 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
Total 162,026 8,934,692 kg 2,680,408 kg 8,443 t $2,211,336

Table 18: Potential APU Fuel Burn Reduction – No Pack Operation

On Airbus aircraft, it is possible to reduce the APU fuel cost, and still augment air conditioning requirements,
by using a single air conditioning pack.

By implementing, wherever possible and cost-efficient, “Single Pack” operations, the estimated fleet fuel
burn savings for ABC Airlines is 437,466 kgs/yr, or US$ 360,910 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram.
The corresponding CO2 reduction is 1,378 metric tons per year.

Flight Ops APU Fuel Savings Remaining Potential Savings Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Single Pack Operation 1 Pack kg APU Hrs kg/yr Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 35 kg 16,524 578,354 kg 40% 231,342 kg 729 t $190,857
A320-200 10 kg 51,531 515,312 kg 40% 206,125 kg 649 t $170,053
B747-400 9,850 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
B777-200 19,413 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
B737-700 -12 kg 43,736 -524,832 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
CRJ-200 20,972 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0 0 kg 0 kg 0t $0
Total 162,026 568,834 kg 437,466 kg 1,378 t $360,910

Table 19: Potential APU Fuel Burn Reduction – Single Pack Operation
Note: This procedure does not apply to most Boeing aircraft types. On some aircraft types, the use of single
air conditioning pack on the ground will switch the APU pneumatics to high bleed and actually increase fuel
consumption.

54
 Management of APU Utilization

Identification and realization of the benefits of reduced “pack” operations requires detailed analysis to
differentiate the results of this specific initiative (from other initiatives discussed under Flight Operations,
Ground Operations, and Maintenance) in order to ensure double accounting of benefits does not occur. For
that reason, the total savings demonstrated for “no pack’ and “single pack” operations are not included in the
total APU savings detailed in Section 5.5.4. A focused reduced “pack” initiative will notably improve overall
APU reduction program results.
5.5.3 Reducing APU Utilization – Maintenance Operations
In addition to managing APU utilization in maintenance activities, Maintenance and Engineering can play an
important role in helping to establish an accurate APU usage monitoring process and system for the airline.
Maintenance is normally responsible for overall APU utilization tracking (hours recording) and likely retains
much of the required data for an APU management program. The Maintenance department must handle any
aircraft equipment or system changes to support an automated APU monitoring system. M&E can therefore
play a vital role in the development of automated processes to support a comprehensive APU utilization
reduction program for the airline.

Due to the extended time required for many maintenance activities on the aircraft, the use of ground power
in maintenance activities is essential. Hangar bays require adequate electrical power to support maintenance
work requirements, as well as to minimize the need to take the aircraft out of the hangar and use the APU to
complete required work. Aircraft in service also need ground power during extended and/or routine
maintenance activities. In assessing the cost/benefit of alternative power sources for the airline, the entire
ground operation at an airport should be considered including aircraft servicing, aircraft cleaning, and
maintenance requirements. As part of this financial analysis, M&E should develop a system to track APU
usage and related costs, including APU maintenance cost.
5.5.3.1 Maintenance Policy and Procedures
A comprehensive review of Maintenance APU utilization and potential for reduction should include:

 Type of aircraft, flight frequency, maintenance services performed at each station

 Availability of required GSE to support maintenance operations at each location
 Current Maintenance policies with respect to APU operation
 Control processes, if any, to control/limit APU utilization
 Directives to contracted maintenance service companies regarding APU utilization
 Evaluation of actual compliance with stated Maintenance policies and procedures
 An explanation and database accounting for any deviation from policy
 An assessment of possible alternatives to current operations, policies, procedures

In addition to working to reduce APU utilization in maintenance operations, Maintenance must also support
the airline by ensuring adequate and aircraft compatible electrical ground power, air conditioning and heater
equipment is available to support the entire airline operation, including Maintenance, at each airport. This
includes the preventative maintenance, routine servicing, and a realistic replacement schedule for the
equipment. Many airlines have well maintained GSE that is in excess of 20 years old. While well-maintained
in most cases, such equipment may not be capable of providing the refinement of electrical power required
for modern aircraft computerized systems, and may need to be scheduled for replacement. Maintenance
needs to stay abreast of aircraft and airline requirements to ensure appropriate, cost-effective, GPU/PCA is
available as required throughout the airline network.

Note: Where possible the use of alternative fuels for the ground support equipment may also provide a
reduction in air pollution as compared to conventional fuels.

An airline typically employs many contracts for maintenance and ground power purposes, particularly at non-
hub and down-line stations. Whether the contract is with an airport or maintenance support provider, close
scrutiny of the contract performance should be maintained. Many airlines contract with ground power
providers, yet when the equipment is unserviceable the airlines revert back to APU use. Often the combined

55
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

cost of the contract and the use of APU results in an increase in overall cost. Contracted providers must be
accountable for failed service. The objective of the contract must be to reduce APU operation and related
costs.

For ABC Airlines, a 30% reduction in APU Maintenance utilization would result in an approximate one million
Kg reduction in APU related fuel consumption.

By comprehensively reviewing Maintenance APU utilization, the estimated fleet fuel burn savings for ABC
Airlines is 925,720 kgs/yr, or US$ 763,719 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 2,916 metric tons per year.

Target Target
Maintenance
APU Present Maintenance Maintenance
APU Utilization Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total Savings in
Operation APU use Reduction in
Optimized Savings Kgs Metric Tons US$
Hours per year Improvement APU hours per
Operation
% year
A330-300 1,940 30% 582 122,243 kg 385 t $100,851
A320-200 4,784 30% 1,435 179,396 kg 565 t $148,002
B747-400 1,250 30% 375 168,798 kg 532 t $139,259
B777-200 3,137 30% 941 293,603 kg 925 t $242,222
B737-700 4,308 30% 1,292 142,158 kg 448 t $117,281
CRJ-200 651 30% 195 19,521 kg 61 t $16,104
ATR 72 0 0 0 kg 0t $0
Total 16,070 4,821 925,720 kg 2,916 t $763,719

Table 20: Potential APU Fuel Burn Reduction – Maintenance

5.5.4 Summary APU Fuel Consumption Reduction

By combining the APU utilization reduction programs discussed above for each of the major operational
divisions, the total fleet fuel burn savings for ABC Airlines is approximately 13.5 million kgs/yr and US$ 11.1
million at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is almost 43,000 metric
tons per year.
Total APU Fuel Target Fuel Total APU % of Present
Savings Savings CO2 Reduction Savings in APU
Ground Ops,
Fuel Burn
Flight Ops, Kgs Metric Tons US$
Savings
Maintenance
A330-300 1,773,777 kg 5,587 t $1,463,366 44%
A320-200 3,110,796 kg 9,799 t $2,566,407 42%
B747-400 2,262,825 kg 7,128 t $1,866,830 45%
B777-200 3,047,645 kg 9,600 t $2,514,307 45%
B737-700 2,321,979 kg 7,314 t $1,915,633 42%
CRJ-200 978,591 kg 3,083 t $807,338 40%
ATR 72 0 kg 0t $0
Total 13,495,614 kg 42,511 t $11,133,881

Table 21: Total Potential APU Fuel Savings for ABC Airlines

56
6 OPERATIONS CONTROL & FLIGHT DISPATCH
6.1 Flight Planning Process
Flight Planning is generally recognized as the process of planning a flight from origin to destination that
meets the schedule requirements (departure and arrival time) and carries the desired payload at the Lowest
Cost and that is consistent with company policy, applicable regulations and that maintains the industry’s high
safety standards. The planning of a commercial flight is now a very complex proposition that requires Flight
Dispatch to be equipped with sophisticated tools for both the planning and in-flight monitoring of the
company’s flights.

6.1.1 Flight Planning Considerations

Commercial and Safety Considerations and many technical factors go into the Flight Planning process.
These include:

 Route selection
 Alternate selection
 Arrival and departure runways and associated departure and arrival procedures
 En-route alternates if required
 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and Configuration Deviation List (CDL)
 Runway performance limitations
 Origin, En-route, destination and alternate weather and NOTAM conditions
 ATC route and airport limitations and constraints
 Commercial requirements, arrival time, payload and passenger connection requirements

It is no longer sufficient just to be safe; it is vital that the Flight Planning Process directly supports the
commercial requirements of the airline. Flight Planning must take into consideration the full range of Cost
Index capabilities of each aircraft and optimize the vertical and lateral flight path to produce the lowest cost
flight plan that meets the required arrival time for the flight.

6.1.2 Route selection and planning

Many factors go into route selection. The choice of route selected by the Flight Dispatcher plays a major role
in the profitability of the flight.

Short Range Flights less than 3 hours: With many short-range flights, the options to save fuel are limited -
but with sometimes between 30-40 flights per day between some city pairs the savings quickly accumulate
just by saving one or two minutes per flight or reducing the planned weight by a few hundred kilos or pounds.
In high-density airspace, routes will often be “fixed” by ATC - both in terms of route and altitude. However,
there may be several “fixed” routes available between any city pair. As a rule all available routes should be
analyzed to ensure maximum fuel efficiency.

Long Range Flights: Today’s Flight Planning systems should be able to optimize for Minimum Cost, other
considerations are Minimum Fuel, Minimum Time or Maximum Payload. In most cases, the choice comes
down to a selection between minimum cost and minimum fuel. Flight profiles should properly account for en-
route step climbs; even in Oceanic areas where cruise Level changes may be an issue flight should be
based on optimum altitude for fuel economy and provide pilots with calculations for less than optimal altitude
and for the next best lateral profile at optimal altitude. For greater accuracy the runway selection should be
accounted for in the route calculations where the planned takeoff runway, the departure and arrival
procedures and landing runway should all be part of the flight planned route.

57
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

6.1.3 Limitations of Legacy Flight Planning Systems

Airlines have either created their own flight planning systems or acquired commercially available systems
from third party vendors. Legacy flight planning systems have typically been integrated with other airline
operational and passenger booking systems. At many airlines, these legacy flight-planning systems were
built or acquired some 20 or 30 years ago. Over time, they have gone through various modifications to keep
pace with developments in aircraft technology and evolving Air Traffic Control capabilities. These legacy
flight planning systems reflect their heritage and development history and while being very good calculators
(time and fuel at a given route and altitude) they typically suffer from the limitations of their basic computing
architectures and limitations of older technology navigational data structures, aircraft performance data and
route selection algorithms. These legacy systems typically have limited or no capability for the calculation of
optimized (cost efficient) flight profile for each flight operation.

Typical legacy flight planning system limitations are:

 Limited Cost Index (CI) capability (only one or two CI values available for each fleet type), resulting
in no capability to use dynamic CI for the optimization of flight profiles
 Cost index data that are based on cruise tables
 Limited route selection as a function of navigation data structures and finite routing limitations that
derive from the limited route database architectures
 Route distances and altitude profiles that are not representative of actual flight condition, which have
led to the use of various “pads” or pilot adjustments for such things as departure and arrival
distances and additional time/fuel for climb and descent
 Limited lateral variation
 Limited vertical options
 No over-flight cost applied during the route selection process
 Route selections algorithms that are based on minimum fuel or minimum time rather than on lowest
cost.
 No optimal tanker solutions (multi sector)
 Crude capabilities for controlling flight time to meet the various schedule requirements of commercial
operations

While airlines have continuously invested in modern aircraft they have, for the most part, not invested in
upgrades to their ground support software and systems. This has resulted in flight planning systems falling
behind the aircraft capabilities and as a consequence prevents airlines from being able to fully leverage their
aircraft technology investments.

6.1.4 Flight Planning System Investment

Flight Planning and Flight Following, including visualization and situational awareness systems, have now
become essential tools for Operations Control and Flight Dispatch to efficiently manage their regional and
global flight operations. In today’s harsh commercial environment these tools are enabling airlines to focus
on optimizing flight operations and to shift management style from “Reactive” to “Proactive”. These tools
allow for the individual management of flight operations to meet the Lowest Cost Arrival Time at the
Lowest Possible Fuel Consumption.

Considerable improvements in operational efficiency can be realized by the introduction of flight planning
and flight following capabilities that support dynamic cost index and create optimal four dimensional (see
Efficient Flight Planning below) flight profiles driven purely by Cost. Savings that accrue from these
technologies go directly to the airline “bottom” line in reduced operating expense. Given that fuel prices and
airspace access fees continue to rise, environmental (emission) concerns are playing an increasing role in
industry regulation and customer relationships, and may incur additional operating cost in the form of Carbon
Offsets; failure to invest in these technologies may be the difference between a successful financial future or
a downward spiral of deteriorating marginal returns leading to financial failure.

58
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

In today’s rapidly evolving information technology environment the lower cost of hardware and flexibility and
availability of software solutions has greatly reduced the risk associated with technology refresh of ground
support and related systems. Airlines now need to constantly review flight planning and support system
capabilities and procedures to ensure they can fully support airline current and future commercial needs.
Part of these evaluations must include the risk associated with maintaining and modifying older flight
planning system architectures versus the acquisition of a modern Commercial (Commercial Off the Shelf -
COTS) flight planning system that have their architectures built around cost optimization solutions.

6.1.5 Best in Class Flight Planning

Best in Class Flight Planning systems are based on the use of a 4 Dimensional Flight Path Computation
Model that enables Flexible Mission Management.

The 4-D Flight Planning Model is composed of:

 Grib 4 winds (1.25 x 1.25 degree resolution or higher with next grid models including Rapid Update
Cycle [RUC] forecasts)
 Navigational data (ARINC 424)
 Airspace rules (navigations and political restrictions and requirements)
 Real-time Airspace Restrictions – Air Traffic Flow Restrictions & Special Use Airspace limitations
 Weather phenomena such as icing, cold temperatures and turbulence

The 4D’s within the Profile Computation are:

 Latitude, Longitude, Altitude and Speed (Time).

Jet aircraft have large flexibility in their flight time capabilities. Optimal flight plans enable an Operator to fully
utilize this flexibility.
 Flexibility: Optimization makes it possible to achieve a wide range of flight times (15 to 20% under
some wind and altitude conditions)
 Optimality: Optimization provides minimum cost over the entire range of possible flight times.

An OPTIMAL Flight Plan provides: Min Cost for a Specified Flight Time, or, Min Cost for a Specified
Burn. In the optimization of the flight plan the calculations resolve as follows:
 4D Optimization: Speed, Altitude, Lat, Long
 2D Optimization: Speed, Altitude

4D calculations should always be calculated where airspace rules and access allow for dynamic route
calculations. 2D optimization may be required under certain conditions where ATC IFR preferred routes exist
or where the flight is being re-optimized due to a significant change (payload, departure time or arrival time)
and the route cannot be changed due to slot restrictions.

It is not as simple as selecting “Best” Mach or Altitude. Optimal Mach and altitude are continuously
changing with time. For all airplane types, the cost index is dynamically changing as a function of cost. The
vertical profile and route must be optimized simultaneously to find the optimal flight path. There is no single
“Optimal Route” that meets all operational Goals. The Optimal Route depends on the Desired Flight
Time and Current Conditions.

Modern flight planning system must be capable of the full range of Cost Index (CI) planning capability with
appropriate vertical and lateral optimization. The vertical and lateral profiles solutions will change
dynamically in conjunction with the planned CI because of the different winds and air temperatures at the
various available altitudes and the different costs for airspace access. The final flight levels, route solution
and speed (Cost Index) will vary as a function of these environmental dynamics and the required time of
arrival for the flight. In calculation an optimal flight profile major influences are:
 Time of departure

59
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Time of arrival
 Aircraft weight

Any significant change to any of these values, are grounds for a re-assessment of the flight profile to re-
optimize the route, altitude and speed profile.

Enhanced Flight Planning System capabilities today are centered on the determination of the most efficient
flight profile with the calculations driven purely by Cost. In such systems the flight profiles (Lateral, Vertical
and Time) are resolved dynamically and result in the Minimum Cost profile for any given set of constraints.

Flight Profiles should be resolved for:

 Time Costs
 Fuel Costs
 Airspace Access Cost
 Delay Cost

Optimal flight profiles calculate the precise (dynamic) cost index as determined from the flight specific costs
and result in different lateral, vertical and time solutions for different payload and required arrival times.

Other considerations for optimal flight planning solutions are:

 Dynamic cost index capability that supports and leverages the full performance capability of the
aircraft
 Time dependent costs that are tail specific
 Current fuel prices (origin and destination)
 Where applicable, delay and arrival time management
 Route building performed dynamically by the system without need to create specific city-pair routes
 Route optimization driven by cost
 Automatically selected runway specific SID/STAR routings*
 ATC restrictions automatically applied (RAD, Track Systems, etc)
 No RPL - flight by flight air traffic plan filing
 Over-flight cost management and over-flight invoice validation
 Crew briefing documents prepared automatically

(* Note: For greater accuracy, a flight-planned route should include the planned takeoff runway, the
departure and arrival procedures and landing runway rather than planning from centers of the departure and
destination airports. Center to center airport flight planning results in additional fuel being carried, inaccurate
Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA), and inaccurate altitude profile especially on short flights).

The following is an example of an optimized flight path calculation drive that resolves the lowest cost flight
profile compared to the best route selected by an older flight planning system where route is selected based
on minimum time or least fuel.

60
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Figure 17: Optimized Flight Including Airspace Access Costs

In this case the optimized calculation resolves a route that allows the flight to still arrive within its published
schedule yet resolves a flight path that is $1,584 less cost than the legacy flight planner route. In this case
the savings are driven by the lower airspace access-fees of the longer routing.

In addition, Cost Index based flight plans should be available for non-Flight Management Computer
Systems (FMCS) aircraft. CI optimization is a critical tool for performance optimization and cost control.
While modern aircraft are equipped with CI calculation embedded in the FMCS, many regional jet aircraft
and older generation aircraft do not have this technology. However, CI optimization is available for these
aircraft from vendors of Cost Index systems that operate independently of the FMCS. The technology is
available as a software application on Class 1 and Class 2 Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) systems and as a flip
chart or booklet-based system. Compared to fixed-mach flight planning or Long Range Cruise (LRC) speeds,
CI optimization of planned speeds will yield fuel savings of 2 to 3% and in some flight conditions as much as
10% where the flight is restricted to a low altitude or unusually strong winds.

In certain circumstances on-board CI performance systems, whether embedded in the FMCS, operating
within an EFB or in a flip chart, are of great value for tactical flight management.

6.2 Cost Index Flight

6.2.1 Cost Index Optimization

Cost index is the ratio of the cost of time divided by the cost of fuel. Cost index is used to let the Flight
Management System (FMS) on board integrate the cost of time with the cost of fuel. Using the cost index,

61
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

the FMS is able to “balance” the cost of time (crews, aircraft time dependent maintenance, delay costs, etc)
against the cost of fuel to determine the correct performance settings for the aircraft in its current
environment (altitude, weight, temperature and wind).

In Cost Index flight there is a lower and an upper boundary:

Cost Index Zero: CI0 – results in the lowest fuel burn

Cost Index 999: CI999 – results in the shortest possible flight time

Example, where Time Costs are very Low (the time dependent cost of
operating a flight), the cost index would be close to zero [0]. Use of cost
index “0” results in the lowest possible fuel burn. In cases where Time Costs
are High, then cost index values will be higher. Over time as fuel prices
fluctuate and where different airports have different fuel costs, the Cost
Index values for any given flight will vary as a function of the time related
costs and the cost of the fuel. In mission management, the performance
capability of the aircraft (speed) can be used to reduce flight time as means
of reducing arrival delays and to offset the cost of delays (passenger &
freight misconnections, crew and aircraft rotation, overtime for ground staff
and curfew penalties, etc.). When increasing the cost index to reduce flight
time, the whole flight profile must be re-optimized to meet the new
commercial objective. This subject is discussed in detail in the Mission
Management section.

6.2.2 Cost Index Calculation Methods

Cost Index is the cost of time divided by the cost of fuel. There are several methods used by aircraft and
FMS manufacturers to manage cost index inputs to the FMS. The two most common cost index models are
as follows where cost index is calculated by dividing the cost of time by the cost of fuel:

Metric (Airbus) CI Model:

(Flight Cost $/min) / (Fuel Cost $/kg)

English (Boeing) CI Model:

(Flight Cost $/Hr) / (Fuel Cost $/100lb.)

The difference in the calculation methods between the Boeing and the Airbus model result in CI values of the
Boeing model being approximately 30% higher than the Airbus CI units for the same time and fuel costs. The
selection of the CI model used in the FMS is a setting in the initial set-up of the FMS and some airlines have
chosen to use the same Cost Index model across all their fleets. This has value in that it allows for a uniform
approach to cost index values permitting a common understanding of the range of dynamic cost index values
used in day-to-day planning and for dynamic mission management.

It is important to note, that in an optimal (flight planning) system it is not a simple case of going fast to
minimize time, or going slow to minimize fuel. Rather, it is a complex optimization of route, TAS and wind at
different flight levels to produce an optimal cost solution of minimum possible burn for the flight time, or
minimum flight time for the burn.

Airlines that optimize the use of cost index need to conduct a study of all time related costs in order to
determine the correct cost index for each flight. Since the cost of fuel differs from airport to airport, optimized
cost index must also be route specific. This is particularly critical when the fuel price varies significantly.

62
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

6.2.3 Optimized Cost Index

For minimum cost operation, flight profiles should be optimized to account for all time-dependant costs
including delay costs, over-flight charges and any other costs specific to a flight and including the cost impact
on subsequent flights. Incorrect cost index values can have an enormous impact on operational costs. The
chart below shows the difference in cost for an A330-300 operating at different cost index values, in the case
below time costs were calculated as US$1,685 per flight hour (Maintenance & Crew Cost) and fuel cost at
UD$0.50 per kilo. This results in Cost Index 56 producing the lowest cost flight profile. Operating this aircraft
at CI 70 increases total cost by some US$80 and consumes an additional 350 kilos of fuel.

A330‐300 Total Cost and Fuel Burn Change with Cost Index
5,500 $1,900.00 

$1,688.03 
$1,700.00 

4,500
4,500
$1,500.00 

$1,300.00 
3,500
Fuel Burn Difference in Kilos

Cost difference in US$ 
$1,100.00 

2,600
$878.52 
2,500 $900.00 

Fuel Difference

$700.00  Cost Difference
1,600
1,500
$462.82 
$500.00 
1,000

700
$275.21  $300.00 
500 $159.08  $143.49 
$127.89  200
$58.59  $40.49  0 $181.41 
$100.00 
‐300 ‐275 ‐250
$71.90 
$‐
‐220 ‐200
‐500 $(100.00)
8:32 8:31 8:30 8:27 8:26 8:21 8:20 8:15 8:13 8:09 8:06 8:01

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 300 400

Flight Time and Cost Index

Figure 18: Cost Index vs. Fuel Cost

Airlines should review their current cost index values and the time they were last changed. At many airlines
cost index values used in day-to-day operations were determined several years ago and have not changed
since that time. As cost index is simply time cost divided by cost of fuel and as fuel has doubled its price over
the course of the past 6 years, cost index values across the fleets should be approximately 2 times lower
than they were 6 years ago.

6.2.4 Cost Index Calculations

Cost Index (CI) is the ratio between the costs of time and the cost of fuel. Ideally, the airline should balance
all of its operating costs. Operating at a high Mach increases the fuel cost but the time cost is lower.
Conversely, at lower Mach, the fuel cost is reduced but time cost increases. So how are these costs
balanced?

63
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

A modern flight planning system must be able to calculate the Mach number and altitude to balance the time
cost with the fuel cost and determine the correct cost index for the flight. The Flight Management Systems on
the aircraft are able to determine the correct performance settings for the aircraft given the cost index and
aircraft weight as the flight progresses along the flight planned route and altitude. This is why establishing a
proper cost index for each aircraft type at the specific airline cost structure is critical.

In the calculation of an accurate cost index, it is first necessary to determine reasonably accurate time-
dependent costs for each aircraft. Time related costs typically divide into two components:

 Maintenance cost
 Crew Cost

6.2.4.1 Time Dependent Maintenance Cost

For a detailed description and explanation of the time dependent maintenance cost refer to Section 8.4.
6.2.4.2 Crew Cost
Strategic construct of the flight schedule needs to account for some crew costs in order to bind the schedule
block time for each flight, recognize and account for the utilization costs for both aircraft and crews. During
tactical operations at most airlines, crew costs will need to be treated as delay costs and factored, where
necessary, into the cost index calculations as part of mission management procedures (mission
management objectives and techniques are discussed in more detail below).

The crew cost is an important component in the cost index calculation. Since each airline has different
contract rules, it is normally difficult to reach a consensus on the subject. Some airlines pay crews a set
amount per month independent of the hours flown while others pay a minimum guarantee for the month and
extra pay occurs when that minimum is exceeded. During the quiet months of the year, flying an extra minute
does not necessarily result in increased crew cost. Some airlines pay the schedule block time for the flight
and will incur additional costs if the flight is over schedule. The question is whether the airline should
consider the crew cost if crews are paid flat salaries. Not considering any crew cost would result in all flights
operating at a lower cost index necessitating additional crews at the end of the year. Consequently, one
should normally consider the crew cost in calculating the time cost except when it is obvious during periods
of very low crew productivity, no crew cost will occur if flights are slowed down and it will not result in
additional crew requirements at the end of the year. In addition, the crew cost should include the fringe
benefits (vacation, sickness, training and pension). In other words, the total cost of a crew member should be
the total salary plus benefits divided by the number of hard hours flown by a pilot during the year as this is
the real cost that crew member is paid while performing actual flying. This will also apply to the flight
attendants’ time cost.

Time-Dependant Crew Cost - Pilots

CPT Capt FO FO Add Capt Add FO Cost/Hr Hours
A/C Type USD/mnt USD/hr USD/mnt USD/hr % % Cockpit per month
A330-300 $15,000.00 $214.29 $9,750.00 $139.29 20% 10% $410.36 70
A320-200 $12,000.00 $171.43 $7,800.00 $111.43 0% 0% $282.86 70
B747-400 $18,000.00 $257.14 $11,700.00 $167.14 25% 20% $522.00 70
B777-200 $17,000.00 $242.86 $11,050.00 $157.86 25% 20% $493.00 70
B737-700 $12,000.00 $171.43 $7,800.00 $111.43 0% 0% $282.86 70
CRJ-200 $7,000.00 $100.00 $4,550.00 $65.00 0% 0% $165.00 70
ATR 72 $3,500.00 $50.00 $2,275.00 $32.50 0% 0% $82.50 70

Table 22: Typical Pilot Time Costs

64
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Time-Dependent Crew Cost - Cabin Crew

F/D F/D PU PU C/A C/A Total Cost/Hr Hours
A/C Type cost nmbr cost nmbr cost nmbr on Board Cabin per month
A330-300 $48.61 1.0 $48.61 1.0 $34.72 6.0 8.0 $305.56 72
A320-200 $0.00 0.0 $46.67 1.0 $25.33 3.0 4.0 $122.67 75
B747-400 $55.56 1.0 $48.61 1.0 $34.72 12.0 14.0 $520.83 72
B777-200 $55.56 1.0 $48.61 1.0 $34.72 9.0 11.0 $416.67 72
B737-700 $0.00 0.0 $46.67 1.0 $25.33 3.0 4.0 $122.67 75
CRJ-200 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $22.86 1.0 1.0 $22.86 70
ATR 72 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $20.00 2.0 2.0 $40.00 75

Table 23: Typical Flight Attendant Time Costs

Airlines that have low time cost structure and high fuel prices will operate at low cost index and consequently
lower speeds and vice versa. As the price of fuel is different at every airport the specific cost index for each
flight must be calculated dynamically for each city-pair, the operational cost index for each flight will be
different.
6.2.4.3 Cost Index Calculations
Based on the time cost calculations above, the cost indices for these typical aircraft operating cost are as
follows:

COST INDEX CALCULATOR

M Metric Fuel Price USD/USG USD/Kg USD/100lb Delay Cost
E English $2.506 $0.825 $37.42 No Crew Cost $ Cost/min $100
FMS Cost Index Time Cost Time Cost CI CI CI CI CI CI CI
A/C Type Type Hour Minute Metric English Present Metric English Metric English
A330-300 M Metric $1,685.91 $28.10 34 45 65 20 26 155 205
A320-200 M Metric $770.52 $12.84 16 21 35 07 10 137 181
B747-400 M Metric $2,142.83 $35.71 43 57 85 22 29 165 218
B777-200 M Metric $1,809.67 $30.16 37 48 65 18 24 158 209
B737-700 M Metric $672.52 $11.21 14 18 35 05 07 135 178
CRJ-200 M Metric $312.86 $5.21 06 08 M.78 03 03 128 169
ATR 72 M Metric $182.50 $3.04 04 05 N/A 01 02 125 165

Table 24: Cost Index Calculations

The calculated optimal cost index values are compared with values typically observed at most airlines today.

6.2.5 Dynamic Cost Index

Adopting a dynamic cost index culture within the airline enables aircraft to be operated at the most efficient
speed and automatically adjust operational speeds to account for changes in the economic environment.
When an aircraft is not able to operate at optimal altitude, with cost index managing the aircraft speed results
in the most efficient use of fuel.

65
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 19: Cost Index Performance Gains over Fixed Mach Flight
In the above graph for a generic regional jet, operating at a cost index of 0 (minimum fuel or maximum
range) would operate according to the blue line. Speed would vary from Mach .53 in the case of 120 kt
tailwinds and Mach .63 in a 120 kt headwind. As it can be seen, these speeds are in fact very low and since
all airlines have some time cost depending on their cost structure, operating at cost index 0 would effectively
cost the airline money in lost time in spite of the fact that it would be operating using the minimum amount of
fuel on a flight. In this case, the cost index calculated was a value of 15 and this would result in a speed
band of Mach .63 in a 120 kt tail wind and Mach .79 in a 120 kt headwind.

As shown above, a flight operating at a fixed speed of M 0.76 at FL 290 in an 80 kt tail wind instead of a cost
index optimized speed of M 0.66 would result in a 15% reduction in specific ground range or a 15% increase
in fuel cost.

Note: These figures are for FL 290, which is below the normal optimal flight levels. In many cases short
range flights are often operated at lower flight levels due to over-flying traffic or other ATC restrictions, ozone
concerns, etc. In such cases, using cost index keeps the aircraft operating at it most efficient speed under
any range of operating circumstances.
6.2.5.1 Impact of non-Optimized Cost Index Operation
The graph below is for a typical short range aircraft operation and demonstrates why cost index optimized
speeds should always be used for speed management. This graph is based on average flight lengths of 90
minutes and is calculated at flight levels that would be encountered in short-range European operations.
Starting at cost index “0” and increasing in increments of 5, as can be seen; operating at CI of “0” compared
to a fixed speed of M 0.76 would result in fuel savings of almost 6% but at a time increase of close to 7
minutes per flight. Increasing to a CI of “5” would still save about 6% of fuel but at a cost of 3 minutes per
flight. At a CI of around “12”, the time impact on average would be negligible but the fuel savings would be
slightly over 4%. At cost indices above “15”, there is an area where one is in a win-win situation as both time
and fuel are saved. Continuous increase of CI values reach a point where no more fuel is saved but the flight
time is close to 5 minutes less for the same fuel. Further increasing the cost index will further increase the

66
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

fuel burn with little time gain. The main advantage of cost index is that it decreases the amount of time spent
in headwinds by accelerating the flight and by increasing the time spent in tail winds. Note that cost index
optimization accounts for the aircraft weight, ambient temperature, wind speed and the altitude at which the
flight is operating.

Figure 20: Time - Block Fuel Trade-Off Relative to Constant Mach

Other time related costs occur during the day-to-day operation that would justify selecting a cost index other
that the route specific cost index. Examples would be stronger than usual headwinds resulting in arrival
delay, a last minute delay which could affect several connecting passengers, impact on subsequent flights in
case of short turnaround times, missed curfew or a slot time creating gate occupancy conflicts, and crew
legalities or connections. As seen, the cost of time varies and the use of other than basic cost index values
will help minimize the time related costs even though additional fuel may be consumed in the process.

It is difficult for flight crews to calculate the most appropriate cost index for specific flight. Operations Control
in cooperation with Flight Dispatch would normally assess the delay costs and decide the best cost index to
minimize operational costs.

Airlines should ensure that all cost index and speed optimization processes are well defined, managed and
fully integrated. Furthermore, the value of effective training cannot be overemphasized. The benefits of a
well-formulated performance optimization program are significant with a measurable impact to operational
efficiency.

The use of dynamic cost index should not however be used in isolation but should engage all company
departments that have an impact on on-time performance. The Scheduling Department must be aware of the
impact that an unbalance or unrealistic schedule will have on fuel consumption, passenger service, and
ramp control. As well, Operations Control and Flight Dispatch also have a significant role to play in OTP.
Each department must be made aware of the cost of delays and their impact on customer service. Refer to
Section 6.2.7 below for further discussion on this issue.

67
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

At ABC Airlines the A330-300 has a time cost of US$ 1,685, and Fuel price, US$ 0.825/kg. The aircraft
however is being flown at a cost index of 70. At the current cost the cost index should be 56 (Metric). The
following chart plots the change in fuel and time costs as a percentage deviation from the calculated Cost
Index.

A330‐300 Time  & Fuel % Change Zero Wind
10.00%

8.00% 9.05%

6.00%
5.23%
% Change with  Cost Index

4.00%
3.22%
2.20% 1.80%
2.00% 1.20% 2.01%
2.00% 1.00% 1.41% Time
0.40%
0.00% Fuel
0.00%
0.00%
‐0.60% ‐0.50% ‐0.44% ‐0.40% ‐0.20% ‐1.60%
‐2.00% ‐0.55% ‐1.20% ‐2.99%
‐2.40%
‐4.00%
‐3.99%

‐6.00%
8:32 8:31 8:30 8:27 8:26 8:21 8:20 8:15 8:13 8:09 8:06 8:01

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 300 400

Figure 21: A330-300 Fuel & Time Cost Change with Cost Index
The chart above is used to determine the effects on fuel consumption and time costs for flying the aircraft at
the incorrect cost index. In this case fuel consumption is 0.4% above the optimum and time costs are -0.2%
from the optimum.

The following charts the A320-200 Time & Fuel Cost Changes for cost index 50 versus the correct cost index
of 26. The difference is 0.21% for fuel and - 0.33% for time.

68
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

A320‐200 Time  & Fuel % Change Zero Wind
20.00%

18.31%

15.00%

Fuel  % Change with Increaseing Cost Index 10.00% 9.98%

Time
5.00% Fuel
4.30%
2.00% 1.00% 1.69%
0.50% 0.25% 0.21% 1.93%
0.00%
0.00%
‐0.12% ‐0.07% 0.00%
‐0.10% ‐0.05%
‐0.33%‐0.50% ‐1.00%
‐2.00% ‐3.50%
‐3.00%
‐5.00%
01:42 01:41 01:40 01:40 01:40 01:39 01:39 01:39 01:38 01:37 01:36

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 300

Figure 22: A320-200 Fuel & Time Cost Change with Cost Index
In the case of the B744, shown below, the Time & Fuel Cost Changes for cost index 150 versus the correct
cost index of 94 are 0.33% for fuel and - 0.67% for time.

B747‐400 Time  & Fuel % Change Zero Wind
3.00%
2.67%

1.88% 1.77%
2.00%
1.55% 2.25%
1.33%
Fuel  % Change with Increaseing Cost Index

1.39%
1.00% 0.89%
1.00%
0.44%
0.33% 0.62%
0.00%
0.00%
Time
0.00%
‐0.32% ‐0.16% Fuel
‐0.44% ‐0.42% ‐0.28%
‐0.43% ‐0.40% ‐0.67% ‐0.89%
‐1.00%

‐1.55%
‐2.00%
‐2.22%
‐2.00%

‐3.00%
7:39 7:39 7:38 7:37 7:35 7:35 7:33 7:31 7:28 7:27 7:24 7:22 7:21

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 300 400 500

Figure 23: B747-400 Fuel & Time Cost Change with Cost Index
The B777-200ER is shown below, here the Time & Fuel Cost Changes for cost index 100 versus the correct
cost index of 80 is 0.19% for fuel and - 0.11% for time.

69
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

B777‐200ER Time  & Fuel % Change Zero Wind
8.00%

6.36%
6.00%
Fuel  % Change with Increaseing Cost Index

4.00%
4.27%

2.36%
2.00% 1.43% 1.21%
0.99% Time
0.66% 0.19% 1.15%
0.55% Fuel
0.11% 0.00%
0.47%
0.00%
‐0.12% ‐0.15% ‐0.11% 0.00%
‐0.13% ‐0.11% ‐0.01% ‐0.11%
‐0.55%
‐2.00% ‐0.99%
‐1.65%
‐2.98%
‐2.32%
‐4.00%
7:40 7:39 7:38 7:36 7:36 7:34 7:33 7:33 7:31 7:29 7:26 7:23 7:20

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 300 400 500

Figure 24: B777-200ER Fuel & Time Cost Change with Cost Index

B737‐700 Time  & Fuel % Change Zero Wind
10.00%

8.00% 8.29% 8.29%

8.29%
Fuel  % Change with Increaseing Cost Index

6.00% 5.99%
4.92%
4.84%
4.10%
4.00% 4.51%
2.46%

2.00% 0.92% 3.23%

1.84% Time
0.00% Fuel
0.00% ‐0.82%
0.00% ‐1.64%
‐2.46%
‐2.00%
‐1.38% ‐3.28%
‐2.30% ‐2.07%
‐2.19%
‐4.00% ‐3.28%
‐4.10% ‐4.10%
‐4.10%

‐6.00%
2:08 2:07 2:07 2:05 2:02 2:01 2:00 1:59 1:58 1:58 1:57 1:57 1:57

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 300 400 500

Figure 25: B737-700 Fuel & Time Cost Change with Cost Index
The B737-700, shown above, plots the Time & Fuel Cost Changes for cost index 65 versus the correct cost
index of 30 is 1.78% (interpolated) for fuel and - 1.46% (interpolated) for time.

70
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

CRJ‐200 Time  & Fuel % Change Zero Wind
16.00%

13.64%
14.00% 13.49%
13.64% 13.64%
13.64%
12.00%

10.00%

Fuel  % Change with Increaseing Cost Index
9.38%
8.00%

6.00%

5.44%
3.88% Time
4.00%
Fuel
2.33%
1.26%
2.00%
0.78%
0.00% ‐0.78%
0.00%
0.47%
‐0.32% ‐0.16%
0.00%
‐0.24%
‐2.00% ‐3.10%
‐1.29%
‐3.88% ‐3.88%
‐4.00%
‐3.88% ‐3.88%
‐3.88% ‐3.88%

‐6.00%
1:07 1:06 1:05 1:04 1:04 1:03 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02 1:02

0 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 150 200 200 200 200

Figure 26: CRJ-200 Fuel & Time Cost Change with Cost Index
In the case of the CRJ-200 shown above the large change from CI 50 to CI100 is caused by a large change
in altitude as the flight Mach speed increases. At CI150 the aircraft is at a lower altitude and is limited by
MMO. As can be seen above CI 75, there is no meaningful reduction in flight time (01:02 minutes), but a
significant increase in fuel consumption. In this case there is simply not enough aircraft performance margin
available to operate any higher than CI75.

71
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

The following charts plots the % change in time and fuel for the CRJ-200 and includes the data points for
cruise at Mach 0.76 and Mach 0.78.

CRJ‐200  Cost Index Time/Fuel Trade Off ‐ ZERO WIND 
‐2.00%
CI10 CI20 TIME
5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% ‐1.00% ‐2.00% ‐3.00% ‐4.00% ‐5.00%
CI30 0.00%
CI50
CI0 M76
CI5
CI75
M78
2.00%

4.00%
CI100

6.00%

8.00%

CI150

10.00%

12.00%
CI200
FUEL

CI300

14.00% CI400

16.00%

Figure 27: CRJ-200 Fuel & Time change with Cost Index & Mach Speed
Performance data for the ATR72 was not available at the time of publication so no detailed cost index
calculations could be performed.

From the charts above the fuel burn change and the time cost change can be estimated for the sample
airline fleet operating at the wrong cost index values. The estimated efficiency gains for operating at the
correct cost index are shown in the following tables. Table 25: Effects on Fuel and CO2: Optimized Cost
Index shows the impact on fuel and CO2, Table 26 adds the time cost to the calculations and shows the net
cost gain for the initiative.

Optimized Burn Present Calculated % Burn Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Cycle/Yr Saving Kgs Total Fuel
Cost Index kg/yr CI CI Reduction Saving Kgs Metric Tons Fleet per Flight Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 65 34 0.40% 1,256,640 kg 3,958 t 9,096 138 kg $1,036,728
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 35 16 0.21% 411,366 kg 1,296 t 48,160 9 kg $339,377
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 85 43 0.33% 965,248 kg 3,041 t 3,888 248 kg $796,330
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 65 37 0.19% 719,066 kg 2,265 t 8,100 89 kg $593,230
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 45 14 1.78% 3,245,107 kg 10,222 t 39,760 82 kg $2,677,214
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg M0.78 06 1.20% 633,600 kg 1,996 t 39,820 16 kg $522,720
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg N/A 04 0 kg 0t 55,000 0 kg $0
Total 7,231,028 kg 22,778 t 581 $5,965,598

Table 25: Effects on Fuel and CO2: Optimized Cost Index

72
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Optimized Flight Time Change Total Total

Cost Index % (+ if increased) Time Cost Savings in US$
A330-300 0.20% $192,599 $844,129
A320-200 0.33% $188,314 $151,063
B747-400 0.67% $407,710 $388,620
B777-200 0.11% $115,903 $477,327
B737-700 1.46% $750,553 $1,926,661
CRJ-200 0.50% $68,829 $453,891
ATR 72 $0 $0
Total $1,723,907 $4,241,691

Table 26: Optimized Cost Index Total Savings

Using the above cost index optimizations for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 7,231,028 kgs/yr;
subtracting out the increased aircraft time results in a saving of US$ 4,241,691 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825
per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 22,778 metric tons per year.

6.2.6 Route Specific Cost Index

As the price of fuel differs from station to station, optimal flight planning systems also need to take into
consideration the different price of fuel when calculating cost index. This practice generates a dynamic, city-
pair specific cost index for each flight. While the changes in cost index are small the accumulated savings
over time and many flight sectors results in the following additional savings estimates for our sample airline:

Route Specific Burn Present Burn Reduction Fuel Burn Cycle/Yr Saving Kgs CO2 Reduction Total
Cost Index kg/yr CI Fuel Value Saving Kgs Fleet per Flight Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 65 0.10% 314,160 kg 9,096 35 kg 990 t $259,182
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 35 0.10% 195889 kg 48,160 4 kg 617 t $161,608
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 85 0.10% 292499 kg 3,888 75 kg 921 t $241,312
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 65 0.10% 378456 kg 8,100 47 kg 1,192 t $312,226
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 45 0.10% 182309 kg 39,760 5 kg 574 t $150,405
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg M0.78 0.10% 52800 kg 39,820 1 kg 166 t $43,560
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg N/A 0.00% 0 kg 55,000 0 kg 0t $0
Total 1,416,114 kg 4,461 t $1,168,294

Table 27: Route Specific Cost Index

Using the above rout specific cost index optimizations for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is
1,416,114 kgs/yr or US$ 1,168,294 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 4,461 metric tons per year.

6.2.7 Mission Management and Delay Cost Management

Flexible Mission Management introduces the cost of delay into the flight profile calculations where fuel, over
flight fees and, if necessary, payload will be sacrificed to reduce flight times in order to mitigate the effects of
late arrival.

To enable the measurement of a delay cost, the airline must develop a system adapted to its operation. It is
necessary to identify the priority flights which, when delayed, will have a significant impact on the company
bottom line and passenger service. Ideally, there should be a process to evaluate the cost of each
misconnection and express these results as a function of cost per minute. This information can then be
converted to a cost per delay minute and the equivalent cost index calculated to minimize the delay cost.

The connection times can vary widely from one flight to another. For instance, 30 minutes might be sufficient
to satisfy a side by side gate connection while 90 minutes or more might be required if there is a need to
clear customs and Immigration and/or change terminals. For planning purposes, it is normally assumed that
if the minimum connection time is not met, the connection is missed. While the overall average connection is
approximately 90 minutes, the average disturbance time for a misconnecting passenger will average 7
hours. Some passengers may have to stay overnight and travel the next day. It is therefore important for the
airline to put a proper value to the cost of a misconnection including misconnecting crews. The impact of a
delay on subsequent flights should also be considered.

73
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Adding the delay cost per minute for late arrival to the cost index calculations will yield new cost index
values, which can then be used for planning the flight.

These cost index values do not reflect the operational cost index that needs to be used on the operational
flight, as it might not be necessary to increase the cost index to that value to achieve the desired target
arrival time. They represent the “upper bound” for cost index. Operating at a higher cost index than
calculated would increase the operational cost above the delay saving, resulting in an overall increase in
cost. The operational cost index chosen for the flight will be the cost index that results in:

 The target flight arrival time to meet scheduled arrival if scheduled arrival has identified savings
 The specific flight time needed to achieve a partial reduction in arrival delay and offset a significant
increase in delay cost

Note: In long-range operations, modern aircraft will typically have an operating time range that will allow for
flight time reductions in the range of 40 to 60 minutes. In mission planning the desired flight time is targeted
and the optimal flight profile is calculated. If there is no sufficient performance capability available to offset
the entire delay, it may still be possible to speed up the flight and mitigate a significant portion of the
incremental delay cost.

In approaching mission management, it is essential that roles and responsibilities for all departments and
agencies involved be clearly identified. The central point for mission management should be the responsibly
of the Operation Control Duty Manager. Flight Dispatch and Flight Operations which will prepare and
execute the flight portion of mission management should support Operations Control. The plan, however,
must also be understood and supported by all elements at the departure and the arrival station. All personnel
should be trained on mission management and on the techniques that will be used: all must understand their
specific responsibilities to support the program.

On the day of operation, it is essential that the importance of an individual flight, or series of flights, be clearly
identified to all departments. These departments must then be held accountable to ensure their part in the
plan is properly managed. If any department or agency is unable to complete their responsibilities, this fact
and best estimate of revised completion must be immediately communicated to Operations Control who will
coordinate a revision to the plan. If the departure station is unable to meet the departure time and an
additional delay is anticipated, the flight plan will need to be reviewed. Likewise if the fight departs and the
crew selects the higher planned cost index only to arrive and discover the gate or ramp personnel are not
available, then the additional cost to accelerate the flight will have be wasted. As well, the connecting
passengers will be further delayed and their connections missed.

An essential part of mission management operations is the ability to re-evaluate the flight profile immediately
after the flight is airborne (actual departure time, weight and fuel supply now known). This will enable further
refinement of the flight profile to make small adjustments to required arrival time. If the flight is earlier than
actually required a reduced cost index profile should be sent to the flight crew allowing for a small (but
important) reduction in operating cost. If the flight is later than the required arrival time, the profile can be
optimized and required flight time reductions achieved. In these cases, if statistics indicate that targeted
flights are frequently delayed beyond initial planning targets, it may be necessary to implement a policy to
carry additional fuel reserves on these flights. This extra fuel would then be available to achieve a specific
reduction in flight time. Given the large delay cost involved in long haul passenger connections and the
relatively increase in operational costs, such “insurance fuel” can be a very effective part of the mission
management program.

It is also recommended that ACARS be integrated as part of the Flexible Mission Management program.
ACARS will enable real-time monitoring of flight progress and provide the ability to transmit to the aircraft
revised optimal flight profiles and mission requirements.

74
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

6.2.7.1 The schedule

Approximately 50% of an overall airline budget is consumed by actually flying aircraft. Executives and
Managers often assume that this is just “the cost of doing business” when in reality there are many
opportunities to improve efficiency by utilizing the performance flexibility of each aircraft in the fleet.

An airline schedule has a significant impact on efficiency. As mentioned earlier it is essential to develop the
airline schedule based on speeds that result from the proper use of cost index optimization, adjusted for the
airline real costs (fuel and time). The schedule not only determines the way flights are operated to maintain
On-Time Performance (OTP) but also has a significant impact on the cost of operating a flight (fuel prices,
crews, fleet planning, aircraft utilization, maintenance, and connections). If the schedule is correctly
constructed, the next challenge is to manage each mission to minimize overall airline costs.
6.2.7.2 On-Time performance
Not only is on-time performance critical to customer satisfaction but also operating “On-Time” minimizes
disruption costs. While departing on time is important, arriving on schedule is even more critical. If a flight is
planned with a forecasted late arrival, an analysis of the late arrival costs should be undertaken to determine
whether an attempt to recover all or some of the delay time should be made.

Flights that arrive early can also increase cost and rather than being operated at the “normal” speed they can
be operated at a lower cost index to reduce fuel consumption and offset the costs associated with the early
arrival. Some of the early arrival costs are: gate holds, gate utilization, ramp congestion and additional
ground staff requirements. Late arriving flights on the other hand not only incur some or all of the above
mentioned costs but also will have a serious impact on passenger, baggage connections, curfews and slot
times.

The real cost of misconnections is difficult to assess and depends greatly on the individual circumstances of
the flight. If a passenger misses a connection but is accommodated on an early connecting flight with empty
seats (assuming of course the passenger did not have serious time constraints on arrival) then the impact of
a delay will be minimal. However if the passenger misses an important connection, which may negate the
whole purpose of the trip, the consequences can be serious. Additionally, if the passenger is then protected
on another airline, most of the ticket revenue will be lost.

The loss of “valued passenger” goodwill must also be factored into the delay cost profile as displeasure may
result in the passenger selecting a different airline for future travel. Late flights also affect baggage
connections, and are a serious irritant for passengers. Every year, airlines spend millions of dollars delivering
baggage to irate passengers. Late flights also have repercussions on numerous subsequent flights
throughout the day where the follow-on or network delay costs multiply rapidly.

It is of utmost importance that the airlines develop an on-time performance culture not only for flight crews
and dispatchers, but also for every person in the organization that can affect schedule performance. These
include Passenger Agents, Servicing Crews, Maintenance, and Gate Planners. All of these team members
can influence the OTP. Staff has to be sensitized to the costs associated with delays and orientated to the
schedule and delay management goals of the company.
6.2.7.3 Tactical Cost Index Delay Cost Management
The tactical use of cost index plays an important role in managing flight time, fuel consumption and
controlling costs. If on the day of operation, the winds are stronger than usual - resulting in a flight arriving
late with all the associated delay costs, or when a departure delay is anticipated and there is enough lead
time to plan or re-compute the flight plan, it might be advantageous to speed up the flight (operate at a
higher cost index) where the cost of the additional fuel can be used to offset the costs associated with the
arrival delay. Speeding up flights, however should not be a substitute for good ground handling practices or
on-time departures.

75
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

In the mission management model cost index calculation is adjusted to take account of the cost of delay.
Accurate delay cost calculations are essential when evaluating total mission management needs and must
consider:

 Passenger (& cargo) delay costs

 Passenger Good Will (loyalty retention value)
 Cost for airport staffing
 Aircraft turn-around delay cost
 Crew turn-around delay cost

The total delay cost must then be integrated with the other costs of the target flight:

In the Airbus Cost Index Model:

 Delay cost per minute = (delay cost/ 60)

Cost of delay per minute is then incorporated into the Cost Index calculation:
 ((Flight Cost $/min)+(Delay Cost/60))/(Fuel Cost $/kg)

In the Boeing Cost Index Model:

 Total Delay is used

Cost of delay is then incorporated into the Cost Index calculations:
 ((Flight Cost $/Hr)+(Delay Cost $/Hr))/(Fuel Cost $/100lb)

These calculations set an “upper bound” for delay cost index, operating above these cost indexes will incur
costs that exceed the delay cost offset. However operating at these higher speeds may still be necessary to
satisfy overall schedule requirements. The operational cost index chosen for the actual flight will be the cost
index that results in:

 The target flight time to meet schedule arrival

or,
 The specific flight time needed to achieve a partial reduction in arrival delay and offset a significant
increase in delay cost.

It is not always possible to increase the cost index sufficiently to compensate for the whole delay but the
aircraft may have sufficient speed flexibility to offset a significant portion of the anticipated delay cost. The
following chart graphs a typical “Total Delay Cost” and “Cost per Minute of Delay” against Delay Time in
minutes:

76
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Missconnection Delay Cost

$30,000

$24,700$24,900
$25,000 $23,700$24,000$24,000
$22,300
$21,400$21,600
$20,200
$20,000
$17,900
Delay Cost in $

$15,000 $14,300

$10,000

$7,100
$5,100
$5,000
$3,300
$1,400 $1,700
$600 $800
$0
$0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Delay Time in Minutes

Figure 28: Delay Cost Profiles

In long-range operations, modern aircraft will typically have an operating time range that will allow for flight
time reductions in the range of 40 to 60 minutes to be achieved. In mission planning the desired flight time is
targeted and the optimal flight profile is calculated. If there is not enough aircraft performance capability
available to offset the entire delay it may still be possible to speed up the flight and mitigate a significant
portion of the incremental delay cost. From the chart above we can review the delay costs for the difference
between a 40-minute delay and a 30-minute delay:

$14,300 40 minutes delay =

$ 5,100 30 minutes delay =
$ 9,200
In this case the optimal flight profile would be the one that results in reducing flight time by some 10 minutes
as a means to offset the $9,200 of delay cost difference between the 30 minute late arrival and the 40 minute
late arrival.

An examination of the delayed passenger connection distribution above yields a target arrival time that can
be achieved by the aircraft and in meeting this reduced delay arrival time result in a Minimum Cost of
Arrival operation. Operation Control and Dispatch using proper cost analysis tools are in the ideal position to
evaluate these costs and determine the correct operating response. There is little point in accelerating a
flight if there is no commercial return for this action.

These problems often occur at the last minute where the flight encounters a delay and the decision must be
quickly taken about speed management as a means to minimize the disruption cost. In the delay analysis
some of connecting flights may also be delayed which reduces the delay impact and results in there being
little or no value to speeding up the flight. In other cases, connecting passengers might be easily
accommodated on later flights at minimal cost. Each situation is different and must be analyzed according to
existing circumstances. A course of action needs to be determined and implemented based on its own merit.
Flight crews are simply not in a position to correctly assess these situations. The objective is for the airline’s
Operations Control Department to conduct an assessment and determine the course of action that will best
minimize the cost of the delay and provide the flight crew with a revised flight profile at the applicable speed
and needed additional fuel. The need for effective coordination and timely communications between
Operations Control, Dispatch, Station Operations and Flight Crews cannot be overstated.

77
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Airlines are normally aware of flights that have critical connections and they are aware that some of these
high commercial value flights are likely to experience last minute delays. On those specific flights, extra fuel
should be boarded in spite of the additional cost of carrying the acceleration fuel. It is equivalent to buying an
insurance policy. This action could prevent a diversion of a very high commercial value flight if for example
there was a last minute hold on arrival.

The challenge is to determine how much additional fuel to carry. If a flight has already been planned on an
accelerated profile resulting from adverse winds or other reasons there is no point in adding the additional
acceleration fuel as the flight is already accelerated and the aircraft is unable to fly any faster. There are also
practical limits on how fast a flight should be accelerated. The figure below plots cost indices against time
and total cost for the A330.

 
A330 Fuel Cost vs. Time and Cost Index

3900 30

3400
$3,287
25

2900

For this A330 at CI400 the increased $2,667

Cost in USD or Cost Index

20
2400
cost is $900 for a time reduction of
14 minutes. Increasing to CI500 only
$2,129
reduces the flt time by 1 additional

Minutes
1900 minute but increases cost to $1536. 15

$1,477 $1,536
1400
$1,260 10
$1,187
$970 $970 $970 $1,043
$898 $898 $898 $970 $940
900
$753 $751
$681 $679
$608
$536 $534 5
400 $445 $445 $445 $489 $489 $489 $489
$391
$246 $319 $328
$152 $174 $319 $256
$189 $101
$29 $95 $167 $211
$106 $78
$0 $6 $0 $17 $61 $33
-100 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cost Index 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 250 300 400 500 999
Fuel Cost - 29 101 152 174 246 319 319 391 536 608 681 753 898 898 898 970 970 970 970 1,04 1,18 1,26 1,47 2,12 3,28
Total Cost 189 106 95 6 0 17 61 33 78 167 211 256 328 445 445 445 489 489 489 489 534 679 751 940 1536 2667
Minutes 0 4 7 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 28 29

Figure 29: A330 Fuel Cost vs. Time and Cost Indices
Airlines must examine these cost index profiles and determine the maximum cost indices for each of their
fleets. This upper bound cost index is the speed beyond which too much additional cost is incurred with no
meaningful gain in time reduction. In the case above the A330 should not be operated any higher than cost
index 400.

A modern flight planning system must be able to integrate and resolve flight profiles using all costs
associated with a specific flight. In the delayed flight scenario the major cost component is the cost of delay;
integration of these delay costs into the calculation of the optimal flight profile causes an accelerated flight
profile to be calculated and produces Minimum Cost Time of Arrival profile for the flight. If the payload is
affected by accelerating the flight, the cost analysis needs to include a determination of the revenue loss
impact. An optimal flight planning systems needs to be able to integrate these costs into the flight profile
determination and sacrifice fuel cost (speed up) and over-flight cost (fly in more expensive airspace) as a
means to meet the required arrival time and protect the payload.

78
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Airlines today are using their flight planning systems to provide pilots with accelerated flight plan profiles.
These are typically bound by traditional “high speed” fixed Mach cruise options for each fleet. These
calculations typically follow the flight plan route of the original flight plan and typically involve the use of the
higher Mach cruise speed and the manual selection of a lower flight level. While these procedures might
achieve a flight profile that meets the reduced flight time requirement, however the flight profile is relatively
inefficient and costly in fuel terms. Optimal flight planning systems on the other hand are capable of
incorporating the delay costs into the flight profile calculation and can resolve the minimum cost flight profile
that meets the required flight time. The following tables forecast the efficiency improvement for ABC Airlines
achieved by applying dynamic cost indices in managing the delay cost and providing the precise prediction
of cost indices to meet the required flight time:

Cost Index Cycle/yr Accelerated Avg Burn Avg Accell. Misconnection Accelerated Fuel Burn CO2 Increase
Delay Cost Mgt Fleet Burn % Increase Increase/Flight Kgs Cost/Flight in US$ Saving/Flt US$ Flights % Increase Kgs Metric Tons
A330-300 9,096 2% 691 kg $570 $4,000 5% -314,160 kg -990 t
A320-200 48,160 0% 0 kg $0 $0 0% 0 kg 0t
B747-400 3,888 4% 3009 kg $2,483 $4,000 5% -584,999 kg -1,843 t
B777-200 8,100 4% 1869 kg $1,542 $4,000 5% -756,912 kg -2,384 t
B737-700 39,760 0% 0 kg $0 $0 0% 0 kg 0t
CRJ-200 39,820 0% 0 kg $0 $0 0% 0 kg 0t
ATR 72 55,000 0% 0 kg $0 $0 0% 0 kg 0t
Total -1,656,071 kg -5,217 t

Table 28: High Speed Cost Index to Offset Delay Costs Fuel Cost Increase
Cost Index Total Fuel Cost Total Delay Total
Delay Cost Mgt Increase in US$ Savings in US$ Savings in US$
A330-300 -$259,182 $1,819,200 $1,560,018
A320-200 $0 $0 $0
B747-400 -$482,624 $777,600 $294,976
B777-200 -$624,452 $1,620,000 $995,548
B737-700 $0 $0 $0
CRJ-200 $0 $0 $0
ATR 72 $0 $0 $0
Total -$1,366,258 $4,216,800 $2,850,542

Table 29: High Speed Cost Index to Offset Delay Costs $ Gain
It is recommended that all airlines review their fleet cost index values to ensure correct balance between
time and fuel costs. It is also recommended that airline flight schedules be reviewed and adjusted as
necessary to allow flights to be operated at the optimal cost index values without jeopardizing the corporate
schedule (refer to Section 6.2.7.4 below).

Adopting these cost index practices as the primary means of planning and operating its aircraft ensures that
all flights are planned and executed based on current economic conditions resulting in the lowest possible
cost (fuel and time) that meets schedule mission requirements.
6.2.7.4 Impacts of Cost Index on Schedule Development
Dynamic cost index should not however be used in isolation but it should engage all company departments
that have an impact on on-time performance. The Scheduling Department must be aware of the impact that
an unbalance or unrealistic schedule will have on fuel consumption, passenger service, and ramp
operations. As well, Operations Control and Flight Dispatch also have a significant role to play in on- time
performance. Each department must be made aware of the cost of delays and their impact on customer
service.

Anyone involved with producing the airline flight schedule will understand the complexity of such a task.
Words such as route network, aircraft rotation, seat inventory, demand forecast, yield, turnaround times,
peak periods, curfews, delay, substitutions, cancellations, connections, statistics, frequency, crewing, duty
times, gate constraints, congestions IROPS, consolidation, hubs, slot times, aircraft productivity, flight time
variations and seasons all have a significant impact in preparing the schedule.

In addition, the flight schedule will have a marked impact on fuel consumption. In recent years, the price of
fuel has escalated and this has necessitated a reduction of aircraft speeds, as it was necessary to reduce

79
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

the cost indices to balance the cost of time with the cost of fuel. In many cases, the flight times were not
adjusted to reflect the speed adjustments forcing the flight to be operated at non-optimal speeds to maintain
an acceptable on-time performance thus increasing the cost of fuel. The impact of reducing the cost indices
by a factor of four to reflect the recent fuel price increases will result in an increase in flight time from 30
seconds to 1 minute per flight hour. The time impact will vary between aircraft types and flight profiles.

If the day-to-day cost indices are continuously increased to maintain schedule, adjusting the schedule will
yield some important savings. For instance, an A330 having to make up 12 minutes per flight will consume
1,200 kg of fuel at an approximate cost of US$ 990. If this occurs on a daily basis, the cost could reach over
US$ 360,000 per year. However, this will have to be balanced against the extra costs such as crew time,
time dependent maintenance cost, aircraft productivity and other time costs. The idea is to consider several
scenarios taking into account all cost issues and choose the best compromise to balance the extra cost of
fuel against all the other costs in the determination of the most cost effective solution.

In some cases, airlines are requesting crews to speed up flights to reduce arrival delays. While this might
mitigate the delay cost, it also impacts on arrival time statistics that in turn influence the times used to build
the schedule. Airlines that determine schedule block time based strictly on these statistics will tend to
“squeeze” the schedule resulting in unrealistic block times and additional fuel cost.

6.2.8 Vertical and Lateral Flight Path Optimization

Flight Planning System that use predetermined routes, cannot optimize the lateral profile simply because
there are not enough routes or route combinations that can be loaded in the database. Modern flight
planning systems are able to understand the limitations on airspace access (ATC Flow measures, NOTAM
restrictions etc.) and apply these dynamically to generate a flyable route that complies with all known
restrictions and to take advantage of any flexibility in routing. The largest return on investment in newer flight
planning technology is derived from the improved route selection algorithms that are able to identify
significantly improved route options over older legacy systems.

Vertical optimization is also an important part of the newer flight planning technologies and can yield
significant efficiency gains. This is especially significant when used in conjunction with cost index flight on
shorter stage lengths where flights are often restricted below optimum FL due to ATC restrictions. In these
cases operating at the correct cost index can yield significant savings in some cases as much as 15% better
than fixed Mach Speed or the wrong cost index value (see Figure 19: Cost Index Performance Gains over
Fixed Mach Flight above).

Whatever flight planning tool is in use, it is essential that the full functionality of the flight plan system is used
to optimize all operations, Flight Operations policy should not require altitudes to be capped below optimum.

The following tables are estimates for the efficiency improvements for the application of improved Lateral
and Vertical Route optimization:

80
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Flt Plan OPT Burn Burn Reduction Potential Fuel Number Saving Kgs Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
LATERAL kg/yr Fuel Value Burn Saving cycles per Flight Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 0.50% 1,570,800 kg 9,096 173 kg 50% 785,400 kg 2,474 t $647,955
A320-200 195,888,700 0.30% 587,666 kg 48,160 12 kg 25% 146,917 kg 463 t $121,206
B747-400 292,499,400 0.50% 1,462,497 kg 3,888 376 kg 50% 731,249 kg 2,303 t $603,280
B777-200 378,456,000 0.50% 1,892,280 kg 8,100 234 kg 50% 946,140 kg 2,980 t $780,566
B737-700 182,309,400 0.30% 546,928 kg 39,760 14 kg 25% 136,732 kg 431 t $112,804
CRJ-200 52,800,000 0.30% 158,400 kg 39,820 4 kg 10% 15,840 kg 50 t $13,068
ATR 72 28,600,000 0.30% 85,800 kg 55,000 2 kg 5% 4,290 kg 14 t $3,539
Total 6,304,371 kg 2,766,567 kg 8,715 t $2,282,418

Flt Plan OPT Burn Burn Reduction Potential Fuel Number Saving Kgs Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
VERTICAL kg/yr Fuel Value Burn Saving cycles per Flight Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 0.5% 1,570,800 kg 9,096 173 kg 50% 785,400 kg 2,474 t $647,955
A320-200 195,888,700 0.5% 979,444 kg 48,160 20 kg 20% 195,889 kg 617 t $161,608
B747-400 292,499,400 0.5% 1,462,497 kg 3,888 376 kg 50% 731,249 kg 2,303 t $603,280
B777-200 378,456,000 0.5% 1,892,280 kg 8,100 234 kg 50% 946,140 kg 2,980 t $780,566
B737-700 182,309,400 0.5% 911,547 kg 39,760 23 kg 20% 182,309 kg 574 t $150,405
CRJ-200 52,800,000 1.0% 528,000 kg 39,820 13 kg 50% 264,000 kg 832 t $217,800
ATR 72 28,600,000 1.0% 286,000 kg 55,000 5 kg 50% 143,000 kg 450 t $117,975
Total 7,630,568 kg 3,247,987 kg 10,231 t $2,679,589

Table 30: Improvement from Optimized Lateral & Vertical Route Selection
Using the above flight plan lateral and vertical optimization figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings
is 6,014,554 kgs/yr or US$ 4,962,007 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 18,946 metric tons per year.

6.2.9 Best in Class Flight Planning – Optimized Lateral, Vertical & Speed Optimization
Best in class flight planning systems are able to determine the most efficient flight profile driven purely by
cost. Flight profiles (4D; lateral, vertical and time) need to be calculated dynamically to solve the minimum
cost profile for any given set of constraints. At most airlines the current flight planning capability (older legacy
flight planning systems) is not able to perform the route and altitude calculations necessary to optimize the
flight routing with correct cost index calculations and overall costs. This deficiency results in less-than-
optimum lateral and vertical profiles and produces significantly higher sector costs.

Optimum flight profiles calculate the precise CI values as determined from the flight-specific costs and result
in different lateral, vertical and time solutions for different payload and ETA conditions. It is here that a
modern FPS is able to produce significant savings over the older legacy flight planning systems.

It should be noted that the CRJ-200 and the ATR72 aircraft do not have FMS that can manage cost index
flight. However these aircraft can be planned using a correct cost index value rather than a fixed Mach speed
plan. A modern flight planning system is able to generate the necessary speed and thrust settings for these
aircraft and print this information on the OFP to enable the crew to attain most of the efficiency gains for cost
index flight. The weakness in this approach is: “How does the crew manage the flight profile at intermediate
FLs during climb and descent or when forced to fly at other than the OFP planned FL?”. There are several
strategies that can provide in-flight support to the pilots that range from ACARS unlinks of revised flight
profiles to EFB applications or a simplified cost index calculator than can function on a hand held device
such as a PDA or a Class 1 EFB. In many cases there are enough aircraft in service or additional aircraft on
the order that would make it cost effective to acquire such tools and apply cost index flight capability for
these aircraft.

Dynamic cost index based flight profile calculations, as a function of differing mission requirements, will
produce different lateral (route), vertical and speed (time) solutions for differing arrival time and payload
requirements.

All flights, especially long range intercontinental flights, should be planned using dynamically calculated flight
profiles that calculate the cost index appropriate for each individual flight sector. The speed changes
involved in letting the FMS fly the profile using cost index rather than fixed Mach are very subtle and will
have no effect on the ability of the crew to conform to oceanic clearances using the cost index generated
Mach number rather than fixed Mach. In strong headwinds, the actual Mach flown will be slightly higher than

81
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

current Mach policy. In tailwind situations, the Mach number will be slightly lower. Planning these flights
using cost index will save time and fuel. Ensuring each sector is planned at the correct cost index also
directly support mission management planning where cost of delay is incorporated into the flight profile
optimization.

6.3 Operations Control

In the United States and Canada, the Flight Dispatcher shares legal responsibility with the Captain (joint
responsibility dispatch system). Dispatchers usually have the authority to delay a flight if it cannot be
operated in accordance with the regulations or company policy and once en-route to recommend a diversion
if flight conditions change and the flight cannot be continued to its planned destination (operational control).
In the USA CFR 14 Part 121 Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations
Subpart U – Dispatching and Flight Release Rules details the requirements governing dispatch release.
Many countries have adopted the “dispatch” practices of the USA and Canada and have created dispatch
licenses based on the recommendations of ICAO Annex 1 and 6 as well as ICAO DOC 7192 D3. EU-OPS
also contain provisions for use of Dispatchers but leaves the final decision up to air carriers.

When planning a flight the Flight Dispatcher and Captain should plan to meet all regulations, company
policies and commercial requirements and have the flight arrive at the destination with the correct amount of
fuel. This should be no more or less than the fuel required to safely and efficiently operate the flight. While
the Captain has the final responsibility for fuel management, the Flight Dispatcher has the access to the flight
planning system and other support tools and is in the best position to develop the skills that allow for
calculation of the most efficient flight plans. These plans should detail both the required and recommended
fuels that should be boarded on the flight. By the time the Flight Crews get to the airport or aircraft during the
pre-departure planning for a flight, all the major decisions for weight management and fuel requirements
need to have already been taken. Once the Captain arrives it is often too late to make a decision to depart
with less fuel than the Dispatcher recommended or to board additional fuel without incurring a delay or
additional cost (into plane services charges). Given this condition, it is essential that the company policies
and procedures allow the Dispatcher or Planner to prepare the most accurate flight plan possible with the
correct fuel supply for the mission. Allowing that once the Captain arrives at the airport, he is in a position to
quickly agree on the terms and conditions required to execute the flight in compliance with the regulations
and sound business practices for the conduct of a safe and efficient operation.

As face-to-face briefings are being phased out of airline operations, driven by physical location and the need
to reduce pilot preparations times, it becomes difficult to maintain and foster the relationship between pilots
and dispatchers. An important part of the relationship is the dispatcher access to the flight deck. Due to
security requirements, this is no longer as simple as it once was but is a worthwhile activity and should be
supported by airline management and the regulatory authorities.

However, there are other ways to foster and build the relationship between pilots and dispatchers. When
introducing new operating policies or procedures, pilots and dispatchers should be provided with specific
briefing material or training courses to ensure full understanding of expectations, roles and requirements. In
this way, there can be an effective exchange of ideas and experiences. Pilots are often unaware of the
sophisticated tools that dispatchers have at their disposal, so as part of annual pilot training program it is
beneficial to integrate periodic visits to Operations Control and Flight Dispatch into the training curriculum
and provide the pilots with presentations from Dispatch Management or Supervisory personnel. Dispatcher
training programs should also include regular presentations from Flight Operations and Technical Pilots.

6.3.1 Best in Class Operations Control Practices

While not all countries have adopted the practices and requirements noted above, Best in Class Airlines are
recognizing that managing air assets and matching aircraft performance to the commercial requirements of
the business is too complex to be left to the discretion of the Pilot in Command. Pilots simply do not have
sufficient time or access to the necessary information needed to make fully informed business decisions. The
pilots can keep it safe but are unable to integrate the business perspective into their decisions. Airlines are

82
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

recognizing that integrating the Flight Dispatch function into the Operations Control Organization is a better
way to manage the interaction of business requirements and Flight Operations. Integrating the Dispatcher
into the operations control process allows the dispatcher to interpret the business requirements and balance
these with regulatory and operating policies and to recommend flight plans and amended plans to the pilots
that directly support the successful execution of the flight mission.

6.3.2 Improved Situational Awareness – Flight Watch

As the Flight Dispatch or Flight Planning function is integrated into the Operations Control process one major
aspect of improving the business decisions taken within Operations Control has been the provision of
improved situational awareness tools that provide a variety of functions including Flight Watch. Such
systems provide sophisticated mapping capabilities that allow for the display of aircraft positional data over a
map layer that integrates graphical weather, navigations infrastructure and graphical NOTAMs and Volcanic
Ash areas.

It is recommended that airlines review recent developments in Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) data
exchanges between Air Traffic Service Providers and Operators. Current CDM practices in the United States
involve the FAA and other partner ATSPs (Canada & the UK) are real-time exchanges of operational and
positional data with the Operators. The principles for CDM have been endorsed by the Central Flow
Management Unit (CFMU) of EUROCONTROL.

From these data exchanges several commercial companies have developed situational awareness tools for
use in Operations Control and Dispatch that provide the airline decision makers with real-time traffic
information. Best in Class Airlines are now investing in these new tools to improve situational awareness and
promote real-time data exchanges that allow Operations Control and Dispatch to coordinate internally
(across the airline domain) and externally (with local and regional ATC, Air Traffic Flow Management and
Airports) to better manage the day-to-day operation and coordinate flight operations both pre-departure and
en-route.

An investment in technology within the Operations Control and Dispatch Departments is necessary to enable
the Operations Control unit of the airline to transition from a reactive to a proactive style of management of
air assets. The integration of the CDM exchanges (FAA: ASDI, Eurocontrol CFMU: DDSAQ and other ATC
FPLN & positional exchanges such as: Airways New Zealand and Airservices Australia) into a situational
awareness tool offers the advantage of displaying company aircraft position in relation to all other aircraft
operating at the same airports and in the same airspace. Access to these data has a significant effect on
airline decision making for all aspects of tactical schedule adjustments and fuel planning.

Once a flight is airborne, the Flight Dispatcher can advise the Flight Crew of many issues, all of which will
enable the crew to better manage the fuel efficiency of the flight. These include:

 Are there delays at the destination?

 Is it better to slow down and save fuel?
 Is there a reroute possibility to avoid the congested area?
 Are there any reroute impacts from developing weather systems along the route of flight?
 Is there a change that affects the connecting passengers, should the flight speed up or slow down?

83
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Table 31: Collaborative Decision Making Tool for Airport Status

In addition to specialized software application that calculate the real-time traffic situation ATSP’s web-sites
also offer traffic information. An example is the FAA ATCSCC Airport Demand Charts, which can be
accessed on-line at: http://www.fly.faa.gov/Products/AADC/aadc.html

84
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Figure 30: FAA Airport Demand Chart

Figure 31: Airport Demand Charts for FAA subscribers

6.3.3 Increased Pilot Confidence

Incremental improvements are offered by:

 Improved Flight Planning accuracy

 Improved Situational Awareness and Inflight Support (from the OCC Flight Dispatch unit)

Airlines that have integrated these technologies into their operations have greatly enhanced flight safety and
improved commercial decision making. Together these technologies are allowing for determination of safer
and most cost effective operations. Best in class airlines have integrated these support mechanisms into the
Operations Control unit and fostered the relationship between OCC and the Flight Crews. The dispatch unit
effectively operates as a filter to correctly analyze the significant amount of data and factors involved in
planning and operating a flight and provide this filtered intelligence to the pilots during the execution of the
flight. This information exchange provides Flight Crews with up to date traffic information throughout the

85
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

execution of the flight and removes much of the uncertainty from the flight operation. Airlines using these
tools in conjunction with the integration of the dispatcher into the inflight support equation are reporting
significant increases in pilot confidence and a commensurate reduction in arrival fuel loads and reduction in
diversion events.

6.4 Dispatch Initiatives to Reduce Landing Fuel Loads

The following section discusses various ways to improve fuel and emissions efficiency by judiciously
reducing landing fuel loads. These initiatives are all fuel penalty based calculations and derive the
improvements by reducing the fuel burn for each flight sector as a result of lowering the landing weight of
the flight. Best in Class operations are using Performance Based Methodologies (refer to Section
3.6.2.1) to determine risk within each flight operation and target low risk operations to reduce landing fuel
loads.

In all cases the sectors that are targeted for these reductions must be chosen with care after consideration
of the following:

 Use fuel statistics from the fuel information system (as discussed in Section 3.6)
 Remove tanker sectors from consideration, however call fuel what it is, don’t carry a long alternate or
forgo an RCF operation because it’s a tanker sector
 Identify low risk sectors (sectors that are very predictable where little if any contingency fuel is
consumed)
 Identify high risk sectors (sectors where flight times and fuel burns are unpredictable) and are
candidates for additional contingency fuel to cover statistical consumption values
 Develop rational target for reducing overall landing fuel loads on low risk sectors
 Publish targets to dispatchers and pilots
 Monitor the fuel information management system reports for progress and adjust goals as needed

6.4.1 Contingency Fuel Requirements EU Ops

One large target for reducing landing fuel load is the contingency fuel required by the regulations. The
regulations break down into two distinct categories: those that are based on the U.S. FAA FAR 121
regulations and those that are based on the EU-OPS Regulations.

Historically contingency fuel was fixed at either 5% (EU-OPS) or 10% (FAA CFR Part 121) of the burn-off.
However, fuel requirements set by the States are many years out of date and overly conservative and do not
take into consideration the accuracy of flight planning and aircraft navigation systems today. Many airlines
have engaged their State regulator and obtained reduced contingency fuel using performance based
measures of reliable fuel monitoring information and the provision of statistics demonstrating that safe flight
operations can be maintained.

Airline conducting operations under EU-OPS have a distinct advantage over U.S. based FAR operations.
The EU-OPS have built-in provisions that permit contingency fuels to be progressively reduced as a function
of the sophistication of statistical fuel management at the airline. Reductions can be made progressively from
5% down to 3% with further reductions allowed by developing contingency fuel governed by statistical
requirements. Operators can also choose the use of re-dispatch techniques and flexible contingency fuel
calculation methods as additional means to reduce contingency fuel.

The lowest levels of contingency fuel can be achieved under EU-OPS through the application of statistical
contingency fuel. This requires the implementation of a fuel information management system at the airline
and the ability in the flight planning system to determine the correct amount of statistical contingency fuel
required for each flight.

86
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

EU-OPS 1.255 States:

1.3. Contingency fuel, except as provided for in Paragraph 2 “Reduced Contingency Fuel”, which shall be
the higher of a. or b. below:
(a) Either:
(i) 5 % of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, 5 % of the trip fuel for the
remainder of the flight; or
(ii) Not less than 3 % of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, 3 % of the trip
fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en-route alternate aerodrome is available in
accordance with Appendix 2 to OPS 1.255; or
(iii) An amount of fuel sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel
consumption provided that the operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring programme
for individual aeroplanes and uses valid data determined by means of such a programme for fuel
calculation; or
(iv) An amount of fuel based on a statistical method approved by the Authority which ensures an
appropriate statistical coverage of the deviation from the planned to the actual trip fuel. This method
is used to monitor the fuel consumption on each city pair/aeroplane combination and the operator
uses this data for a statistical analysis to calculate contingency fuel for that city pair/aeroplane
combination.
(b) An amount to fly for five minutes at holding speed at 1 500 ft (450 m), above the destination
aerodrome in standard conditions.

6.4.1.1 Best in Class Contingency Fuel – Airlines Operating under EU-OPS Regulations
Best in class airlines have built up accurate fuel information statistics over a minimum of a 2 year period as
required under EU-OPS 1.255 provisions and have implemented full statistical calculation methods. These
airlines report fuel efficiency reduction in contingency fuel carried in the range of 1.0 to 2.0% of the total fuel
budget.

6.4.1.2 Best in Class Contingency Fuel – Performance Based Measures

Airlines that have not had sufficient time to accumulate the needed 2 years of accurate sector fuel statistics
can still achieve a reduction in contingency fuel in compliance with EU-OPS regulations. In most
circumstance this is a relatively low risk decision, however some statistical analysis using a meaningful set of
data extracted from the airline fuel information system should be used to evaluate the risk associated with
reducing the contingency fuel.

Once low risk sectors have been identified calculate contingency fuel as the lowest fuel amount from the
following options:

 5% Contingency
 3% Contingency when using Reduced Contingency Fuel (RCF) procedures

Note: In both cases above the maximum amount of contingency fuel should be capped at 20 minute
contingency fuel. It is recommended that the 20 minute contingency fuel be calculated at the gross weight of
the aircraft at destination (or alternate airport if alternate is required) at cost index zero cruise fuel flow at the
highest FL attained during the flight from origin to destination.

 Minimum contingency fuel 5 minutes. This fuel is calculated based on the planned gross weight of
the aircraft at destination (or alternate airport if alternate is required) at holding FF @ 1500ft.

The EU-OPS requirements for RCF using the Fuel En-Route Alternate (ERA) Airport provision are defined
as follows:

87
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 32: EU-OPS Reduced Contingency Option - Fuel En-Route Alternate

Airlines that do not use the 3% ERA option can improve fuel efficiency by adopting the use of Fuel En-Route
Alternate procedures defined above. When this technique is applied at ABC Airlines, there are certain flight
sectors that cannot reduce from 5% to 3% because of the flight time limits, where the 5-minute minimum
contingency governs or where the sector geometry doesn’t contain an available en-route airport. Table 32
identifies the calculation method and the minimum contingency fuel values. Table 38 identifies the total
potential efficiency improvement based on establishing the correct goals at ABC Airlines:

88
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

EU-OPS Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Flt Burn Avg Cycle Current CF CF Fuel CF Amount Min Cont Fuel CF Saving Potential Fuel
RCF 5% >3% 1kg - Fleet Kg/Hr Length % Carried Carried per Flt 3% 5 Mins Potential/Flt Burn Saving
A330-300 1,999 kg 5,500 6.28 5% 1,727 kg 1,036 kg 450 kg 691 kg 1,380,978 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 2,645 1.54 5% 203 kg 122 kg 177 kg 26 kg 60,548 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 10,300 7.30 5% 3,762 kg 2,257 kg 675 kg 1,505 kg 1,837,321 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 6,500 7.19 5% 2,336 kg 1,402 kg 472 kg 934 kg 2,067,502 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 2,385 1.92 5% 229 kg 138 kg 168 kg 61 kg 167,667 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1,200 1.10 5% 66 kg 40 kg 42 kg 25 kg 21,676 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 650 0.80 5% 26 kg 16 kg 38 kg 0 kg 0 kg
Total 5,535,692 kg

Table 32: EU-OPS 5% versus 3% RCF Contingency Fuel Calculation

EU-OPS Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total

RCF 5% >3% Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 80% 1,104,782 kg 3,480 t $911,445
A320-200 80% 48,439 kg 153 t $39,962
B747-400 80% 1,469,856 kg 4,630 t $1,212,632
B777-200 80% 1,654,002 kg 5,210 t $1,364,552
B737-700 80% 134,133 kg 423 t $110,660
CRJ-200 40% 8,670 kg 27 t $7,153
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 4,419,883 kg 13,923 t $3,646,403

Table 33: EU-OPS 5% versus 3% RCF Contingency Fuel Reduction Savings

By implementing wherever possible ERA procedures the fleet fuel burn savings ABC Airlines is 4,419,883
kgs/yr or US$ 3,646,403 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is
13,923 metric tons per year.

As stated above and discussed in Section 3.6 above, a good statistical fuel information system is needed to
support risk assessment analysis for each case where contingency fuel is to be reduced. The data provided
by such systems allow for the development of rational fuel conservation programs that do not impact the
schedule reliability of the operation. These data should also be made available to pilots and dispatchers to
provide feedback and build confidence in the fuel consumption and contingency requirements of each flight
sector.

6.4.2 Unprotected Contingency (A to B) for 5% or 3% ERA based calculation

Global statistics show that 99% of planned contingency fuel is not burned and remains in the aircraft tanks
and is carried to the planned destination. Recognizing this fact and in concert with accurate fuel
management information, once the transition from 5% to 3% contingency fuel has been completed a
further reduction in contingency fuel can be considered. Using performance based measures as part of the
airlines ongoing evaluation of flight sector performance a further reduction to planned contingency fuel
may be desirable and can be implemented by un-protecting the contingency fuel on identified low risk
sectors.

In unprotected contingency fuel the calculation considers the contingency fuel as “usage fuel” and does
not protect the fuel by adding it to the planned landing weight of the flight plan. In other words the fuel
needed to transport the contingency fuel is taken from the contingency fuel itself, rather than increasing
the flight plan burn to carry the full amount of contingency fuel to the destination.

This policy decision breaks into two segments:

 Targeting the flight populations that are dispatched with 3% Contingency

 Targeting the flight populations that remain at the 5% Contingency value

89
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Using unprotected contingency fuel on these flight populations at our sample ABC Airline results in the
following additional savings:

CF Unprotected Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Flt Burn Avg Cycle Current Avg CF Weight Potential CF Min Cont Fuel CF Fuel
3% (A to B) 1 kg / Fleet Kg/Hr Length CF Fuel % carried Factor Reduction/Flt 5 Mins Reduction/Flt
A330-300 1,999 kg 5,500 6.28 3% 1,036 kg 3.50% 228 kg 450 kg 228 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 2,645 1.54 3% 177 kg 3.10% 8 kg 177 kg 0 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 10,300 7.30 3% 2,257 kg 4.30% 709 kg 675 kg 709 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 6,500 7.19 3% 1,402 kg 3.80% 383 kg 472 kg 383 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 2,385 1.92 3% 168 kg 3.60% 12 kg 168 kg 0 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1,200 1.10 3% 42 kg 2.00% 1 kg 42 kg 0 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 650 0.80 3% 26 kg 1.90% 0 kg 38 kg 0 kg

Table 34: Unprotected Contingency Fuel 3% Calculations

CF Unprotected Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
3% (A to B) Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 65% 295,936 kg 932 t $244,147
A320-200 0% 0 kg 0t $0
B747-400 65% 562,626 kg 1,772 t $464,166
B777-200 65% 550,619 kg 1,734 t $454,261
B737-700 0% 0 kg 0t $0
CRJ-200 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 1,409,180 kg 4,439 t $1,162,574

Table 35: Unprotected Contingency Fuel 3% - Target Improvement

Using unprotected contingency fuel in 3% ERA operations the fleet fuel burn savings for ABC Airlines is
1,409,180 kgs/yr or US$ 1,162,574 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 4,439 metric tons per year.

CF Unprotected Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Flt Burn Avg Cycle Current Avg CF Weight Delta Min Cont Fuel Cont Fuel
5% (A to B) 1 kg / Fleet Kg/Hr Length CF Fuel % carried Factor Protected 5 Mins Reduction
A330-300 1,999 kg 5,500 6.28 5% 1,727 kg 3.50% 380 kg 450 kg 380 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 2,645 1.54 5% 203 kg 3.10% 10 kg 177 kg 10 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 10,300 7.30 5% 3,762 kg 4.30% 1,181 kg 675 kg 1,181 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 6,500 7.19 5% 2,336 kg 3.80% 638 kg 472 kg 638 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 2,385 1.92 5% 229 kg 3.60% 16 kg 168 kg 16 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1,200 1.10 5% 66 kg 2.00% 1 kg 42 kg 1 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 650 0.80 5% 26 kg 1.90% 0 kg 38 kg 0 kg
Total

Table 36: Unprotected Contingency Fuel 5% Calculations

CF Unprotected Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
5% (A to B) Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 20% 151,762 kg 478 t $125,203
A320-200 20% 4,452 kg 14 t $3,673
B747-400 20% 288,526 kg 909 t $238,034
B777-200 20% 282,369 kg 889 t $232,954
B737-700 20% 8,733 kg 28 t $7,205
CRJ-200 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 735,841 kg 2,318 t $607,069

Table 37: Unprotected Contingency Fuel 5% - Target Improvement

Using unprotected contingency fuel in 5% contingency operations the fleet fuel burn savings for ABC Airlines
is 735,841 kgs/yr or US$ 607,069 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 2,318 metric tons per year.

6.4.3 FAR International B043/B343 10%-5% (A to B)

FAR Part 121.639 Fuel Supply states that all domestic operations do not require any route contingency fuel

90
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

to be carried as a specific reserve fuel category. In place of en-route contingency fuel the regulation requires
that all IFR operations carry a Reserve Fuel of 45 minutes, calculated at normal cruise fuel consumption.
Unlike EU-OPS, the nature of this regulation offers little flexibility to U.S. Domestic operators to selectively
reduce route contingency fuel based on statistical experience and aircraft systems reliability. U.S. Operators
however can reduce the arrival fuel by a review of the method used to calculate the 45 minutes reserve fuel
supply. It is recommended that the 45 minutes reserve fuel be calculated at the top of descent in-flight gross
weight at Cost Index Zero fuel flow for the aircraft at the highest FL attained on the flight profile A to B.

As a function of when this regulation was developed (unsophisticated aircraft, analogue measurement
system sensors in fuel tanks and on quantity gauges) the intent of the reserve fuel was clearly that some of
this fuel could be burned en-route to the destination to account for all the other planned conditions that are
typically experienced in air operations; in other words to act as contingency fuel. It is recommended that
operators review minimum landing fuel recommendations for each of their fleet types and develop guidance
material for pilots and dispatchers that detail how much of the 45 minutes reserve fuel can prudently be
consumed while the flight is en-route to its destination or to its alternate airport.

In conjunction with fuel management system fuel statistics and a comprehensive sector risk assessment
operators under good weather conditions operators can dispatch aircraft to destination No Alternate IFR.
This will be discussed in more detail under the Alternate Airport section of this document.
6.4.3.1 FAR Part 121 Regulations International Operations
FAR Part 121.645 Fuel Supply: Turbine-engine powered airplanes, other than turbo propeller; flag and
supplemental governs the fuel supply requirements for international operations. This regulation requires
operators to plan a contingency fuel that will enable the aircraft: to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total
time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the destination airport to which it was
released.

Airlines should review the calculation method used to compute this contingency fuel requirement. It is
recommended that the contingency fuel be calculated at the top of descent in-flight gross weight at Cost
Index Zero fuel flow for the aircraft at the highest FL attained on the flight profile A to B.
6.4.3.1.1 Operations Specification Amendments
Airlines conducting international operations under the FAR should apply for an Operations Specification
authorization under Part B for Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations (B043) and for Fuel
Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations (B343). These two Operations Specification amendments
allow for the reduction of En-route Contingency Fuel from 10% to 5% under certain conditions.
6.4.3.1.2 Operations Specification Amendment - B043
Under the provisions of Operations Specification Amendment B043 operators are permitted to dispatch
international flights within approved areas of operations using the provisions of Domestic Fuel supply
requirements with respect to alternate airport specification and 45 minutes reserve fuel. Additionally a 10
percent contingency or en-route reserve is required for that portion of the flight where the position of the flight
cannot be reliably fixed at least once per hour (outside of Class 1 navigation airspace).

This provision may have little value in reducing landing fuel loads when compared to international re-
dispatch operations. Operators should carefully review re-dispatch operations as an effective means of
permitting a reduction in en-route contingency fuel requirements. Re-dispatch operations are discussed in
more detail in the section below.
6.4.3.1.3 Operations Specification Amendment B343
This amendment is similar in structure to B043 but allows operators to reduce the en-route contingency fuel
from 10% to 5%. Here the requirements for Class 1 navigation do not apply. This approval however
specifically denies use of this provision in conjunction with Re-dispatch operations.

91
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

The following chart estimates the reduction of contingency fuels from 10% to 5% for all long haul
international flights and a smaller percentage of medium range flights operated over international sectors
and projects the overall savings as follows:

FAR Intl B043/B343 Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Flt Burn Avg Cycle CF Reduction CF Fuel Potential Fuel
10% >5% (A to B) 1 kg / Fleet Kg/Hr Length in % Reduction/Flt Burn Saving
A330-300 1,999 kg 5,500 6.28 5.0% 1,554 kg 3,107,200 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 2,645 1.54 5.0% 183 kg 420,224 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 10,300 7.30 5.0% 3,385 kg 4,133,971 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 6,500 7.19 5.0% 2,103 kg 4,651,880 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 2,385 1.92 5.0% 206 kg 567,804 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1,200 1.10 5.0% 60 kg 52,508 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 650 0.80 5.0% 23 kg 19,562 kg
Total 12,953,150 kg

Table 38: FAR B343 Contingency Fuel Reduction Calculations

FAR Intl B043/B343 Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
10% >5% (A to B) Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 70% 2,175,040 kg 6,851 t $1,794,408
A320-200 5% 21,011 kg 66 t $17,334
B747-400 75% 3,100,478 kg 9,767 t $2,557,895
B777-200 75% 3,488,910 kg 10,990 t $2,878,351
B737-700 5% 28,390 kg 89 t $23,422
CRJ-200 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 8,813,830 kg 27,764 t $7,271,410

Table 39: FAR B343 Contingency Fuel Reduction - Calculated Savings

By reducing contingency fuel to 5% on suitable international sectors the fleet fuel burn savings for ABC
Airlines is 8,813,830 kgs/yr or US$ 7,271,410 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding
CO2 reduction is 27,764 metric tons per year.

Again the benefits derived from this provision should be analyzed and compared with the use of International
Re-dispatch operations and a determination made as to which option presents the greatest opportunity for
contingency fuel reduction. Re-dispatch operations are discussed in more detail in the section below.

6.4.4 Decision Point Planning (EU-OPS) Re-Dispatch (FAR) Operations

Today in airline operations with accurate flight planning systems and weather forecasts where most of the
flight planned contingency fuels remain unused re-dispatch operations can be used as an effective means of
lowering contingency fuel requirements. This can be done purely as an economic measure to reduce the fuel
at destination (contingency fuel), which in turn reduces the fuel burn, or to allow an increase in payload.
Depending on regulation and airline fuel policy, between 3% and 10% en-route contingency fuel is normally
required. The Decision Point or Re-Dispatch planning is allowed under the both EU-OPS and FAR
regulations.

This procedure is where the flight is not planned all the way to the destination, but is instead is planned to an
airport short of the destination, referred to as the re-dispatch destination. The fuel supply to the re-dispatch
destination and its alternate airport complies with all regulations for fuel burn, fuel to alternate airport, en-
route contingency and final reserve. The fuel to the final destination is then based on the fuel burn from
takeoff to the final destination, burn to alternate, if required, contingency fuel from the re-dispatch point to the
final destination and the final reserve fuel. The contingency fuel loaded to meet the requirements for dispatch
to the intermediate airport is then used partly to meet the contingency requirement from the re-dispatch point
to the final destination; the remainder of the contingency fuel is then used as “fuel burn” to enable the flight to
re-clear to its final destination.

92
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Redispatch
Alternate Redispatch
Destination

Departure Final
Airport Destination

Best Re-Dispatch Point

= 85% to 90% of
Destination
Flight Distance
Alternate

Figure 33: Re-Dispatch Technique

The re-dispatch planning establishes a re-dispatch point at which the aircraft must have sufficient fuel
onboard to reach its final destination, with an alternate (if necessary), and the appropriate amount of
contingency fuel.

Figure 34: Reduction in Contingency Fuel using Re-Dispatch

6.4.5 EU-OPS 1.255 Reduced Contingency Fuel Option

Under EU-OPS re-dispatch is authorized as part of Reduced Contingency Fuel Provisions and uses the term
Decision Point Planning and defines Reduced Contingency Fuel as follows:

Appendix 1 to EU-OPS 1.255 (a)

(b) Reduced Contingency Fuel (RCF) Procedure
If an operator’s fuel policy includes pre-flight planning to a Destination 1 aerodrome (commercial
destination) with a reduced contingency fuel procedure using a decision point along the route, and a

93
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Destination 2 aerodrome (optional refuel destination), the amount of usable fuel, on board for
departure, shall be the greater of (1) or (2) below:

(1) The sum of:

(i) Taxi fuel; and
(ii) Trip fuel to the Destination 1 aerodrome, via the decision point; and
(iii) Contingency fuel equal to not less than 5% of the estimated fuel consumption from the
decision point to the Destination 1 aerodrome; and
(iv) Alternate fuel or no alternate fuel if the decision point is at less than six hours from the
Destination 1 aerodrome and the requirements of JAR-OPS 1.295(c)(1)(ii) are fulfilled; and
(v) Final reserve fuel; and
(vi) Additional fuel; and
(vii) Extra fuel if required by the commander.
(2) The sum of:
(i) Taxi fuel; and
(ii) Trip fuel to the Destination 2 aerodrome, via the decision point; and
(iii) Contingency fuel equal to not less than the amount calculated in accordance with
subparagraph (a)(3) above from departure aerodrome to the Destination 2 aerodrome; and
(iv) Alternate fuel, if a Destination 2 alternate aerodrome is required; and
(v) Final reserve fuel; and
(vi) Additional fuel; and
(vii) Extra fuel if required by the commander.

RCL
EU Ops Direct 5% Cont RCF 3% Dest 1 Dest 2
burn 45070 44880 44540 42180
cont 2260 1350 220 1265
altn 2390 2390 2390 1870
FR 2500 2500 2500 2500
Min 52220 51120 49650 47815.4
taxi 500 500 500 500
52720 51620 50150 48315
Add 0 0 0 1834
Total 52720 51620 50150 50150
Land Fuel 7150 6240 5110 5635
Reduction 910 2040
% Reduction CF 40% 90%
Table 40: Re-Dispatch under EU-OPS
The calculations above are for an A330-300 EDDF/KJFK re-dispatch via KBOS/KBED and show the
reductions in contingency fuel from the 5% direct dispatch baseline of 2,260 kilos to 1,350 kilos then down as
low as 220 Kilos for the re-dispatch operation. This represents a 90% reduction over the direct dispatch 5%
contingency fuel. Again reducing the operational contingency fuel to 90% for normal operations would be
impractical and result in a very high risk for an en-route diversion to the Destination 2 airport. Again a small
operational cushion of fuel should be provided, and here again a 75% reduction of the contingency fuel
works well in most cases.

Airlines operating under EU-OPS rules can effectively add re-dispatch operations to manage contingency
fuel amounts carried on their longer-range flights. Applying these procedures to our sample airline operating
under EU-OPS offers the following improvement in fuel efficiency:

94
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Redispatch (Reduced CF) Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Cycle Avg CF % Reduction Avg CF CF Potential
EU-OPS 1 kg / Fleet Length carried CF kg Kgs/Flt Reduction Savings in kg
A330-300 1,999 kg 6.28 808 kg 75% 202 kg 606 1,212,136 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 1.54 177 kg 75% 44 kg 133 304,775 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 7.30 1,548 kg 75% 387 kg 1,161 1,417,802 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 7.19 1,019 kg 75% 255 kg 764 1,690,610 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 1.92 168 kg 75% 42 kg 126 347,420 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1.10 42 kg 0% 42 kg 0 0 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 0.80 26 kg 0% 26 kg 0 0 kg
Total 4,972,744 kg

Table 41: Re-Dispatch Operation under EU-OPS – CF Reduction

Redispatch (Reduced CF) Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
EU-OPS Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 40% 484,854 kg 1,527 t $400,005
A320-200 5% 15,239 kg 48 t $12,572
B747-400 40% 567,121 kg 1,786 t $467,875
B777-200 40% 676,244 kg 2,130 t $557,901
B737-700 5% 17,371 kg 55 t $14,331
CRJ-200 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 1,760,829 kg 5,547 t $1,452,684

Table 42: Re-Dispatch Operation under EU-OPS – Potential Saving

By adding re-dispatch operations to manage contingency fuel on long-range flights the total fleet fuel burn
savings for ABC Airlines is 1,760,829 kgs/yr or US$ 1,452,684 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The
corresponding CO2 reduction is 5,547 metric tons per year.

6.4.6 Re-Dispatch under FAA FAR Regulations

The following is an example of a re-dispatch flight for an B767-300 based on FAA FAR 10% contingency fuel
requirements on an EDDF/KJFK sector with a re-dispatch via KBOS with KBED alternate airport all weights
in pounds.
RCL
FAA Ops Direct 10% Cont B343 5% Dest 1 Dest 2
burn 113157 111806 110809 102586
cont 11316 5591 1008 10260
altn 5794 5794 5794 4960
FR 7582 7582 7582 7582
Min 137849 130773 125193 125388
taxi 1000 1000 1000 1000
138849 131773 126193 126388
Add 0 0 196 0
Total 138849 131773 126389 126388
Land Fuel 24692 18967 14580 22802
Reduction 5725 10112
% Reduction CF 51% 89%

Table 43: Re-dispatch under FAA Regulations - reduction in 10% Reserve Fuel Requirements
The direct dispatch is based on a 10% contingency for the burn EDDF/KJFK and results in a contingency
fuel of 11316 pounds. This plus the other required fuels – alternate and final reserve, result in a landing fuel
load of 24,692 pounds. The B343 5% options reduces the contingency fuel to 5,591 pounds and the landing
fuel load to 18,967 pounds. This is a 51% reduction to the contingency fuel load.

Re-dispatch operation would further reduce the contingency fuel to 1,204 pounds (the required fuel to
Destination 2 increases the minimum fuel for the re-dispatch by 196 pounds), which is an 89% reduction in

95
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

contingency fuel. Planning a re-dispatch flight with the minimum contingency calculated in this example
should only be contemplated if maximum revenue payload is required because any over-burn between
takeoff and the re-dispatch point would mean that the flight might be at risk and have to divert to the
intermediate of Destination 2 airport. If such were the case the only other option would be to continue to the
Destination 1 under the No Alternate Airport provisions, weather and other considerations permitting. Under
normal circumstances flights using re-dispatch as a means of reducing landing fuel loads for fuel economy
should be planned with a small operational cushion of fuel to allow for an en-route contingency. In these
cases the contingency reduction would typically be in the 75% range.

The following is the estimate for the effects of a full international re-dispatch program applied to our sample
airline assuming that the airline is operating under the Federal Air Regulations that requires 10%
contingency fuel. These figures show that a full re-dispatch program will reduce contingency fuel by a larger
amount than allowed under the B043/B343 Ops Spec Amendments discussed in the Contingency Fuel
Section above. Individual airlines would need to study these differences and determine which approach
makes more sense for their operation given the added workload and communications burden that apply to
re-dispatch operation versus a simple reduction of contingency fuel from 10% to 5%.

Because of the outdated requirement of the Federal Air Regulations with the stipulation for a 10% en-route
reserve, the economic improvements offered by adopting an aggressive re-dispatch program are very large
compared to the contingency requirements of EU-OPS airlines. The following table identifies the fuel
efficiency gains at ABC Airlines operating under the FAR rules:

Redispatch (Reduced CF) Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Cycle Avg CF % Reduction Avg CF CF Potential
FAA FAR 121 1 kg / Fleet Length carried CF kg Kgs/Flt Reduction Savings in kg
A330-300 1,999 kg 6.28 3,281 kg 75% 820 kg 2,461 4,919,733 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 1.54 386 kg 75% 97 kg 290 665,355 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 7.30 7,147 kg 75% 1,787 kg 5,360 6,545,454 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 7.19 4,439 kg 75% 1,110 kg 3,329 7,365,477 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 1.92 436 kg 75% 109 kg 327 899,023 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1.10 126 kg 0% 126 kg 0 0 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 0.80 49 kg 0% 49 kg 0 0 kg
Total 20,395,042 kg

Table 44: Re-Dispatch

under FAA Regulations - CF Reduction
Redispatch (Reduced CF) Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
FAA FAR 121 Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 40% 1,967,893 kg 6,199 t $1,623,512
A320-200 5% 33,268 kg 105 t $27,446
B747-400 40% 2,618,182 kg 8,247 t $2,160,000
B777-200 40% 2,946,191 kg 9,281 t $2,430,607
B737-700 5% 44,951 kg 142 t $37,085
CRJ-200 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 7,610,485 kg 23,973 t $6,278,650

Table 45: Re-Dispatch under FAA Regulations - Potential Savings

With a full international re-dispatch program the total fleet fuel burn savings for ABC Airlines is 7,610,485
kgs/yr or US$ 6,278,650 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is
23,973 metric tons per year.

6.4.7 Dispatch Additional Fuel

Extra or company fuels are those carried over and above contingency fuel and other required reserve fuels.
From a Dispatch or Flight Planner perspective control over these fuel amounts will depend upon the role of
the dispatcher or planner within the organization and the specific responsibilities they have for loading or
recommending additional fuel for each flight operation

96
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Many airlines have developed Fuel Management Information System for use by Flight Dispatchers and
Pilots. These historical records of actual fuel information allow access to flight and sector (city-pair) specific
information such as:

 Time of day
 Taxi out times and burns
 Burn off
 Contingency fuel used versus contingency fuel boarded
 Additional fuel used versus additional fuel boarded
 Weather conditions (IMC, LIMC or VMC)
 Landing Delay causes (ATC Holding etc) **

(** Available from advanced flight tracking systems and ATC data exchanges)

Once confidence has been built around the accuracy and reliability of these statistical data airlines can
develop sector specific guidelines or Sector Fuel Policy requirements to govern the planned loading of
company extra fuels.

The chart below summarizes planned and actual fuel loads (expressed as holding endurance at destination)
over a 1-year period and shows very little overconsumption (over-burn at 0.38% and flight time variation at
0.17%) yet flights are carrying an average of 22.5 minutes of Extra Fuel (over and above required
Contingency and Final Reserve Fuels).

Planned to Actual Landing Fuels
120 1.20%

1.10%

100 1.00%

Min Dvrt  Fuel
Fuel Endurance  in Minutes

80 0.80%
Percentage Variation

Planned Land  Fuel
Actual Land  Fuel
60 0.60% Extra Fuel
% Burn Var
% Corr  Burn Var
40 0.40%
0.38% % Flt Time Var
22.5
20 0.20%
0.17%

0 0.00%

Figure 35: Fuel MI Summary of Landing Fuel Loads

Access to good statistics allows Dispatch Planners to make better decisions and recommendations to pilots
for the provision of any desired or required additional fuel. Taking some of this “fuel uncertainty” out of the
operation can greatly reduce the amounts of extra fuel that are being carried around on the aircraft which will
result in significant annual savings of fuel and emissions.

In planning for additional discretionary fuel it should only be carried for known or forecast operational
reasons. It is important to board fuel for specific purposes and to designate exactly what the fuel is for. It
should not be added a long alternate airport or increased the taxi-out fuel in order to get some “additional”

97
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

fuel onboard the aircraft. It is perfectly logical to dispatch a flight using No Alternate at destination, with
reduced en-route contingency fuel but to add 20 minutes of additional fuel to accommodate landing delays
that are common at the destination airport during the time that the flight is planned to arrive.

In an ideal operation Company Policy coupled with real-time statistical fuel information will provide all the
guidance necessary to determine the correct amount of “Extra” fuel needed for a flight. It will only be under
the most exceptional circumstances that Dispatcher or Flight Crew would need to add discretionary fuel
above these the recommended levels.

Saving projects from the introduction of effective use of Fuel Management Information System for the
determination of dispatcher additional fuel are as follows:

Flight Dispatch Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Wt Additional Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Additional Fuel 1 kg / Fleet Extra Fuel Burn (kg/yr) Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 300 kg 599,760 kg 50% 299,880 kg 945 t $247,401
A320-200 2,296 kg 100 kg 229,586 kg 30% 68,876 kg 217 t $56,823
B747-400 1,221 kg 400 kg 488,446 kg 50% 244,223 kg 769 t $201,484
B777-200 2,213 kg 300 kg 663,754 kg 50% 331,877 kg 1,045 t $273,798
B737-700 2,752 kg 100 kg 275,184 kg 30% 82,555 kg 260 t $68,108
CRJ-200 880 kg 75 kg 66,000 kg 30% 19,800 kg 62 t $16,335
ATR 72 836 kg 50 kg 41,800 kg 30% 12,540 kg 40 t $10,346
Total 2,364,529 kg 1,059,751 kg 3,338 t $874,294

Table 46: Dispatcher Additional Fuel

By effectively using Fuel Management Information Systems the total fleet fuel burn savings for ABC Airlines
is 1,059,751 kgs/yr or US$ 874,294 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 3,338 metric tons per year.
6.4.7.1 Best in Class Dispatcher Extra Fuel
Best in class airlines provide dispatchers with statistical fuel consumption reports that show how planned to
actual fuel burn has varied over the sector and at the destination airport. These reports provide average burn
variation and statistical calculations that provide for coverage of 90% and 99% of the flight population.
Specific guidelines are also provided on when to use the 90% or the 99% coverage and how to identify
situations where the 90% or 99% statistics would not apply and where good judgment should be applied to
deal with these exceptional events (the 1% of flights in the statistical coverage).

6.4.8 Alternate Airport Selection Policies

All alternates shown on the Operational Flight Plan must be in compliance with applicable regulatory and
company policies. The following guidelines should be considered during the alternate selection process:

 Diversions for weather very rarely occur and when they do the aircraft often does not proceed to
the flight planned alternate
 The cost of carrying the fuel for an alternate is high; in business case terms an occasional diversion
is much cheaper than always carrying extra fuel as part of a “prevent a diversion strategy”.

Airlines should carefully review each flight sector and perform a Risk Assessment for each sector to develop
fuel policies and recommended practices for the guidance of Flight Dispatchers, Flight Planners and Flight
Crews. A robust Fuel Management System with good statistical analysis capability is an invaluable tool in the
development of these assessments and policies.

Better information for Operations Control and Dispatch about traffic conditions in the airspace and at the
airports can provide better information to Pilots during the descent and approach phase of flight and increase
confidence in fuel supply and approach and landing operations. The collaborative data exchanges between
the Air Traffic Service Providers and airlines discussed in the Flight Watch section above provide an
excellent source for this data.

98
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Even with the best information and planning there will be flight diversions. These events should not be
considered as a deficiency but rather evidence of good judgment. All such events however need to be
carefully analyzed and the frequency and associated costs of any such diversions factored into the Risk
Assessment. Even with the most carefully planned flight that conformed to policy, and all other appropriate
information, conditions do occasionally change and may ultimately lead to a diversion. If the diversion risks
are commercially unacceptable then fuel policy must reflect this consideration and additional fuel loaded to
offset the high risk of such diversions.

One of the most important aspects of fuel optimization is the alternate airport selection process. Distance to
the alternate airport equals Alternate Fuel Burn; designating an alternate airport that is further away from the
destination than a closer suitable alternate directly adds weight to the flight and increases the cost. With
today’s aircraft and advanced approach aids at modern airports, diversions are a rare event. The regulatory
weather requirements for an alternate are also very conservative and have not changed for many years.
This is in spite of the significant advances in aircraft navigation and landing systems, improved weather
reporting (including satellite and radar imaging) and improved airport ground systems technology. The
primary reasons for diversions are equally divided among medical emergencies, maintenance and weather.
Most diversions are not to the planned alternate.

The risk of not being able to land at an airport, and the risk of holding in the terminal area should be
separated. Just because the destination weather forecast is poor does not necessarily mean there is a high
risk of a diversion. If the airport has multiple runways with Cat II or Cat III approach aids available then the
chances of a diversion are minimal. However, there may be delays in terminal area if the weather has
slowed down the approaches that would dictate that the right amount of additional fuel (Extra or
Discretionary) be added to the flight. It should not be necessary to have a long alternate AND additional fuel
for the terminal area.

For some operational and commercial reasons it may be necessary to flight plan with two alternates. EU-
OPS regulate circumstances where a Second Alternate must be designated on the flight. A recent change to
EU-OPS takes account of improvements in aircraft performance and developing airport and airspace
infrastructure and allows for the lowering of the weather minima resulting in a reduction in the number of
times a second alternate airport is required.

Notwithstanding the EU-OPS regulation requiring a Second Alternate, before developing a policy that
requires planning with two alternates’ careful consideration should be given to the reason why many policies
were developed years ago and simply have not been updated to account for aircraft and other operational
improvements. Obsolete policy decision like the one quoted here result in the transport of additional fuel and
increases the workload of both the Flight Crew and Flight Dispatcher, as both alternates will need to be
monitored during the flight. Use of a good Fuel Information Management System to track fuel loads,
overconsumption and alternate selection processes are invaluable in promoting and managing improvement
in alternate selection practices.

There are several reasons why the selection of alternate airports is not fully optimized. Many airlines have
not carefully analyzed the best and most efficient alternate for each destination. Without this guidance many
alternate airports are selected because of a dispatcher’s familiarity with that airport or for personal
preferences. Pilots in turn may prefer a specific alternate because of comfort or familiarity, the availability of
landing charts, perceived traffic densities, ground handling capabilities or good ground communications after
landing. Many times a long alternate is selected with the knowledge that if a flight diverts, it will divert to an
airport other than the designated alternate airport.

To improve the alternate selection process, consider the following steps:

 Designate a primary alternate at every destination

 Perform a detailed review of all possible alternates for each new destination
 List all the available alternates in order of fuel requirements for reference

99
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Ensure the information regarding handling details, communications, approach charts, etc are
available for the closest alternates
 Ascertain that both the crews and dispatchers are familiar the primary and closest alternates for
each destination. Include the use of these alternates during simulator exercises.
 Perform regular reviews to ensure compliance to the established alternate selection process by
both pilots and dispatchers.

Airlines should establish, subject to regulations, a clear policy that outlines the actions to take by the crew
and dispatch when the weather at destination or alternate airports deteriorates. The following scenarios
should be considered:

 If the weather at destination is above alternate weather limits and the weather at the designated
alternate airport decreases unexpectedly below normal approach limits, the flight can continue at
the captain’s discretion. This is after verifying that landing at destination can be assured and no
unreasonable traffic delays are expected.
 If the weather at destination is between normal approach and alternate weather limits, the weather
at the alternate should remain at least above normal approach limits with no traffic delays known or
anticipated
 If the weather at destination decreases below normal CAT I ILS approach limits, then the weather
at the designated alternate should remain above normal alternate limits.

Caution is required to ensure that a flight does not end up without options. Unless the landing can be safely
assured at either the destination or the alternate airports with no anticipated ATC delays, an en-route landing
should be considered.

Data
ALTN Count of Average of
Dest APT Fleet APT Fleet ALTN Fuel
EGLL B744 EGCC 4 7540
EGKK 234 4570
EGSS 8 5656
EHAM 2 9082
B744 Total 248 4689
EGLL Total 248 4689
Grand Total 248 4689

Alternate Airport Selection

94%

EGLL B744 EGCC
EGLL B744 EGKK
EGLL B744 EGSS
EGLL B744 EHAM

3%
2% 1%

Figure 36: Fuel MI Example of Very Good Alternate Airport Selection

In this example the closet Alternate EGKK is being used 94% of the time.

100
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

Average
Average of of ALTN
IATA Fleet Dest APT ALTN APT DIST to ALTN Fuel
B772 LHR BRU 206 4104
LHR Total 206 4104
206 4104
206 4104
206 4104
206 4104

Alternate Airport

N N N B772 LHR BRU

100%

Figure 37: Fuel MI Example were Alternate Airport Selection could be improved
In this example EBBR is being used 100% of the time for EGLL. Using the closer alternate options of
Gatwick, Stanstead or East Midlands offers reliable airport options at significantly lower fuel loads.

Destination alternates are mostly for planning purposes and where required by weather conditions, company
policy and regulation. Wherever practical planning should use the closest suitable alternate airport, this will
minimize the fuel uplift during “routine” operations. If there is a low risk of a diversion then plan the closest
suitable alternate.

The following is a projection of the effects of using the closest alternate during the planning and execution at
ABC Airlines. Here the time to the alternate airports has a target reduction averaging 2 and 8 minutes across
the fleet:

Alternate Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg time (mins) Avg time (mins) Avg Extra Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
OPT Selection 1 kg / Fleet to ALTN-1 to ALTN-2 per Flight Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 32' 36' 330 kg 80% 527,789 kg 1,663 t $435,426
A320-200 2,296 kg 27' 30' 119 kg 80% 218,612 kg 689 t $180,355
B747-400 1,221 kg 30' 38' 1,236 kg 80% 1,207,438 kg 3,803 t $996,136
B777-200 2,213 kg 30' 38' 780 kg 80% 1,380,607 kg 4,349 t $1,139,001
B737-700 2,752 kg 27' 30' 107 kg 80% 236,273 kg 744 t $194,925
CRJ-200 880 kg 25' 27' 36 kg 50% 15,840 kg 50 t $13,068
ATR 72 836 kg 25' 27' 20 kg 50% 8,151 kg 26 t $6,725
Total 3,594,710 kg 11,323 t $2,965,635

Table 47: Alternate Airport Selection

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 3,594,710 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,965,635 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 11,323 metric
tons per year.

101
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

6.4.9 Cost Index “0” to Alternate

Traditionally the burn to the Alternate Airport has been calculated using Long Range Cruise Speed (LRC).
Modern flight planning systems use cost index as the most efficient way to flight plan an aircraft. It is IATA
recommended best practice to use Cost Index Zero as the cruise speed for the calculation of the fuel burn
to the alternate airport. Best in Class airlines use modern flight planning systems that produce very
accurate predictions of flight time and fuel burn and utilize Cost Index Zero to calculate the fuel burn to the
Alternate Airport or Airports.

Applying this calculation method to our sample airline results in the following efficiency gain:

Alternate Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Alt Delta Fuel Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Cost Index "0" 1 kg / Fleet Fuel LRC>MRC Savings in kg Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 2,640 kg 26 kg 52,779 kg 166 t $43,543
A320-200 2,296 kg 1,071 kg 11 kg 24,594 kg 77 t $20,290
B747-400 1,221 kg 4,635 kg 46 kg 56,599 kg 178 t $46,694
B777-200 2,213 kg 2,925 kg 29 kg 64,716 kg 204 t $53,391
B737-700 2,752 kg 966 kg 10 kg 26,581 kg 84 t $21,929
CRJ-200 880 kg 450 kg 5 kg 3,960 kg 12 t $3,267
ATR 72 836 kg 244 kg 2 kg 2,038 kg 6t $1,681
Total 231,266 kg 728 t $190,794

Table 48: Use of Cost Index Zero Cruise Speed to the Alternate
Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 231,266 kgs/yr or
US$ 190,794 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 728 metric tons
per year.

6.4.10 No Alternate Airport – IFR Operation

No Alternate IFR operations can be used as an effective means for reducing the fuel carried aboard aircraft
during good weather operations when dispatching to airports where “No Alternate for destination airport” is
practical. Observations at many airlines have proven that there are a reasonable number of occasions, on
an annual basis, where selective use of No Alternate IFR can be used. In order to implement such a policy a
rational sector and destination airport Reserve Fuel Policy will need to be developed as part of a specific
Risk Management Assessment.

EU-OPS, FAA CFR 121 and local Civil Aviation Regulations detail the requirements for Destination Alternate
airports.
6.4.10.1 Federal Air Regulations (FAR) No Alternate Operations
Under Federal Air Regulations (FAR) No Alternate Operations are approved as follows:

Part 121.619 Alternate Airport for destination IFR Domestic Operations

(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless they list at least one
alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release. When the weather conditions
forecast for the destination and first alternate airport are marginal at least one additional alternate
must be designated. However, no alternate airport is required if for at least 1 hour before and 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or
forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate—
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation; and
(2) Visibility will be at least 3 miles.

Part 121.621 Alternate Airport for destination Flag (International) Operations

(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless they list at least one
alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release, unless—
(1) The flight is scheduled for not more than 6 hours and, for at least 1hour before and 1 hour after

102
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport, the appropriate weather reports or forecasts,
or any combination of them, indicate the ceiling will be:
(i) At least 1,500 feet above the lowest circling MDA, if a circling approach is required and
authorized for that airport; or
(ii) At least 1,500 feet above the lowest published instrument approach minimum or 2,000
feet above the airport elevation, whichever is greater; and
(iii) The visibility at that airport will be at least 3 miles, or 2 miles more than the lowest
applicable visibility minimums, whichever is greater for the instrument approach procedures
to be used at the destination airport; or
(2) The flight is over a route approved without an available alternate airport for a particular
destination airport and the airplane has enough fuel to meet the requirements of Sec. 121.641(b) or
Sec. 121.645(c).
6.4.10.2 EU-OPS 1.295 Selection of Aerodromes
EU-OPS states with respect to Alternate Airport requirements:

(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from takeoff to landing [or, in the event of in-flight re-
planning in accordance with EU-OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does
not exceed six hours and

(ii) Two separate runways [(See EU-OPS 1.192)] are available and usable at the destination
[aerodrome], and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination
aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before
until one hour after the expected time of arrival at [the] destination [aerodrome], the ceiling
will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will
be at least 5 km; or
(2) The destination [aerodrome] is isolated.

(d) An operator must select two destination alternate [aerodromes] when:

(1) The appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination [aerodrome], or any combination
thereof, indicate that during a period commencing [one] hour before and ending [one] hour after the
estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions will be below the applicable planning minima [(See
EU-OPS 1.297(b))]; or
(2) No meteorological information is available.

Similar to the FAR requirements recent changes to EU-OPS permits the use of No Alternate operations
during re-dispatch operations where the flight time from the re-dispatch position to the destination is 6 hours
or less.

In approaching the implementation of a No Alternate IFR policy, a review must be made of the planned
versus actual arrival fuel loads being carried aboard each flight. In consideration of removing the weight of
the ALTN fuel burn, good judgment and Risk Management would indicate that a Sector Specific Additional
Reserve Fuel should be developed where judicious amounts of policy fuel would be added to each flight.

 Selective use of No ALTN IFR operations where planned flight times are less than 6 hours
 Selective use of Re-dispatch operations to enable re-clearance to destination, No Alternate IFR
where flight time from re-clearance point to destination is less than 6 hours.

Implementation of such a policy would recommend that minimum planned fuel at destination be based on the
following:

 Contingency Fuel (including statistical contingency fuel based on usage)

103
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 30 Minutes Final Reserve Fuel

 15 minutes additional fuel (holding speed)

An analysis of destination airports worldwide, especially in North America, core area of Europe and to other
regional destinations where a sophisticated Air Traffic Control System exists and weather and other data
communications are good indicates that a number of destinations are candidates for No Alternate IFR
operations.

The numbers reflected in the following chart are based on the estimate number of flight segments per year
that might be dispatched using No ALTN-IFR planning plus an offset in the reduction in fuel at destination by
the addition of 15 minutes Company Additional Fuel.

No Alternate Ops Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Alt Hold Fuel Fuel Reduction Potential
(NO-ALTN IFR) 1 kg / Fleet Fuel 15 Mins per Flight Savings in kg
A330-300 1,999 kg 2,640 kg 1,350 kg 1,290 kg 2,578,968 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 1,071 kg 531 kg 540 kg 1,240,281 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 4,635 kg 2,025 kg 2,610 kg 3,187,108 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 2,925 kg 1,417 kg 1,508 kg 3,337,021 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 966 kg 505 kg 461 kg 1,268,392 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 450 kg 125 kg 325 kg 286,000 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 244 kg 113 kg 131 kg 109,725 kg
Total 12,007,495 kg

Table 49: NO ALTN Airport Operations Calculation of Fuel Reduction

No Alternate Ops Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
(NO-ALTN IFR) Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 5% 128,948 kg 406 t $106,382
A320-200 20% 248,056 kg 781 t $204,646
B747-400 5% 159,355 kg 502 t $131,468
B777-200 5% 166,851 kg 526 t $137,652
B737-700 20% 253,678 kg 799 t $209,285
CRJ-200 20% 57,200 kg 180 t $47,190
ATR 72 20% 21,945 kg 69 t $18,105
Total 1,036,034 kg 3,264 t $854,728

Table 50: NO ALTN Airport Operations - Projected Savings

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 1,036,034 kgs/yr or
US$ 854,728 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 3,264 metric
tons per year.

6.4.10.3 Best In Class No Alternate Operations

The example shown above is biased towards operations outside of North America. In these regions the use
of No Alternate IFR operations is seldom applied and as such the gains predicted are conservative. This
story however is not true for North American Operations, especially those operating under FAA CFR 121
operations. In North America Best in Class airlines are achieving No Alternate IFR operations some 70 to
75% of the time on their domestic operations. This success is coupled with accurate statistical calculations
on the accuracy of the flight plan burn predictions and an understanding of the extra fuel required to cover
the 90% or 99% distribution of the experienced over burns. These statistical predictions are provided to the
dispatchers and pilots for use in the pre-departure planning process so that the correct amount of “sector
contingency fuel” can be added to the flight while the burn to the alternate fuel is not being carried and yet
still provide a very high level of confidence for the completion of each flight to its intended destination.

6.4.11 Final Reserve (30 Minutes @ 1500ft Holding Fuel Flow) Optimization
In reviewing the fuel policies and practices at many airlines one thing that is quite common, especially on

104
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

wide-body fleets is the use of a Standard Fuel value for the Final Reserve (Hold Fuel – typically
30 minutes at Holding FF at 1500ft above the landing airport). Where such policies still exist the values
have been calculated to cover the MZFW and temperature variations and are typically very conservative
resulting in hundreds of kilos of “extra” fuel being loaded on the average flight. Industry Best Practice
airlines calculate Hold Fuel on a flight-by-flight basis by the flight planning system using the forecast
condition for weather and payload.

Applying such practices at our sample airline would improve efficiency as follows:

Holding Fuel Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) 30 Mins Standard Hold Avg Extra Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total Hold Fuel Flow
Optimization 1 kg / Fleet 1500FT act Wgt Fuel Value per Flight Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$ Kgs/hr
A330-300 1,999 kg 2,700 kg 3,000 kg 300 599,760 kg 1,889 t $494,802 5,400 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 1,062 kg 1,200 kg 138 316,829 kg 998 t $261,384 2,124 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 4,050 kg 4,500 kg 450 549,501 kg 1,731 t $453,339 8,100 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 2,834 kg 3,000 kg 167 368,383 kg 1,160 t $303,916 5,667 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 1,010 kg 1,200 kg 190 522,850 kg 1,647 t $431,351 2,020 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 250 kg 350 kg 100 88,000 kg 277 t $72,600 500 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 225 kg 0 0 kg 0t $0 450 kg
Total 2,445,323 kg 7,703 t $2,017,391

Table 51: Hold Fuel Optimization

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,445,323 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,017,391 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 7.703 metric
tons per year.

6.4.12 Flight Planning System Fuel Bias

It is critical that the correct fuel bias for each aircraft in the fleet be calculated and monitored for correct
updating of the fuel bias in the flight planning system and the FMS on the aircraft itself. This analysis must be
performed as a continual part of the fleet oversight. Updates should be performed to the flight planning
system fuel bias values and the aircraft FMS as and when required. Accurate fuel bias numbers are an
essential part of an effective fuel management program and are required for the correct calculation of
planned fuel values.

Primary input to the fuel bias is typically provided by the Maintenance & Engineering department or
Performance Engineering using readings derived from the Aircraft Performance Monitoring system (APM). If
the APM readings contain inaccuracies significant errors can be introduced into the systems where
inaccurate fuel bias values entered into the FPS can result in destabilizing the relationship between FPS,
aircraft FMS and the APM onboard reading.

Accurate aircraft weight calculations also play a significant role in the accuracy of the APM readings and the
relationship to the FPS and the FMS. Inaccurate aircraft weight also has a destabilizing effect on the
relationship between APM, FPS and FPS. Please refer to the detailed discussion on use and management
of APM data in the Maintenance & Engineering Section 8.2.

As airlines refine their Fuel Management Information systems careful attention should be paid to tracking
each tail number and the determination of the correct fuel bias numbers for the flight planning system. Small
errors in these bias numbers will have a dramatic effect on flight planning accuracy and errors undermine
Flight Crew confidence in the flight plan values. Once correct values are established only very small changes
over time should occur unless major event with engines or airframe occurs. FPS managers should monitor
the Fuel Bias values they see large variations in the bias values over relative short periods of time. Well
maintained aircraft in normal line operations should see performance degradation of approximately 0.5% per
year. Readings that are observed to follow a “Yoyo” pattern such as:

Acft JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL

ABF -2.5% -1.0% 0.0% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.5%

105
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

are clear indicators that something is wrong with the APM bias values and the causes should be reviewed
and resolved in cooperation with the Maintenance department.

The chart below indicates the effect that a small error in fuel bias numbers can have on fleet performance:

Fuel Bias Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Flt Burn Avg Cycle Bias Additional Fuel Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
(Flight Planning System) 1 kg / Fleet Kg/Hr Length Error Carried Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 5,500 6.28 0.5% 173 kg 345,244 kg 1,088 t $284,827
A320-200 2,296 kg 2,645 1.54 0.5% 20 kg 46,692 kg 147 t $38,521
B747-400 1,221 kg 10,300 7.30 0.5% 376 kg 459,330 kg 1,447 t $378,947
B777-200 2,213 kg 6,500 7.19 0.5% 234 kg 516,876 kg 1,628 t $426,422
B737-700 2,752 kg 2,385 1.92 0.5% 23 kg 63,089 kg 199 t $52,049
CRJ-200 880 kg 1,200 1.10 0.5% 7 kg 5,834 kg 18 t $4,813
ATR 72 836 kg 650 0.80 0.5% 3 kg 2,174 kg 7t $1,793
Total 1,439,239 kg 4,534 t $1,187,372

Table 52: Flight Planning Fuel Bias Errors

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 1,439,239 kgs/yr or
US$ 1,187,372 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 4,534 metric
tons per year.

Best in Class airlines manage the Fuel Bias values with a close collaboration between Flight Dispatch, Flight
Operations, Load Planning and Maintenance & Engineering. All aircraft performance measures are used to
ensure accuracy and correlate calculations using APM readings, ECTM output and Planned to Actual fuel
burn information from their fuel management data warehouse.

6.4.13 Over Tankering

Fuel tankering should be an integral part of the flight planning system. For ecological reasons, consider
tankering only when there is a definite commercial benefit for the airline. Tankering is normally limited to
short flights or for tactical reasons. Consider the full cost of carrying the additional fuel, including wear and
tear to the aircraft; a cost of US$10 per ton per flight is typical for all jet aircraft.

It is important that the daily fuel price fluctuations are taken into consideration and close liaison with the Fuel
Purchasing department is essential. For ecological reasons, consider tankering only when there is a definite
commercial benefit for the airline. Tanker policies should detail guidelines for how much additional fuel burn
is acceptable in-order to save US$1 in fuel cost. Flight planning should automatically calculate multi-sector
fuel tankering possibilities and advise Dispatchers for the required amounts of tanker fuel to meet company
policy and good economic practices. Flight planning systems should also provide Dispatchers and Pilots with
information about the cost of transporting fuel, this is typically presented in the form of an “eco-factor” which
is the cost in US$ of moving one additional ton of fuel from station A to station B.

When planning to tanker fuel, the maximum limitations of the aircraft should normally not be approached.
This includes maximum performance takeoff and landing weights as well as the brake capacity of the
aircraft. Sufficient margins should be left to allow any last minute additional payload to be carried and to not
adversely affect the next flight leg. To avoid overweight landings, the planned landing weights must be
monitored. Anticipate the possibility of last minute additional cargo, go-show passengers, or changes in
aircraft route scheduling. Also, consider the departure and arrival runway conditions, the lower en-route
altitudes that, in some cases, can limit the cruise altitude options to avoid turbulence or cause additional
detouring around weather.

Tankering fuel is not recommended under the following conditions:

 Flights landing at airports that have reported poor braking action - or weather forecasts predict
conditions which may result in poor braking action
 Flights landing at airports that have very short runways
 Flights landing at "hot/high" airports where engine-out go-around limits may be a performance
concern

106
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

 Care should be taken when tankering fuel into areas with low temperatures and high relative
humidity and precipitation due to the increased risk of wing ice accumulation during the transit
resulting from the cold soaked fuel in the aircraft wing tanks.

Optimal Flight Planning systems support fuel tankering efforts by ensuring that when added fuel is burned in
the transportation of the additional fuel that the flight profile produces the lowest possible fuel burn that
meets mission requirements. Low fuel burn equals reduced emissions.

The following is an estimate for tanker fuel optimization at our sample airline to reduce over tankering:

Over Tankering Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Number of % of Flts that Nbr Avg Over Percentage Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
1 kg / Fleet Cycles Tanker Fuel Tanker Flights Tankering Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 9,096 20% 1819 500 kg 50% 99,960 kg 315 t $82,467
A320-200 2,296 kg 48,160 10% 4816 200 kg 50% 22,959 kg 72 t $18,941
B747-400 1,221 kg 3,888 20% 778 600 kg 50% 73,267 kg 231 t $60,445
B777-200 2,213 kg 8,100 0% 0 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
B737-700 2,752 kg 39,760 10% 3976 200 kg 50% 27,518 kg 87 t $22,703
CRJ-200 880 kg 39,820 0% 0 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 836 kg 55,000 0% 0 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 223,704 kg 705 t $184,556

Table 53: Effects of Optimizing Tanker Operations to Reduce Over Tankering

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 223,704 kgs/yr or
US$ 184,556 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 705 metric tons
per year.

6.4.14 Standard Taxi Fuel Loading

Many airlines use standard taxi fuel allowances. In many situations these standard allowances exceed the
taxi fuel requirements and result in flights taking off with some of the taxi fuels still in the tanks. This added
takeoff fuel affects efficiency as it results in a Cost of Weight situation where some of the extra fuel is
consumed to carry it to the destination.

Industry Best Practice is to employ statistical taxi fuels for each flight that are responsive to changing
conditions. The Fuel MI System discussed in Section 3.6 above is an excellent source for these statistics.

Taxi Fuel & Times
1200 25.0

1000
20.0

800
15.0
Fuel in Kilos

Average of Planned  Taxi Fuel
600 Average of Taxi Out  fuel

10.0 Average of Taxi Out  Minutes

400 Average of Taxi In  Minutes

5.0
200

0 0.0
B744 B772 B772ER B773 B773‐ER

Figure 38: Fleet Taxi Fuels & Taxi Times

107
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Taxi Fuel & Times
1600 35.0

1400 30.0

1200
25.0
1000
Fuel in Kilos

20.0
800 Average of Planned  Taxi Fuel

15.0 Average of Taxi Out  fuel

600
Average of Taxi Out  Minutes
10.0 Average of Taxi In  Minutes
400

200 5.0

0 0.0
EDDF EGLL KJFK KLAX KSFO NZAA RCTP RJAA RKSI RPLL VHHH VTBS WADD WIII WSSS YMML YSSY

B744

Figure 39: Fleet Taxi Fuel & Times by Departure Station

As can be seen from the samples above in general the taxi fuel allowances are exceeding requirements and
causing the unburned departure taxi fuel to be in the tanks at takeoff. The detail by station however does
show that at some stations the actual taxi burn exceeds the allowance. These inconsistencies tend to cause
flight crews to compensate by adding additional fuels, which can further compound the over-fuel issue.

Best in class airlines are now developing taxi time statistics for use in schedule development (accurate block
time scheduling) and in day-to-day operations. Values that are being measured are:

 By Station
 By Fleet
 By City-Pair
 By Time of day
 By Day of week
 By Gate complex to departure runway
 By Arrival runway to gate complex.

Adopting statistical taxi time and fuel loads to departure creates more accurate arrival time estimates,
increases crew confidence and reduces the wastage where excess taxi fuel allowances are loaded. At our
sample airline efficiency gain estimates are as follows:

Taxi Fuel Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Extra Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Excess Standard Load 1 kg / Fleet per Flight Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 100 kg 75% 149,940 kg 472 t $123,701
A320-200 2,296 kg 50 kg 65% 74,615 kg 235 t $61,558
B747-400 1,221 kg 200 kg 75% 183,167 kg 577 t $151,113
B777-200 2,213 kg 150 kg 75% 248,908 kg 784 t $205,349
B737-700 2,752 kg 50 kg 65% 89,435 kg 282 t $73,784
CRJ-200 880 kg 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 836 kg 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 746,065 kg 2,350 t $615,504

Table 54: Statistical Taxi Fuel Loads

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 746,065 kgs/yr or
US$ 615,504 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 2,350 metric
tons per year.

108
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

6.5 Load Planning

6.5.1 Center of Gravity Management

Aircraft stability in flight is assured by maintaining the center of gravity (CG) forward of the center of lift. To
achieve this condition requires the horizontal stabilizer produce downward lift; this in turn must then be
compensated by additional lift from wings. The further forward the center of gravity, the greater the
downward lift vector required from the horizontal stabilizer and the greater lift compensation required from
the wings, which results in increased induced drag. There are obviously limits to the fore and aft loading of
an airplane to retain a minimum stability in flight.

Depending on the aircraft type, drag created by loading an aircraft to the forward limit of its forward center of
gravity can increase drag by as much as 3% compared to loading the aircraft at its most rearward center of
gravity limit. Mismanaging an aircraft’s center of gravity can have a significant impact on fuel efficiency.

The actual CG plays a significant role in aircraft en-route performance, the more aft the CG can be placed
the less induced drag will be produced which in turn improves the specific range of the aircraft. This
reduction in induced drag results in reduced fuel consumption. The following chart depicts the increase in
specific range as a function of improving the aft CG position for an A310 aircraft:

Figure 40: Aft CG Effect on Specific Range

Any improvement in ability to attain an AFT CG position has an effect on specific range and will reduce fuel
consumption. Airlines should review load planning activities and training and stress the importance of
planning for the most aft CG position possible. Load plans however must be practical and meet mission
requirements, example: it would be counterproductive to implement tactical mission management that is
speeding up a series of flight sectors to reduce delay only to find that the optimal load planner has produced
on-load/off-load plans that cannot be accomplished in the given transit time. Improved load plans need to
cater to mission management and achievable improvements in aft CG location.

Implementation of effective and practical load planning procedures aimed at achieving a CG position as far
aft as possible will decrease aerodynamic drag and improve the specific range values for all aircraft in the
fleet. A disciplined approach to loading the aircraft to achieve a more rearward CG through the
implementation of additional load planning automation and the setting of effective CG goals for all load
planners will result in additional savings in fuel cost and a reduction in emissions. Airlines should review their
load planning procedures and automation support software to ensure that the load planning activities are
properly supporting the airline commercial needs. Attaining even a small improvement in Aft CG position will
have the following impact on fuel efficiency and cost reduction:

109
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Loadplanning Burn Average Optimized Delta Burn Reduction Potential Fuel Burn
CG Management kg/yr ZFW C of G ZFW C of G ZFW C of G Fuel Value Savings Kg
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 26.0% 29% 3.0% 0.25% 785,400 kg
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% 0.01% 19,589 kg
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 24.0% 29.0% 5.0% 0.35% 1,023,748 kg
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 26.0% 32.0% 6.0% 0.35% 1,324,596 kg
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 21.0% 26.0% 5.0% 0.25% 455,774 kg
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg N/A N/A 0.0% 0 kg
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg N/A N/A 0.0% 0 kg
Total 3,609,106 kg

Table 55: AFT CG Position Calculations

Loadplanning Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
CG Management Improvement Saving Kg Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 60% 471,240 kg 1,484 t $388,773
A320-200 50% 9,794 kg 31 t $8,080
B747-400 60% 614,249 kg 1,935 t $506,755
B777-200 50% 662,298 kg 2,086 t $546,396
B737-700 50% 227,887 kg 718 t $188,007
CRJ-200 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0 kg 0t $0
Total 1,985,468 kg 6,254 t $1,638,011

Table 56: Projected Efficiency Improvement from Optimized CG

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 1,985,468 kgs/yr or
US$ 1,638,011 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 6,254 metric
tons per year.

6.5.2 Zero Fuel Weight Error

Accurate ZFW planning is an important part of pre-flight preparation. Planned ZFW is a direct input to the
flight planning system and forms the basis for the majority of flight plan calculation from which all fuel
quantities required to conduct the flight are determined. If the planned ZFW is higher than the actual ZFW at
departure the fuel quantities for all calculated fuels will be higher than they need to be resulting in more fuel
than actually required to be loaded on the flight. This “added” fuel then acts like payload, and some of this
added fuel will be consumed in the transport of this added fuel weight to the destination. Gross weight has a
direct effect on the flight path selection algorithms, especially those algorithms that are capable of calculating
optimal 4 dimensional flight profiles and can result in different lateral and vertical path resolution between a
lightly loaded to a heavily loaded flight. Airlines must develop good load planning procedures and should put
in place procedures to monitor load-planning performance and should strive to improve the calculation of
load planning estimated ZFW.

110
 Operations Control & Flight Dispatch

ZFW Variance
‐4000.0 8000
‐3765.3

‐3500.0 7000

‐3000.0 6000

‐2500.0 5000
Variance in Kilos

Flight Count
‐2041.4
‐1885.2 Average of ZFW Delta
‐2000.0 ‐1870.3 4000
‐1689.9 Count of Fleet
‐1610.8 ‐1624.8
‐1500.0 3000

‐1000.0 2000

‐500.0 1000

0.0 0
Widebody Fleet ZFW Variance

Figure 41: Fuel MI Statistics for ZFW Variance – Wide Body Fleets

Planned to Actual ZFW
0.00 800
700
‐500.00
600 Number of Flights
ZFW Delta in Kilos

‐1000.00 500
400
‐1500.00 300
200 Average of ZFW Delta
‐2000.00
100 Count of FltID
‐2500.00 0
32A A20 B735 B738

Figure 42: Fuel MI Statistics for ZFW Variance – Narrow Body Fleets
The numbers in the chart below are typical for the weight variances observed in airline operations. The
projected improvements are a conservative estimate for improving on planning estimates by essentially
cutting the planning errors by 50% across each of the fleets:

Loadplanning Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Cycle Weight Avg Delta Overfuelling Per Flt Potential Fuel Burn
ZFW Accuracy 1 kg / Fleet Length Factor PZFW-AZFW due to ZFW Error Savings Kg
A330-300 1,999 kg 6.28 3.50% 2,500 kg 549 kg 1,098,505 kg
A320-200 2,296 kg 1.54 3.10% 1,200 kg 57 kg 131,337 kg
B747-400 1,221 kg 7.30 4.30% 4,500 kg 1,413 kg 1,725,833 kg
B777-200 2,213 kg 7.19 3.80% 3,500 kg 956 kg 2,115,214 kg
B737-700 2,752 kg 1.92 3.60% 1,200 kg 83 kg 228,550 kg
CRJ-200 880 kg 1.10 2.00% 500 kg 11 kg 9,724 kg
ATR 72 836 kg 0.80 1.90% 150 kg 2 kg 1,906 kg
Total 5,311,068 kg

Table 57: EZFW Planning Errors Total Potential

111
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Loadplanning Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total

ZFW Accuracy Improvement Saving Kg Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 50% 549,253 kg 1,730 t $453,133
A320-200 50% 65,668 kg 207 t $54,176
B747-400 50% 862,916 kg 2,718 t $711,906
B777-200 50% 1,057,607 kg 3,331 t $872,526
B737-700 50% 114,275 kg 360 t $94,277
CRJ-200 20% 1,945 kg 6t $1,604
ATR 72 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 2,651,664 kg 8,353 t $2,187,623

Table 58: EZFW Target Improvement and Projected Savings

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,651,664 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,187,623 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 8,353 metric
tons per year.

6.5.3 Best in Class Load Planning

Larger airlines are implementing organizational changes that are combining all load planning activities in a
centralized load planning unit responsible for load planning actions for all of the airlines flights. Some airlines
have also taken the action to locate these centralized load planning units within their Centralized Operations
Control Centers (OCC). Co-locating the load planning function increases the coordination between the
Operations Control decisions and optimizing the load planning and enabling much closer coordination
between load planning and flight dispatch for the optimization of the operational flight plan.

Whether centrally located with the OCC function or centralized in one dedicated standalone facility Best in
Class Airlines are implementing load planning practices that are sensitized to the need for accurate load
estimation: EZFW and to aft loading strategies for each flight operation. Detailed statistics are compiled to
allow for trend analysis of both the EZFW and the departure %MAC CG of each flight.

Another tool used to counter the worst effects of inaccurate ZFW estimates is to allow the pilot to make a
“last minute” fuel adjustment to account for the difference between planned ZFW and actual ZFW. To
accomplish this, the Operational Flight Plan must include a fuel burn correction for a range of ZFW variance
above and below the Planned ZFW.

Figure 43: OFP ZFW Variance Calculations

Fuel loading procedures include loading fuel to a pre-determined level a few hundred kilos short of the OFP
planned Block Fuel requirement. During the fueling the pilot reviews the final load sheet to determine the
actual departure ZFW, calculates and necessary adjustment to the final fuel load and instructs the fueller
accordingly. This final fuel load instruction is then communicated to the Dispatcher and the Load Planner for
inclusion into their documentation and calculations.

112
7 FLIGHT OPERATIONS
7.1 General
Pilots play a major fuel efficiency role in the operation of all flights. The main goal for the crew is to execute
the flight plan as optimized by Dispatch, according the requirements for that specific flight, and to operate
at the most efficient speeds and profile.

Accurate flight planning is extremely important both in terms of safety and efficiency. The flying environment
is becoming ever more complex and the necessity for accurate and timely information for flight planning
cannot be overstated.

Traditionally, flight plan formats have tended to be simple and limited in available options because of the
necessity to send the document via telex. The lack of font and limited character choices reduced the clarity
of the information. However, modern flight-planning systems offer the option to print a flight plan in several
formats, depending on local circumstances. The use of fonts increases the readability and assists Pilots
when attempting to locate critical information at the time of flight preparation or during the actual flight.

The quality of the information available on a flight plan is critical. Several airlines have made significant
efforts to improve the information available and present it in a logical manner. The more complete the
information, the better the risk management of a flight, which results in the optimal amount of fuel being
carried.

Certain flight planning information is particularly important. Winds above and below flight plan altitudes, climb
and descent winds, track options for oceanic flights, graphical oceanic track charts, wind shear, turbulence,
temperatures, accurate alternate routing and flight profile will all assist the crew in making the best tactical
decision when there is a change in the flight conditions.

Crews often have limited time to flight plan. The flight planning facilities are sometimes basic or even
inadequate, especially when away from home base or main operating stations. The availability of weather
charts is often limited, or of poor quality, and communications with the appropriate Dispatcher or Operation
Controller is at times difficult. This poses a major challenge when it is necessary for the crew to discuss
operational problems or obtain a last minute update of critical information.

The possibility of accessing advanced flight planning information via the Internet or other avenues will help
pilots to acquire useful flight planning data even before arriving for flight briefing. Most layover hotels offer
flight crews Internet accessibility. Some of the information such as satellite weather, winds and significant
weather charts, might be of better quality when compared to the documents available from the limited flight
planning facilities at out stations. A number of hotels also have color printers, which will improve the
readability of charts.

Some airlines use wireless communications at the gate, which permits crews to update planning and
operational information, such as MEL data, zero fuel weight, weather update and charts from the cockpit.
Other airlines use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to improve communication with Dispatchers and
Operations Control.

A number of airlines make limited use of ACARS, or other forms of communications, while an aircraft is
airborne. Some aircraft are not equipped with ACARS and rely on HF capabilities when flying in remote
areas. This will limit the ability by Dispatchers to perform adequate flight watch from the ground and could
ultimately lead to the carriage of additional fuel, while limiting options when the flight conditions change. The
availability of ACARS or other forms of data transmission will enable the tracking of critical flight information
that can subsequently be compared to the flight plan. This will permit the development of critical operational
statistics, improve operational risk management, and provide a database of statistical information for flight

113
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

planning. ACARS will also permit the uploading of re-optimized flight plans allowing the flight profile to be
adjusted as conditions change, thereby reducing operational costs.

Many airlines make use of Repetitive Flight Planning capabilities, which are offered by a number of
providers. While this feature reduces the dispatchers’ workload, it can limit the ability to optimally plan
individual flights at the proper time. Often, the flight plans are produced hours in advance and are no longer
optimized by the time the flight departs. Conditions can change throughout the day. Not only does this pose
a safety issue, but can also result in a tendency to carry additional fuel on each flight, which in the end will be
very costly for the airline.

The carriage of unnecessary fuel on a flight is inversely proportional to the quality and amount of information
available during the planning and execution of a flight. The availability of adequate information will also
minimize the risk of irregular operations and consequently reduce operational costs while improving safety
and customer service.

7.2 Electronic Flight Bags (EFB)

7.2.1 Use of Electronic Flight Bags

Today, EFBs present opportunity for Operators to improve safety and efficiency through paperless
information management, electronic connectivity and the completion of flight management tasks. Depending
on the justification of the business case, many airlines use Class 1, 2 and 3 of EFB to achieve the intended
benefits.

7.2.2 EFB used as Fuel Efficiency Tool

With increasing costs of fuel and the need to conserve the environment, EFBs have become an important
tool for airlines to achieve the desired efficiency. The following are some of the ways airlines are using EFBs
for efficiency gains:

 Weight Reduction
Weight reduction is an important cost benefit resulting from the introduction of EFBs. EFBs eliminate
the need to have paper manuals onboard such as Navigation Charts, Airport Analysis etc. A 50 kg
reduction in weight for the average airliner will reduce fuel consumption between 7,000 and 8,000 kg
per year.

 Flight Optimization
EFBs can be used to take into account the last minute changes due to updates of the upper winds or
outside weather conditions that can be used to improve the aircraft performance. Last minute
changes to the Zero Fuel Weight can also have significant impact on the fuel requirements. The
revised Flight Plans can be unloaded to the EFB and hence saving the need for extra fuel.

 EFB Cost Index Applications

EFBs have been recognized as a tool to specify and facilitate aircraft performance. With the advent
of onboard Cost Index applications that can be used in EFBs the pilots have ability to Optimize Flight
Profiles such as climb and descent without having to depend on Flight Dispatch especially on
Regional Jets whose FMS have no provisions for use of cost index. Airlines operating mostly
Regional Jets have reported fuel savings of up to 4% by using onboard Cost Index applications.

 Taxi Optimization
Airport Moving Maps (AMM) have been used primarily as a safety tool, however, within the airline
community a key business case driver is the Airport Moving Map's role in reduced operating costs
through fuel savings. The financial case for an EFB equipped aircraft that utilizes an AMM is the
improved situational awareness and confidence that leads to more expedient taxi times, which

114
 Flight Operations

results in fuel savings. On average, an airliner saves 25 seconds of taxi times by use of Airport
Moving maps.

7.2.3 Use of EFB for fuel data collection

Post flight reports such as flight times, fuel consumption, flight profiles, incidents, irregular operations, fuel
burns, etc. are essential for effective management of a fuel program. Good data will assist operational
departments in developing statistical information on taxi times, route fuel burn variations from planned, the
loading of more accurate taxi and contingency fuel and the monitoring of specific aircraft and crew fuel
burns.

7.3 Pilot Additional Fuel

The decision to carry additional fuel varies from airline to airline. At some airlines, Dispatchers perform
varied fuel optimization routines and the decision for carrying additional fuel is entirely at the discretion of the
Captain. At other airlines, the decision to carry additional fuel is initiated by Dispatchers. In today’s complex
operating environment, there is more movement towards having Flight Dispatch perform the initial additional
fuel optimization and then coordinate with the Captain. The reason is simple. Many airlines are using
increasingly sophisticated statistics and traffic monitoring tools to optimize flight planning and fuel
management. In addition, dispatchers are often in continuous contact with ATC at various destinations and
monitor the air traffic and weather throughout the region/system. Finally, the dispatchers plan flights to these
destinations on a regular and likely recurring basis so many are usually familiar with additional fuel
requirements based on a variety of reasons. This is in contrast with pilots who might only fly on an
occasional basis to a specific airport. Regardless, efficient and effective fuel planning depends on close
coordination between many segments of the operational realm.

Planning for additional discretionary fuel should be considered for unusual known or forecast operational
reasons. It is important to upload fuel for specific purposes and to document the reasons behind the
decision. There are many factors for consideration, including the safety culture of the organization with an
emphasis on decision-making responsibilities. For example, in some situations it may be acceptable to
dispatch a flight using No Alternate at destination, with reduced en-route contingency fuel, but to add 20
minutes of additional fuel to accommodate for known landing delays that are common at the destination
airport during the time that the flight is planned to arrive. In all cases, ultimately the Captain is responsible for
the safe operation of the flight.

An ideal operational company policy, coupled with real-time statistical fuel information, should provide all of
the guidance necessary to determine any amount of “Extra” fuel needed for a flight. However, in most cases
it is under exceptional circumstances that the Dispatcher or Flight Crew should need to add discretionary fuel
above the specific flight planning, Flight Crew and Dispatch levels.

Statistics have demonstrated that with today’s accurate flight planning systems and modern navigation
capabilities, the contingency fuel, which is supposed to provide for unforeseen circumstances, remains
mostly unused.

Flight Crew Fuel Penalty Avg Wt Total Fuel Burn Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Additional Fuel kg/yr/fleet Extra Incurred in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 1,850 kg 3,698,520 kg 50% 1,849,260 kg 5,825 t $1,525,640
A320-200 2,296 kg 450 kg 1,033,137 kg 40% 413,255 kg 1,302 t $340,935
B747-400 1,221 kg 2,750 kg 3,358,064 kg 50% 1,679,032 kg 5,289 t $1,385,201
B777-200 2,213 kg 2,200 kg 4,867,526 kg 40% 1,947,011 kg 6,133 t $1,606,284
B737-700 2,752 kg 600 kg 1,651,104 kg 45% 742,997 kg 2,340 t $612,972
CRJ-200 880 kg 200 kg 176,000 kg 40% 70,400 kg 222 t $58,080
ATR 72 836 kg 100 kg 83,600 kg 50% 41,800 kg 132 t $34,485
Total 14,867,951 kg 6,743,754 kg 21,243 t $5,563,597

Table 59: Optimization of Pilot Additional Fuel

115
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Reducing the carriage of pilot additional fuel through better optimization by 40% to 50% at ABC Airlines the
fleet fuel burn savings is 6,743,754 kgs/yr or US$ 5,563,597 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The
corresponding CO2 reduction is 21,243 metric tons per year. Please refer to the Dispatch Section 6 of this
document for additional information pertaining to the management of additional fuel by Dispatchers.

Note: In addition, IATA is fully engaged in the development and publication of the ICAO Flight Planning and
Fuel Management Manual (FPFMM). This document will be available in two forms, one for Regulators and
the other for Operators, providing industry recommendations and best practices for fuel use and
management. More detailed information about performance based alternatives to fuel planning and use,
through both a specific risk assessment approach and a more formalized Safety Management System (SMS)
approach, is included. The documents are scheduled for publication in the fall of 2012.

7.3.1 Risk Assessment

One method of operational risk mitigation is the use of accurate statistics on the fuel usage for each city pair
and taxi times at specific airports. Accurate monitoring of traffic and local weather by Flight Dispatchers,
Flight Crews and operational centers for each destination will provide the opportunity to reduce the risk of
unforeseen delays. Additionally, proper training is an essential element of risk reduction. Effective
communication and a good understanding of specific and/or regional issues and irregularities can assist
Crews and Dispatchers in the effective use of policies and procedures, acceptable to the regulator, to
mitigate risks and protect final reserve fuel.

7.4 In-Flight Fuel Management

Managing fuel accurately is one of the most important aspects of flying for Pilots. Proper fuel management
and optimization will not only ensure a high level of safety but will also permit a more efficient operation and
minimize the impact to the environment. Specific examples of recommended procedures and techniques are
addressed in the FPFMM referred to above. This information will be fully aligned and supportive of upcoming
changes to ICAO SARPs in Annex 6 with reference to in flight fuel management. Regional differences are
considered with an emphasis on existing infrastructure, availability of aerodromes, accessibility to accurate
information and many other factors that are key to safety and efficiency for fuel.

7.4.1 Types of Fuel

Should the flight be planned in an area of expected fuel freezing, Jet A1 should be considered as it has a
lower freeze point than Jet A. Note that alternative fuels may have different fuel freeze points when used
either as the sole fuel source or as blends.

7.4.2 Pre- Flight Fuel Requirements

One important aspect of the pre-departure process is to ensure that the flight fuel has been properly
calculated for the anticipated flight conditions. It is essential that accurate data/information be used in the
flight planning process to ensure the fuel boarded is optimized for the specific circumstances of each flight.
Quality flight planning information will contribute to reducing the carriage of unnecessary fuel. It is a normal
and safe practice for pilots to perform a gross check of the required flight fuel when verifying the flight plan
calculations. Should there be a formal Dispatch process, close coordination with Dispatchers and/or others in
the flight planning/command center will ensure that Crews are up to date on current or forecast flight
conditions for en-route, destination and alternate aerodromes.

Use of the FMS is one way to calculate a pre-flight fuel check by loading all of the current flight plan data into
the FMS. Factors such as specific aircraft fuel biases are generally not accounted for in the performance
charts. Forecast climb, cruise and descent winds can be entered from the flight plan to assist in gaining
more accurate information about anticipated fuel burns. Significant differences between the FMS calculations
and the flight plan should be reconciled before departure. The FMS calculations are an excellent tool for use,
as factors such as Cost Indices and Zero Fuel Weights have an effect on the fuel required for the flight,
especially for long-range flights operating using reduced contingency fuel. The fuel penalty for carrying extra

116
 Flight Operations

weight will vary from flight to flight since the flight profile can vary extensively with a different zero fuel
weight. Should there be a significant difference between the planned zero fuel weight and the actual zero
fuel weight, a new flight plan should be requested. Refer to the Flight Dispatch section for further fuel
planning information.

7.4.3 Fueling
The pre-departure fuel check is critical to ensure that the correct fuel is available for the flight. This is
especially important if a fuel gauge is inoperative or when discrepancies are encountered. Any uncertainty
associated with the fuel on board must be investigated before departure. For instance, checks to ensure
differences between the present fuel state and the arrival fuel from the previous flight should be investigated.
For example, a significant amount of fuel could have been consumed by the APU, which might have been
operated overnight or during lengthy ground stops.

The fuel uplift must be converted into weight carefully. Specific gravity can vary as much as 5% and
consequently have a significant impact on the weight of fuel boarded. Ambient temperatures will also result
in a change in specific gravity. Therefore, the fuel uplift in volume multiplied by the specific gravity should
yield the weight of fuel boarded. The uplifted fuel when added to the arrival fuel should correspond to the
required fuel specified on the flight plan. Any inconsistencies must be immediately resolved and this may
require a drip check to confirm the fuel on board.

Figure 44: Conversion Factors

7.4.4 Pre-Departure Fuel Management Consideration

Unforeseen delays on departure will affect the brake-release fuel quantity. Extended delays may result in
fuel required for the flight being consumed on the ground. Pilots should consider many tactical issues prior to
departure. For example, how much of the extra fuel or contingency fuel may be consumed before takeoff?
Airlines’ fuel policies differ on this issue. For instance, the use of contingency fuel might prevent a flight from
meeting its Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) fuel requirements. Should the flight return to the
gate for more fuel and encounter further delays? Should an en-route fuel stop be planned? Should the
destination be changed or the flight re-dispatched with the alternate being dropped once the flight
approaches destination and the conditions permit? What is the engine-out or all engines idling fuel
consumption? Should engines be shut down during the ground delay? These questions should be
considered by the pilot prior to departure. As can be seen, support and guidance should be requested from
Operations Control and Flight Dispatch to ensure the proper decisions are made both from an economic and
risk assessment perspective. Once again, details of these matters can be reviewed in the ICAO/IATA
FPFMM.

117
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

7.4.5 In-Flight Risk Management

Several factors will affect the manner with which the fuel is managed during flight. If thunderstorms are
forecast at destination, the Crew will want to ensure that sufficient usable fuel is available (fuel above
minimum diversion fuel requirements) to hold while the weather situation improves. Wind forecasts today are
very accurate however. If the flight was planned several hours before departure (based on a forecast that
has nearly expired), there may be significant differences in wind speeds and directions. This scenario may
affect the flight fuel burn, especially on long-range flights. Should this be the case, the Pilot should consider
requesting (assuming adequate flight following is being provided) a revised en-route flight plan to ensure the
use of forecast winds that are more accurate.

In today’s operating environment, arrival traffic conditions at certain busy airports and metropolis areas are
often the biggest unknowns in managing fuel. Route fuel statistics and systems such as the FAA Airport
Demand charts for US destined flights will be helpful in determining arrival fuel requirements. However,
traffic conditions can change rapidly and some tactical decisions may be required on the part of the
Captain/Crew. When this situation occurs, the fuel required to complete an approach at destination will need
be calculated accurately with allowances made for possible extensive vectoring due to other traffic. Since
there is the possibility that the flight may divert, it is also a reasonable assumption that other flights might
also be in similar situation. This could result in numerous flights having to proceed to their alternate airport
simultaneously causing further delays. Every effort should be made to protect final reserve fuel. It is often
better to divert early and wait for the situation to clear on the ground rather than being faced with a minimum
fuel situation. This is the case where good coordination with the Dispatch Department (who might be able to
contact ATC for anticipated delays) will assist in making the best operational decision depending on the
circumstances being experienced. Good communications with Flight Dispatch and Operations Control are
essential to an efficient and safe operation. The ability to communicate in a timely and effective manner is an
essential element in the evaluation of risk. System-wide improvements in communication, navigation and
surveillance will benefit the overall effectiveness of a fuel use program to ensure risks are mitigated
appropriately.

7.4.6 Risk Management Factors

Flying is very safe today because of marked improvements in risk management in the air transport industry.
However, it is important to understand that not all the flights encounter the same operational risks.
Conducting transcontinental USA or intra-Europe flights offer different risk levels compared to an operation
over the North Pole, in the Southern Hemisphere, isolated aerodromes, or flights that qualify for EDTO,
which includes Extended Twin-engine Operations (ETOPS) as defined by recently updated ICAO SARPS. It
is a matter of all available options being considered and evaluated before and during a flight. When
analyzing risk, one must consider the landing capabilities of the aircraft and the landing facilities at the
destination. Aircraft capable of landing during CAT III B situations at properly equipped airports will certainly
have a better chance of landing at the intended destination as compared to aircraft restricted to CAT I
capabilities or at airports with only non-precision approaches available. In addition, some Crews with limited
experience on an aircraft type will likely have higher landing minima that should be factored into diversion
risk.

Thunderstorms, sand storms and other significant meteorological hazards can close airports for extended
time periods resulting in serious traffic delays and possible diversions.

Aircraft with MEL/CDL such as an inoperable APU or generator might be subject to higher risk or flight
restrictions, particularly when considering EDTO qualifications. A single air conditioning pack operation might
run a higher risk of en-route diversion in the event that the remaining pack fails and a descent to 10,000 feet
is required. For these reasons, additional fuel might be required and must be managed accordingly to
minimize risk in the Planning/Dispatch phase.

118
 Flight Operations

7.4.7 In-Flight Fuel Monitoring

In-flight fuel monitoring is essential to ensure a high level of safety and fuel must be checked at regular
intervals throughout the flight. The initial fuel checks should be performed at the first waypoints following the
top of climb. This will permit an early assessment of the fuel state in the event of unusual situations such as
extended taxi times, departure runway changes and/or changes to assigned instrument departure
procedures.

The fuel is then compared to the minimum fuel required at the given waypoint which includes the fuel
required to destination, the alternate fuel and the final reserve fuel (normally 30 minutes). The excess fuel is
then calculated, which should be the total of the contingency fuel, the extra fuel boarded, over fueling and
any other additional fuels. The actual fuel on board is subtracted from the fuel at departure to determine the
fuel consumed to that point. The fuel burn is then compared to the actual engine fuel burn and the calculated
FMS burn to check for any possible fuel anomalies.

It is important to monitor the excess fuel trend throughout the flight. Trends should be assessed for reasons
such as variation in zero fuel weight, flight time variation from plan, wind differences, route changes, or
lateral and vertical deviations from the flight plan. This trend can be used to estimate the amount of extra fuel
on arrival and the holding time available in the event that some holding for weather or traffic might be
required on arrival.

During longer flights, a fuel check should be performed on a recurring basis. A progress report which
includes a fuel report can then be sent to Dispatch for the operations center, depending on the airline’s
operational control policies, to facilitate flight progress, fuel status, and other flight monitoring issues.

A fuel check is also required before entering the EDTO sectors to ensure that the required minimum fuel
quantity is available before proceeding. On certain flight sectors, fuel freezing could be an issue. Jet A and
Jet A1 fuels have different fuel freezing points. When fuel is mixed, it may be difficult to determine exactly the
freezing point. In some cases, a change in flight level and increase in cruise speed might be required. This
would increase the fuel consumption for that sector of the flight.

7.4.8 Alternate Fuel Management

Precise calculations of the alternate fuel are critical since the alternate fuel represents a significant portion of
the landing fuel at destination. The fuel calculated for the alternate should reflect a realistic routing and flight
profile anticipated in the event of a diversion. Many flight-planning systems do not accurately calculate the
actual routing to alternate but use a great circle distance and an additional buffer factor. Inaccurate alternate
fuel calculations over the long run will result in the pilots electing to carry extra fuel. Consequently, precise
alternate fuel calculations are essential to accurately establish the available holding time before diverting.
Accuracy in flight/alternate planning will reduce the risk of flights arriving at an alternate airport with less than
optimum fuel for the anticipated scenario while keeping in mind that the protection of final reserve fuel is
paramount.

7.4.9 Pre-Descent Fuel Assessment

A detailed assessment of the flight fuel state is required before reaching the top of descent point. The
evaluation will include a review of the latest weather, NOTAMS, the type of approach and landing minimums,
anticipated traffic and possible extra radar vectoring during the approach as well as FMS alternate route
programming. An assessment of the holding fuel and time is recommended while keeping in mind that some
holding fuel could be required when proceeding to the alternate airport should a diversion be necessary.

7.4.10 Diversions
Final fuel reserve fuel (in most cases, 30 minutes) is the minimum landing fuel that must be protected.
PANS-ATM defines the requirement for the Pilot in Command to declare a fuel emergency if this minimum
fuel state cannot be met. This will ensure traffic priority as with any emergency situation. The risk of this

119
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

situation occurring is to be mitigated through the appropriate use of accurate flight planning, alternate
aerodrome planning, fuel planning and in flight fuel management. Should an emergency fuel situation occur
it is important to recognize that landing with the minimum reserve fuel can present some limitations based on
the aircraft type and specific fuel limitations addressed in the Aircraft Flight Manual. For example, while the
30-minute minimum reserve fuel is considered usable, it is important to be aware of any maneuvering
limitations which may be required when fuel pump inlets become uncovered in the event of higher flight deck
angles when performing a go-around. This has the potential of resulting in engine fuel starvation.

If during the flight, it is determined that the flight will arrive with less than the minimum divert fuel (alternate
fuel plus minimum reserve fuel), a decision must be taken to ensure that the flight lands at an airport with
adequate reserves. Either the alternate can be dropped if circumstances and the airline fuel policy permits or
an en-route fuel stop should be planned. An early decision will provide the greatest number of options. Note
that for more accurate landing fuel assessment, the anticipated landing runway and corresponding arrival
procedure should be programmed into the FMS.

The use of contingency fuel is strictly at the discretion of the Captain. If a flight is close to arriving at the
destination, with less than the minimum-divert fuel, a reduction in cruise speed with the use of a Cost Index
of “0” may be considered. This depends on individual airline operational procedures. In this case the flight
time will increase but factors of a diversion should be taken into consideration by the Crew and in
accordance with Company procedures.

The decision to divert is always difficult and will normally result in a significant disruption to the operation;
however, the safety of the flight has to be the primary consideration. An early en-route fuel diversion might
have less of a negative impact on the operation when compared to a last minute diversion at the destination.
It is also important to consider issues such as Crew familiarity with the alternate aerodrome, passenger
accommodations, food, customs and other factors.

If it is determined that the landing at destination is doubtful, an early diversion from altitude to the alternate
may be a good tactical decision. The flight would then arrive at the alternate with more than the minimum
fuel reserve keeping in mind that several other flights might also be diverting, leading to crowded en-route
conditions and a very busy air traffic control environment. An earlier return to destination might also then be
possible once the conditions at the original destination improve.

7.4.11 After landing fuel recording

An accurate record of the fuel usage for each flight is important to permit post flight analyses. This
information is essential to the development of a statistical contingency fuel approach and other performance
based fuel approaches as outlined in the FPFMM. In all cases, the accurate recording of fuel on arrival is an
essential element in the development of a closed-loop system.

7.5 Flight Crew and Tactical Mission Management

Flight Crews play a major role in tactically managing flights. It is important for Crews to arrive early at the
aircraft to ensure there are no mechanical problems or Minimum Equipment List (MEL) tasks to be
performed, and the Cabin Crew is briefed about flight conditions and the need for an on-time departure.

The flight plan package should include a list of connecting passengers and associated connecting flights,
with associated departure times, to increase awareness about the impact of delays on customer service.
While Operations Control and Flight Dispatch have numerous flights to handle, Crews can manage one flight
at a time. Therefore, Crews often become aware of problems that might affect departure time before other
departments. It is important to communicate and coordinate any change of situation as soon as possible.

Start up and ramp departure procedures should be efficient. Some operators have long and cumbersome
starting procedures that can block a ramp are for an extended period of time. These kinds of issues at

120
 Flight Operations

specific aerodromes can result in taxi and takeoff delays for other flights. Close coordination with scheduling
and ground operations crews can diminish the negative impact on flight time and fuel burn.

Taxi speed should be reasonable and in accordance with company policy. Valuable time can be lost by
excessively slow taxi speeds. Crews that are consistently over schedule are likely losing a significant portion
of the block time during taxi.

Once the flight is airborne, the arrival time can be accurately estimated. If it is determined that the flight will
be late at planned speeds, the Crew should advise Operations Control or Dispatch of the forecast arrival
time. A cost analysis of the late arrival of the flight should be performed by Operations Control. If it is decided
to accelerate the flight, a new optimized flight plan can be computed with a new profile and Cost Index,
depending on the available fuel and other operational considerations.

It is critical for the Crew to update the Estimated Arrival Time (ETA) as soon as possible to facilitate the
ground coordination including gate planning; assigning Ground Crews to meet the flight in a timely manner,
and assigning Passenger Agents to assist with tight connections or the rebooking of missed connections.

An accurate ETA may also allow Operations Control to delay some connecting flights, and maximize service
to customers, while minimizing operating costs.

Refer to Mission Management and Delay Cost Management Section 6.2.7 in the Operations Planning and
Flight Dispatch chapter of this document.

7.6 Flight Management System Programming

Most modern aircraft are equipped with sophisticated types of Flight Management Systems (FMS). Some will
have full Cost Index [CI] optimization capabilities, as well as extremely accurate time and fuel predictions.
Crews should make maximum use of the FMS capabilities to monitor fuel predictions and consumption to
operate the flight as efficiently as possible. As with any computers, the quality of the data entered into the
FMS will determine the accuracy of the system’s information and predictions.

The following discussion will center on the advanced FMS in an attempt to make the best use of the systems
capabilities from a Crew point of view.

During preflight programming, the FMS serves as an excellent means of performing a cross check of the
flight plan time and fuel data. While many pilots have different methods of performing fuel checks during
flight planning, many limitations exist. Fuel performance charts only consider data provided by
manufacturers, and this information has many limitations. Items such as aircraft specific airframe and engine
in service deterioration, Cost Index optimization, winds and temperatures at specific waypoints, last minute
Zero Fuel Weight changes are not considered. Some crews use an average burn figure per hour and will
conduct a rough check based on the flight time. The issue is that all the various methods provide only
approximations and are not a precise cross check of the accuracy of the flight plan.

Accurate programming of the FMS for long-range flights is critical. For instance, a one-degree deviation in
temperature will change the true airspeed by one knot. While this may not seem significant, consider the
following example. A deviation in the average temperature of 10 degrees above or below standard, on a 15-
hour flight, will result in an air distance variation of ± 150 nautical miles and have an impact on the Estimated
Arrival Time by ± 20 minutes.

It is important that the most accurate available information be inserted into the FMS. The departure runway,
Standard Instrument Departure (SID) with appropriate transition, the planned route with the planned arrival
procedure (STAR or FMS) and the planned landing runway should be inserted during preflight. It is critical to
enter the winds and temperatures at each waypoint (ideally these should be downloaded directly from the
flight planning system via ACARS) as well as the altitude step-climbs (or descents) as these will be used by
the FMS to further compute additional wind predictions and times. If the FMS optimum altitude predictions

121
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

are to be used, the winds above and below the planned cruise flight level must also be inserted at each
waypoint. Without these additional winds, the FMS will not be able to determine the most fuel-efficient
altitude changes. The more advanced FMS will also consider the Cost Index selected to determine the
optimum altitude.

Once all of the available information has been entered, the fuel and flight times should be accurate and any
discrepancies with the operational flight plan should be reconciled before flight. The minimum Fuel over
Destination (FOD), which includes the regulatory final holding fuel (30 or 45 minutes), plus the alternate fuel,
should be subtracted from the planned FOD to determine the amount of discretionary fuel available for the
trip (contingency fuel, extra fuel, over-fueling, fuel- tankering).

Improperly programming the FMS may lead crews to add fuel to compensate for perceived flight plan
inaccuracies. This will be costly, especially on long-range flights as payload might be impacted.

The in-service performance deterioration factor (drag factor) of a specific aircraft should be entered in the
FMS for increased accuracy. Note that the FMS drag factor is not necessarily the same as the flight planning
system burn correction factor (fuel bias).

On long flights, after several hours, the winds and temperatures should be updated. When the cruise altitude
is different from flight plan, winds and temperatures for the new altitudes should be inserted.

Once airborne, the FOD and ETA should be monitored continuously and crosschecked with the flight plan.
Any differences should be investigated and immediate corrective action taken. If a high Cost Index was
planned for the flight and the FOD falls below the desired level, the CI should be reduced to ensure that
adequate fuel is available on arrival. If the flight is held at less than optimal altitude for a period of time, allow
the FMS to compute the best Mach for that altitude to minimize the fuel burn. While this action may result in
a lower than desired cruise Mach and impact the arrival time, it is a better scenario than having to divert or
arriving with less than required fuel.

If the ETA varies from the normally scheduled arrival time, coordinate with Operations Control and Dispatch
to adjust the ETA as discussed in the Mission Management Section 6.2.7 of this document.

The goal is to ensure the most accurate information is entered into the FMS to maximize efficiency, and
improve safety, while reducing operating costs.

7.7 Engine-Out Taxi-Out

For safety reasons, minimize starting engines while still at the gate. This action not only increases fuel
consumption and associated pollution, but also is hazardous for ground personnel. If a departure slot time is
going to result in a long taxi time, and the gate is not immediately required by an arriving flight, consider
delaying the pushback. Attempt to absorb some of the delay at the gate with the engines off.

On some engine types, the use of engine anti-ice on the ground will result in increased idle RPM and fuel
consumption in addition to the increasing the possibility of foreign object damage. On slippery taxiways it
might be difficult to stop the aircraft with engines spooled up with engine anti-ice operating. Turning off
engine anti-ice will facilitate stopping. In congested ramp areas, delaying the selection of engine anti-ice will
prevent blasting due to engine spool up. If wing de-icing is to be performed at a centralized de-icing area,
and a long deicing procedure is anticipated, consider shutting down engines.

To minimize departure delays and ramp congestion, engine start-up and pushback procedures should be
streamlined and coordinated. Inefficient procedures at busy airports can delay several other aircraft with their
engines operating. Once the Ramp Crew has pushed back an aircraft, they must disconnect the tow bar and
communication cord as quickly as possible. To minimize power requirements during initial roll out, and to
minimize ground hazard, position the aircraft in the initial taxi-out direction. An engine-out taxi procedure
should be considered when:

122
 Flight Operations

 Ramp conditions permit

 Direction of turns during initial taxi-out to the departure runway is conducive to less than all engine taxi
operation
 Taxiway conditions permitting (upslope, soft surfaces)
 The aircraft weight is below maximum landing weight for the aircraft type (slightly higher weights may
also be acceptable for three or 4 engine types)
 Anticipated lengthy taxi times
 There is sufficient time for engine warm up.

If the aircraft weight is light, and the crew taxis-out with all engines operating, it may be necessary to “ride
the brakes”. This can cause excessive brake wear and heating. In cold climates during long aircraft
turnaround times or for the first flight of the day, proper warm up must be considered for cold soaked
engines.

Engine-out taxi requires slightly more anticipation compared to taxiing with all engines operating. Crews who
never use engine-out taxi will consider the procedure awkward while crews who consistently employ the
technique consider it routine. Before using engine-out procedures, airlines must ensure the SOPs
regarding engine-out taxi are well documented and Crews are properly trained. Some manufacturers
have very detailed engine-out taxi procedures, such as Airbus and ATR, whereas others do not recommend
the engine-out taxi procedure at this time. Boeing has recently produced a guide for airlines wishing to
design their own engine-out taxi procedures. Some carriers have developed their procedures based on
industry best practices and an appropriate risk analysis with specific emphasis on crew work load. Engine-
out taxi-out procedures should be reviewed periodically during simulator training. When unanticipated delays
are encountered during taxi-out, consider shutting down engines.

Total Fuel Cost Number Taxi Out Fuel Burn Taxi Out Fuel Average Standard CO2 Total Taxi Out
Taxi out Cycles Avg Min Ground kg per Year Taxi Fuel Taxi Fuel (Ref.) Metric Tons Fuel Cost in US$
A330-300 9,096 15' 1,700 3,865,800 kg 425 kg 500 12,177 t $3,189,285
A320-200 48,160 12' 800 7,705,600 kg 160 kg 200 24,273 t $6,357,120
B747-400 3,888 18' 2,800 3,265,920 kg 840 kg 1,000 10,288 t $2,694,384
B777-200 8,100 17' 1,900 4,360,500 kg 538 kg 700 13,736 t $3,597,413
B737-700 39,760 12' 700 5,566,400 kg 140 kg 200 17,534 t $4,592,280
CRJ-200 39,820 10' 500 3,318,333 kg 83 kg 100 10,453 t $2,737,625
ATR 72 55,000 07' 280 1,796,667 kg 33 kg 50 5,660 t $1,482,250
Total 203,824 29,879,220 kg 94,120 t $24,650,357

Table 60: Total Taxi-Out Fuel Cost

As seen above, taxiing aircraft consumes a lot of fuel. Turbine-engine fuel flow at ground idle is equivalent to
25% to 30% of the cruise-power fuel flow. At ABC Airlines 29,879 tons of fuel is consumed taxiing out and
94,120 tons of CO2 emissions are produced.

Engine Out Number Taxi Out Min Start Fuel Burn Saving Potential Savings
Taxi Out Cycles Avg Min Time min. Kg/Hr Eng Out kg/yr
A330-300 9,096 15' 03' 850 1,546,320 kg
A320-200 48,160 12' 03' 400 2,889,600 kg
B747-400 3,888 18' 05' 700 589,680 kg
B777-200 8,100 17' 05' 0 0 kg
B737-700 39,760 12' 03' 350 2,087,400 kg
CRJ-200 39,820 10' 03' 250 1,161,417 kg
ATR 72 55,000 07' 02' 140 641,667 kg
Total 8,916,083 kg

Table 61: Engine-Out Taxi-Out Operations Potential Savings

123
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Engine Out Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Taxi Out kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,546,320 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
A320-200 2,889,600 kg 40% 1,155,840 kg 3,641 t $953,568
B747-400 589,680 kg 10% 58,968 kg 186 t $48,649
B777-200 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
B737-700 2,087,400 kg 50% 1,043,700 kg 3,288 t $861,053
CRJ-200 1,161,417 kg 60% 696,850 kg 2,195 t $574,901
ATR 72 641,667 kg 70% 449,167 kg 1,415 t $370,563
Total 8,916,083 kg 3,404,525 kg 10,724 t $2,808,733

Table 62: Engine-Out Taxi-Out Savings

In the table above, it can be observed that the engine-out taxi-out procedure is not used for the heavy twin-
engine aircraft for the sample airline. In addition, it is not calculated as a potential saving. Some airlines do
use the engine-out taxi-out procedure for all aircraft types but it is more common on smaller aircraft types.
Many airlines have adopted the engine-out taxi-out procedure as a standard. At ABC Airlines the engine-out
taxi-out procedure is already used occasionally but there is room for improvement. At ABC Airlines the fleet
fuel burn savings is 3,404,525 kgs/yr or US$ 2,808,733 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The
corresponding CO2 reduction is 10,724 metric tons per year.

The best in class airlines will have well entrenched procedures for the use of engine out taxi out procedures.
On certain aircraft types, engine out taxi out is used almost 100% of the time. The target improvement is
established by comparing the use of engine out taxi out procedures by best in class airlines operating similar
aircraft types operating in comparable conditions and the present use of engine out taxi procedures.

7.7.1 Risk Analysis

Historically, few incidents have been reported resulting from the use of the engine out taxi procedure;
however the risk of cockpit distractions is always present. Risk can be reduced with clear procedures, proper
training and guidelines. For instance, when a short taxi time is anticipated, the aircraft is heavy, the taxiways
are contaminated or the ramp is congested, the Engine-Out Taxi-Out procedure might not apply.

124
 Flight Operations

7.7.2 Sample Taxi Fuel Burn and Pollution

Figure 45: Engine Taxi Pollution for Narrow Body Airbus Fleet
The above chart details the emissions discharged for 1 minute of taxi for an A320 aircraft. Using our sample
fleet (28 A320s) and assuming a 20-minute taxi time per flight cycle, the annual environmental impact of
pollutants is detailed in the third column.

7.7.3 Taxi speeds

A significant amount of time can be gained or lost while taxiing. In ideal conditions, the recommended taxi
speeds should be approximately 10 knots for maneuvering, while on straight taxiways speeds up to 30 knots
are acceptable.

7.7.4 Choice of Departure Runway vs. Taxi times

At low-density airports or during light traffic times of the day, a choice of departure runways might be
available. It is always difficult to establish a tradeoff point regarding the cost of taxiing versus airtime, but
here is a rule of thumb. Strictly based on fuel consumption, it might be worthwhile to taxi 4 minutes for every
minute of airtime saved. For example, a flight departing in a direction 180 degrees from the intended flight
course may need to travel an extra 15 miles in the air. This will have to be made up at cruise altitude at the
cost of 2 minutes of cruising airtime. In this case, it may be more cost efficient to taxi an extra 6 to 8 minutes.

There are however other considerations. If a flight is late carrying several connections with a minimum time
available on arrival, then it might be worthwhile to use the most expeditious runway.

7.8 Reduced Takeoff Flaps

Some airlines optimize the takeoff flap settings to achieve maximum engine thrust reduction (Flex) on
takeoff. This procedure reduces engine wear, however once an engine is operating at or near its maximum
flex temperatures, there is less engine wear savings. The lower takeoff flap settings will result in significant
fuel savings, as well as improve the second segment climb performance.

125
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

In view of the present fuel prices, consider adopting a lower flap setting at takeoff. While there may be in
some cases a small decrease in assumed temperatures during takeoff, the use of a lower flap setting will
improve the second segment climb and lessen the flap and slat clean up time thereby reducing the fuel burn.
Increasing the use of reduced flaps as shown below, would save ABC Airlines 1,391,398 kgs/yr for the fleet
fuel burn or US$ 1,147,903 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is
4,383 metric tons per year. While reduced flap takeoffs might increase noise in close vicinity to the airport, it
will improve the second segment climb and decrease noise away from the airport.

Reduced Flap Number Saving Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Take off Cycles per takeoff kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 24 kg 218,304 kg 75% 163,728 kg 516 t $135,076
A320-200 48,160 10 kg 481,600 kg 75% 361,200 kg 1,138 t $297,990
B747-400 3,888 150 kg 583,200 kg 60% 349,920 kg 1,102 t $288,684
B777-200 8,100 40 kg 324,000 kg 50% 162,000 kg 510 t $133,650
B737-700 39,760 10 kg 397,600 kg 70% 278,320 kg 877 t $229,614
CRJ-200 39,820 5 kg 199,100 kg 30% 59,730 kg 188 t $49,277
ATR 72 55,000 2 kg 110,000 kg 15% 16,500 kg 52 t $13,613
Total 2,313,804 kg 1,391,398 kg 4,383 t $1,147,903

Table 63: Reduced Takeoff Flap Settings

The best in class airlines will optimize the takeoff flap setting for each flight based on proper takeoff flap
optimization software and actual flight conditions. In most cases, takeoff flaps will be optimized for the
majority of all flights.

7.8.1 Risk Analysis

The use of Reduce Flap Takeoff must be introduced carefully. On some aircraft types, the risk of tail strike is
higher than other types. Careful introduction of the program and simulator training are required to ensure a
safe operation. Over-rotation and speed management can be an issue.

7.9 High Cost of Full Thrust Takeoff

Compared to full thrust, the use of reduced thrust takeoff will not reduce fuel consumption. However, this
procedure will preserve engine life and reduce fuel consumption over the life of the engine. The majority of
engine wear will occur at higher temperatures. For instance, a 1% reduction from full takeoff thrust will result
in a 10% saving in engine life, as the last few degrees are the most damaging. Consistent use of reduced
thrust will more than double engine life and prevent subsequent rapid fuel performance deterioration.

Reduced thrust is also important on the first flight of the day when the engine core is cold. Whenever
possible, avoid the use of engine anti-icing during takeoff if operationally feasible, as this will further increase
the engine operating temperatures (EGT).

Avoid using full thrust at the first sign of a slight tail wind. When calculating the required takeoff power,
consider the tail wind component. In most cases, it will require a decrease of a few degrees in the assumed
temperature and still permit a reduction from full thrust.

7.10 Reduced Acceleration Altitude

Note: The following departure procedures must be compatible with local noise abatement procedures.

Efficient speed and flap management on departure will reduce fuel consumption and flight time. Once
airborne, the flaps and slats should be retracted as soon as possible. Some airlines have reduced flap
retraction altitudes to less than 3,000 feet AGL. Others have changed the flap retraction altitude from 1,500
to 1,000 feet AGL or even lower. The retraction altitude is even more important when higher flap settings are
used for takeoff. Although flaps and slats increase lift, they also increase drag, and therefore increase fuel
consumption.

126
 Flight Operations

However, when departing in a direction opposite to the desired en-route course, it might be desirable to
maintain the takeoff flap setting, trading speed for altitude until the aircraft reaches the initial altitude where a
turn on-course can be initiated. This will minimize the distance away from the intended direction of flight. It
will also maintain a lower speed and allow for a faster turn rate to the on-course for a specific bank angle
(when possible use bank angles of up to 30 degrees). When the flight is within 90 degrees of the intended
course, Flight Crews should retract the flaps and accelerate to normal climb speeds.

If a flight is departing away from the intended course and a turn cannot be initiated before a certain point
from the departure course, cleaning up the flaps and slats will improve departure efficiency. In this case
speed should not be increased above minimum clean drag speed until the aircraft is within 90 degrees of the
intended course.

Reduced Acceleration Number Saving Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Altitude Cycles per takeoff kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 30 kg 272,880 kg 75% 204,660 kg 645 t $168,845
A320-200 48,160 6 kg 288,960 kg 80% 231,168 kg 728 t $190,714
B747-400 3,888 139 kg 540,432 kg 50% 270,216 kg 851 t $222,928
B777-200 8,100 33 kg 267,300 kg 45% 120,285 kg 379 t $99,235
B737-700 39,760 9 kg 357,840 kg 60% 214,704 kg 676 t $177,131
CRJ-200 39,820 3 kg 119,460 kg 50% 59,730 kg 188 t $49,277
ATR 72 55,000 2 kg 110,000 kg 70% 77,000 kg 243 t $63,525
Total 1,956,872 kg 1,177,763 kg 3,710 t $971,654

Table 64: Reduced Acceleration Altitudes on Takeoff

In the above table, it is estimated that while ABC Airlines is already using reduced flap retraction /
acceleration altitudes in some cases. Optimizing the use of reduced acceleration altitudes at ABC Airlines
the fleet fuel burn savings is 1,177,763 kgs/yr or US$ 971,654 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The
corresponding CO2 reduction is 3,710 metric tons per year.

The target improvement is the difference between the actual use of optimized takeoff flap settings by best in
class airlines operating similar aircraft types in same environment and the actual cases for use of non-
optimized flap settings for takeoff.

The best in class airlines will use the lower practical acceleration altitude commensurate with local noise
abatement requirements, obstacle clearance altitudes and specific aircraft operating procedures.

7.10.1 Risk Analysis

The introduction of reduced acceleration altitudes on takeoff should be introduced carefully. The lower the
acceleration altitude requires a greater awareness of obstacle clearance. Configurations changes at too low
an altitude can be a source of distraction.

7.11 Climb-Out Considerations

Cost Index optimized climb speeds should be used once a flight is able to accelerate. An advanced FMS will
optimize the climb speeds taking gross weight, Cost Index, cruise flight level, wind and temperature model
into consideration. Normal climb speeds are generally about 20 kt higher than the descent speeds.

Crews should use the optimized speeds unless there is an operational reason for deviating, such as ATC
requests or turbulence.

Changing the Cost Index value to modify climb or descent should be avoided. In the event of a temporary
speed restriction during climb, the speed should be manually selected and returned to normal FMS
optimized climb speeds as soon as the speed intervention is no longer required.

127
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

7.12 Continuous Climb Operations (CCO)

ICAO in cooperation with appropriate authorities is developing Continuous Climb Operations/procedure that
will reduce the level flight segments during climb outs. These procedures will normally require RNP
capabilities. The qualifying aircraft types will use specific departure routes, which in most cases will eliminate
or limit the number of level flight segments on departure. This procedure will reduce fuel consumption during
climb-out with associated noise and emission reduction. The process of Continuous Climb Operations is in
its infancy, and is presently limited to a number of airports with specific local procedures. Significant
development work is still required before introduction as a day-to-day procedure. The savings will be a
function of the number and durations of the level offs during the climb phase.

RNP capability will be required to ensure that the aircraft adhere to the climb corridors and altitude windows
during the climb.

CDDs & T-Departures Number Saving Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
RNPs Cycles per app. kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 100 kg 909,600 kg 7% 63,672 kg 201 t $52,529
A320-200 48,160 50 kg 2,408,000 kg 4% 96,320 kg 303 t $79,464
B747-400 3,888 200 kg 777,600 kg 8% 62,208 kg 196 t $51,322
B777-200 8,100 150 kg 1,215,000 kg 7% 85,050 kg 268 t $70,166
B737-700 39,760 50 kg 1,988,000 kg 4% 79,520 kg 250 t $65,604
CRJ-200 39,820 30 kg 1,194,600 kg 2% 23,892 kg 75 t $19,711
ATR 72 55,000 10 kg 550,000 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 9,042,800 kg 410,662 kg 1,294 t $338,796

Table 65: Continuous Climb Operations Procedures Savings

As a result of using CCO for a percentage of flights in above example at ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn
savings is 410,662 kgs/yr or US$ 338,796 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 1,294 metric tons per year.

7.12.1 Risk Analysis

Training and awareness will be required during the introduction of the procedure to avoid excursions from
the protected flight path. Proper navigation capability is essential. Developing the procedure must be in
cooperation between airlines and ANSP authorities to ensure compliance with the procedure.

7.13 Flight Profile Management

7.13.1 Track Management

Older flight-planning systems base their route analysis on a fixed Mach number rather than an optimal,
minimum cost analysis based on Cost Index that integrates all route possibilities (vertically and laterally) to
determine the best flight profile. An optimal flight profile at higher Cost Index values will drive altitude
selection to lower flight levels to achieve the higher True Air Speed values, which results in the best Ground
Speed profile. Optimal flight planning systems must also consider over-flight charges. Failure to monitor
over-flight charges could result in several thousand dollars in additional costs. Newer, more efficient, flight
planning systems also factor specific planned takeoff runway and associated departure procedures, winds,
temperatures, airways restrictions, NOTAMS, restricted areas, arrival procedures and expected landing
runways into their calculations to produce a truly optimized flight plan.

Crews should attempt to fly the planned track as closely as possible while taking any available short direct
routings to minimize large turns at waypoints. It is important to adhere to the general routing of the flight plan.
If the direct route were the most efficient, it would have been selected during the optimization process.

On extra-long flights, there may be value in re-evaluating the routing after several hours of flying, to confirm
the winds have not changed. Re-planning and re-filing the route after departure can be difficult for crews.
ATC services generally will not accept changes to the planned route from the ground once a flight is

128
 Flight Operations

airborne. In some cases, if the actual winds are significantly different than those forecast (a rare case in
today’s modern wind and temperature data programs) there might be some value in re-optimizing the flight
plan and routing.

The use of pre-determined routes and arbitrary altitude restrictions should be avoided, and the route should
be optimized according to the flight conditions for the day of operation. Changes may be required due to
heavy traffic, specific local procedures, or restrictions because of a preferred ATC route system.

7.13.2 Cruise Speed Management

In normal cruise conditions, FMS equipped aircraft will produce an optimized Mach number based on the
selected Cost Index, the aircraft weight, altitude, temperature and wind conditions. The Cost Index should
not be changed to control the Mach number. As the winds, weights and Flight Levels change, regardless of
how well they match the flight plan, allow the FMS to compute the Mach number.

The above assumes the Cost Index selected is properly optimized for a specific airline’s cost structure.
Manually overriding the FMS speed will normally result in a loss of efficiency in time, fuel, or both.

Several aircraft types do not have FMS speed optimization capabilities. In these cases, either a fixed Mach
speed or Long Range Cruise (LRC) speed is typically used. LRC speed will yield 99% of the Nautical Air
Miles compared to Maximum Range Cruise speed (MRC). LRC does not vary with the wind. Modern flight
planning systems can compute a Cost Index optimized speed for non-FMS airplanes. These speeds can be
displayed on the flight plan.

The Cost Index selected for a flight should be based on the actual airline’s cost structure. Further refining
the Cost Indices will lead to route specific Cost Indices, as the price of fuel will often vary at each airport.

The use of “non-standard” Cost Index values may be employed to minimize delay costs when the flight
conditions for the day are abnormal. Higher head winds, last minute delays, curfews, slot times, gate
constraints and down-line impact of subsequent flights are situations that may warrant the use of non-
standard Cost Indices. To mitigate the associated increased delay costs, the use of higher than normal Cost
Indices may be advantageous. Conversely, in an early arrival situation, a Cost Index lower than the “route
specific” could be selected and the speed of the flight could be reduced accordingly. This will save fuel and
prevent possible gate holds, ramp congestion, or additional ground staff costs.

While the cost of fuel should be minimized, other costs must be considered when selecting a specific mission
Cost Index. Post departure re-optimization of the flight speed profile should be considered to reduce related
time delay costs. Refer to the Section 6.2.1 of this document for further information on Cost Index
optimization.

7.14 FMS Descent Profile Management

The FMS can compute accurate and efficient descent profiles. Except for tactical reasons, do not intervene
by descending early or late, or otherwise by modifying speeds and descent rates. In the final approach area,
avoid taking flaps early and use the minimum drag speeds when conditions permit. The need to intervene
may be necessary in certain situations, but unless the profile is modified by ATC it should be flown as
planned. Whenever possible, allow the technology to complete the task it was designed to accomplish.

To be accurate and efficient, the FMS should be allowed to manage the descent profile. The number one
rule in programming the FMS is to enter the approximate descent and approach pattern which is
most likely to be flown, especially the first altitude restriction to be met. If this is not done, the top-of-
descent point computed by the FMS profile will be erroneous and the aircraft’s energy state in the terminal
area will be incorrect.

129
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Energy management is of the utmost importance during the descent profile and the approach. Failure to
properly program the FMS will undermine the crew’s confidence in the system and may lead to a
destabilized approach by placing the aircraft at an improper energy level to safely and efficiently intercept the
final approach path. Monitoring other traffic clearances may provide some clues to the restrictions that may
be anticipated.

7.15 Energy Management and Tradeoff

The FMS is continuously working toward the next altitude and/or speed restriction. The crew should always
keep the ultimate target in mind (such as turning on base leg at 4,000 feet AGL and 210 knots) during the
descent profile to ensure the aircraft is well positioned for the final approach. Properly programming the FMS
ensures the maximum benefit from its capabilities.

During descent and approach, unless specific speeds are assigned, the crew should attempt to use speeds
that are the most efficient, continuously trading speed for altitude or vice versa as required. Energy
management and trade off should always be kept in mind.

On descent, if the flight encounters a temporary altitude restriction that takes the aircraft high on the profile,
the speed (unless a hard speed is assigned by ATC) should be reduced as much as possible, down to
minimum drag clean speed, if necessary. The speed can subsequently be increased to normal or higher
descent speed, if required to recapture the descent profile.

7.15.1 Distance, Speed and Altitude Trade-off

As a rule, descent speeds are approximately 20 KIAS lower than climb speeds. The impact on fuel
consumption for descent speeds between 240 KIAS and 280 KIAS is small. However, for descent speeds
above 280 KIAS, the drag increases rapidly. If descending at VMO/MMO instead of 280 KIAS, the increased
burn will vary from 75 kg for an A320/B737 to 150 kg for an A330/B777.

The following rules may be used for a quick calculation between distance, speed and altitude trade-off:

 An aircraft in clean configuration and at idle power will decelerate 10 knots per nautical mile when in
level flight (i.e. 60 knot speed loss will require about 6 NM).
 In a clean configuration and at idle power, an aircraft will descend 1,000 feet per 3 NM
 A flight on descent profile that has decelerated 60 knots while waiting for further clearance to a lower
level and subsequently regains initial speed will lose 2,000 feet (1,000 feet per 30 knots) during
acceleration to previous speed.

For example, flights arriving from downwind of the landing runway could possibly receive an altitude crossing
restriction to cross abeam for the airport on at 6,000 feet. If a tailwind is present on the downwind leg and a
Visual Approach is anticipated, the flight, from an energy standpoint flying at 6,000 feet at 250 knots,
especially for low drag aircraft types (B767, A330) would be high on the profile and would need extra drag to
complete the approach. Should the speed be reduced to 190 knots instead of 250 knots, the aircraft’s energy
level would be equivalent to that of crossing the abeam the airport at 250 knots but at 4,000 feet. At 190
knots, 9 NM would be required to descend from 6,000 feet to 3,000 feet placing the aircraft in a good position
for an energy efficient approach. Otherwise, the need to reduce speed from 250 knots to 190 knots and
descend at the same time would make the aircraft too energy rich and would require the use of speed
brakes.

Closely monitor the energy level of the aircraft and make the appropriate adjustments to avoid continuous
alternating use of thrust and speed brakes during descent and approach.

130
 Flight Operations

7.15.2 Descent Profile Wind Corrections

A thorough understanding of the FMS Vertical Navigation (VNAV) optimization process will help crews
establish the most ideal descent profile. For an accurate FMS calculation of the descent profile, descent
winds should be inserted. Otherwise, a wind profile will be built assuming a constant decreasing wind speed
from the cruise level down to the airport altitude. On some aircraft, the FMS computed descent winds can be
displayed at each waypoint. These can be compared to the forecast winds, and if found to be significantly
different, the forecasted winds should be updated in the FMS.

Chances are the descent winds will vary from the assumed or inserted wind profile in the FMS. If the winds
are found to be noticeably different than those in the FMS, as in the case of a jet stream or increasing winds
after the descent is initiated, the pilot can re-select the Direct To function to the active “TO” waypoint after
the winds stabilize. This allows the FMS to recalculate a new wind profile and descent vertical flight path
using actual winds from the present altitude. The FMS will then create a new and possibly more accurate
descent profile.

It is important to take corrective action as high as possible to allow sufficient time for the extra energy to be
“burnt off” with additional speed as in case of an increasing tailwind or to regain the proper profile as high as
possible with increased thrust when facing an increasing headwind. Requesting the distance to touchdown
from ATC will assist in maintaining a continuous descent profile to final.

7.15.3 Landing Weight Consideration

Higher landing weights will increase the descent distance for a specific descent speed since it takes longer
to dissipate greater potential energy. However, if the descent speed is increased, the additional energy will
be absorbed. Modern FMS systems will vary the descent speed with landing weight while computing the
descent profile.

7.15.4 Engine Anti-Ice

On some aircraft types (Airbus 330, Boeing 767), the engines will automatically spool up upon selection of
engine anti-ice. In some cases, this can force the aircraft above the computed descent profile, as the
increased descent speeds might not be sufficient to absorb the extra energy.

When engine icing is anticipated, for FMS which do not account for the use of engine anti-ice on descent,
plan a lower than desired descent speed in the FMS when programming the descent profile. The increased
speed resulting from the engine anti-ice selection will bring the descent speed closer to the desired descent
speed.

If the flight is already on the descent profile when the engine anti-ice is selected, attempt to increase speed
rather than using speed brakes to absorb the extra energy.

7.15.5 Penalties for Early/Late Descent

Profiles that commence too early or too late cause a significant increase in fuel usage.

If one is to err, it is better to be slightly early on descent, rather than late. If the aircraft starts down early, the
opportunity of regaining the optimum profile is available and it should be done as high as possible. If the
descent is started too late, fuel has already been consumed by remaining at altitude and it can never be
recovered, as the extra energy must now be dissipated using increased drag. Ideally, the descent profile
should be planned correctly. Some crews tend to undershoot FMS altitude restrictions for comfort. Accurate
programming of the FMS will enable the aircraft to proceed on the optimum descent profile meeting the
programmed speed and altitude restrictions.

131
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Note: There is a greater use of speed brakes for crews who are new on an aircraft type or have less
experience on heavy jets. Speed brakes should not be a substitute for adequate descent profile
management and overall planning.

Remember the goal is to reach the initial approach point at the right altitude and the correct speed without
the use of speed brakes or power. Ideally, the descent should be uninterrupted.

7.15.6 Descent Profile Management for non-FMS Aircraft

For non-FMS aircraft, descent planning requires the pilot to pro-actively accomplish a descent without using
engine thrust or speed brakes until final approach. As in the case of FMS aircraft, it is necessary to work
toward the next altitude and/or speed restriction while continuously monitoring and applying corrective
actions early in the descent. If the flight is high on profile, excess altitude needs to be consumed preferably
by increasing the descent speed rather than using speed brakes. It is assumed that crews will fly at the most
efficient descent speeds unless a restriction is given by ATC.

Ideally, when a flight is approximately 30 miles away from a sea level destination, the aircraft should be at
10,000 feet at 250 knots. Depending on the glide ratio, some aircraft might need additional distance to slow
down from 250 knots to minimum drag clean speed and reach 3,000 feet at about 10 miles on final
approach.

Depending on the aircraft type, at descent speeds of 280 knots, a distance of three miles per thousand feet
of altitude lost from cruise altitude to 10,000 feet is a reasonable initial estimate. This means a descent from
35,000 feet to 10,000 feet would normally require approximately 75 nautical miles. However, a correction
should be applied for the wind component. Assuming a normal descent wind profile, a correction of 15% of
the top of descent wind component should be added to the descent distance to 10,000 feet for a tailwind or
subtracted for a headwind.

If the aircraft is flying at a fixed descent speed, a distance correction must also be applied to correct for
landing weight. If the flight is close to maximum landing weight, an additional 5-mile correction should be
added to the descent distance and conversely if the flight is at a low landing weight, a 5-mile correction
should be subtracted from the computed descent distance.

Precise descent profile computation and management presents the greatest opportunity for fuel savings.
This will ensure the aircraft arrives at the proper altitude and speed at the initial approach point, thereby
providing the most efficient transition to a safe, stabilized approach.

7.16 Constant Descent Operation (CDO)

In an attempt to increase the efficiency within the Air Traffic Control environment, ICAO (in cooperation with
IATA and ATSPs) is proposing to standardize the concept of Continuous Descent Operation (CDO)
procedures.

CDO concept presents several advantages. From an environmental point of view, CDO will result in a higher
trajectory thereby reducing fuel consumption, noise and emissions. Flight times will also be reduced due to
less vectoring and reduced level flight segments. The concept is to allow a flight to reduce to idle power
using a low drag configuration from the top of descent for an uninterrupted descent to either the final
approach fix or a metering point.

One option for employing CDO is the Closed Path Design, where the lateral flight track is pre-determined up
to and including the Final Approach Fix (FAF). The Open Path Design finishes before the FAF either in a
downwind leg or a metering fix from where the controller will issue vectors or instructions to complete the
approach. In this case, it is recommended that the Controller provide a Distance To Go to the touch down
point to the Pilot who will use the estimated distance to manage the optimum descent rate to the FAF.

132
 Flight Operations

This process increases predictability, reduces Pilot/Controller communications and minimizes the possibility
of Control Flight into Terrain (CFIT) as the profiles are accurately defined. CDO also allows for a more
efficient use of airspace as other traffic can be better accommodated because of the predictability of the
descent-path profile. CDO will reduce the Pilot and Controller workload.

The major challenge in implementing CDO procedures at airports is the spacing or time interval between
flights. Many factors such as aircraft type, weight variation, pilot response, wind, temperature and
atmospheric pressure variations, icing conditions, weather, Special Airspace Usage, noise sensitive areas,
traffic mix, airport capacity must be considered in determining the aircraft descent profile and spacing on
final. The CDO concept is based on Performance Based Navigation (PBN). As terminal traffic increases, it
becomes more difficult to accommodate several aircraft simultaneously. Techniques of en-route speed
adjustment (±0.02 Mach) and accurate estimates by aircraft (Required Time of Arrival) at metering points
such as TOD are used to sequence aircraft. The speed adjustment optimization must be viewed from a
system wide efficiency, i.e. total burn, total flight time.

Figure 46: Continuous Descent Operation (Source ICAO)

133
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

CDOs & T-Arrivals Number Saving Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
RNPs Cycles per app. kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 150 kg 1,364,400 kg 25% 341,100 kg 1,074 t $281,408
A320-200 48,160 70 kg 3,371,200 kg 30% 1,011,360 kg 3,186 t $834,372
B747-400 3,888 330 kg 1,283,040 kg 27% 346,421 kg 1,091 t $285,797
B777-200 8,100 250 kg 2,025,000 kg 23% 465,750 kg 1,467 t $384,244
B737-700 39,760 65 kg 2,584,400 kg 26% 671,944 kg 2,117 t $554,354
CRJ-200 39,820 40 kg 1,592,800 kg 20% 318,560 kg 1,003 t $262,812
ATR 72 55,000 15 kg 825,000 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 13,045,840 kg 3,155,135 kg 9,939 t $2,602,986

Table 66: CDO Potential Fuel and Emission Savings

The savings associated with the CDO procedures when implemented at some airports during low traffic
periods can generate significant savings. At ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 3,155,135 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,602,986 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 9,939 metric
tons per year.

The best in class airlines will use every opportunity to use the CDO procedure at airports where it is
applicable. The target improvement is established by comparing the actual of the CDO procedures where
applicable and it actual usage.

7.16.1 Risk Analysis

Training and awareness will be required during the introduction of the procedure to avoid excursions from
the protected flight path. Proper navigation capability is essential. Developing the procedure must be in
cooperation between airlines and ANSP authorities to ensure compliance with the procedure.

7.17 Low Noise Low Drag Approach

The most fuel-efficient arrival enables the descent profile to flow unrestricted into final approach without the
use of engine thrust or speed brakes. The following should be considered:

 At airports where the normal descent speed below 10,000 feet is limited to 250 kt, that speed should
be maintained until ready to reduce speed to the minimum drag clean speed in preparation for the
approach phase.
 When feasible, use or request speed vectors from ATC (normally a speed reduction) to prevent
excessive heading vectoring and added distance prior to reaching final approach. This will often
require some initiative on the part of the Crew. Most transport aircraft during the descent phase have a
significant speed margin of some 150 knots between VMO and clean maneuvering speed.
 Keep the aircraft clean! Flaps and slats are not designed as drag devices for slowing down but to
produce lift. However, in the process of creating lift they also significantly increase drag. Continuous
extension of flaps at or near to the limit speeds also increases the risk of component failure. Note that
ATC might not always be aware of the clean maneuvering speed for your aircraft type. Often a word to
them will save an unnecessary early flap extension. Don’t be afraid to retract the flaps should the
approach be extended.
 If not provided, request the arrival sequence number from the Approach Controller on initial contact.
This facilitates estimating the distance to touch down. Assess how to manage the energy and when to
slow down to minimum drag clean speed to prevent excessive downwind vectoring.
 Avoid dumping excess altitude too early while using speed brakes to a cleared altitude and then
having to add power to fly level at that cleared altitude for an extended period of time.
 Unless assigned a hard speed by ATC or by a specific procedure, do not hesitate to use optimum
speed management.

7.17.1 FMS Arrivals

Many airports now use FMS arrivals. An efficiently designed FMS arrival should allow a flight to descend and
maneuver with the engines at idle until required to spool up on final approach.

134
 Flight Operations

FMS approaches are designed for IFR conditions, while the use of a Visual Approach will normally result in
additional fuel savings. Although ATC anticipates FMS arrivals to be flown as planned, it is sometimes
possible to perform a Visual Approach from the downwind leg. A Visual Approach will save fuel and time.
Calculations indicate that in some cases, fuel savings associated with Visual Approaches equal a total of 2
minutes at idle power fuel flow (a total 20 kg per approach for the A320/B737). Approximately 3 miles for the
downwind leg and an additional 3 miles on final approach reduce the flight path distance. The aircraft is
assumed to roll out on final approach at approximately 2 miles from the FAF when conducting a Visual
Approach

7.17.2 Decelerated Approaches (Low Noise Low Drag)

Low Noise/Low Drag approaches have been used to minimize noise in many countries for several years.
The basic principles apply to all aircraft types with minor variations depending on specific aircraft
characteristics.

The advantages of the Decelerated Approach are as follows:

 Lower fuel consumption and emissions

 Lower noise levels
 Time savings
 Flexibility and ability to vary speed to suit ATC.

An important characteristic of the Decelerated Approach is that the procedure sets clearly defined
target altitudes and gear/flap configuration to be achieved during the approach. Presently, some crews
will start flap selection at a distance that varies from over 20 miles to less than 5 miles from touchdown with
little consistency from one approach to another. Using the Decelerated Approach will help standardize
procedures as the technique is identical at most airports

In the case of the Decelerated Approach, the slats and flaps selections are a function of altitude above
the ground rather than a distance to the touch down point. This improves energy management during
the approach. Using the Final Approach Fix (FAF) to establish the stabilization altitude will lead to
inconsistencies since the distance of the FAF from the runway threshold may vary significantly from one
airport to another.

135
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 47: Decelerated Approach Technique

Basically the aircraft is kept in a clean configuration, with the speed reducing to minimum drag clean speed
until base leg or just prior to turning final at approximately 3,000 feet above ground. At this point, the initial
slat selection is made and the speed adjusted to the slats only minimum drag speed.

If the aircraft intercepts the glide slope above 3,000 feet, slats/flaps selections should be delayed until
reaching that target altitude. The ability to maintain speed on the glide slope in a clean configuration will
depend on the aircraft type, the landing weight and the wind component. If possible, use speed brakes to
control speed rather than extending flaps or lowering the landing gear.

The next target is at 2,000 feet AGL where the initial trailing flaps are selected (approximately 8 / 15 degrees
depending on the aircraft type). When the flaps have reached their selected position, the landing gear is
extended.

The final landing flap selection is made to achieve approach stabilization by 1,000 feet AGL in IFR conditions
and 500 AGL in VFR conditions. If by 500 AGL, the flight is not fully stabilized, a Go-Around should be
considered.

Flight Crews will quickly become familiar with the Decelerated Approach and significant fuel savings will
result.

Low Noise Low Drag Number Saving Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Approaches Cycles per app. kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 120 kg 1,091,520 kg 55% 600,336 kg 1,891 t $495,277
A320-200 48,160 75 kg 3,612,000 kg 60% 2,167,200 kg 6,827 t $1,787,940
B747-400 3,888 170 kg 660,960 kg 35% 231,336 kg 729 t $190,852
B777-200 8,100 130 kg 1,053,000 kg 35% 368,550 kg 1,161 t $304,054
B737-700 39,760 60 kg 2,385,600 kg 50% 1,192,800 kg 3,757 t $984,060
CRJ-200 39,820 70 kg 2,787,400 kg 50% 1,393,700 kg 4,390 t $1,149,803
ATR 72 55,000 10 kg 550,000 kg 55% 302,500 kg 953 t $249,563
Total 12,140,480 kg 6,256,422 kg 19,708 t $5,161,548

Table 67: Low Noise Low Drag Approaches

136
 Flight Operations

High traffic, adverse weather necessitating a non-precision approach, tail winds and specific airport
procedures all contribute to reducing the ability to perform Low Noise Low Drag approaches. However, pilots
should always strive to use the procedure when possible. At ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is
6,256,422 kgs/yr or US$ 5,161,548 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 19,708 metric tons per year.

The best in class airlines will use the low noise low drag approach procedure at almost every opportunity.
The target improvement is the difference between the actual use of low drag approaches compared to the
opportunities which is subject to aircraft type, traffic conditions at the operating airports.

7.17.3 Risk Analysis

Low Noise Low Drag Approaches have been used at most airlines. However, pilots must ensure that the
aircraft is well stabilized on final approach. Clear altitudes and speeds must be adhered to and situation
awareness is required especially during IMC conditions to cater for tail winds for instance.

7.17.4 High Head Winds on Final

When high winds (30 knots or more) are encountered on final approach, the effect on the intermediate
approach pattern can be significant. Slower traffic will often cause the subsequent traffic to back up resulting
in very long final approach legs, at low speed in a high drag configuration, for the following traffic.

When this is anticipated, subject to ATC restrictions, the Crew should attempt to reduce speed as soon as
the situation is recognized (normally early downwind). All speeds above minimum drag clean speed should
be traded for altitude even if that will make the flight appear high on final. The flight will likely experience a
long approach and the extra altitude can be corrected once the flight is turned toward final. It is not difficult to
eliminate excess altitude on final approach particularly when headwinds winds are strong.

The objective is to reduce speed early to minimize excessive downwind travel and avoid a high drag
configuration while on the final approach. This is extremely inefficient and will consume a large amount of
fuel during the final segment of the approach.

Slowing down early will improve the possibilities of maintaining the aircraft in a clean configuration as long as
possible once on final. At this point, the previous traffic should have had time for approach and landing. This
should help position the flight for a low drag approach, which is even more critical in a high head wind
situation.

7.18 Reduced Landing Flaps

Most airplanes are certified to land with reduced landing flaps. Several aircraft types such as the A330/340
are even certified for auto land with reduced landing flaps. When conditions are appropriate, landing at less
than full flaps has definite advantages in that maximum flap-settings generate more drag than lift. Reduced
flap landings will not only reduce fuel consumption, but also decrease chemical and noise emissions and
improve safety margins in case of a go-around.

Some of the factors to consider when performing a reduced flap landing include:

 The landing weight

 The runway length
 The runway exit point and occupancy time
 The runway surface conditions
 Possible tail wind component on final approach
 Brake cooling during short turnaround times.

137
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

The average increase in speed for reduced flap landing is approximately 5 knots and the extra landing
distance around 500 feet (150 Meters).

Several airlines have made reduced flap landing procedures standard. As shown below, the use of reduced-
flap landing procedure offers increased operational flexibility. At ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings
using reduced flap landings is 3,085,496 kgs/yr or US$ 2,545,534 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram.
The corresponding CO2 reduction is 9,719 metric tons per year.

Reduced Flap Number Savings Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Landings Cycles per app. kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 60 kg 545,760 kg 85% 463,896 kg 1,461 t $382,714
A320-200 48,160 25 kg 1,204,000 kg 75% 903,000 kg 2,844 t $744,975
B747-400 3,888 125 kg 486,000 kg 90% 437,400 kg 1,378 t $360,855
B777-200 8,100 75 kg 607,500 kg 80% 486,000 kg 1,531 t $400,950
B737-700 39,760 25 kg 994,000 kg 80% 795,200 kg 2,505 t $656,040
CRJ-200 39,820 15 kg 597,300 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 55,000 3 kg 165,000 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 4,599,560 kg 3,085,496 kg 9,719 t $2,545,534

Table 68: Reduced Flap Landings

Reduced Flap landing is normally the recommended procedure at many airlines when circumstances are
appropriate and subject to airports, weather conditions and aircraft type limitations. The best in class airlines
will use the reduced flap landing procedure as a standard with well-defined guidelines. The target
improvement will be the difference in the actual use of reduced flap landing procedure and the usage by best
in class airlines operating similar type in identical circumstances.

7.18.1 Risk Analysis

The introduction of the Reduced Flap Landing procedure must carefully be undertaken. Clear operating
parameters must be established. On certain aircraft types such as the B737-800, which has high landing
speeds, the procedure should be limited to longer runways. The factors mentioned above must be
considered by the Crew to avoid runway over-runs.

7.19 Idle Reverse on Landing

With the increasing price of fuel and environmental considerations, the use of idle engine reverse on landing
is desirable. The advantages of using idle reverse on landing are as follows:

 Reduction in fuel consumption

 Reduction in environment emissions
 Reduction in noise emissions
 Improved passenger comfort
 Elimination of a high power cycle on the engines
 Reduction of foreign object damage (FOD)
 Reduction in potential engine stall and re-ingestion
 Increased engine reliability
 Lower cooling time requirements before shutting engines down for engine-out taxi-in
 Slower engine performance deterioration

Most modern aircraft now use carbon brakes. Brake wear is primarily a function of the number of
applications, rather than the amount of braking used. Carbon brakes can withstand high temperatures
without loss of efficiency or fading. Proper brake management should be applied to avoid excessive
temperatures resulting brake oxidation. Parking brakes should be released once the chocks are in place,
and the brake fan should be used as required (refer to the specific FCOM/FOM). In the case of aircraft types
equipped with auto brake capability, auto brake should be selected for landing. The braking selection will

138
 Flight Operations

determine the rate of deceleration and the stopping distance is generally the same as when landing with full
reverse thrust.

When using idle reverse on landing, the following factors should be considered:

 Runway length
 Landing weight
 Tailwind on final approach
 Runway surface condition
 Touch down point
 Turnaround time

On long runways, idle reverse thrust can decelerate the aircraft sufficiently without using the brakes. At ABC
Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings using idle reverse for landing is 2,186,907 kgs/yr or US$ 1,804,198 at a
fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 6,889 metric tons per year.

Idle Reverse Number Fuel Burn Rev time Fuel Used Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
on Landing Cycles Full Reverse Sec kg/cycle kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 9,096 9,300 15'' 39 kg 352,470 kg 70% 246,729 kg 777 t $203,551
A320-200 48,160 4,490 15'' 19 kg 900,993 kg 75% 675,745 kg 2,129 t $557,490
B747-400 3,888 17,800 18'' 89 kg 346,032 kg 60% 207,619 kg 654 t $171,286
B777-200 8,100 11,100 18'' 56 kg 449,550 kg 70% 314,685 kg 991 t $259,615
B737-700 39,760 4,070 15'' 17 kg 674,263 kg 75% 505,698 kg 1,593 t $417,200
CRJ-200 39,820 1,900 15'' 8 kg 315,242 kg 75% 236,431 kg 745 t $195,056
ATR 72 55,000 1,020 00'' 0 kg 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 3,038,550 kg 2,186,907 kg 6,889 t $1,804,198

Table 69: Idle Reverse Landings

The use of Idle Reverser in landing is a well-established procedure at many airlines. Idle reversers on
landing are used when circumstances are appropriate, which takes into consideration all of the factors
mentioned above. The best in class airlines will use the procedure when it applies after a review of all of the
destination runways where the procedure might apply. Once this is determined, the potential improvement is
the possible percentage increase of the number of times the procedure would have applied mitigated by the
actual operating considerations, which would limit the use of idle reversers on the day of operation.

7.19.1 Risk Analysis

The introduction of the Idle Reverse on landing procedure must be carefully introduced. Clear operating
parameters must be established. On certain aircraft types such as the B737-800, which has high landing
speeds, it should be limited to longer runways. The factors mentioned above must be considered by the
Crew to avoid runway over-runs.

7.20 Engine-Out Taxi-In

Many airlines use the engine-out taxi-in procedure as standard. SOPs that are well designed encourage
engine-out taxi-in with minimal workload for the Flight Crew. When using the engine-out taxi-in procedure
taxi planning and anticipation of aircraft movement is important. The aircraft must be kept moving. Flight
Crews will require training and familiarization with engine-out taxi procedures. Crews familiar with engine-out
taxi-in procedures may follow the procedure after almost every landing. The main advantages are:

 Reduced fuel consumption

 Decrease in emissions
 Reduced brake wear

Consider the following before applying engine-out taxi-in procedures:

 Taxiway surface conditions

139
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Taxi-in time
 Ramp congestion
 Local airport regulations
 Parking location and local airline procedures

Crews must be sensitized to the value of engine-out taxi-in procedures.

Engine Out Number Taxi In Cool Fuel Burn Saving Potential Savings
Taxi In Cycles Avg Min Down Kg/Hr Eng Out kg/yr
A330-300 9,096 12' 03' 850 1,159,740 kg
A320-200 48,160 08' 03' 400 1,605,333 kg
B747-400 3,888 13' 03' 1400 907,200 kg
B777-200 8,100 12' 03' 950 1,154,250 kg
B737-700 39,760 08' 03' 350 1,159,667 kg
CRJ-200 39,820 07' 03' 250 663,667 kg
ATR 72 55,000 05' 03' 140 256,667 kg
Total 6,906,523 kg

Table 70: Engine-Out Taxi-In Potential Savings

Engine Out Potential Savings Target Improvement Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Taxi In kg/yr Percent Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,159,740 kg 80% 927,792 kg 2,923 t $765,428
A320-200 1,605,333 kg 80% 1,284,267 kg 4,045 t $1,059,520
B747-400 907,200 kg 60% 544,320 kg 1,715 t $449,064
B777-200 1,154,250 kg 40% 461,700 kg 1,454 t $380,903
B737-700 1,159,667 kg 75% 869,750 kg 2,740 t $717,544
CRJ-200 663,667 kg 90% 597,300 kg 1,881 t $492,773
ATR 72 256,667 kg 90% 231,000 kg 728 t $190,575
Total 6,906,523 kg 4,916,129 kg 15,486 t $4,055,806

Table 71: Engine-Out Taxi-In Savings

The use of engine-out taxi procedure is very common at most airlines. At ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn
savings using engine-out taxi-in is 4,916,129 kgs/yr or US$ 4,055,806 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per
kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 15,486 metric tons per year.

Engine-out taxi in procedures is normally the standard procedure at many airlines when circumstances are
appropriate and subject taxiway conditions, gate congestion and aircraft type limitations. The best in class
airlines will use the engine out taxi procedure as a standard with well-defined guidelines almost all the times.
The target improvement will be the difference in the actual use of engine out taxi in procedure and the usage
by best in class airlines operating similar type in identical circumstances.

7.20.1 Risk Analysis

Implementing the Engine-Out Taxi In procedure must be carefully managed. The risk analysis must cover
such areas as taxiway condition, braking action, congestion near the ramp area, the landing weight and the
direction of turn in the ramp area. On some twin-engine aircraft where either engine can be shut down, keep
the engine running, which will facilitate maneuvering in the ramp area.

7.21 Pilot Technique and Fuel Efficiency

As observed at many airlines, fuel ‘efficiency’ of Flight Crews on short to medium range operations can vary,
on average, by ±2% to 3% for shorter-range flights, where a significant portion of the flight is spent
maneuvering during departure and arrival. Proper training, with emphasis on fuel economy, adequate SOPs,

140
 Flight Operations

availability of route statistics, access to traffic information tools, proper management leadership and
accountability will greatly affect pilot fuel efficiency. It is estimated that savings of 0.7% to 1.0% are
conservative. At ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings as a result of increased pilot fuel efficiency is
11,035,715 kgs/yr or US$ 9,104,465 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2
reduction is 34,763 metric tons per year. To obtain savings, Flight Crews must consistently apply the
following fuel saving procedures, which are in addition to measured savings attributed to specific procedures
as demonstrated elsewhere in this document:

 Accurate flight planning and judicious fuel additives

 Efficient start up and taxi speed
 Departure runway selection if possible
 Speed control and altitude trade off on departure
 Post departure flight profile re-optimization and ETA management
 Lateral track management
 Cruise altitude management
 Speed management process
 Descent profile planning and management
 Holding technique
 Taxi-in speeds
 Full and effective use of the automation
 Optimized use of the FMS
 Proper (in-flight) mission management

Pilot Technique Burn Target Savings per flight Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Flight Management kg/yr Improvement in kg Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 0.8% 276 kg 2,513,280 kg 7,917 t $2,073,456
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 0.8% 33 kg 1,567,110 kg 4,936 t $1,292,865
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 0.7% 527 kg 2,047,496 kg 6,450 t $1,689,184
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 0.6% 280 kg 2,270,736 kg 7,153 t $1,873,357
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 1.0% 46 kg 1,823,094 kg 5,743 t $1,504,053
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg 1.0% 13 kg 528,000 kg 1,663 t $435,600
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg 1.0% 5 kg 286,000 kg 901 t $235,950
Total 11,035,715 kg 34,763 t $9,104,465

Table 72: Pilot Technique

It is recommended that fuel management courses and awareness programs be developed to sensitize Flight
Crews to the potential savings and environmental impact of efficient piloting.

A proper Fuel Management Information system will permit the monitoring of fuel burn by individual pilots as
compared to flight plan. This monitoring should be performed not as a punitive measure, but rather as a way
to raise awareness and improve system efficiencies. Pilot performance should only be compared to more
advanced flight planning systems, which include runway specific SIDs and STARs. As shown in the example
below, some pilots will consume plus or minus 2.2% fuel than planned over a 6-month period.

141
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 48: Fuel Burn Variation between Pilots

7.22 Fuel Conservation Documentation

IATA would recommend the following documentation to support fuel conservation:

 Airbus / Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy

 Airbus / Getting to Grips with Cost Index
 Boeing / Maintenance Practices for Fuel Conservation
 Embraer Fuel Conservation [GP-1999/Rev 1, May 2006]
 Pratt & Whitney - On-wing Engine Wash Service
 ICAO Operational Opportunities to Minimize Fuel Use and Reduce Emissions (Cir 303 - AN/176

142
8 MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING
8.1 General
Most airlines operating procedures are efficient and based on industry standards. However, Maintenance
and Engineering (M&E) can make significant changes to improve performance by monitoring its activities to
enhance fuel conservation. This chapter may act as a checklist and provide potential changes in the
maintenance operation that can improve fuel efficiency.

Of course, airlines must weigh the costs of increased maintenance against the likely benefits derived from
the increased maintenance activity. A benefit and effort analysis must be carried out to balance savings from
maintenance performance improvements versus the cost to perform the associated maintenance. The
following proposed approach to improve fuel efficiency is focused on the most obvious aircraft systems.
However, the airline may wish to strategically review all systems.

M&E activities are guided by the current maintenance program of the airline. This program is the result of the
Maintenance Review Board (MRB) analysis, the Airworthiness Limitations and the Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) defining the scheduled maintenance activity for each of the fleet types. Compliance with
the scheduled maintenance program ensures design safety and reliability objectives are maintained. Daily
activities are performed by accomplishing MPD scheduled maintenance tasks, with a strong emphasis on a
high level of safety and On Time Performance (OTP). It must be recognized that the MRB/MPD scheduled
maintenance tasks do not consider fuel conservation tasks as a part of the scheduled maintenance program.
In fact, fuel conservation improvements will only result as a consequence of airline-initiated changes in their
maintenance program.

Efficient aircraft operation requires the careful integration of many factors, including the fuel cost. This
section of the document provides advice on basic maintenance aspects of fuel saving initiatives. Initially,
fundamental operational principles are discussed. This is followed by specific conditions or defects that have
a notable impact on fuel consumption.
8.1.1 Measuring and Monitoring
Several techniques are available to M&E to measure the success of the implemented changes and the
performed initiatives to improve the fuel burn of individual aircraft or fleets. Aircraft Performance Monitoring
(APM) is one of these techniques, as described in Sections 3.5.2.1 and 8.2. In addition to APM, Engine
Condition Monitoring (ECTM) and other more manual techniques, like visual inspection combined with fuel
burn calculation, are described in Section 8.7. The manual processes are representing an alternative method
in case that APM data is not available within the airline.

8.2 Aircraft Performance Monitoring

The need to measure the technical efficiency of aircraft as it relates to Maintenance and Engineering
becomes very important in order to accurately track fuel efficiency. The APM results are a Key Performance
Indicator (KPI) for the effectiveness of the performed maintenance in view of the overall aircraft technical and
aerodynamic performance. Once the airline determines a benchmark measure, it can calculate how much
fuel is burned, how efficiently it is consumed, and how that impacts the environment. One approach to
establish fuel efficiency performance metrics is to utilize the APM system currently in use by most airlines.

Cruise performance monitoring, also called APM (Aircraft Performance Monitoring), has been used for many
years by airlines striving to operate their airplanes as efficiently as possible. These airlines know that
continuous cruise performance monitoring of airplanes in their fleets can decrease operating costs, as
compared to airlines that do not monitor airplane performance levels. Continuous cruise performance
monitoring can provide the airline M&E department the information they need to:

 Identify normal deterioration for a fleet of airplanes

143
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Identify high fuel burning airplanes for possible maintenance actions

 Integrate APM results in the planning process for minor or major checks
 Use APM to determine potential additional maintenance tasks to cure performance problems
 Validate performance degradation for extended twin-engine operations (ETOPS) critical fuel reserves
planning (in lieu of the regulatory requirement)
 Monitor contractual obligations in fuel burn guaranties of the manufacturers

An additional benefit of aircraft performance monitoring is diagnosing and solving various airplane
performance problems or issues as they might arise from time to time. The root cause of higher than normal
fuel burn could be caused by engine system faults, wear related performance degradation, increased aircraft
weight, deteriorating aerodynamic condition, such as a dirty aircraft, or any other loss in efficiency impacting
the fuel burn. Engine degradation will often account for up to 75% of the increased fuel consumption and it is
therefore vital to understand all the engine performance aspects.

The data for the APM calculations are normally drawn from ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing
and Reporting System) downloads. ACARS data is captured from various sensors throughout the aircraft
several times during the flight, and then down linked to a ground based station where it can be distributed via
a server system. Within the airline, the data is processed using dedicated APM software.

Performance Engineering provides Performance Deterioration Allowance (PDA) data. This information
highlights the deterioration factor experienced by each individual aircraft within the fleet, and is directly
available to M&E if the calculations are performed within M&E. Otherwise, the data might have to be
requested from the department performing the APM calculations. IATA recommends the provision of a
dedicated resource within M&E to review performance deterioration on a daily basis to provide an indicator
as to the cost drivers of fuel burn within the fleet and validate the results based on other available data in
M&E such as Engine Condition Trend Monitoring (ECTM) and Aircraft Fleet Health data. Once the data is
verified and validated, a systematic approach to remedial maintenance actions can be assessed. Daily or
regular dialogue with Performance Engineering can now facilitate performance measurement that highlights
technical performance in view of fuel efficiency. It would not be cost effective to strive to perfect each aircraft
back to a zero degradation factor. This is not the aim of the airline maintenance policy. However, identifying
the top 10 of the fleet’s worst performers can be an ongoing activity that will over time bring fuel performance
in line with fuel efficiency requirements. In some cases, M&E is not aware of the potential, or are not able to
make this item a priority because of a break down in internal communication. M&E must recognize the
importance of APM and utilize it extensively. Each new aircraft entering the fleet needs to be addressed, not
only as a matter for Flight Operations, but also as a specific M&E task to input the “as delivered” performance
data. These data now become the performance benchmark for that aircraft. Efforts can now be made to
monitor fuel efficiency performance, effect of performed maintenance tasks, and initiate corrective action
where needed to reduce the performance degradation.

Any time maintenance has been performed on the aircraft, the effects should be monitored on subsequent
flights. Over time, fuel and performance benefits can be realized through the execution of fuel-efficient
maintenance tasks, such as keeping the aircraft aerodynamically clean or other process enhancements.

In summary, daily execution of a fuel-efficient maintenance program (MRB/MPD) coupled with a

performance metric (PDA) using APM, provides the opportunity to allocate appropriate resources to correct
poor performance and improve fuel efficiency.

144
 Maintenance & Engineering

A generic APM process flow is depicted below:

Figure 49: Generic APM Process Flow

The graph below shows the generic process the APM data and results should follow for proper use of APM
information. Every inaccuracy in APM results will directly affect the planned fuel accuracy and might defy the
purpose of the airline using a state of the art flight planning system for maximum efficiency and accuracy.
Once the highest fuel burn degradation is identified, M&E should identify whether it can explain the reason
for the condition, and if the fuel burn rate is acceptable.

145
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 50: Generic APM Maintenance Process Flow

The Maintenance and Engineering department plays a key role in verification and validation of APM results.
Commonly in the industry Flight Operations Engineering manages the APM results for operational use. If,
there is a need to fix a technical problem indicated by the APM results, such corrective work needs usually to
be performed by M&E. It is therefore very important that M&E plays a pro-active role in the APM process.

M&E should apply a “Cause & Effect” approach when reviewing APM data as depicted in the figure below.

Figure 51: Cause and Effect Graph

The data gathered in such a manner will help to identify and understand problems in a structured way, and
determine appropriate measures to be taken to address varying causes.

APM results should always be validated and reviewed for several different conditions such as, large
variances, slope of degradation, long-term degradation trends, unusual changes like long-term positive
trends in order to ensure proper data is being used by Flight Operations, Dispatch and Engineering.

146
 Maintenance & Engineering

8.2.1 APM Data Variation

Normally, several data points over a specified time frame will be averaged to develop the degradation factor
or the fuel bias. The individual data points used to calculate the average degradation factor should be
reviewed to determine if they indicate irregularities and or large variances, as shown in the example below.
The data variance is a direct indication of the accuracy of the system and should be closely monitored to
determine if corrective action should be taken to resolve the cause of the irregularities and variances. A
standard for normal variances should be established, and whenever the variances are greater than the
defined standard, measures should be taken to correct the cause for the large variances.

Figure 52: APM Data Variation

Variance of ~ 4%

Many aspects may render the APM data useless or inaccurate due to their effect they have on the APM
calculations. Such aspects could be:

 Inaccurate Passenger weights

 Inaccurate Cargo weights
 Inaccurate Fuel weight measurements
 Inaccurate CG definitions
 Instrument errors
 Inaccurate or wrong manual entries

147
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

8.2.2 APM Degradation Slope

Monitoring APM data for the rate of change as degradation evolves will help to maintain the best possible
aircraft fleet technical performance. M&E needs to define and monitor a normal slope of degradation per
aircraft type. Steep slopes can indicate faster than normal degradation and M&E should then analyze the
data and take measures to correct such cases. A degradation of approximately 0.5 % per year, without
corrective actions, is often observed and can be used to start defining the airline specific normal deterioration
rate.

Figure 53: APM Degradation Slope - 0.5% per year

8.2.3 Unusual APM long-term Trends
The normal results of the APM data is to show a constant small degree of degradation that represents the
normal behavior of an aircraft aging and therefore slowly loosing efficiency over time until some restoration is
performed. This constant slight loss should be observable in long-term trends as constant subtle downward
slope. If the long-term slope shows a different behavior this should lead to an investigation into what triggers
the unusual trend. Long-term upward trends would indicate that an aircraft gets better over time, which is not
an expected phenomenon. If such trends are not investigated and when necessary corrected, the results
could lead to erroneous fuel bias factors being used by Dispatch for their calculations and incorrect FMC
updates in the aircraft.

Figure 54: Unusual APM Long-term Trend

Expected Slope

148
 Maintenance & Engineering

8.2.4 Comparing Aircraft age and APM degradation

In order to validate APM data the APM results can be compared to aircraft age and degradation. This review
allows defining the performance in between fleets and allocating the proper resources to address differences
in fleet performance. The comparison also allows defining degradation rates overtime.

Figure 55: Fleet Age to APM Comparison

8.2.5 Segregation of APM and ECTM

The ability to segregate engine and airframe degradation is a very important capability to properly interpret
APM results and to define the degradation due to engine, airframe drag and other effects. The segregation of
the engine impact from the rest of the aircraft will allow allocating the needed resources where the biggest
return can be achieved. In order to be able to verify the impact of the engines the Engine Condition Trend
Monitoring (ECTM) data can be overlaid on the APM data as shown in the figure below. Accurate engine
temperature margins will thereby be compared against the APM data and can be judged for their impact on
the APM results.

An aircraft in good aerodynamic condition and with no other performance impact with low temperature
margin engines should show degraded APM results in line with the overlaid ECTM results and vice versa. If
both engines show very good engine temperature margin and the APM results show degraded results it can
be assumed that something else other than the engines is causing the degradation. Airlines can build up
correlation data for different states of ECTM results versus APM results in order to build a database for
normal behaviors.

149
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 56: APM vs. ECTM Data Comparison Plot

Once the APM results have been verified and the engine impact is understood a corrective action plan
should be developed. The result of the APM ECTM comparison will be indicative in deciding if actions are
needed for the engines or for the airframe to rectify degradation issues.

According the estimated fuel savings the action can be verified for its cost effectiveness and technical
feasibility. This will support efforts to ensure that the fleet is operated at the technically most efficient level.
The comparison of APM versus ECTM data can also help to verify other aspects concerning the validity of
the APM results as described above.

APM is a good tool to monitor the individual aircraft and the fleet for its technical performance level also over
extended periods of time. While most of the small and individual fuel saving tasks will not be easily
detectable, most major components, like the engine performance, will be clearly detectable and become
obvious right away. Major individual tasks, like engine refurbishment, should be detectable right after the
task or the change has been performed. Some other tasks with lesser impact in fuel saving may not be
individually detectable, but APM will show the totality of all performed tasks affecting aircraft performance by
tracking a less steep degradation slope.

One of the main goals is using the APM data to establish a set of fuel saving standard tasks that lead to a
positive trend in technical aircraft performance. This trend should then be verifiable by the use of APM data.
See also the above-mentioned cause and effect methodology for APM troubleshooting. APM should further
be used to prioritize aircraft requiring fuel efficiency related maintenance by ranking best to worst, and
focusing the immediate time and effort on the aircraft needing most of the attention. See the graph below
showing a fleet of aircraft with the individual aircraft performance data compared against each another.

150
 Maintenance & Engineering

Normal Slope

Steep Slope

Figure 57: APM Fleet Data

Airlines applying best practice use APM as their main tool to direct and plan scheduled and unscheduled
work concerning aerodynamic aspects and engine performance impacts in aircraft fuel efficiency.

8.2.6 Recommendations
The M&E department is encouraged to start a dialog with the operational section performing the APM
calculations to establish a good working relationship and helping to verify and validate APM data. This will
allow all involved parties to work with the most reliable and accurate data. It will further help to enhance
fuel saving efficiency and develop confidence in the acquired data. It is recommended for M&E to identify a
normal rate of deterioration for a fleet of airplanes, and to rank the individual aircraft according their fuel
burning for possible maintenance action.

The M&E department is usually in the best position to verify and validate the APM data, as well as to
ensure the accuracy and the trend slopes are correct. This can be done by checking sensors and systems
of the aircraft regularly, and by using historical data of changes in a cause and effect mode. As ECTM
shares some of the same sensors as APM the results of the ECTM calculations can also be used to
validate and verify part of the APM data.

8.2.7 Measuring and Monitoring

The APM procedure is the most advanced and all-encompassing tool available to measure and monitor all
technical aspects of the aircraft fuel performance degradation. Performing aircraft performance monitoring
in itself does not save fuel, but the actions that can be triggered by the review of the APM data will
certainly do so.

This represents 75% of the potential possible savings accounting for non-compliance and other factors
causing inaccuracies.

151
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

8.3 Maintenance Program and Planning

It must be recognized that the MRB/MPD scheduled maintenance tasks do not consider fuel conservation
tasks as a part of the scheduled maintenance program. In fact, fuel conservation may result only as a
consequence of airline-initiated changes in their maintenance program.

The maintenance planning department plays an important role in fuel saving as it can influence the planed
tasks and therefore contribute in a substantial way to the achievable savings.

Any rationalized approach to fuel conservation must be managed through the existing approved
maintenance program, the objective being to manage a controlled process rather than executing random
oversight by performing other activities. APM data plays a major role in aircraft related performance and
should therefore be used by Engineering and the Planning department to drive and plan performance related
tasks as well as to control the effectiveness and the impact of the performed tasks. APM results of individual
aircraft should be used to monitor pre- and post-check aircraft performance changes.

Existing MPD task cards can be revised to expand on the existing content to be able to focus on those items
that can provide fuel conservation benefits, to the highest possible degree. Every attempt to utilize existing
task cards should be made guarding against overloading the task card content. Once airline management
has made the foregoing decisions they need to ensure that adequate resources and personnel are provided
both to manage the aircraft downtime and any requirements that may arise as a result of the fuel
conservation efforts.

Currently, aircraft maintenance personnel maintain aircraft to the limits contained in the Aircraft Maintenance
Manual (AMM). Clearly, this maintains a high level of safety and fleet reliability but does not address a fuel
conservation program.

The following represents some of the items that may be formally introduced into the Maintenance Program,
or existing items that can be expanded upon, to ensure stronger focus on fuel conservation. The essential
target is the elimination of drag and losses in efficiency in all its forms.
8.3.1 Air Conditioning System - ATA 21
Bleed air supply-, engine- / wing anti-icing systems and air conditioning system health checks are a good
way of maintaining the integrity of the bleed air system. During approach for landing (throttled back), with the
air cycle machines operative, and all pneumatic anti-icing/de-icing selected, some aircraft exhibit the need
for additional power to provide the level of pneumatic demand, because of the pressure loss caused by
leaks. This can also change the approach profile of the aircraft on that approach. Regular cleaning of heat
exchangers/coolers results in an improved efficiency of the unit, reducing fuel burn and assists in meeting
the performance base line.

Focused maintenance activity may consider that tired air cycle machines (ACM) can place a demand for
additional pneumatic power to drive them. This further adds to the need for additional fuel. Elimination of all
pneumatic air losses with a focus on air cycle machine efficiency will provide cost benefits. All ducting
supplying conditioned air as well as pneumatic ducting feeding the ACM should also be leak free.
8.3.2 Flight Controls - ATA 27
Flight control rigging can provide fuel cost savings by ensuring the end product is rigged to the optimum
value. This may require discussion with the appropriate OEM to determine best performance. The Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) gives tolerances for maintenance rigging of flight controls but these tolerances
leave room for mechanics to cause inadvertently minor drag and lead to airline mechanics not performing an
optimum rigging on flight controls in view of fuel savings.

152
 Maintenance & Engineering

An indication could be spoilers beginning to rise if the aircraft is balanced by excessive autopilot lateral input:

Figure 58: Spoiler Float Induced by Excessive Autopilot Input

Inspect for:

 Excessive autopilot lateral input. This can cause spoiler panel operation, which induces drag – thus
increasing fuel consumption
 Marginal aileron rigging that will create unnecessary drag - not to mention degraded performance
 Optimum spoiler control rigging. Spoilers are a full time control parameter - so ensuring better than
nominal rigging enhances performance by not adding to the drag component
 The flap system rigging for optimum position. These large surfaces are designed to manage flight
regime attitudes at controlled speeds. Out of tolerance situations will cause excessive fuel burn.
 The rudder control system for optimum rig
 All the flight controls for seal integrity. Ensure that air is directed so as to meet the intent of the design.
Where applicable inspect draft curtains for condition and replace as required
 All control surfaces for maximized fit and fair positions. Ensure correct flush fasteners are installed on
all surfaces. Rough surfaces from any leaks must be corrected.

153
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Example: Fuel penalty for control surface mis-rigging (10mm) (estimated)

Mis-Rigging 10mm Liters per year per aircraft

Slat 28,000
Flap 10,000
Spoiler 32,000
Aileron 10,000
Rudder 13,000
Table 73: Fuel Penalties Associated with Control Surface Rig
Example: fuel penalty for missing parts (estimated)

Type of Deterioration: Seal on movable Liters per year per aircraft/meter of

surface missing seal
Slats (span wise seal) 14,000
Flaps & Ailerons (chord-wise seal) 9,500
Elevator 6,300
Elevator bearing access cover missing 19,000
Table 74: Fuel Penalty for Missing Components

8.3.3 Fuel System - ATA 28

Investigating all reported fuel quantity discrepancies ensures that possible problems related to contaminated
probes are eliminated. Performing calibration checks for the fuel tank indication system ensures accurate
quantity readings. Fuel tank sumping should be performed regularly. Fuel tanks have been found with ice
buildup 4 feet in length and 18 inches to 2 feet thick. Components in these tanks may not fail immediately but
may experience damage leading to calibration issues, as well as structural concerns. Inspect tanks for algae
growth and rectify as required. Sump drains can allow fuel seeps or weeps. While these may be an allowable
MEL dispatch criteria, over time the fuel can affect surface finish causing roughness and a resulting increase
in drag. Inspect all areas of the aircraft for fuel leaks that can degrade surface finish. Rectify leak areas and
return surface finish to specification. Inspect pylon and other similar drain systems. Eliminate any source of
leaks and ensure surface integrity of surfaces affected.

Ground Handling is normally responsible for the refueling of aircraft. This process needs to be reviewed to
ensure that the fuel uplift does not exceed the preset fuel guaranties. Review of this procedure and the
development of a standard would provide savings through weight control. An estimate of savings is detailed
in the Operations Planning and Flight Dispatch Chapter above.
8.3.4 Instruments - ATA 31
The air speed and altitude systems along with the fuel quantity systems are maintained to the AMM and
MPD, with no special attention being given to optimization. This enables a greater degree of inaccuracy of
the system, causing the aircraft to operate at different speeds and flight levels than optimum, thus burning
more fuel. Ensure regular instrument calibration checks. Speed measuring equipment has a large impact on
fuel mileage. If speed is not accurate the airplane may be flying faster or slower than intended. On
commercial transport flying at .01M faster can increase fuel burn by 1% or more. Maintain calibration of
airspeed systems. Plugging or deforming the holes in the alternate static port can result in erroneous
instrument readings in the flight deck. Keeping the circled area smooth and clean promotes aerodynamic
efficiency. Maintenance operations must ensure the use of proper tooling when there is a need to block the
static ports.
8.3.5 Pneumatic System - ATA 36
Inspect pneumatic manifolds and valves for leaks. Although many manifolds are monitored by over
temperature sensing, some others are not. Even those that are monitored may be allowed to leak yet not

154
 Maintenance & Engineering

cause a warning indication because the leak rate is too low. Over an entire aircraft however, this can be a
significant loss requiring additional throttle to sustain performance.

Air leaks throughout the systems can be such, that they are individually not detected. Yet throughout the
aircraft these air leaks can give rise to a false comfort by Flight Crew and M&E personnel reading a bleed air
manifold pressure that is in limits. Present day engine control systems will result in a Throttle Lever Angle
(TLA) that compensates for reduced pressure, resulting in additional fuel burn. Historically on older aircraft
these kinds of anomalies are in tandem with other discrepancies would result in throttle stagger. However,
present day Main Engine Control (MEC)/FADEC technology has overcome this limitation but they do so at
the expense of additional fuel burn which over time can be significant.

Couplings in the ducting of the bleed air system and any other system using bleed air such as aircraft anti-
icing, engine anti-icing and air conditioning systems should be appropriately inspected for leakage, particular
attention should be paid to minor leakage which would not trigger the warning system. With the foregoing in
mind, airlines should review the scheduled maintenance program and incorporate text and methods to detect
even the smallest leakages. (This equally applies to Air Conditioning - ATA 21 and De-Icing/Anti-Icing - ATA
30)
8.3.6 Structure and Doors – ATA 51-57
Ensuring minimum mismatch for fit and fair tolerances throughout the exterior of the aircraft, access panels,
passenger doors, service doors, cargo doors, lower compartment doors, wing to fuselage fairings, and
empennage fairings including the sealing of gaps on the fuselage skin butt joints with aerodynamic sealant
can bring significant return on investment through fuel conservation. Inspecting passenger, service, cargo
and accessory compartment door seals for cuts/splits and general deterioration can produce fuel
conservation if they are corrected in a timely matter. These requirements can be highlighted on the
scheduled zonal inspection task cards.

Inspect the aircraft fuselage. All panels must be installed. The fit and fair condition ensuring smooth flow over
the edges of the panel/s and mating structure must be maintained. Any rough surfaces must be identified
and returned to a smooth condition. Any discrepancies caused by hydraulic or fuel leaks must be corrected.
All antennae must be installed so as to maximize the best fit and fair considerations. This includes attention
to the detail of sealing compound applications where required.
8.3.7 Engines – ATA 72
Airlines nowadays perform engine condition trend monitoring (ECTM) for all engines in their fleets.
Propulsion Engineering is able to recognize performance degradation and anticipate mitigating activities
using ECTM. ECTM results should also be compared to APM data in order to help segregating airframe and
engine driven performance degradation.

Compared to full thrust, the use of reduced thrust will not reduce fuel consumption during takeoff. However, it
will preserve engine life and reduce fuel consumption over time. The majority of engine wear will occur at
higher temperatures and due to remarkable power setting changes causing thermal load fluctuations. For
instance, a 1% reduction from full takeoff thrust will result in a 10% saving in engine life. The first few
degrees are the most damaging. Consistent use of reduced thrust will more than double engine life and
prevent rapid performance deterioration.

Most engine manufacturers will agree that the maximum strain on an engine occurs during the takeoff phase
because the thermal shock is the greatest with the highest temperatures generated. While turbine engines
are highly reliable a full thrust takeoff is when engine failures are most likely to occur. For most airlines, the
average time between overhaul/refurbishment of the hot section is approximately 20,000 engine hours.
Experts agree that if full thrust were used for every takeoff, the engine life would be reduced by about half.
Overhauling the hot section will cost approximately US$1.5 million. A reduced thrust takeoff can save about
US$150 per engine per take off in unnecessary wear and tear. Full thrust takeoffs will also cause more rapid
performance deterioration and increase in specific fuel consumption.

155
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

There are engine operational procedures that address warm up/cool down times. Ensure these procedures
are followed by maintenance, if omitted the lack of such procedures have a significant potential for
permanent performance loss. (Flight operational issues are covered elsewhere)

For fuel conservation reasons, inspect engine intake and fan for condition and thrust-reverser translating
cowls for correctly stowed fit clearances. The following items cause fuel burn deterioration:

 Blade rubs – HP Compressor, HP Turbine, airfoil blade erosion

 Thermal distortion of blade parts
 Blade leading-edge wear
 Excessive fan rub strip wear
 Lining loss in the HP Compressor
 Oil or dirt contamination of LP/HP compressor
 Loss of High Pressure Turbine (HPT) outer air seal material
 Leaking thrust reverser seals
 ECS off take’s, leaks at the connections
 Failed – open fan air valves
 Failed – open IDG air cooler valves
 Faulty turbine case cooling
 Failed or faulty Turbine cooling valves.

A very effective way to save fuel is to keep the engine compressor airfoils clean by performing engine
compressor core wash. See Chapter 7.6 for more details.

The following list addresses task that can be beneficial for fuel saving if performed regularly and diligently:

 Schedule fan blade airfoil cleaning and when time allows, removal / clean / lube / reinstall (same
position). The use of a fan exchange kit will enable fan blade blending/smoothing/contouring as
required. Excess lube can contaminate airfoils and should therefore be cleaned before release of the
aircraft.
 Pay attention to fan outer guide vane (OGV) condition especially with composite airfoils. While the
manuals limits may be generous, they do not consider fuel efficiency.
 Monitor fan abradable condition and schedule early repair accordingly.
 Monitor reverser air flow path and seals for condition more frequently than MPD direction.
 For on-wing or in hangar “top case” (in situ removal of half compressor case for blade replacement)
use an experienced team, as there is significant potential for performance loss.
 Introduce regular engine compressor core wash; a clean compressor can save up to 1.5 % fuel.
 Schedule variable bleed valve drive shaft (CFM electronically controlled engines) replacement at a
specific time. Shafts eventually wear and seize resulting in possible air leak or reduction of hail or
water ingestion handling. On wing trend monitoring, depending on sophistication, may not identify this
condition.
 Consider fuel efficiency, as well as performance margin, as the reason for scheduling engine
removals. Review engine power interchange policies. Many fleets or sub fleets use a common engine
with rating changes to accommodate thrust requirements. In such instances it is common practice to
remove engines from higher power installations as EGT becomes limiting and reinstall on a lower
power installation. Consider the additional fuel burn cost against incremental repair cost of an earlier
than schedule engine repair.

156
 Maintenance & Engineering

*Fuel penalty in Litres/per year/per aircraft, for Engine Deterioration Cruise TSFC Liters / Year Total Loss
Item Condition %
Fan Blades Leading Edge Erosion Up to 0.6 % 86000 0.6
FOD / Blended Blades Up to 0.3 % 43000 0.3

Fan Rub-strip Wear resulting in Increased Tip Clearance 0.2 % for a 12 mm length 30000 0.2
Increased Tip Clearance
Fan Flow Path Fairing Leading Edge Errosion Up to 0.7 % 11700 0.7
Fan Compressor Airfoils Accumulation of Dirt Up to 1.0 % 146000 1
Compressor Airfoils FOD at N1 IGVÕ s Up to 0.3 % 43000 0.3

Engine Core High Time Cycles Up to 2.0 % 293000 2

st Anti-Ice Failed ŅONÓ Up to 1.7 % 245000
1 Stage Stator
Idle Trim Trim 1% High 7200 1.7

Main Engine Dirty Internal Engine Up to 1.5 % 240000 1.5

Table 75: Typical Engine Deterioration Losses

8.3.8 Recommendations
Review all aspects affecting higher fuel burn and plan preventive or corrective action to prevent it from
occurring or to fix the cause. Causes of fuel burn degradation could be thermal distortion of blade parts,
blade leading-edge wear, excessive fan rub strip wear, ECS off takes, leaks at the connections, failed open
fan air valves, failed – open IDG air cooler valves. Review engine compressor wash to be included in the
scheduled maintenance tasks.
8.3.9 Measuring and Monitoring
ECTM will allow tracking of engine performance. In combination with APM, ECTM will allow fuel burn
degradation monitoring at the aircraft level.

8.4 Time Dependent Maintenance Cost

Accurate Time Dependent Maintenance Cost (TDMC) values are a fundamental part of determining the
correct Cost Index (See Section 6.2) for an efficient aircraft operation. The TDMC numbers should be
assembled for each fleet type individually by the Maintenance and Engineering department with the support
of Maintenance Finance if so needed. In order to segregate which costs are time dependent and which costs
are not, there is a need for very specific knowledge which is usually only available in the Maintenance and
Engineering department. The TDMC numbers have only one very specific use and that is to be part of the
cost index calculations. TDMC numbers are not useful for actual maintenance cost allocations and or control
and should therefore not be used for these purposes. When maintenance is outsourced this aspect has to be
understood in order not to generate confusions with actual maintenance costs. The reasons for the
difference between actual maintenance cost and time dependent maintenance cost becomes apparent when
the exclusions that are determined further below in this chapter are taken in consideration.

TDMC values could differ from one aircraft to another within a given fleet type. These differences could be
driven by:
 Aircraft age (ageing),
 Lease contracts (maintenance reserves)
 Other contracts such as Power By the Hour (PBH) etc.

157
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Elements of TDMC:

a. In-house work
All in-house scheduled maintenance tasks applicable to Line and Base Maintenance, engines and
components should be reviewed for the task control parameter, which can be found in the fleet
specific aircraft maintenance schedule.

Table 76: Typical Time Dependent Maintenance Costs Check List

TDMC represents the cost of maintenance for those tasks which are strictly flying hour dependent as
shown in Table 76, i.e. not cycles or calendar time. In order to assemble the TDMC numbers all
required data have to be recorded in sufficient level of details. Such records include flight hours of
aircraft for the fleet type, detailed maintenance data for airframe, engine, components labor and
material use.

Major aircraft checks can be based on a calendar schedule where at a specific calendar interval an
aircraft undergoes a major check regardless of the flight hours on the aircraft which would therefore
not qualify as time dependent maintenance cost.

For all the maintenance labor and materials used the direct costs have to be defined. As the TDMC
numbers are based only on direct costs, no burden should be included in the calculated costs.
Based on the flight hours and the cost the time-related cost in dollars per flight-hour can be
determined.

b. Outsourced work
Depending on the airline’s maintenance philosophy for maintenance arrangements, in-house vs.
outsourced, other additional aspects have to be considered depending on the contract provisioning.
All contracts for outsourced work have to be reviewed for the financial terms. All outsourced work
where the payment is based on flight hours (power by the hour, PBH) has to be included in the
TDMC.

c. Other costs
In addition to in-house and outsourced work discussed above, there are other maintenance costs
that should be included in the TDMC. These additional costs include maintenance reserves and
leasing costs. These costs also have to be reviewed and if they are based on flying time they have
to be included in the TDMC numbers.

158
 Maintenance & Engineering

Airlines may contract out component maintenance and pay a fixed rate per flight hour such as engine
maintenance or pay for items like APU maintenance based on flight hours, these are time dependent costs.
There might also be some other time related costs on an aircraft such as an engine being temporarily leased
while another engine is being repaired which could qualify as time dependent costs.

Finally, some aircraft may be leased based on power by the hour where a fixed amount per hour is paid for
each hour flown. In these cases the power by the hour costs are time dependent costs.

In case of changes in the in-house labor rate or maintenance cost structure as a result of outsourcing more
work or bringing work back in-house, the TDMC values should be checked and updated in order to calculate
the correct cost index.

The figure below shows the TDMC cost structure:

Figure 59: Time Dependent Maintenance Cost Structure

The table below shows an example of TDMC numbers for ABC Airline. TDMC numbers are always specific
to an airline and should therefore not be copied from other airlines but rather properly calculated as
described before.

Time Dependant MTC Cost

Engines Number Airframe Component Ttl MTC
A/C Type US$/Fhr Engines US$/Fhr US$/Fhr US$/Fhr
A330-300 $400 2 $120 $50 $970
A320-200 $150 2 $40 $25 $365
B747-400 $200 4 $200 $100 $1,100
B777-200 $300 2 $175 $125 $900
B737-700 $100 2 $45 $22 $267
CRJ-200 $50 2 $15 $10 $125
ATR 72 $25 2 $5 $5 $60

Table 77: Example of Potential Time Dependent Maintenance Cost

159
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

8.5 Aircraft Weight Reduction

The M&E department is encouraged to know the cost of weight on their aircraft. This is important to ensure
M&E will play the appropriate role in the weight control process.

Regular review of aircraft Empty Weight does pay dividends. Aircraft have been known to increase by as
much as 500 kg in a 5-year period.
8.5.1 Fuel Penalty Calculation
Carrying extra weight on board will result in an additional fuel requirement of approximately 4% of the weight
carried per flight hour. This may vary with aircraft type and the flight profile flown. The best way obtain an
accurate measurement of the penalty associated with the additional weight carried is to calculate the flight
plan for different weight combinations concentrating on fuel flow bias and drag factor.

It is possible to determine drag increases, generated by particular items with wind tunnel measurements or
analytical techniques. The drag increase translates into increased fuel burn - in kg per year per aircraft - but
the reader must keep in mind that values given correspond to an aircraft with specific assumptions. These
assumptions refer to each type of aircraft and include annual flight hours based on airline statistics.

The extra fuel burn or fuel penalty to carry one kilogram additional weight on all aircraft for ABC Airlines is
12,197 kgs/year. This will cost US$ 10,062 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kg or US$ 2.506 per gallon.

Table 78: Fuel Penalty

8.5.2 Weight & Balance - ATA 8

Regular review of the aircraft empty weight does pay dividends. It is recognized that the mandatory weighing
period is followed; however the benefit of increased diligence does provide dividends that translate into cost
savings.

For example operational parameters will cause an increase in weight by moisture/water being absorbed into
the insulation blankets. Thus, a blanket change-out program, or even better, proactive moisture dry out, can
yield good results.

Source of weight reduction potentials for ABC Airlines:

Item ATR42/CRJ200 A320/B737 A330/B747/B777

Water in insulation batting material 10 Kg 25 Kg 50 Kg
Flight deck manuals 15 Kg 20 Kg 20 Kg
Dust and dirt accumulation 10 Kg 20 Kg 30 Kg
Aircraft sanding down process 20 Kg 50 Kg 90 Kg
LED lights 20 Kg 40 Kg
Total per aircraft 55 Kg 135 Kg 230 Kg

Table 79: Typical Weight Reduction Targets

160
 Maintenance & Engineering

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 1,519,027 kgs/yr or
US$ 1,253,197 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 4,785 metric
tons per year.

This represents 75% of the potential possible savings to account for non-compliance and other factors for
inaccuracies.

Aircraft Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Wt Fuel Burn to carry Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Weight Issues (M&E) 1 kg / Fleet Extra Weight in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 230 kg 459,816 kg 75% 344,862 kg 1,086 t $284,511
A320-200 2,296 kg 135 kg 309,941 kg 75% 232,456 kg 732 t $191,776
B747-400 1,221 kg 230 kg 280,856 kg 75% 210,642 kg 664 t $173,780
B777-200 2,213 kg 230 kg 508,878 kg 75% 381,658 kg 1,202 t $314,868
B737-700 2,752 kg 135 kg 371,498 kg 75% 278,624 kg 878 t $229,865
CRJ-200 880 kg 55 kg 48,400 kg 75% 36,300 kg 114 t $29,948
ATR 72 836 kg 55 kg 45,980 kg 75% 34,485 kg 109 t $28,450
Total 2,025,369 kg 1,519,027 kg 4,785 t $1,253,197

Table 80: Aircraft Weight Reduction Savings

Best in class airlines record all weight carried on board and perform frequent aircraft weighing to ensure a
close monitoring off all weight changes. A weight watcher team is responsible to watch the weight change
and report developments to the fuel saving team if they are not part of the team.

As weight reductions are performed by M&E the changes need to be communicated in due time to the
operational departments as otherwise a risk arises that these departments calculate and operate with
inaccurate aircraft weights. This could lead to some inaccuracies in the flight planning processes.
8.5.3 Fly Away Kits or Flight Spares
Airlines which are still carrying a Fly Away Kit (FAK) need to review this costly procedure. Support for spares
from other airlines and/or MROs should be secured at the destinations not served by the airline maintenance
department. For destinations with no other airline or MRO support a local storage arrangement could be
envisaged in order to avoid the carrying of a FAK on board of the aircraft.
8.5.4 Recommendations
Maintenance departments should actively monitor weight trends of aircraft and establish a weight reduction
scheme with defined goals. Maintenance and Engineering can also help other non-technical departments in
reducing weight by means of engineering support.
8.5.5 Measuring and Monitoring
Weighing protocols and weighing calculations for modifications is a good tool to monitor weight trends. A
trend of weight increases of the fleet of aircraft over time can help developing a weight monitoring and weight
saving procedure. This in turn will then be usable to calculate the cost and emission impact over time.

8.6 Airframe Drag Reduction

The essential target of this initiative is the reduction of drag in all its forms. Much of the following
documentation provides areas and activities that will assist in reducing drag. Maintenance actions paying
close attention to correcting sources of increased drag will provide major benefits in fuel conservation.
Ongoing fuel conservation oversight will/can provide additional areas of benefit as well as to highlight areas
that do not require such intense focus. The main indications for airframe drag can be derived from APM
data. APM should be used as the priority tool to handle and control drag related issues. In order to derive
the airframe related part of the degradation calculated by APM the engine contribution has to be defined.
This can be achieved by overlaying ECTM results over APM results as described in Section 8.2. APM results
have to be verified for any anomalies or other conditions, which might corrupt the APM results before any

161
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

corrective actions are performed or decided on as described in Section 8.2. To calculate savings using the
APM data is straight forward as the APM results are describing a loss in percentage of fuel burn compared to
a defined standard.

The following descriptions and advices covering airframe drag should be used to help pinpointing individual
observable conditions that might have been indicated by APM and to help estimating the potential savings.
All performed corrective actions should be summarized and the potential savings calculated and the impact
on APM results should be established. The following sources of fuel burn penalty and their impact might
individually not be detectable by the APM process, the sum of actions might be.

Some of the most severe penalties in terms of fuel consumption are caused by increased drag resulting from
poor airframe condition. Normal aerodynamic deterioration of an aircraft over a period of time can include the
incomplete retraction of moving surfaces, damaged seals on control surfaces, skin roughness and
deformation due to bird strikes or damage caused by ground vehicles, chipped paint, mismatching doors and
excessive gaps. All of this deterioration incurs drag increase, and this increased drag is accompanied by
increased fuel consumption.

The fuel burn penalty caused by drag-inducing items is largely dependent upon the location and extent of the
problem. Different areas of the airframe are more or less sensitive to alterations in their optimum
aerodynamic smoothness. Bearing this in mind, a classification by zone can be established for drag
sensitivity over the whole aircraft. Critical areas require high aerodynamic smoothness because they are
endowed with high local flow velocities and very thin boundary layers, which are very sensitive to small local
disturbances.

Below an example of the most important critical areas are shown:

 Forward portion of fuselage and nacelle

 Leading areas of wings and tail
 Local Coefficient of Pressure (Cp) is highest

162
 Maintenance & Engineering

Figure 60: Critical Airframe Areas for Increased Drag

For some detailed application in the field the OEM information on critical area definition for specific aircraft
can be used. This information is available for operators from the various manufacturers. It will also contain
data on specific fuel degradation penalties, which then can be used to calculate fuel burn impact as shown in
this document for demonstration purposes.

IATA found that most airline Management and Engineering staff have a cost concept of the benefits
associated with aerodynamic cleanliness. However, at the maintenance floor level there is a lack of
awareness. Many airlines do not have a defined aerodynamic cleanliness policy, which provides
maintenance engineers and mechanics with a specific program detailing the required tasks. A quick example
of a task that would fall into this category would be an operational inspection/check for a main entrance door.
A 5 mm step between the door and the fuselage can result in an increased fuel burn by as much as 9,100
liters per door per aircraft per year.

Installing doublers when repairing an aircraft fuselage that has been accidentally damaged increases drag,
wastes fuel and costs money. The adherence to a policy to ensure that as many repairs as practical are flush
repairs especially towards the front of the aircraft, the wing leading edges, empennage and horizontal
stabilizer leading edges. Those areas are most critical for increased drag. Most airlines use a dent and
buckle chart to track structural repairs whether within the limits of the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) or
required DAR or equivalent approval. Savings can be made through the removal of external doubler repairs
especially in the critical areas, which would contribute to the reduction of parasite drag.

Hydraulic leaks due to the corrosive characteristics of the hydraulic fluid will dissolve paint and seals that
result in rough surface. This will not only remove surface protection from the aircraft but will increase the drag

163
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

as well. Good maintenance practices would require thorough inspection for hydraulic leaks during service
checks, repairing the leak and repainting the affected area as soon as possible.

Fluid leaking onto exterior surfaces of an aircraft is the main cause of surface contamination by dirt and dust.
Most affected areas are engine struts, lower aft fuselage, and lower wing. A B737 with these areas
contaminated with a physical roughness height of 0.02 mm will have an added drag of 0.1% of typical cruise
drag. Skin deterioration can lead to significant fuel penalties, especially if the skin is rough and dirty. The fuel
burn penalty caused by drag-inducing items is largely dependent upon the location and extent of the
problem. Most airlines have to improve the exterior washing of aircraft skin to lower drag and fuel
consumption. The aircraft should be washed at an interval of 18 weeks maximum. During regular
maintenance visits, some dirty areas of the aircraft should be cleaned on an ad-hoc basis.

A major area of airflow degradation can be the wing root fairings as well as the horizontal stabilizer and
vertical stabilizer to fuselage fairings. Inspect these areas to ensure an enhanced installation eliminating
sources of unnecessary drag. Inspect cockpit windshield/s to ensure best fit and fair with the fuselage nose
section structure. Any uncured sealant that may have migrated from the sealed area must be removed and
the surface area cleaned. Ensure that wing leading edge slats, flaps, and spoilers are not dented or
damaged. Rough surfaces alone will increase drag. Inspect pylon and other similar drain systems. Eliminate
any source of leaks and ensure surface integrity of surfaces affected. Inspect wheel well doors for optimum
fit and fair conditions. Ensure all door seals are correctly installed and in airworthy condition. Review pilot
reports (PIREPS) for cabin and cargo door complaints. Inspect all doors for optimum fit and fair condition.
Ensure door seal integrity. Eliminate any source of pressure leaks. Review the weight of paint when
considering the possibility of a new company livery.

Figure 61: Roughness of Airfoil & Other Surfaces

Tables 81 to 85 below provide some examples of possible fuel penalty values for various conditions. To
calculate the actual fuel penalty, reference should be made to OEM documentation providing actual fuel
penalty values.

164
 Maintenance & Engineering

Example: Fuel penalty for a 5mm surface mismatch (estimated)

Surface Mismatch 5mm Liters per year per aircraft

Passenger Front Door 9,000
Nose Landing Gear Door 8,400
Cargo Door – Forward 8,800
Table 81: Fuel Penalty for 5mm Surface Miss-match

Figure 62: Examples of Poor Patching Techniques

Example: Fuel penalty per each 5 cm of missing door seals (estimated)

Missing Seals 5cm Liters per year per aircraft

Sides Top/Bottom
Passenger Front Door 1,500 800
Cargo Door 1,500 800
Table 82: Penalties for Missing Seals

Area Surface area damaged 5mm depth Liters per year per aircraft
Fuselage 20 square cm 70
80 square cm 270
Wing 20 square cm 85
80 square cm 370
Tail 20 square cm 45
80 square cm 90
Table 83: Penalties for Surface Patches

165
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Examples: Fuel penalty for 0.3 mm of skin roughness over 1 square meter (estimated).

Skin Roughness over 1 m2 on: Liters per year per aircraft

Fuselage 3,300
Wing Skin Upper 12,000
Table 84: Penalties for Skin Roughness

Figure 63: Examples of Skin Roughness

Fuel penalties by type of deterioration:

Type of Deterioration: Liters per year per aircraft

Engine Cowl: One pressure relief door missing 134,000
Cargo Door: Lock cover plate missing 1,000
Fin/Fuselage junction (fairing & seal missing) 39,500
Table 85: Penalties by Type of Aircraft Deterioration
The result of the highlighted drag component/s is not only the added cost of fuel to overcome it but also the
lost payload. On a typical commercial transport aircraft it is conceivable, that in order to offset a 1% increase
in drag, a reduction in Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) could be 118 kilograms, in order to maintain a constant
takeoff weight. (Note that the reductions vary as actual values vary with distance flown. Also the above
figure varies up or down depending on the actual aircraft in question).

Below is an example shown of a simple way to rate aircraft for their drag efficiency and comparing the results
to APM calculations for reviews and validations. During a ground check an aircraft can easily be checked
visually for its condition in view of paint and cleanliness by using a sheet of paper with a side and / or a front
view of the aircraft printed on it. No high tech equipment is needed and the time consumption is
approximately 10 minutes for a large transport aircraft for a trained mechanic. Such a check does not have to
be performed very frequently but will allow having a good handle on this fairly important aspect.

166
 Maintenance & Engineering

The results can then be assessed and the impact on drag can be calculated fairly easily by the use of the
manufacturer’s data on drag impact. The results can help to better plan tasks such as cleaning and painting
and will support the APM calculated data validation. It will also help to prioritize aircraft in need of cleaning
and aircraft in need of paint. Sometimes repainting is purely based on time; the above-described procedure
will either confirm the schedule or help to prioritize aircraft according increased drag and customer
appearance.

Figure 64: Examples of Visual Inspection Report

Using the above drag reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,471,412 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,038,915 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 7,785 metric
tons per year.
A major portion of the estimated potential annual fleet cost savings comes as a result of an aircraft wash
program.

75% of the potential savings have been defined as the target due to the potential variation in the achievable
savings. The results of all drag related monitoring exhibit some variability due to the changing operating
conditions and the varying cleanliness of the individual aircraft.

(Airframe) DRAG Burn Total Drag Potential Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Paint, Wash, Steps, Seals, Doubler kg/yr (% ) Savings kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 0.15% 471,240 kg 75% 353,430 kg 1,113 t $291,580
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 0.30% 587,666 kg 75% 440,750 kg 1,388 t $363,618
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 0.30% 877,498 kg 75% 658,124 kg 2,073 t $542,952
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 0.15% 567,684 kg 75% 425,763 kg 1,341 t $351,254
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 0.30% 546,928 kg 75% 410,196 kg 1,292 t $338,412
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg 0.30% 158,400 kg 75% 118,800 kg 374 t $98,010
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg 0.30% 85,800 kg 75% 64,350 kg 203 t $53,089
Total 2,471,412 kg 7,785 t $2,038,915

Table 86: Aerodynamic Deterioration

Best in class airlines monitor all drag related items using APM results. This requires a close cooperation with
several departments like the ECTM group and others that might influence APM data or might have relevant
data concerning the APM results.

When using APM data all aspects that influence and impact the APM results need to be understood and
correctly interpreted otherwise there is a risk of devising ineffective measures to address a drag related
issue.
8.6.1 Recommendations
Maintenance department should know the cleanliness condition of the fleet very close to real-time in order to
plan and prioritize cleaning efforts. M&E and all relevant personal involved in cleaning aircraft should be
trained on what the aerodynamic critical areas are on the aircraft they handle. Such information can be
obtained from the relevant aircraft manufacturers. The paint condition should be very closely monitored as

167
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

well and drive the repaint of aircrafts rather than just using fixed calendar times. The cleanliness and paint
condition should be used to validate the APM drag calculation results. All drag inducing conditions should be
remedied as soon as possible.
8.6.2 Measuring and Monitoring
Perform regular visual inspection, calculate drag and use APM to confirm the drag factor for individual
aircraft and fleet condition. Using APM will require eliminating all none aerodynamic aircraft drag relevant
factors in order to establish the basic aerodynamic drag. Such influences could be engine efficiency losses
as well as other system losses that negatively influence the fuel burn.

8.7 Engine Health Monitoring and Compressor Core Wash

On wing engine compressor water wash can address dirt accumulation within the compressor; regular on-
wing engine washing can yield as much as a 1.5% SFC improvement. Engine compressor water wash tasks
are not part of the MPD. It is recommended to include the engine water wash in the airline’s scheduled
maintenance program at the appropriate interval. The most important parameters used at airlines are engine
temperature margin and fuel flow parameters when monitoring engine performance. The Propulsion
Engineers give normally little attention to fuel conservation other than the regular Aircraft Maintenance
Manual (AMM) and MPD requirements. APM is an important aircraft performance-monitoring tool that is
greatly influenced by engine performance conditions. ECTM and APM procedures should therefore not be
used in complete separation. The ECTM results can be the source of important information when APM
results are interpreted see Section 8.2. ECTM is sometimes used to decide on engine removals, such
decision should always be read across to the APM results, as it will contain important information on the
impact of other airframe related causes for performance degradations.

Clean Compressor:
Airfoil surface is smooth, boundary layers are thin and airfoil operates at maximum efficiency.

Stator Rotor

Figure 65: Clean Compressor Air Flow

Contaminated Compressor:
Airfoil surface is rough, boundary layers are thick and airfoil efficiency is reduced, increasing the work input
required compressing the air.

168
 Maintenance & Engineering

Stator Rotor

Figure 66: Contaminated Compressor Air Flow

Historic Methods of Engine Wash:

Figure 67: Traditional Engine Wash Methods

Problems with Historic Methods:

 Labor and time intensive

 High consumption of water
 Usage of abrasives or hazardous chemical detergents
 Airfoil erosion and damage
 Significant effluent capture and treatment problems
 Re-location of aircraft to wash bays
 Contamination of aircraft ECS and oil systems
 High potential for FOD.

169
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Next-generation on-wing engine wash:

Figure 68: Next Generation On-Wing Engine Wash

New generation compressor core wash procedures provide faster, safer and environmentally friendly engine
wash results:

 Effective cleaning
 Specially designed nozzles atomize water to fully penetrate engine gas path
 Simultaneously washes core and fan to improve overall engine performance
 Complete component wetting maximizes contamination removal
 Hot water enhances overall cleaning effectiveness
 Environmentally friendly
 Safer methods
 Decreases aircraft down time
 Decreases maintenance costs
 Immediate engine performance benefits
 Capability for all gas turbine engines

IATA has noted that engine cores that are water washed by applying the water direct to the compressor
section thus bypassing the fan section produces improved fuel efficiency and engine life. This method clearly
provides a better wash result than when it is applied in front of the fan without the use of a sophisticated
nozzle system,as it is mostly exhausted through the fan duct and hence most of the water does not enter the
core of the engine. An airline has done this practice for several years and has data available to indicate a
Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) improvement of 1.0% each time and an EGT margin improvement of about
10 degrees. This same airline does a core water wash every 6 months and starts the cycle as soon as an
engine enters service after refurbishment.

170
 Maintenance & Engineering

Table 87: Engine Core Water Wash Improvement

Following are examples of compressor core wash results for various engines shown. The results are
measured by temperature margin differences before and after compressor wash.

Figure 69: Engine Core Wash Effect on V2500 Engine Temperature Margin

171
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 70: Engine Core Wash Effect on PW 4000 Engine Temperature Margin

Figure 71: Engine Core Wash Effect on GE 90 Engine Temperature Margin

172
 Maintenance & Engineering

Longtime advantage of regular washing:

Figure 72: Frequent Engine Wash versus Washing On-Condition

Using the estimated SFC reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 5,165,496 kgs/yr or
US$ 4,261,534 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 16,271 metric
tons per year.

This represents a target of only 50% of the total potential savings. The target has been selected to
accommodate variances in cleaning results and other variables in the cleaning process such as differences
in the results of individual engines.

Engine Core Burn Total Improvement Potential Achievable Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Water Wash kg/yr perf in % Savings kg Improvement Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 0.80% 2,513,280 kg 0.80% 50% 1,256,640 kg 3,958 t $1,036,728
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 0.70% 1,371,221 kg 0.70% 50% 685,610 kg 2,160 t $565,629
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 0.70% 2,047,496 kg 0.70% 50% 1,023,748 kg 3,225 t $844,592
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 0.80% 3,027,648 kg 0.80% 50% 1,513,824 kg 4,769 t $1,248,905
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 0.50% 911,547 kg 0.50% 50% 455,774 kg 1,436 t $376,013
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg 0.60% 316,800 kg 0.60% 50% 158,400 kg 499 t $130,680
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg 0.50% 143,000 kg 0.50% 50% 71,500 kg 225 t $58,988
Total 5,165,496 kg 16,271 t $4,261,534

Table 88: Engine Core Water Wash Efficiency Gain

Best in class airlines perform engine compressor washes on scheduled interval and fine-tune the washing
procedures to achieve the most effective results. This includes the use of different equipment, warm water
and / or detergents if allowed by the OEM. The intervals have been adapted for the most effective timeframe
for the specific fleet and engine aircraft combination.

If compressor core washes are not defined as scheduled tasks there is a risk that engine compressor core
washes are performed purely on a convenience basis and therefore do not achieve the expected results.

A clean core engine improves specific fuel consumption and reduces EGT.

One key aspect for the most efficient compressor core wash is defined by the selected washing interval. This
is determined by the retention time of the compressor wash effect. The retention time of compressor washes
depends on several aspects such as the engine type, the engine installation, the applied procedure and last

173
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

but not least the geographical location the airline operates. Below a graph depicts the procedure on how to
decide the best compressor wash interval. Several compressor core washes were performed at different
intervals and the results are plotted against the cycles between the washes. A poly trend line shows where
the temperature margin increases or decreases. Too frequent washing yield very little savings and too long
intervals indicate a large improvement opportunity. The proper interval lies in between the two intervals and
is indicated by the flat part of the poly trend line. In the sample case below this would around 800 cycles.

Figure 73: Engine Wash Frequency

The graph below shows the reason why too long an interval, even though it shows a big improvement, is not
the most ideal time to wash engine compressors. In this case the shaded surface area represents the total
potential savings, with an interval of 1000 cycles in the first picture. Compared to the surface for a 500 cycles
compressor wash as shown in the second picture the surface is approximately 30% greater than with a 1000
cycles wash interval.

174
 Maintenance & Engineering

Figure 74: Engine Wash Gains

8.7.1 Recommendations
Review compressor wash interval in order to achieve the most efficient interval compared to fuel saving.
Assure the optimum compressor wash procedure is applied.
8.7.2 Measuring and Monitoring
ECTM can be used to determine the best compressor wash interval and the approximate savings in fuel burn
by determining the differences in temperature shifts prior and post of compressor washes. High temperature
shifts might indicate compressor wash intervals that are set to far apart in time.

8.8 Engine Build Standard

8.8.1 Engine Off-Wing Repair
Normally engine refurbishments are the result of an agreement between the airline, in some cases the
lessor, the engine repair agency, or the engine manufacturer, in case of a power by the hour contract. The
negotiations and agreements, with individual engine repair shops are normal and will impact on the cost of
the contract and rendered services. It is important to consider the following issues during the negotiation
stage:

 Fuel efficiency was not normally an objective during engine refurbishment in the past. The objective
was usually to repair the engine economically, restoring serviceability and performance requirements,
as well as meeting the repair turnaround time and if so needed the expected lease return conditions.

175
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Those return conditions usually addressed performance requirements and life limited parts (LLP)
remaining cycles.
 Guidance during engine shop visits are available from engine manufacturers under their engine Work
scope Planning Guide (WPG). Manufacturers provide usually excellent documentation but not
necessarily the concerns of specific fuel consumption.
 Currently, the Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) and Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)
address safety and reliability for the minimum required maintenance but not fuel burn efficiency.
 Ideally, the airline should specify appropriate specific fuel consumption (SFC) and performance margin
limits from their engine maintenance providers for each engine repair.

The following sections outline recommendations related to Engine Build Standards.

The airline should draft and negotiate with the repair agency a generic engine off wing repair specification for
each engine type. That specification would be based upon the engine manufacturer’s Work Scope Planning
Guide (WPG) plus relevant experience of the airline. The intent is to invoke “best practices” which are often
more strict than the limits of the engine shop manual. This document could be simply a rebranding of the
WPG. It should contain acceptance limits, ideally for specific fuel consumption but it is more likely one would
instead have to accept a limit for engine temperature margin. The limit(s) would be dependent on the extent
of rework at the particular shop visit. A suggested approach is that following a full performance restoration
work scope the engine temperature margin be no less than 60-70% of new for that individual engine –
assuming that major modules of the engine were not interchanged.

The performance limit could be a running average with a “do not exceed” limit.

If not already in the WPG, two additional requests of the repair agency should be made in the specification:

a) If de-stacking of HPC/HPT rotor disks or shafts is envisaged (which should happen only for cause), these
must be reassembled as straight as possible so as to reduce vibration and rotor whirl, all of which increase
blade tip air loss. Require the repair agency to use computer-aided technology so as to use flatness, run out
and eccentricity measurements in order to calculate optimum angular positioning that stack disks and shafts
in the straightest possible manner

b) Specify high-speed blade tip grinding and dynamic balance for high-pressure compressor (HPC) and for
HP turbine (HPT) blades. Grind the assembled HPC/HPT rotor set. This keeps blade tip diameter uniform,
preventing the longer blade opening up clearances and avoids unnecessary blade tip air loss

Upon engine shop induction following borescoping if applicable, the airline Engineering department should
meet with stakeholders and agree to a detailed level of disassembling and any necessary performance
restoration. This will result in a further document specific to the work scope, which will be jointly agreed with
the repair agency for that engine. That will specify the degree of disassembling for each engine module and
highlight any special concerns perhaps relating to the engines recent on wing performance.

Fuel conservation should be part of a continuous improvement process, incorporating all relevant repair
specification.

The cost of an engine refurbishment should not only be based on the "on wing life" but also on the cost of
fuel burn. Using the fuel burn impact to calculate the total cost will ensure the most efficient overall repair
cost is achieved.

The following aspects should be reviewed and either be incorporated in the repair contract or in the own
shop repair work scope, in case the engine repair is done in house, to insure the best possible fuel efficiency
for the repaired engine:

176
 Maintenance & Engineering

 Review on wing fuel burn of the engine scheduled for repair, before the repair scope is finalized and
the repair of the engine is started.
 Use module efficiency calculation and tracking to ensure the best and most efficient match of modules.
 Ensure “pass of” test runs included TSFC as a watched limit.
 Negotiate reasonable TSFC margin expectation with your engine maintenance provider for individual
work scopes. If the airline finds that the TSFC margin is not met, a detailed audit of compliance with
the repair specification should be triggered.
 Specify engine compressor and fan blade cleaning for any minor shop visit where repair work does not
otherwise call for cleaning.

The fuel efficiency of engines can be positively influenced any time the engines are going through repair by
defining a TSFC goal or a maximum limit in the build standard of the engine. For engines repaired in house
the build standard can be influenced directly. For outsourced engines the TSFC performance should be part
of the repair contract or the engine maintenance contract. A build standard for an engine can yield several
percent of SFC improvement. An engine build standard including TSFC goal / limit should become a
requirement for all engine repair actions.

Using the above SFC reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,889,427 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,383,777 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 9,102 metric
tons per year.

This represents a target of only 20% of the total potentially possible savings to accommodate the time frame
it takes for this initiative to show results due to the shop visit intervals.

Engine SFC Burn Improved Potential Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Build Standard kg/yr perf in % Savings kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 314,160,000 kg 1% 3,141,600 kg 20% 628,320 kg 1,979 t $518,364
A320-200 195,888,700 kg 1% 1,958,887 kg 20% 391,777 kg 1,234 t $323,216
B747-400 292,499,400 kg 1% 2,924,994 kg 20% 584,999 kg 1,843 t $482,624
B777-200 378,456,000 kg 1% 3,784,560 kg 20% 756,912 kg 2,384 t $624,452
B737-700 182,309,400 kg 1% 1,823,094 kg 20% 364,619 kg 1,149 t $300,811
CRJ-200 52,800,000 kg 1% 528,000 kg 20% 105,600 kg 333 t $87,120
ATR 72 28,600,000 kg 1% 286,000 kg 20% 57,200 kg 180 t $47,190
Total 2,889,427 kg 9,102 t $2,383,777

Table 89: Engine SFC Build Standard

Best in class airlines include in their work scope specific TSFC goals the repair shop should achieve and
monitor engines such that the gained TSFC translates in the expected on wing SFC.

Airline departments defining work scopes might not have all needed information and data to define the best
work scope for the specific engines they send to a workshop. Therefore there is a risk to not achieve the
best possible efficiency.
8.8.2 Engine On-Wing Monitoring
Verify the test cell performance result during the aircraft engine installation test run and read the test cell
performance results across to trend monitoring performance results to assure minimum installation losses.
Track engines for installation losses and correct if normal levels are exceeded.

Areas that can affect fuel burn efficiency on installed engines:

 Nose cowl, tail pipe alignment and sizing

 Engine mounting conditions
 Internal losses in bleed valves, piping and couplings
 Internal losses in anti-ice valves, piping and couplings

177
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Fan vibration should be included in the on wing trend monitoring. Set limits which are acceptable, but below
that of the AMM, and schedule fan trim balance or fan blade root (and shrouds if applicable) and clean and
lube as needed and recommended by the various manufacturers.
8.8.3 Recommendations
Airlines should develop a program to gain statistical data showing the SFC for all its engines in operation.
The data derived from the statistics should be the baseline for a constant review of improvements made by
the SFC campaign. The TSFC goals / limits should be part of the build standard of engines sent for repair.

The on wing performance should be closely monitored for possible deteriorations which can easily be
resolved by tasks performed during the time the aircraft is in maintenance like for instance fan blade
blending and cleaning.
8.8.4 Measuring and Monitoring
A regular review of the TSFC data of engines coming out of the shop allow for the best possible fuel burn
efficiency right at the beginning of the operation of engines. The ECTM data should be reviewed for
correlation with the test cell results and to ensure no performance is lost during installation. The APM data in
combination with the ECTM data can help to rank the newly installed engine’s performance compared to
other installed engines and compare the aircraft status change to other aircraft, see Section 8.2 above. This
ranking can be used to understand the installation effects and other aspects affecting fuel burn efficiency as
well as results calculated by the APM software.

8.9 APU Build Standard

The aspects of fuel burn efficiency for APUs are basically the same as for the engine fuel saving initiatives
and should therefore be considered for possible improvement. The fuel efficiency of APUs can be positively
influenced any time when the APUs are going through a repair by defining an SFC goal or maximum limit in
the build standard. The build standard can be directly influenced on all APUs repaired in house. For
outsourced APUs the build standard should be part of the repair contract or the APU’s maintenance contract.
A build standard for an APU can yield several percent in SFC improvement. The APU build standard
including SFC goals / limits should become a requirement for all APU repair actions and should be discussed
with the repair shop or the OEM.

Using the above SFC reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 62,022 kgs/yr or US$
51,168 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 195 metric tons per
year.

This represents a target of only 20% of the total potentially possible savings to accommodate the time frame
it takes for this initiative to show results due to the shop visit intervals.

APU SFC Burn Improved Potential Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Build Standard kg/yr perf in % Savings kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 4,011,336 kg 1% 40,113 kg 20% 8,023 kg 25 t $6,619
A320-200 7,344,400 kg 1% 73,444 kg 20% 14,689 kg 46 t $12,118
B747-400 4,986,360 kg 1% 49,864 kg 20% 9,973 kg 31 t $8,227
B777-200 6,772,896 kg 1% 67,729 kg 20% 13,546 kg 43 t $11,175
B737-700 5,467,000 kg 1% 54,670 kg 20% 10,934 kg 34 t $9,021
CRJ-200 2,429,020 kg 1% 24,290 kg 20% 4,858 kg 15 t $4,008
ATR 72 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 62,022 kg 195 t $51,168

Table 90: APU SFC Build Standard

Best in class airlines have a policy on the SFC improvements for APUs undergoing repairs. See also
comments on engine refurbishment for guidance on APU refurbishment.

178
 Maintenance & Engineering

Airline departments defining work scopes might not have all needed information and data to define the best
work scope for the specific engines they send to a workshop. Therefore there is a risk to not achieve the best
possible efficiency.
8.9.1 Recommendations
It is recommended that airlines make SFC part of the repair contract or work order, and review the results
and the work scopes with the repair shop or the OEM.
8.9.2 Measuring and Monitoring
A review of the test cell results supplied by the repair shop in conjunction with the repair shop or the
manufacturer builds the baseline for a constant improvement process with the APU build standard in view of
fuel burn performance.

8.10 Aircraft Configuration Upgrade

A defined process of Service Bulletin (SB) or Modification evaluation for voluntary incorporation of
modification that influence fuel burn can play a major role in the benefits and efforts affecting fleet
economics in view of fuel burn. Incorporation of a modification can add substantial weight to the aircraft
and cause additional fuel burn. The overall fleet cost for the incorporation and the additional fuel required
to manage the increased weight can be significant. Assertive and definitive, cost of operations
presentations, highlighting the impact of additional weight, resulting from modifications including customer
appeal enhancements must be made. Only after such deliberate initiatives can the airline determine the
true cost and value of these changes.

While some modification might add weight some other modification might help the airline to reduce weight
or realize gains in the fuel burn or reduce airframe drag. Therefore the airline should carefully determine
potential fuel savings as a result of reducing fuel consumption due to aircraft configuration upgrades (SBs,
SILs).

Aircraft upgrades and configuration changes are offered from time to time by the OEMs and by STC
holders. Upgrades and configuration changes may contribute a great deal to fuel consumption as they
make use of advancements in technology and not all airlines are in a position to upgrade the fleet with
new aircraft. It is therefore a good alternative to review the positive potential upgrades might introduce in
view of fuel savings.

Modifications could reduce fuel burn, either by reducing weight, drag or by improving efficiency. Note, that
some modifications are purely optional and might at first sight not be selected due their optional
classification. A more detailed review might reveal that such modification could be of interest, as they
might represent a weight saving at no additional cost. Such modification could also be a “one to one”
replacement.

Using the above estimated SFC reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,894,763
kgs/yr or US$ 2,388,179 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is
9,119 metric tons per year.

This represents 75 % of the total potential possible savings. This target allows for the extended time frame
for introducing the modifications.

179
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Configuration Change Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Wt Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Calculator - Weight 1 kg / Fleet Reduction Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 500 kg 75.0% 749,700 kg 2,362 t $618,503
A320-200 2,296 kg 335 kg 75.0% 576,835 kg 1,817 t $475,889
B747-400 1,221 kg 500 kg 75.0% 457,918 kg 1,442 t $377,782
B777-200 2,213 kg 300 kg 75.0% 497,815 kg 1,568 t $410,698
B737-700 2,752 kg 250 kg 75.0% 515,970 kg 1,625 t $425,675
CRJ-200 880 kg 75 kg 75.0% 49,500 kg 156 t $40,838
ATR 72 836 kg 75 kg 75.0% 47,025 kg 148 t $38,796
Total 2,894,763 kg 9,119 t $2,388,179

Table 91: Configuration Upgrade and changes

Best in class airlines review all modifications for their potential to save fuel irrespective of the modifications
classification. Some optional modifications offer same fit and functions and price but allow saving weight. If
only recommended modifications are reviewed such potentials are not recognized.

Due to simplified company procedures certain classes of modifications such as optional modifications might
not be reviewed and therefore there is a risk that potential fuel savings are going to be overlooked. As M&E
performs modifications that remove or add weight all such changes should be verified and relayed to the
Operations departments in order to avoid the risk that these departments base their weight related
calculations on inaccurate aircraft weight data.
8.10.1 Recommendations
M&E has to make sure it is in possession of the airline specific fuel penalty figures per aircraft type as
described in the Chapter 7.4. Optional service bulletins should also be reviewed, as sometimes the
change is a “one to one” replacement with a weight saving potential. M&E should assure all none used
modification and all its installed parts are removed as soon as possible.
8.10.2 Measuring and Monitoring
The APM process will allow for some modification to be picked up as fuel burn benefits. Over an extended
period modifications helping to save fuel will show in a less steep slope in the APM data. Aircraft weighing
will allow determining the changes of all weight related modifications and should therefore be performed for
all weight related major changes and as mandated by the local authorities. Other improvements might need
to be calculated using the fuel penalty factors and / or the SFC improvements described by the
manufacturers.

8.11 Fleet Replacement

A fleet replacement gains large benefits in fuel savings and therefore also lowers emissions. Unfortunately
this represents also the highest upfront cash out to save fuel. The table below shows the difference in fuel
burns between different generations of aircraft. If you were for instance to replace a generation 1 regional
aircraft with a generation 3 regional aircraft the fuel saving would be in the order of 23%. Generation 1
aircraft represent aircraft built in the time frame between 1980 and 1990, generation 2 aircraft were built in
the years 1990 to 2000 and generation 3 aircraft are built in the years 2000 till 2010.

AIRCRAFT Gen1 to Gen 2 Gen 2 to Gen 3

Regionals 13% 10%
Narrow Body 7%
Wide Body – Twin Aisle 4% 7%
Wide Body – Tri & Quad 9% 3%
Table 92: List of Aircraft Generations

180
 Maintenance & Engineering

As carbon dioxide is directly proportional to fuel burn it can be calculated from engine fuel burn data for
different flight “phases”. The different flight phases such as take-off, climb, cruise, descent and landing
require different engine power settings. So it is accurate to assume that a plane creates more greenhouse
gases when it takes off than when it is flying on its normal cruising altitude when comparing a given unit of
time in each phase. This approach was used in order to compile the data needed to calculate the differences
in between the different generation of aircraft. Aircraft of different generations were compared applying the
below depicted phases and the described durations of the flight phases:

 Take Off at 2 minutes

 Climb at 15 minutes
 Cruise at 120 minutes
 Descent at 20 minutes
 Approach and Landing at 5 minutes

Figure 75: Flight Phases Diagram

The depicted mission is achievable by all aircraft contained in the comparison even though the phases do
not necessarily reflect the optimal design mission for all aircraft, particularly in the case of the wide body
aircraft. However, the mission is used as the standard to allow consistency when analyzing fuel burn and
carbon dioxide emissions. It should be noted that for the selected mission, ninety percent (90%) of the fuel
burn and emissions occur during the combined climb and cruise phases. The fuel and emission
representations are normalized by the use of a two-class passenger configuration count. Data of western
OEM airframe/engine combinations were used. The data used represents production aircraft manufactured
in the last 30 years to current date along with models/types to be certified within the next 2 years. It should
be noted that some variance is to be expected as the normalizing process is narrowing the configuration
bandwidth.

181
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 76: CO2 Emission Reductions Diagram

Results

Analyzing the results, there is a considerable reduction in Narrow Body emissions from the Baseline
generation to Generation 1. The 57% improvement in CO2 footprint is mainly attributed to Narrow Bodies
moving from low bypass ratio engines (approximately~2:1) to higher bypass engines (approximately~6:1).
This yielded a considerable amount of fuel burn improvements. The Wide-Twins Baseline to Generation 1
improvement is mainly attributed to additional engine secondary flow controls and optimization. Generation
1 engines were equipped with rotor/case clearance mechanisms along with other secondary flow systems
that optimized engine operating efficiencies, especially at cruise, which improved fuel consumption and thus
reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

Generation 1 to Generation 2 improvements can be attributed to OEMs focusing on aerodynamically

cleaning airframe/engine structures, reducing weight and improving engine thermodynamic cycles. This
yielded significant emission improvements in the order of magnitude of 4 to 13 percentage points.

Generation 2 to Generation 3 improvements reach into double digits and are mainly attributed to Airframe
and Engine OEMs reducing weight along with increasing aerodynamic efficiencies through the use of
composites and 3-D airfoil technology. Reducing weight and improving aerodynamic and thermodynamic
efficiencies have allowed OEMs to increase the ratio of passengers carried per unit fuel burn. This last
decade, engine OEMs have also focused on optimizing combustion efficiencies relevant to NOx, soot, and
smoke emissions. Further, optimizing the thermodynamic cycles through 3-D aerodynamic applications and
control of secondary flow systems has resulted up to double-digit reductions in CO2 emissions per passenger
carried.

The reason for such improvements are best explained using the fuel mileage formula as described below.

Fuel mileage = V * L/D

sfc * W

182
 Maintenance & Engineering

The inputs of the formula are:

V = Velocity
L/D = Lift/Drag Ratio
Sfc = Specific Fuel Consumption
W = Weight

Optimization in Integration

Fuel mileage = V * L/D

sfc * W

By optimizing integration of all aircraft related components such us, engine nacelles, power and secondary
systems, lift augmentation and other aspects a more efficient velocity to lift / drag ratio can be achieved.

Figure 77: High Integration Aircraft Study

Minimizing Weight

Fuel mileage = V * L/D

sfc * W

The extensive use of composite material has already had considerable impacts in weight saving when it
comes to airframe and structures. Next steps will include more extensive use of composite material in
propulsions system and other components. This is possible by advanced analytics and improved
manufacturing technologies. The shrinking of components and the accompanied integrations will also help to
further decrease weights and help to save fuel.

183
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Figure 78: Modern Materials Carbon and Fibers

Improvements in Specific Fuel Consumption

Fuel mileage = V * L/D

sfc * W

Further improvements in thermal efficiency are still possible and being worked on but also new and exotic
material as well as new engine architectures promises some more efficiency gains. The area of the unducted
fan might see a revival with adaptations like rotating fans and ultra-high bypass engine applications.

Figure 79: Unducted Fan Engine (Propfan)

184
 Maintenance & Engineering

Some further improvement with the next generation aircraft is still to be expected as the technology improves
and the pressure for even greener aircrafts increases.
8.11.1 Recommendations
The operators have to relay the pressure of the market for improved emission characteristic translated in fuel
efficiency to the manufacturers in order to speed up the introduction of new technologies. Making sure
advanced fuel burn warranties are made part of all contract negotiations can support this. The fuel burn
guaranties should be structured such that beside the aircraft with a total value, major contributing systems
such as the aircraft engine system, the APU installations as well as other performance relevant components
are individually addressed. The fuel burn guaranties should also be paired with refurbishment guaranties in
order to assure that after refurbishments the original condition, better or close to the original condition are
meet. A fuel burn improvement guaranty over time should be evaluated as well.
8.11.2 Measuring and Monitoring
APM and other manufacturer-supplied tools will allow the monitoring and measuring of the improved fuel
burn.

8.12 Maintenance Training

Most airlines do not provide any specific fuel conservation training. Once Senior Management has provided
the mandate to focus on fuel efficiency the training group within M&E may well be the strongest voice to
provide the necessary information exchange on the subject of fuel conservation. Training costs need not be
more than what has already been budgeted once the fuel efficiency elements are made part of basic
information included in the training. Types of training might include:

 Company Policy for Fuel Conservation

 Function and Results of APM
 Definition of an M&E Fuel Conservation Task Force
 Explanation of MPD Task Card updates for fuel saving
 Use of Efficiency Metrics reducing fuel usage
 Program development to reduce the top 10 worst performers
 Request Personnel input for the program
 Incorporate the foregoing into recurrent training
 Provide videos and/or CD’s
 Provide regular presentation visible to all on program progress

Airlines need to provide employees with awareness training to familiarize and sensitize everyone with the
importance of fuel conservation. Airlines may have to ask another organization to develop a curriculum on
this subject and provide the training. This training may become part of the refresher-training curriculum.

8.13 Fuel Conservation Documentation

IATA would recommend the following documentation to support fuel conservation:

 Airbus / Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy

 Airbus / Getting to Grips with Cost Index
 Boeing / Maintenance Practices for Fuel Conservation
 Embraer Fuel Conservation [GP-1999/Rev 1, May 2006]
 Pratt & Whitney - On-wing Engine Wash Service
 ICAO Operational Opportunities to Minimize Fuel Use and Reduce Emissions (Cir 303 - AN/176)

185
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

186
9 GROUND OPERATIONS
The Ground Operations portion of airline operations encompasses a wide variety of areas, but can be simply
defined as anything to do with handling or servicing the aircraft on the ground (excluding maintenance).
Historically, Ground Operations have been largely overlooked in industry efforts to improve fuel conservation
and reduce environmental impact. Airlines tend to focus on Flight Dispatch, Flight Operations, and
Maintenance as the areas that impact the major fuel consumption activity of an airline (flying the aircraft).

In terms of total potential fuel and cost savings, Ground Operations and Commercial initiatives represent a
smaller portion of the overall airline total. However, in today’s world of escalating fuel costs and increased
environmental awareness, “every gallon counts”. Developing Ground Operations as an integral part of the
fuel efficiency assessment process illustrates IATA’s commitment to continuously improve industry fuel
conservation efforts by evolving the process to address every element of operations and service that may
impact fuel efficiency of an airline.

While relatively smaller in scope, a number of recommended Ground Operations and related Commercial
initiatives (Chapter 10) are relatively simple to accomplish, in a relatively short period of time, with minimal
capital expense. Many of these initiatives could fall into the category of “quick wins”, some requiring only a
process or policy change in order to implement and begin achieving fuel efficiency benefits.

As an example, reducing the amount of potable water (weight) carried onboard aircraft would only require a
benchmarking effort to determine baseline demand or consumption rates, a process and policy change to
limit the amount of water loaded, a monitoring program to measure compliance with the policy change, and a
communication program to advise all affected employee groups of the justification and progress of the
initiative.

In a ground operations related effort, the Commercial portion of a fuel efficiency program should focus on
those services, products, amenities, or equipment, which add “discretionary weight” to the aircraft. While
most of the services and actual aircraft loading activities are carried out by ground personnel, the decisions
as to the volume and weight to be loaded are typically the responsibility of commercial departments within
the company including In-Flight, Catering, and Marketing. As such, these subjects are addressed in a
separate “Commercial” fuel efficiency chapter below.

9.1 Ground Operations – Fuel Efficiency Program

A comprehensive Ground Operations fuel efficiency effort should examine both the operational efficiency of
the process, as well as the resultant in-flight fuel consumption impact of ground servicing activities. The
primary areas of analysis should include APU utilization associated with ground servicing, as well as basic
services which impact the weight carried onboard the aircraft and the resultant additional fuel burn.

A fuel efficiency program for Ground Operations should review the following initiatives to determine potential
savings as compared to cost and ease of implementation:

 Minimize / Optimize APU utilization in aircraft servicing and handling activities to reduce related fuel
consumption and maintenance costs
 Reduce the volume /weight of potable water carried onboard the aircraft to reduce associated “fuel
penalty”
 Minimize excess fuel added to the required fuel load during into-plane fueling operations
 Review lavatory servicing program to determine if there are cost efficient alternatives

The assessment should focus on the efficiency of the processes, the impact of (and compliance with) related
company policies, as well as any associated factors which may limit the realization of potential savings or
results, such as the availability, quality, and cost of potable water or suitable ground power alternatives.

187
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

9.2 APU Utilization – Ground Servicing

Refer to Chapter 5 for a detailed explanation of APU utilization, control, and management for the airline as a
total operational entity.

Due to the nature of airline operations, ground operations managers and personnel are primarily responsible
for supporting and controlling APU use on the ground. Specific to ground operations, a major opportunity for
fuel efficiency improvement is the reduction of APU utilization associated with aircraft servicing activities
including turnaround operations, cleaning, and aircraft repositioning.

In addition, as discussed in Section 5.5.1.1, one of the major contributions of Ground Operations to the
corporate APU fuel efficiency initiative is leading and coordinating the effort to investigate, justify, and
acquire alternative sources of ground power and air conditioning where operationally and financially feasible.
9.2.1 Recommendations
In developing the airline’s APU reduction program, the Ground Operations department should identify
recommended operational improvements (best practices), changes to current policy or service standards,
and/or system upgrade enhancements such as additional and/or more modern GSE or IT/infrastructure. The
scope or breadth of the ground operations APU reduction initiative will encompass the airline’s entire
operational system, impact every flight, and involve a myriad of services and potential alternatives. Needed
action may range from simple SOP revision to complex cost/benefit analysis and business case
development.

Because of the broad range of possible improvement activities, and in order for the APU reduction program
to gain momentum and begin showing positive results, it is recommended that specific initiatives within the
Ground Operations APU reduction program be divided into:

 Quick Win - modify Ground Operations SOP’s to limit APU operation at stations with existing,
adequate, company controlled ground power equipment and personnel
 Short Term - evaluate ground power service alternatives at all stations and explore cost effective
contracted services to minimize APU use
 Long Term - perform a cost/benefit analysis of all GPU/PCA resources and secure additional ground
power capacity (lease/purchase/contract) where operationally required and financially justified (Section
5.5.1.1).

9.3 Potable Water Servicing

Reducing the quantity of potable water is a simple measure to reduce weight carried onboard the aircraft.
Most aircraft are designed to carry far more water than typically required in actual operation. While many
airlines do have potable water policies in place, they tend to be based on inflated contingency standards,
and are frequently ignored in the servicing process. Few airlines utilize a water uplift control process based
on a specific flight load factor.

IATA observations of actual arrival water levels suggest most airlines carry far more water than required,
particularly on short to medium range operations. If suitable quality water is available at the destination
airport, IATA recommends a careful review of service agreements to determine the financial viability of down
line water servicing as compared to the cost of carrying the additional weight for round-trip servicing.
Typically, water servicing is not a pacing item in the aircraft turnaround process, and turn time should not be
a limiting factor in the financial analysis.

Some airlines with very effective potable water management programs have removed or modified the
capacity of aircraft water tanks in order to limit the amount of water possible to be loaded on certain aircraft
types on short to medium range operations.

188
 Ground Operations

With regard to long-haul international operations, most airlines dictate standard water servicing levels of 75%
or 100%. Industry best practice data suggests airlines would be well served to pursue a more detailed load
factor and flight characteristic approach to potable water dispatch levels for long-range operations. Industry
leaders in this area incorporate this effort as part of the flight planning and dispatch process. Water
requirements are determined by load factor, projected flight time, time of day, and historical demand rates for
specific markets, sectors, and flights.

Because of the potential for negative service impact, before launching such a program internationally,
airlines are encouraged to establish a detailed potable water monitoring program for all long-range sectors,
similar to those used in fuel use validation, in order to develop a reliable data base of actual dispatch and
arrival water loads, associated load factors, and typical sector, flight, or cultural usage rates.

Such a program will require coordination with, and buy-in from, in-flight service personnel to monitor the
actual water loads and document the in-service needs or deviations on individual flights, in particular
markets, and during specific seasons. A recommended best practice is to develop and communicate the
results of the water requirement monitoring program through a detailed in-flight database similar to the fuel
consumption history often contained in the pilot’s flight plan documentation. Such a program will generate
crew confidence in the recommended water uplift, and support compliance with a potable water reduction
program.
9.3.1 Potential Savings
The IATA standard for potable water consumption is 0.3 liter, per passenger, per hour of flight time.
Depending on stage length, most airlines carry on average 2x to 3x the volume of water necessary to
adequately service the customer. To determine the potential fuel savings associated with a reduction in the
amount of potable water carried, the airline must first determine:

 Number of aircraft in service, by model and fleet type

 Passenger capacity (a/c configuration plus standard crew) per a/c
 Water tank capacity per a/c type
 Average flight time by aircraft type
 Average seat load factor
 Fuel penalty (Cost of Weight discussed in Section XX)

To begin, use the fuel penalty data and the aircraft water capacity for each aircraft type in the company’s
active fleet to calculate the fuel burn required to carry full water capacity in the current airline operations.

Table 93: Potable Water Maximum Uplift

189
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

For ABC Airlines’ sample fleet, it would cost approximately US$ 6.6 million per year if all aircraft were
dispatched with full water tanks on each operation.

Next, assume a full passenger load and use the average flight duration to calculate water consumption at a
rate of 0.3 liter per passenger, per flight hour. The difference between the water tank capacity of the aircraft
and the calculated optimum water requirement to properly service the maximum number of passengers on
the airline’s current operations provides a maximum reduction potential. Using current airline servicing
policies, determine the potential reduction in water uplift. The example below assumes long-range aircraft
are currently only filled to 75% of aircraft tank capacity, and short-range aircraft are serviced to 100%.

Table 94: Potable Water potential improvement applying IATA Standard

9.3.1.1 Factors Influencing Potential Savings
While often not an optimum policy, many airlines already have some form of water uplift policies in place. In
addition, many outside factors may influence the airline’s ability to achieve the full savings potential through
water uplift reduction. To begin the analysis, it is important to determine:

 Current company servicing policies

 Adherence to company policy
 Logistical considerations
 Environmental/health issues
 Cultural requirements
 Flight Service crew expectations
 Financial – cost, vendor contract, equipment

Using this airline information, a baseline of planned potable water loads can be established. Comparing the
airline’s planned water uplift figures to the initial “water requirement” calculation above (Table 94) will enable
the determination of an expected potential for improvement. Developing the baseline information also
provides a point of reference to be used in the observation portion of an analysis to verify real-world
compliance with airline stated expectations for water uplift.

As part of the overall analysis, conduct a representative number of baseline observations to:

 Confirm standard servicing policies and data reporting requirements at the operational level with
company agents or service company personnel
 Evaluate actual compliance with stated company policies and procedures
 Seek explanations for any variation in load, or deviation from policy
 Determine possible alternatives to current operations, if appropriate

190
 Ground Operations

For the purposes of this discussion, the baseline is being calculated at 100% load factor. Baseline
information can be further refined by utilizing actual average load factor information by aircraft type, by
market, or by season. The level of refinement will determine the actual potential for fuel savings.

After reviewing all of the factors listed above, the airline can determine a realistic target improvement (%)
based on airline operational, logistical, and cultural factors, as well as a prudent risk assessment (potential
for service failure) for each fleet type. Using the actual potential reduction (kg) and applying the agreed on
Target Improvement, the actual savings potential can be calculated.

Potable Water Water Uplift Fuel Burn to carry Optimum Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Weight Reduction in kg Water Uplift in kg Reduction in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,350 kg 2,698,920 kg 702 kg 75% 1,052,063 kg 3,314 t $867,952
A320-200 120 kg 275,503 kg 49 kg 50% 56,196 kg 177 t $46,362
B747-400 1,606 kg 1,961,109 kg 559 kg 75% 511,625 kg 1,612 t $422,090
B777-200 1,238 kg 2,739,090 kg 495 kg 75% 821,486 kg 2,588 t $677,726
B737-700 108 kg 297,199 kg 36 kg 50% 50,196 kg 158 t $41,412
CRJ-200 50 kg 44,000 kg 33 kg 50% 14,707 kg 46 t $12,133
ATR 72 50 kg 41,800 kg 34 kg 50% 14,379 kg 45 t $11,863
Total 8,057,621 kg 2,520,651 kg 7,940 t $2,079,537

Table 95: Potable Water Potential Savings

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,520,651 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,079,537 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 7,940 metric
tons per year.
9.3.2 Recommendations
After completing the necessary observations, calculations and benchmark comparisons, develop an
appropriate list of recommendations to achieve the potential fuel savings. Identify recommended operational
improvements (best practices), changes to current policy or service standards, and/or system upgrade
enhancements such as modern GSE or IT/infrastructure, broken down as follows:

 Quick Win - Develop a database for monitoring actual water uplift and arrival volumes to determine if,
and where, water uplift can be reduced without impacting customer service requirements. Establish a
monitoring program to verify servicing compliance with planned potable water uplift.
 Short Term - Re-evaluate standard water servicing policies and related internal ground handling
processes or service contracts for domestic and shorter stage intra-continental sectors to determine if
it is cost effective to increase servicing frequency, as compared to round-trip or multiple-trip servicing.
Renegotiate ground handling contracts to include water servicing at all stations where practicable.
 Long Term - Enhance the airline’s flight planning system to provide flight specific, load factor based,
potable water requirements on medium to long-haul operations.

As noted above, the essential consideration in establishing a potable water reduction program is to balance
the appropriate fuel-efficient and economical amount of potable water uplift without jeopardizing passenger
comfort. To facilitate employee support, it is important to make the information communication and data
gathering processes simple and easy to accomplish. IATA recommends airlines develop a simple, standard,
process for ground service personnel and cabin service crewmembers to ensure the proper amount of
potable water is uplifted, as well as to record the arrival water volume. Over time this data will form the basis
for a well-controlled water uplift program to minimize associated fuel consumption and emissions.

9.3.2.1 Sample Matrix to manage Potable Water Uplift

The following chart is a sample of a simple matrix to initiate a basic potable water uplift control and
monitoring program. Knowing the aircraft type, normal flight time, and projected passenger load, the service
supervisor or agent can determine the required potable water to be loaded on the aircraft. Such a process is

191
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

simple to develop, easy to communicate, and quick to implement and can be used as a ‘quick win” while
developing a more comprehensive potable water weight reduction program for the airline.

Table 96: Sample Matrix for Water Uplift Control Program

9.3.3 Measuring and Monitoring

To effectively manage potable water, metrics must be in place that will capture the following data elements
for each flight segment. Develop a data collection program and appropriate metrics to monitor trending and
level of improvement as compared to expected or calculated savings:

 origin, destination, tail number

 aircraft make and model
 planned flight hours
 projected load factor
 recommended water uplift per new policy
 actual water uplift, confirmed by visual observation
 actual flight time
 actual passenger load
 arrival water volume

After collecting the recommended data for a representative period of time, compare the average amount of
water historically carried per flight using previous policies (if any) with the actual data collected while
operating under the new policy. The difference is the achieved weight and corresponding fuel burn reduction
per flight. Adjust for flight hour and load factor variations if they are significantly different between old and
new data.

Having documented the new water uplift totals and monitored actual consumption data revisit IATA optimal
water requirement calculations to determine if, and to what value, there is additional room for improvement.

192
 Ground Operations

9.4 Lavatory Servicing

Typically, lavatory servicing is not addressed as a separate fuel savings area. However, depending on the
airline’s route structure and related servicing policies, lavatory associated weight can notably impact fuel
consumption at a system level.

As an example, many airlines do not service lavatories on all short to medium flight time operations,
preferring to service periodically throughout the day, or when rotating through a base station. IATA
recommends that such lavatory servicing policies be evaluated from a cost/benefit perspective to determine
whether additional servicing costs (if any) offset the cost of carrying the additional weight on multiple
segments. As with potable water, lavatory servicing is not a pacing item in the aircraft turnaround process,
and the service cost may already be included in a percentage of existing ground handling contracts.
Developing an accurate database of servicing volume and frequency will facilitate the calculation of the cost
offset potential in reduced fuel consumption. To calculate potential savings use the weight information from
this database and apply the Fuel Penalty values discussed in Section 4.3.

9.5 Fueling
Matching the actual aircraft fuel load to the optimum planned/required fuel load is a complex issue, which
can be influenced by three distinct work groups:

 flight dispatch
 flight crew
 fueling personnel

Dispatch can add extra fuel to simplify the flight planning process. The flight crew can request additional fuel
based on personal experience or assessment. The aircraft fueler can add extra fuel to avoid having to return
to top-off an aircraft that requires a minor fuel load adjustment, or purely from lack of attention during the
fueling process. The cumulative effect of these activities can result in considerable additional fuel being
carried on a regular basis. The Flight Dispatch and Flight operations portions of this manual will address
dispatcher and pilot extra fuel in detail. The following discussion refers only to the additional fuel added by
the into-plane fueling agent.

Depending on the aircraft type, extensive IATA observations indicate that an average of 50 – 500 kg of extra
fuel is boarded above the planned fuel on a regular basis. As the chart below indicates for the sample airline,
such over-fueling can result in a significant amount of “fuel penalty” per year at a system level. In addition,
over-fueling may also result in operational delays, service failures, revenue loss, or delay costs.
The following calculations are based on a 50% target improvement in fuel loading accuracy.

Additional Fuel Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Avg Wt Fuel Burn to carry Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Over Fuelling 1 kg / Fleet Extra Incurred in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 300 kg 599,760 kg 50% 299,880 kg 945 t $247,401
A320-200 2,296 kg 100 kg 229,586 kg 50% 114,793 kg 362 t $94,704
B747-400 1,221 kg 500 kg 610,557 kg 50% 305,279 kg 962 t $251,855
B777-200 2,213 kg 300 kg 663,754 kg 50% 331,877 kg 1,045 t $273,798
B737-700 2,752 kg 100 kg 275,184 kg 50% 137,592 kg 433 t $113,513
CRJ-200 880 kg 50 kg 44,000 kg 25% 11,000 kg 35 t $9,075
ATR 72 836 kg 50 kg 41,800 kg 25% 10,450 kg 33 t $8,621
Total 2,464,641 kg 1,210,870 kg 3,814 t $998,968

Table 97: Potential reduction in fuel consumption associated with Ground Ops Over-fuelling
Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 1,210,870 kgs/yr or
US$ 998,968 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 emissions reduction is 3,814
metric tons per year.

193
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

9.5.1 Recommendations
As part of the overall fuel management program, airlines should develop a simple, standard, process for
ground service personnel and flight crew to verify that the proper flight plan amount of fuel is loaded onboard
the aircraft. Accurately tracking fuel uplift will not only ensure proper aircraft loading, but will also enable
proper fuel accounting and invoicing. Verifying departure and arrival fuel will support more accurate Fuel
Management Information, Flight Planning, and fuel accounting programs.

 Quick Win - establish a monitoring program to verify servicing compliance with planned fuel uplift.
Develop a database for monitoring arrival volumes and fuel loaded (total uplift) as compared to flight
plan to determine frequency and level of deviation from planned fuel load.
 Short Term - conduct sufficient audits of system fuel servicing activities to determine level of
compliance with existing policies and contracts, as well as determine if, and where, fueling efficiency
needs to be improved.
 Long Term - evaluate modern fueling equipment and/or service providers who employ modern
equipment technology to monitor and control aircraft fuel loading operations. Into-plane fueling
systems are available which communicate directly with airline flight dispatch / fuel planning systems to
prevent fueling in excess of flight plan requirements.

194
10 COMMERCIAL
As detailed throughout this material, carrying extra weight on board will result in an additional fuel
requirement or “fuel penalty” of approximately 3% – 4% of the weight carried per flight hour. The Commercial
portion of a fuel efficiency program focuses on those services, products, amenities, or equipment that add
discretionary weight to the aircraft, and where a concerted effort to reduce these weights can yield efficiency
improvements.

Discretionary weight is defined as weight which is carried as the result of a business decision to provide
comparable or differentiating customer service, support commercial programs such as advertising or Duty
Free, as well as provide basic equipment needed to support an additional revenue stream such as cargo, or
facilitate a required service such as baggage handling. The focus is on the “fuel penalty” to carry the weight,
and potential “best practice” alternatives to current operations, services, or equipment. As an example, would
a different catering plan or lighter weight cargo containers result in a more fuel-efficient alternative to current
service standards but still achieve desired passenger satisfaction or commercial results? Note: Discretionary
weight does not include weight required for flight or flight safety.

The success of a commercial, or aircraft cabin weight, reduction program is contingent upon three key
issues. The first is corporate support across the various corporate entities. As an example, many product
management team recommendations may require action by Maintenance or Supply Chain management to
remove, replace, or modify onboard equipment or furnishings. The second is financial support and resources
to cost justify and fund removal and/or replacement of obsolete or heavier weight equipment, such as
catering or duty free trolleys.

Lastly, an extensive and ongoing corporate communication program is required to engage employees at all
levels in all departments, both operational and non-operational, in the Commercial fuel conservation effort.
Changes in services provided to the customer are often met with resistance from frontline personnel. In-
Flight, Commercial, as well as, Marketing and Sales personnel should be made fully aware of the fuel
penalty or cost of weight on the aircraft, the important role they can play in onboard weight control, and the
resultant impact on both the environment and corporate financial success. As noted in Section 4.3, the IATA
analysis indicates the annual cost to fly one Kilogram of weight on the sample fleet averages approximately
US$ 10,000.

10.1 Marketing and Fuel Efficiency

Marketing and Sales will need to play a vital role in the fuel conservation activities. As the responsible
department for the product the airline is offering to the customer, there are a multitude of product related
decisions that directly impact fuel consumption and/or fuel conservation including:

 Targeted Market segment

 Low Cost
 High Cost

 Types of service/proffered cabins

 One class service
 Two class service
 Three class service

 Onboard cabin service

 Passenger comfort and amenities
 Catering service and content
 Duty Free offerings

195
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Cargo offerings
 Enhanced payload
 Priority services

 Network and Schedule

 Destinations served
 Schedule priorities and constraints
 Connectivity to other flights

Each of the aforementioned aspects can have a direct influence on weight and/or flight time, and therefore
will affect the fuel consumption of the airline. Fuel conservation efforts can have a significant positive effect
on the amount of pollution emitted to the environment. Properly communicated, fuel emission reductions can
be actively promoted in the marketing of the product. Today’s customers recognize ecologically responsible
companies. An effective fuel conservation program will also have a positive effect on the corporate cost
structure, which may enable more competitive pricing for the product.

10.1.1 Schedule Development and Aircraft Utilization

Airline aircraft utilization is a function of the airline schedule, which is a function of markets served, frequency
of operation, and availability of aircraft. Essentially, the schedule represents the airline’s primary product and
is therefore driven by Marketing and Sales. A high frequency schedule, which maximizes potential
destinations and minimizes connection times for the customer, is the optimal Marketing schedule.

From a fuel conservation perspective, while striving to achieve maximum aircraft utilization and marketing
revenue potential, it is essential to ensure the operating schedule is founded on accurate operational
information and incorporates best practice planning. Schedules incorporating inadequate flight or ground
times, or which are highly concentrated in periods of dense airport arrivals and departures, will lead to
frequent delays. Off-schedule operations frequently force airlines to speed up flights significantly increasing
fuel burn. In addition, delayed operations result in inefficient ground operations typically requiring higher fuel
consumption associated with extended aircraft engine, APU, or ground equipment operation.

Marketing and revenue results are also directly affected by the frequency of delays, cancellations, or lost
baggage. All of these aspects are important considerations in the development of a balanced cost and fuel-
efficient schedule.

Schedule Development is a complex process involving multiple, often conflicting, constraints from marketing
objectives to airport slot availability. However, fundamental building blocks must be recognized,
incorporated, and/or accommodated in the final schedule production. Realistic block times, ground times,
and the degree of variability in each must be utilized in constructing the final production schedule.

A typical 4 hour flight may vary 0:10 to 0:15 minutes above scheduled block time depending on seasonal
weather factors or airport ATC environment. A “Standard” ground time of 1:00 can likewise vary 0:10 to 0:15
minutes due airport congestion, level of passenger connections, baggage transfer systems, or GSE
availability and reliability.

In developing a fundamentally “punctual and fuel efficient” schedule, it is critical to not only have accurate
block time and ground time components, but also to have a true picture of the level of variability in what are
essentially “average” times. The ability to accommodate these variations in the schedule design will
determine the level of reliability to be achieved in each schedule. Operational performance in flight planning,
ground handling, and operations control management will determine how well the schedule is executed, but
the schedule must be fundamentally sound in order for the operational components of the airline to function
effectively, and in a fuel conscious manner.

196
 Commercial

10.1.2 Fuel Penalty to Carry Additional Weight

Marketing and Sales should also evaluate each decision to add weight onboard the aircraft in light of the
Fuel Penalty associated with carrying the desired additional weight.

When new aircraft are ordered Marketing and Sales is usually the driving force when it comes to selection of
interior equipment such as seats, galleys, carpets, class of service dividers, as well as the livery of the
airline. All of these items have a direct impact on aircraft weight, and therefore fuel consumption.

Marketing and Sales also sets the standards for the type of services offered to the customer. These include
catering, magazines and newspapers, on-board and duty free sales, passenger amenities, and many other
items, all of which can be sources of additional weight.

If Cargo is part of the airline product offering, Marketing and Sales determines how the product is positioned
in the marketplace, which may influence the type of onboard loading system and handling containers
required to support the product.

Maintenance and Engineering should be directly involved to assist Marketing and Sales with regard to weight
calculations, the selection of new equipment and alternate materials, as well as any changes to aircraft
specifications or modifications that might be required by the introduction of new equipment.

As noted in Section 4.3, an essential component of a successful fuel conservation program is a fundamental
understanding of fuel penalty implications of weight-related business decisions in all non-operational
departments, especially Marketing and Sales.

The following sections will cover a number of the major “commercial” or “marketing” programs influencing
overall weight (and fuel penalty) carried on the aircraft.

10.2 Commercial Equipment Weight

Commercial equipment includes a variety of conveyances used to accomplish specific service missions
onboard the aircraft. This equipment includes catering carts and galley equipment, duty free carts, as well as
cargo containers and pallets (to include those used to facilitate baggage loading and unloading). Many
industry-leading airlines have achieved significant fuel and cost savings through a well-designed aircraft
commercial equipment weight reduction effort.

As part of a comprehensive weight reduction/fuel conservation program, IATA recommends that all carriers
pro-actively review alternative commercial equipment. Modern technology is continually developing notably
lighter weight equipment for the airline industry that can serve the same mission, but results in significantly
lower fuel requirements. Modern catering trolleys and cargo/baggage conveyances are available in the
marketplace weighing approximately 20% - 25% less than similar equipment currently carried on most of the
world’s airline fleets. As an example, on the passenger configured 747-400 fleet for ABC Airlines, utilizing
this lower weight equipment could result in a weight reduction of over 700 kg per flight, or a savings of
approximately 150,000 kg and US$ 120,000 per aircraft, per year, at current fuel prices. For freighter or
combination (combi) configurations, the potential weight reduction is significantly higher.

10.2.1 Cargo (ULD)

Aircraft Unit Load Devices (ULD) includes cargo containers of various sizes, cargo pallets, and cargo pallet
nets. This equipment performs two main functions. It provides restraint of movement for cargo and baggage
during flight, and also acts as the containment device to enable the easy movement and transport of
baggage and cargo on, off, and between aircraft or airport service facilities.

In general, ULD must meet the requirements of FAA TSO C90c and/or EASA ETSO C90c or equivalent.
These requirements dictate the minimum performance standards a ULD must meet before it may be used

197
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

onboard an aircraft. The standards relate primarily to the ULD’s ability to restrain the cargo and baggage in
its assigned location during extreme flight conditions.

All of these items are portable to the aircraft. Consequently, they are relatively simple to replace, can
facilitate significant weight reductions, as well as produce desired fuel consumption and environmental
benefits.

Although manufacturers of cargo equipment have been able to achieve continuous reduction in the weight of
their products in recent years, airlines have tended to stay with traditional equipment citing robustness,
standardization, maintenance costs, and life of product as major determinants in associated purchasing
decisions. In addition, concerns regarding the operational or regulatory effect of changing specifications of
this equipment have reinforced the use of traditional designs for many years. The current industry focus on
fuel conservation and the resultant environmental benefit is driving a different industry and regulatory focus
on ULD equipment and the significant potential for weight reduction in this area.

As an example, the LD3 is the most common lower deck container, used widely for baggage and cargo
operations on many containerized aircraft. Weights for this equipment have progressively fallen from 135 kg
to today’s levels of 60 – 75 kg, and further developments will likely improve upon these reductions even
further. Earlier units were manufactured using a heavy fiberglass shell on an aluminum or wood base.
Subsequent designs progressed to all aluminum base units with a fabric door lowering the weight to 75 Kg
per unit. In recent years, the introduction of composite materials has reduced container weight even further
to approximately 60 kg per unit, while still meeting all regulatory requirements.

As noted above, historically, the primary obstacle to cargo equipment weight reduction has been concern by
airlines that lighter ULD might be prone to more damage and handling problems. Prior to the ongoing
worldwide fiscal and environmental concerns, presumed durability issues traditionally took precedence over
weight concerns. Today, modern engineering and materials are contributing to stronger, lighter weight, and
more durable cargo equipment. Manufacturers are continuing to develop wider ranges of lightweight
containers, such as the A320/321 AKH container and the 767 LD8.

Given the potential for significant weight reduction with regard to cargo and baggage equipment, IATA
recommends that airlines initiate a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of their existing cargo equipment
inventory, current repair and replacement costs, new inventory capital requirements, and the associated fuel
and environmental benefits.

The following chart details the potential weight reduction associated with lighter weight cargo/baggage
equipment for the sample ABC Airlines fleet. Section 10.2.3 below will detail target improvement values for a
total aircraft commercial equipment weight reduction program.

Current Current Best in Potential Cargo

Cargo Best in Typical #
Weight Weight Class Typical # Equipment
Containers, Class ULD Pallets with
ULD Pallet/Net Pallet/net ULD's Reduction
Pallets, Nets (kg) nets
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
A330-300 85.0 kg 119.0 kg 65.0 kg 99.0 kg 16 4 400 kg
A320-200 75.0 kg 119.0 kg 60.0 kg 0.0 kg 7 0 105 kg
B747-400 85.0 kg 119.0 kg 65.0 kg 99.0 kg 16 5 420 kg
B777-200 85.0 kg 119.0 kg 65.0 kg 99.0 kg 14 4 360 kg
B737-700 75.0 kg 0.0 kg 60.0 kg 0.0 kg 7 0 105 kg
CRJ-200 0.0 kg 0.0 kg 0.0 kg 0.0 kg 0 0 0 kg
ATR 72 0.0 kg 0.0 kg 0.0 kg 0.0 kg 0 0 0 kg

Table 98: Cargo ULD Equipment Potential Weight Reduction

198
 Commercial

10.2.2 Catering and Duty Free Equipment

Essentially, the same situation and considerations apply to catering equipment (trolleys) as discussed above
with regard to cargo equipment. The equipment currently used on most airline fleets is significantly heavier
than equipment available in the market today. Airlines have historically avoided changes due to cost or
operational specification and modification considerations. As noted in Section 10.2, there is the potential for
a 20 – 25% reduction in weight associated with the basic catering and duty free trolleys.

As with cargo equipment, IATA recommends airlines conduct a thorough cost/benefit review of current
catering equipment inventory, weight, utilization, and potential for weight reduction.

The following chart details the potential weight reduction associated with lighter weight catering and duty free
carts and equipment for the sample ABC Airlines fleet. Section 10.2.3 below will detail target improvement
values for a total aircraft commercial equipment weight reduction program.

Current Current
Catering / Best in Class Best in Class Potential Trolley
Trolley Trolley # Trolley # Trolley
Duty Free Full Size Half Size Weight Reduction
Full Size Half Size Full Size Half Size
Trolleys (kg) (kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
A330-300 30.0 kg 18.0 kg 23.6 kg 14.4 kg 24 12 197 kg
A320-200 30.0 kg 18.0 kg 23.6 kg 14.4 kg 20 6 150 kg
B747-400 30.0 kg 18.0 kg 23.6 kg 14.4 kg 30 14 242 kg
B777-200 30.0 kg 18.0 kg 23.0 kg 14.4 kg 20 8 169 kg
B737-700 30.0 kg 18.0 kg 23.6 kg 14.4 kg 6 6 60 kg
CRJ-200 0.0 kg 18.0 kg 0.0 kg 14.4 kg 0 2 7 kg
ATR 72 0.0 kg 18.0 kg 0.0 kg 14.4 kg 0 2 7 kg

Table 99: Catering/Duty Free Trolleys Potential Weight Reduction

In addition, IATA recommends that airlines carefully review aircraft operational aircraft rotations to determine
if items such as ovens or coffee machines that are not used for domestic or short flights could be removed
without hindering fleet operational flexibility. Similarly, galley equipment requirements, such as trolleys and
inserts, should be reviewed to determine further options to reduce onboard equipment weight based on
projected load factors or market requirements.

10.2.3 Commercial Equipment Potential Savings

The chart below depicts the potential fuel and emissions reductions if ABC Airlines could achieve a 20%
reduction in onboard cargo and catering/duty free equipment weight on 50% of the current fleet. IATA
believes this to be a reasonable target based on extensive airline evaluations and related industry data.

Commercial Equipment Fuel Penalty (kg/yr) Weight Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Weight Reduction 1 kg / Fleet Reduction in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 1,999 kg 512 kg 50% 512,195 kg 1,613 t $422,561
A320-200 2,296 kg 320 kg 50% 366,878 kg 1,156 t $302,675
B747-400 1,221 kg 718 kg 50% 438,380 kg 1,381 t $361,663
B777-200 2,213 kg 456 kg 50% 504,453 kg 1,589 t $416,174
B737-700 2,752 kg 230 kg 50% 316,462 kg 997 t $261,081
CRJ-200 880 kg 52 kg 75% 34,452 kg 109 t $28,423
ATR 72 836 kg 52 kg 75% 32,729 kg 103 t $27,002
Total 2,205,549 kg 6,947 t $1,819,578

Table 100: Commercial Equipment Potential Weight Reduction

199
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,205,549 kgs/yr or
US$ 1,819,578 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 emissions reduction is
6,947 metric tons per year.

10.2.4 Recommendations
Given the significant potential for fuel savings associated with reducing the weight of onboard equipment, a
number of carriers are aggressively pursuing the acquisition of lighter weight equipment as part of a
managed replacement plan. IATA highly recommends that carriers conduct a comprehensive financial
analysis to determine the viability of a managed replacement program aimed at reducing the onboard weight
of commercial equipment, as well as reducing the related fuel consumption.

 Quick Win - establish a monitoring program to verify that the galley equipment carried aligns with
current service requirements on the aircraft mission. Examine aircraft routing/utilization and
corresponding catering service plans to determine if, and where, unused, heavy weight, catering
and/or galley equipment can be removed from the aircraft. Where possible, remove excess equipment,
if not required for service and the change does not limit aircraft rotation flexibility.
 Short Term - evaluate the airline’s cargo container and pallet inventory management program to
minimize the carriage of empty conveyances to maintain system availability. Determine if inventory
control and transport policies match current demand when balanced against fuel penalty
considerations. Review available aircraft modifications that can reduce the number of empty catering
carts required to be carried to meet aircraft specification requirements.
 Long Term - evaluate lighter weight equipment options in the market, and conduct a detailed financial
analysis to develop a rationalized replacement plan to balance financial considerations and fuel
conservation objectives.

10.3 Onboard Weight

A comprehensive evaluation of potential fuel savings associated with product management of onboard
weight addresses all services provided during flight, including catering, duty free, passenger amenities, and
marketing material. In addition to planning criteria, it is important to conduct frequent observations of
departing and arriving aircraft to validate actual inventories of catering service, duty free products, customer
amenities, and reserve materials or supplies, dispatched and returned.

10.3.1 Catering Weight

For purposes of this section, catering weight includes the food and drink content, the associated serving
materials and utensils, as well as any amenities presented as part of the catering services. The following
catering assessment and calculations do not address the potential savings associated with reducing the
weight of onboard catering equipment which is covered separately under Commercial Equipment in Section
10.2.2 above.

Reducing the quantity of on-board catering will obviously reduce the weight carried. However, such changes
typically require coordination among several corporate entities including Marketing and Sales, In-flight
Service, and Catering to determine the catering needs for specific marketing objectives, competitive
positioning, selective routes, seasonal load factors, or special cultural considerations. To achieve desired
weight reductions, while minimizing product risk, it is necessary to develop an in-service database to
generate confidence in catering levels and service options that not only support perceived in-flight service
requirements, but also achieve desired reductions in the weight of catering carried.

Further, many airlines round-trip cater a large percentage of short to medium range operations. Explanations
supporting this policy include turn-time impact, local catering quality, or lower servicing cost. IATA highly
recommends that such policies be thoroughly evaluated in a balanced cost/benefit analysis. Properly
managed, catering services should not hinder turn-time. A majority of industry high frequency markets likely
have quality catering options available. Obviously, airline personnel will best evaluate the financial impact,

200
 Commercial

but specific servicing savings need to be balanced against the fuel penalty incurred to carry the desired
weight. From a fuel conservation perspective, reducing the frequency of round-trip catering can be an area of
a “quick win”, but this decision needs to be balanced against related corporate service and financial
considerations.

The calculations below are based on conservative assumptions of 10% weight reduction on 75% of all
operations, or a net 7.5% reduction across ABC Airlines operations.

Catering Catering Uplift Fuel Burn to carry Weight Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Weight Reduction in kg Catering in Kg Reduction in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 5,288 kg 10,571,770 kg 529 kg 75% 792,883 kg 2,498 t $654,128
A320-200 900 kg 2,066,274 kg 90 kg 75% 154,971 kg 488 t $127,851
B747-400 6,350 kg 7,754,074 kg 635 kg 75% 581,556 kg 1,832 t $479,783
B777-200 4,678 kg 10,350,131 kg 468 kg 75% 776,260 kg 2,445 t $640,414
B737-700 775 kg 2,132,676 kg 78 kg 75% 159,951 kg 504 t $131,959
CRJ-200 150 kg 132,000 kg 15 kg 75% 9,900 kg 31 t $8,168
ATR 72 150 kg 125,400 kg 15 kg 75% 9,405 kg 30 t $7,759
Total 33,132,325 kg 2,484,924 kg 7,828 t $2,050,063

Table 101: Catering Service Weight Reduction

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 2,484,924 kgs/yr or
US$ 2,050,063 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 emissions reduction is
7,828 metric tons per year.

10.3.1.1 Recommendations
As explained above, an effective weight reduction program for Catering (or any onboard service product)
must involve an extensive cross-divisional effort involving every department from planning, to supply chain,
to the in-flight service delivery attendants. Creating the required inter-company and inter-departmental
support will facilitate specific project assessment and implementation in a timely and cost efficient manner.
Similarly, a comprehensive employee and communication program to raise awareness regarding the
rationale for the change by explaining the cost of the onboard weight, the resultant fuel (penalty)
consumption, and the environmental impact, must accompany any effort involving change to the product
presented to the customer.

 Quick Win - develop an appropriate data collection and analysis program, in conjunction with a
cost/benefit methodology, to enable quick analysis of product management initiatives. Identify a
number of “quick wins”. Widely publicize the effort, and the immediate results, as a means to gain
employee support in promoting positive change to the customer.
 Short Term – review current catering/menu content and rotation plans to identify menu and weight
reduction alternatives.
 Long Term - review all catering and beverage service plans to determine lighter weight packaging,
presentation materials, and/or meal content options.

10.3.2 Duty Free

Duty Free includes those products carried onboard for sale during flight. The weight of the associated
onboard storage and delivery equipment is included under Commercial Equipment in Section 10.2.2, and the
marketing materials are included under Magazines below in Section 10.3.3.

Duty free is a complex issue, both from a weight and revenue perspective. Typically, duty free inventory is
driven by perceived demand and associated unit profitability. Little, if any consideration is given to the
corresponding fuel penalty impact on unit profitability. As an example, what is the net profitability on the sale
of a lightweight string of pearls as compared to a heavyweight bottle of wine?

201
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Reviewing the quantity and selection of on-board duty free items can reduce the associated weight carried.
Such an effort will take coordination between the Product Management team and Duty Free suppliers to
determine passenger purchase patterns on specific routes, seasonal load factors, and any other cultural
considerations. A best practice would involve development of a detailed in-service database for goods sold,
and a cost/benefit analysis comparing cost of weight to individual item profitability. This will generate
confidence in a duty free inventory that not only supports in-flight revenue objectives, but also addresses the
reduction of the weight associated with duty free.

Duty Free Duty Free Uplift Fuel Burn to carry Weight Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Weight Reduction in kg Duty Free in kg Reduction in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 180 kg 359,856 kg 18 kg 75% 26,989 kg 85 t $22,266
A320-200 80 kg 183,669 kg 8 kg 75% 13,775 kg 43 t $11,365
B747-400 240 kg 293,067 kg 24 kg 75% 21,980 kg 69 t $18,134
B777-200 160 kg 354,002 kg 16 kg 75% 26,550 kg 84 t $21,904
B737-700 50 kg 137,592 kg 5 kg 75% 10,319 kg 33 t $8,514
CRJ-200 0 kg 0 kg 0 kg 75% 0 kg 0t $0
ATR 72 0 kg 0 kg 0 kg 75% 0 kg 0t $0
Total 1,328,186 kg 99,614 kg 314 t $82,182

Table 102: Duty Free Weight Reduction

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 99,614 kgs/yr or US$
82,182 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 emissions reduction is 314 metric
tons per year.

10.3.2.1 Recommendations
 Quick Win - Develop a detailed sales-rate database to ensure onboard inventory is relevant to sector,
time-of-day, and seasonality.
 Short Term - Perform a profitability analysis on heavier weight items to determine if the fuel penalty
cost is offset by unit sales profitability.
 Long Term - Test market lighter weight items to determine if such items can be substituted for heavier
weight inventory without impacting overall sales and profitability.

10.3.3 Magazines
Magazines, newspapers, and marketing materials clearly illustrate the definition of discretionary weight.
Typically, airlines carry three forms of magazines; a company sponsored magazine, general use
informational magazines, and onboard sales presentations. Many fuel conscious airlines are not only
reducing the weight of paper used to produce company magazines, but have also adopted reduced stocking
patterns which stock a magazine in every other seat, one magazine per row, or similar reduced onboard
inventory methods. IATA recommends that airlines actively evaluate current stocking policy and spare
inventory requirements for each category of company magazine, as well as the stocking levels for common
use magazines.

With the advent of modern personal and onboard technology, in many cases newspapers represent
considerable added weight that is often not utilized by airline customers. Reducing the quantity of
newspapers offered to the customer can immediately impact the weight carried onboard aircraft without
significantly impacting service or product quality.

Reducing the number of on-board magazines and newspapers will require close coordination with the cabin
services group to determine and maintain in-service levels on specific routes with particular seasonal load
factors. A best practice would be to develop an in-service database. Having measurable detail will generate
confidence regarding the required number of magazines that not only meet in-flight requirements, but also
support the reduction in the number and weight of magazines carried.

202
 Commercial

Company sales and marketing material also add to aircraft weight, but are lightly used by passengers. When
possible, IATA recommends airlines utilize onboard video technology to deliver desired marketing
messages.

The table below details the potential savings associated with these recommended changes, again using a
25% reduction on 75% of airline operations.

Magazines Magazines Uplift Fuel Burn to carry Weight Target Fuel Burn CO2 Reduction Total
Weight Reduction in kg Magazines in kg Reduction in kg Improvement Saving Kgs Metric Tons Savings in US$
A330-300 330 kg 659,736 kg 83 kg 75% 123,701 kg 390 t $102,053
A320-200 231 kg 530,344 kg 58 kg 75% 99,439 kg 313 t $82,038
B747-400 590 kg 719,847 kg 147 kg 75% 134,971 kg 425 t $111,351
B777-200 402 kg 889,430 kg 101 kg 75% 166,768 kg 525 t $137,584
B737-700 186 kg 511,842 kg 47 kg 75% 95,970 kg 302 t $79,176
CRJ-200 75 kg 66,000 kg 11 kg 75% 7,425 kg 23 t $6,126
ATR 72 98 kg 81,510 kg 15 kg 75% 9,170 kg 29 t $7,565
Total 3,458,708 kg 637,445 kg 2,008 t $525,892

Table 103: Magazines Weight Reduction

Using the above weight reduction figures for ABC Airlines the fleet fuel burn savings is 637,445 kgs/yr or
US$ 525,892 at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 emissions reduction is 2,008
metric tons per year.
10.3.3.1 Recommendations
IATA recognizes that reducing total onboard company magazine stock may impact advertising revenue. As
with other recommendations contained in this report, a balanced cost/benefit analysis should be initiated to
determine the appropriate answer for each airline.

In addition, it is recommended that the entire process associated with determining onboard newspaper
inventory be thoroughly reviewed on a market and flight basis, with the aim of significantly reducing this
heavy weight item. Best in Class operators have pro-active monitoring programs to adjust newspaper
inventory levels in a very timely manner.

 Quick Win - Develop database to track onboard inventory levels and actual passenger utilization.
Consider alternative stocking plans for company and duty free magazines which stock a magazine in
every other seat, one magazine per row, or similar reduced onboard inventory methods.
 Short Term - re-evaluate newspaper stocking plans by sector, time of day, and load factor with the
aim of reducing the inventory per flight, if observations indicate a sizeable % of newspapers are not
utilized by the passengers.
 Long Term - examine alternative methods of distributing company info and sales promotion, such as
in-seat electronic displays; review alternative paper products that could reduce the weight of company
magazines and sales materials.

10.3.4 Onboard Supply Inventory

As a general recommendation, airlines should carefully review every aspect of contingency supplies carried
onboard the aircraft to determine if the requirement or justification for carrying that weight is still valid, if
lighter weight materials are available, or if alternative servicing or stocking policies are applicable.

During the daily operation there are a great number of processes and tasks performed on a routine basis,
which can be the source of surplus weight carried on board. Some processes are performed by airline
personnel and some tasks are contracted to service providers, often with little knowledge or concern of the
weight impact of their actions.

The following are additional suggested items to consider for weight reduction and improved fuel efficiency:

203
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Old or surplus materials in closets and overhead bins

 Route requirements for galley containers, ovens, coffee makers, extra supplies
 Amount of stainless cutlery in use, or stored on aircraft
 Pillows and blankets onboard inventory
 Excessive crew baggage
 Extra airline magazines and publicity materials
 Accumulated dirt everywhere in and on the aircraft
 Business/first class amenities
 Light weight carpeting
 Light weight seats
 Lightweight single chamber life vests

Many of these considerations can be managed on an attrition basis rather than requiring a large a one-time
investment.

204
11 TOTAL POTENTIAL SAVINGS
Depending on their present fuel efficiency status, airlines that proactively manage fuel initiatives, supported
by sensitization training and incentive programs, have an opportunity to realize potential fuel savings from
5% to 10% of the total fuel budget. Airlines can yield great benefits, with minimum investment, through a
review of their fuel management procedures to identify areas for potential savings and then update their
SOPs and training programs appropriately. Longer-term savings can accrue from upgrading technology,
especially in flight planning and fuel management systems. Fuel efficiency leadership must come from upper
management, providing the necessary training and tools, and then people have to be held accountable to
deliver desired results.

Based on the best practices summarized above, and detailed in the preceding chapters, ABC Airline’s total
saving potential is as follows:

205
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

Commercial
Summary of Savings in kg Total APU Dispatch Flt Ops Mtc & Eng.
& Ground
Ground Ops APU - Total Reduction 11,698,425 kg 11,698,425 kg
FOPS APU - Optimized Operation 871,469 kg 871,469 kg
Flight Ops APU Optimized Operation - "No
2,680,408 kg 2,680,408 kg
Pack"
Flight Ops APU Optimized Operation -
437,466 kg 437,466 kg
Single Pack
Maintenance APU Utilization
925,720 kg 925,720 kg
Optimized Operation
Optimized - Cost Index 7,231,028 kg 7,231,028 kg
Route Specific - Cost Index 1,416,114 kg 1,416,114 kg
Cost Index - Delay Cost Mgt -1,656,071 kg -1,656,071 kg
Flt Plan OPT - LATERAL 2,766,567 kg 2,766,567 kg
Flt Plan OPT - VERTICAL 3,247,987 kg 3,247,987 kg
EU-OPS - RCF 5% >3% 4,419,883 kg 4,419,883 kg
CF Unprotected - 3% (A to B) 1,409,180 kg 1,409,180 kg
CF Unprotected 5% (A to B) 735,841 kg 735,841 kg
Redispatch (Reduced CF) - EU-OPS 1,760,829 kg 1,760,829 kg
Flight Dispatch - Additional Fuel 1,059,751 kg 1,059,751 kg
Over Tankering 223,704 kg 223,704 kg
Alternate - OPT Selection 3,594,710 kg 3,594,710 kg
Alternate - Cost Index "0" 231,266 kg 231,266 kg
No Alternate Ops - (NO-ALTN IFR) 1,036,034 kg 1,036,034 kg
Holding Fuel Optimization 2,445,323 kg 2,445,323 kg
Loadplanning - CG Management 1,985,468 kg 1,985,468 kg
Loadplanning - ZFW Accuracy 2,651,664 kg 2,651,664 kg
Fuel Bias - (Flight Planning System) 1,439,239 kg 1,439,239 kg
Taxi Fuel Excess Standard Load 746,065 kg 746,065 kg
Flight Crew - Additional Fuel 6,743,754 kg 6,743,754 kg
Engine Out - Taxi Out 3,404,525 kg 3,404,525 kg
Reduced Flap Take off 1,391,398 kg 1,391,398 kg
Reduced Acceleration Altitude 1,177,763 kg 1,177,763 kg
CDDs & T-Departures RNPs 410,662 kg 410,662 kg
CDOs & T-Arrivals RNPs 3,155,135 kg 3,155,135 kg
Low Noise Low Drag Approaches 6,256,422 kg 6,256,422 kg
Reduced Flap Landings 3,085,496 kg 3,085,496 kg
Idle Reverse on Landing 2,186,907 kg 2,186,907 kg
Engine Out - Taxi In 4,916,129 kg 4,916,129 kg
Pilot Technique - Flight Management 11,035,715 kg 11,035,715 kg
Engine Core Water Wash 5,165,496 kg 5,165,496 kg
(Airframe) DRAG Paint, Wash, Steps,
2,471,412 kg 2,471,412 kg
Seals, Doubler
Aircraft Weight Issues (M&E) 1,519,027 kg 1,519,027 kg
Engine SFC - Build Standard 2,889,427 kg 2,889,427 kg
APU SFC - Build Standard 62,022 kg 62,022 kg

Configuration Change - Weight Reduction 2,894,763 kg 2,894,763 kg

Commercial Equipment Weight Reduction 2,205,549 kg 2,205,549 kg

Catering Weight Reduction 2,484,924 kg 2,484,924 kg

Duty Free Weight Reduction 99,614 kg 99,614 kg
Magazines Weight Reduction 637,445 kg 637,445 kg
Potable Water Weight Reduction 2,520,651 kg 2,520,651 kg
Additional Fuel - Over Fuelling 1,210,870 kg 1,210,870 kg
7.9% 121,283,174 kg 16,613,488 kg 36,744,580 kg 43,763,905 kg 15,002,147 kg 9,159,054 kg

Table 104: Potential Savings ABC Airlines

206
 Total Potential Savings

11.1 ABC Airlines Emission Reduction Potential

Fuel Burn
Potential Reduction Fleet M.T./Year Fleet Savings CO2 Reduction
(kg/Year)
A330-300 12 23,964,836 75,489 t
A320-200 28 18,910,219 59,567 t
B747-400 06 23,337,244 73,512 t
B777-200 12 26,926,797 84,819 t
B737-700 28 19,356,377 60,973 t
CRJ-200 22 6,838,905 21,543 t
ATR 72 22 1,948,797 6,139 t
Total Pollution M.T. Percentage 121,283,174 382,042 t
Cost of Pollution in US$/M.T. Reduction $21.35
Total potential cost in US$ 7.9% $8,157,361

Table 105: Potential Emission Reduction Based on Estimated Fuel Burn Savings
The Total Potential Saving for ABC Airlines is a fuel burn savings of 121,283,174 kgs/yr or US$ 100,058,619
at a fuel price of US$ 0.825 per kilogram. The corresponding CO2 reduction is 382,042 metric tons per year.

11.2 Saving Contribution by Discipline

The total potential saving identified is 7.9% of the total fuel budget. Within that 7.9% the contribution by each
identified discipline within the airline is as follows:

SUMMARY SAVINGS (% of TOTAL)
8%

12%
Flight Operations

36%
Flight Dispatch

APU

14%
Maintenance &
Engineering

Commercial & Ground
Operations

30%

Figure 80: Individual Discipline Contribution to the Total Saving Potential

207
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

208
12 ROLE OF AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN IMPROVING FUEL
EFFICIENCY
12.1 Overview
Air Traffic Management (ATM) has an important role to play in the reduction of aircraft emissions. Reducing
aircraft emissions has now become a global environmental concern. Air Navigation Service Providers
(ANSP), by having a better understanding of air transport operations, will be in a better position to assist Air
Transport Operators (ATOs) to reduce their emissions and thus contribute to decreasing the impact of
commercial aviation to the environment. In short, to achieve a reduction in emissions of Carbon Dioxide,
Water Vapor (in the form of vapor trails and Nitrogen Oxides), ATOs need to introduce fuel saving measures.
It is in these areas that ANSPs Managers, Procedure Designers and Air Traffic Controllers can help. Any
reduction in fuel consumption will lessen aviation's effect upon the environment and provide operators with
the added benefit of lower costs.

The day has come where, in some cases, there is a need for tradeoff between noise reduction procedures
and the environment. For instance, Airport Managers tend to apply the same noise abatement procedures
throughout the day. Certain times of the day might require specific noise abatement procedures (for example
after 20:00 local time); however other times of the day could permit some moderation in restrictions which
would allow for a more direct departure procedure. An average commercial aircraft such as an A320 or B737
departing in the opposite direction from the intended en-route course would consume an extra 100 kg of fuel
and produce 315 kg of CO2 if it is required to climb straight to 3,000 feet before proceeding on course rather
than turning immediately after takeoff.

Today's economic climate has seriously eroded the profitability of many ATOs and belt tightening has
become the order of the day. All areas of the operation are being investigated to identify initiatives to reduce
expenditures and improve operational efficiency. The recent rise in the price of fuel means that aviation fuel
costs now account for approximately 25% up to 40% of the total operating costs for the airline.

To reduce fuel consumption, most ATOs are making changes to their operating procedures and are
attempting to improve flight planning, management and operating techniques. Some of the changes alter the
operating characteristics of aircraft and it is here that ANSPs becomes involved.

The previous chapters describe the major fuel saving measures that can be undertaken by ATOs. Air
Navigation Service Provider Managers, Procedure Designers and Air Traffic Controllers are encouraged to
read these chapters, to better understand the actions being taken by Operators. This knowledge will prove
invaluable when working with Operators in support of their fuel conservation efforts.

This chapter discusses how strategic Air Traffic Planning and Management practices (and tactical Air Traffic
Control practices) can influence and complement Operators’ fuel management practices.

There is no intent to change rules or existing ATC procedures – and the primary focus must remain on
safety.

As an example, there are approximately 30 million scheduled air transport operations around the globe
annually. The average flight time is about 1 hour and 37 minutes. The average operating cost per minute for
an Air Transport Operator is US$120. Reducing flight time by just 1% - that is, by just 1 minute per flight
would reduce airline operating costs by US$ 3,600,000,000!

The average transport aircraft burns 50 kg of fuel per minute. 30 million minutes will consume 1,500,000
metric tons of fuel and produce 4,725,000 metric tons of CO2.

It is recognized that with high-density traffic any appreciable changes to the day-to-day operation are limited;
however there are areas, particularly in lower density environments, or during light traffic, where opportuni-

209
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

ties for greater flexibility do exist. Amending procedures where possible will translate into significant savings
for Air Transport Operators and the environment.

12.1.1 Strategic Management

In many cases the design of air routes and ATC procedures (e.g. arrivals, departure and approaches) are
based on “lowest common denominator” principle considering mix of equipage. Modern aircraft have the
capability to fly direct routes, with great accuracy, and can meet ATC requirements with high levels of
confidence, without the need for ATC to apply speed or track interventions.

It is common practice for Terminal Control Area (TCA) procedures and en-route route structures to be built
based on a ground based navigation infrastructure that is no longer required by the modern aircraft because
of their sophisticated navigation systems. Every opportunity must be taken by Airspace Planners to review
routes, SIDs and STARs and to work with local airline Representatives to ensure that established
procedures and routes more closely match the capabilities of the fleets. The use of Performance Based
Navigation (PBN) is to be encouraged as a tool to redesign the airspace and develop procedures and en-
route structures based on the PBN concept.

Furthermore, there is a need for ATM Managers to constantly review procedures aimed at increasing the
efficiency of the system. In today's environmentally conscious climate this is no longer an option. There is a
constant need to understand and integrate the capabilities of the new generation airplanes equipped
sophisticated navigation systems and capitalize on this technology.

Many airlines recognize the critical importance of fuel costs by assigning the role of Fuel Manager to a senior
operational staff member within their organizations. The role of this person is to look for every opportunity to
conserve fuel and manage the overall fuel conservation effort of the airline.

Fuel and environment management is a partnership arrangement, and awareness of the operating
paradigms and limitations of each of the ATM partners will add significantly to overall system efficiency. The
appointment of a Fuel and Environment Champion within a Service Provider Organization would enable all
fuel and environment efficiency actions to be focused and harmonized with airline actions. Indeed, just as in
the case of airlines, we recommend that fuel efficiency figure prominently among the key performance
indicators of air traffic systems.

12.1.2 Possible Environment and Fuel Champion Accountabilities

The general role of an Environment and Fuel Champion would include:

 Develop programs which will minimize environmental impact, fuel consumption and operational costs
for airspace users
 Support ATS Planning offices in the design and implementation of environmentally acceptable and fuel
efficient routes, and TMA procedures possibly with the use of PBN
 Work with ATC training institutions to ensure fuel conservation techniques are incorporated into basic
ATC training
 Liaise with the Fuel Managers of locally based airlines or other aviation organizations to understand
environmental and fuel issues of local importance
 Monitor global best demonstrated practices in fuel management throughout the aviation industry;
 Provide environmental and fuel conservation training to all ATC staff, both operational and
management, including regular briefings from local airline fuel management staff
 Liaise with local Air Operators, and where there is predominantly through traffic, with the local airline
Agents, to support the development of efficient ATC procedures and training programs for Controllers
and ATC Managers including the environmental impact of inefficient ATC practices
 Continuously sensitize ATC staff and management to the cost of fuel – both in environmental impact
and dollar terms and its effect on the operating efficiency of airspace users

210
 Role of Air Traffic Management in Improving Fuel Efficiency

 Encourage the establishment of familiarization flights for Controllers and structured training visits to
ATC centers by Pilots
 Encourage the establishment of a program of visits by all ATC staff and Airspace Planners to airline
dispatch and flight planning offices, to understand the factors effecting scheduling and flight mission
management.

Where there are Oceanic operations, the establishment of a liaison function between the Oceanic Control
Centre and the ATOs who regularly utilize the airspace is recommended. This is to ensure that there is a
mutual understanding of the operations and their impact of one to the other.

12.2 Technology and ATM

IATA's position on technology has always been to harness incremental benefits, putting to use the
technology currently available on board and based on a clear majority of the traffic sample. Besides a
successful implementation of RVSM, an accurate GPS position report generated by the Automatic
Dependent Surveillance - Contract (ADS-C) system will allow Controllers to reduce in-trail separation
standards from 10 minutes (nominal 80nm) to 5 minutes. Relatively small and incremental benefits such as
this could save over 1% of fuel burn over the flight. In another example of recognizing available navigational
capabilities on a critical mass of airplanes, an airspace study very quickly demonstrated that 80% and more
of the 1000 flights a day were already RNP-10 capable. The FAA was thus able to reduce the lateral
separation standards from a nominal 90nm to 50nm. This not only saved the airlines approximate US$28m
yearly but also increased capacity by over 55%.

Similarly, the availability of Satcom radio, supported by FANS-1 (Boeing) or FANS-A (Airbus) avionics on
most long-range and oceanic fleets allows for an immediate reduction in lateral and in-trail separation
standards to approximately 60% of the operating traffic. While the fuel and time benefits are apparent from
the reduced separation, the accompanying capacity benefits must not be overlooked. For example, busy uni-
directional oceanic corridors such as the North Atlantic result in up to 40% of the flights, being unable to fly
their preferred trajectory. It is not uncommon for flights to receive delays on ground, or receive below
optimum altitudes, speed adjustments and reroutes while airborne. The improved efficiency in the airspace
also helps increase the predictability of the flight from an Air Traffic Management perspective and
deters Pilots from carrying extra route reserve fuel.

Working with ICAO and Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP's), it is always possible to pragmatically
share the efficiencies of airspace improvements benefits to the ''equippers'' without excluding from the
service volume, those who decide not to equip.

12.3 At the Airport

The airport sits in the middle of the ATM system and has the potential to contribute significantly to reducing
delays and CO2 emissions. In searching for fuel burn and emissions savings it is critical to analyze the use of
an airport's assets such as stands, taxiways and tugs to ensure a balance between operational and
environmental needs. Technology offers the opportunity to progress the continuous improvement of ATC
procedures and the introduction of computer tools such as Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) Flight
Schedule Monitor (USA), which brings together and shares all airport data into one place. The use of CDM
techniques and exchanges changes the way airports operate and deliver fuel and emissions savings at the
airports and also in the departure, cruise and arrival phases of the flight. By acting collaboratively, airline,
Airport and ATC stakeholders can seek to hold aircraft on the ground rather than in the air, where delay and
inefficiency leads to higher fuel burn penalties.

211
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

12.4 At the Gate

Aircraft standing on the apron or at a gate before departure need power for a range of functions, including air
conditioning in the cabin, electrical power to aircraft systems etc. An aircraft at the gate can be powered by
one of four sources: a gate receptacle, a ground power unit (GPU), an aircraft auxiliary power unit (APU), or
the aircraft’s main engine. Using an Airbus A320 as an example, the relative ground run costs are:

Power From Operating Cost per Minute

Gate Receptacle US$ 0.15
Ground Power Unit US$ 0.50
Auxiliary Power Unit US$ 2.00
Aircraft Engine US$ 10.00
Table 106: GPU, APU and Aircraft Engine Operating Costs
In the sample airline estimated that by delaying APU start by an average of just one minute per flight and
with jet-fuel cost at US$ 2.51 per gallon, not only would it reduce its environmental impact by 1,780 metric
tons on CO2, but also would save US$ 465,000 per year.

It is important for Controllers to notify Aircraft Operators as soon as possible if there is likely to be a delay in
start or push back. This will allow for the most efficient power source, the ground power unit to be used for as
long as possible before starting the aircraft APU. If delays are anticipated, the sooner the pilot is aware of the
situation, the more proactive they can be in planning GPU versus APU power. This will reduce both
environmental impact and APU cost. However, it must be borne in mind that delays are a problem for
airlines, a 15 minute extra delay can cost the airline as much as US$10,000 in missed connections.

12.5 Taxiing and Departure

Taxi time has an environmental impact as well. The taxi fuel burn can vary from 800 kgs per hour for an
Airbus A320, to 2800 kgs per hour for a B747-400. Every delay, every extended routing, every stop-and-
start, impacts the environment and costs the airlines money. One minute less time spent taxiing on every
flight will reduce the taxi fuel burn by 13 kgs for the A320 and 47 kgs for a B747-440.

Engine out taxi, particularly at airports with long taxi distances and where significant delays are encountered,
reduces emissions and saves a large amount of fuel when aggregated across a fleet over a year. However,
the advantage is lost if the aircraft must stop and then spool up the active engine[s] to start rolling again. If a
taxi delay is anticipated, advising the pilot of the situation might encourage a gate hold or taxiing with one or
in some cases 2 engines shutdown. The problem is that often pilots are unaware departure line-ups and
delays. Controllers need to be aware that some airlines use the engine-out taxi procedure and that a
minimum amount of time is required to start the non-active engine along with engine warm up before
departure. Early notice of departure sequence, “your number 5 for departure” would help pilots plan delayed
engine starts and check list completion to arrive at the departure threshold ready for takeoff.

As a matter of good technique, the practice should be to try to keep aircraft moving on taxiways at all times
and priority should be given to aircraft over ground traffic.

Taxi times versus the selection of the departure runway are being analyzed as well. In fuel terms, every
minute of additional flight time, heading in the wrong direction after takeoff, equals from 3 to 7 minutes of taxi
time, depending on the number of operating engines. A B767, for example, could afford up to 12 minutes taxi
time on 2 engines to trade off a runway aimed the wrong way versus using a different runway that is more
aligned with its intended course after takeoff. Most airlines will taxi the extra distance to get a runway that is
even 90° closer to the departure flight path.

Again the good technique question should be “could an alternate runway be safely approved?”

212
 Role of Air Traffic Management in Improving Fuel Efficiency

Both takeoff and landing will be affected by the Operators’ energy management awareness. Aircraft will be
taking off with reduced thrust and lower flap settings, and may be requesting intersection takeoffs in order to
save taxi time. Where practical a rolling takeoff is also a more fuel-efficient option. Leaving the aircraft at the
threshold hold point rather than “line-up and hold” and clearing the aircraft into the runway for immediate
takeoff will allow the Pilot to keep the aircraft rolling and reduce fuel consumption.

12.6 Climb
Flight Operations in many terminal areas precipitate the majority of current airspace delays in many states.
Opportunities to optimize throughput, improve flexibility, enable fuel-efficient climb profiles, and increase
capacity at the most congested areas should be a high-priority initiative in the near-term.

The core capabilities that should be leveraged are RNAV; RNP where possible, and needed continuous
climb operations (CCO), increased efficiencies in terminal separation rules; effective airspace design and
classification; and Air Traffic flow

Operating at the optimum flight level is a key driver to improve flight fuel efficiency, minimizing atmospheric
emissions. A large proportion of fuel burn occurs in the climb phase and for a given route length, taking into
account aircraft mass and the meteorological conditions for the flight, there will be an optimum flight level,
which gradually increases as the fuel on-board is used up and aircraft mass therefore reduces. Enabling the
aircraft to reach and maintain its optimum flight level without interruption will therefore help to optimize flight
fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.

Airlines state that when departing on a heading away from the destination airport their climb speed will be
decided by the following:

 If departure control needs DISTANCE before a turn, the aircraft will complete the noise abatement
procedure and accelerate to optimum clean speed to 3000 ft AGL before turning to on-course
 If altitude is required before turning, the aircraft will maintain takeoff flap setting and minimum speed
(or max pitch) up to that altitude, trading speed for altitude. In other words, it will keep the takeoff flap
configuration to reach the altitude with minimum distance so that the turn to the on-course can be
initiated as soon as possible. At the lower speed, the rate of turn is high resulting in the distance
traveled away from the intended direction being reduced
 When cleared to turn to a normal climb-out heading the Pilot will use the maximum permissible bank
and minimum speed until within approximately 90° of the on course heading and will then commence
flap retraction and acceleration to normal climb speed.

At many airports, it is permissible to allow aircraft to accelerate to the optimum climb speed as soon as clear
of traffic. Most aircraft will be more efficient at climb speeds approaching 300 kt.

12.7 Cruise
An A340 flying 4,000 feet below its optimum cruise altitude will use 400 kg of extra fuel per hour and
increase CO2 emissions by 1,260 kg.

Every aircraft has an optimum altitude at which it can operate. The optimum altitude (refer to the Dispatch
section – Mission Management) is the altitude at which will result in minimum operating cost for a particular
mission.

This altitude is determined for each flight using a long list of very complex variables. The primary factors
considered are aircraft weight (which alters as the aircraft burns fuel), winds at the various altitudes, ambient
temperature and operating speed of the flight (Cost Index). Airlines provide pilots with additional flight plan
profiles, updated winds and temperature information during the flight to assist in the altitude profile
management process. A modern flight planning system will provide the Crew with the most cost effective
flight profile specific to a given mission.

213
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

When the flight segment is too short to climb to the optimum level, the most fuel-efficient flight profile is a
climb until intercepting the descent profile. However, for practical reasons, it is normal to plan a 3 to 5 minute
cruise portion to enable the Crew to intercept the correct FMS descent flight path for the STAR to the arrival
runway.

It is an unfortunate and often, an-unavoidable fact that the efforts made to maximize fuel efficiency in cruise
can very quickly be negated by the inability of Controllers to approve a request for an altitude change. It is
important for Controllers to maintain a constant awareness of the impact of assigned altitudes on fuel
efficiency and therefore wherever possible allocate the altitude requested by the pilot.

12.8 Speed Control and Heading Vectoring

Many airlines operate using a cost index methodology to determine the optimum cruising speed to conserve
fuel and minimize cost. When an operator requests a certain Mach number, it is likely that it has been
carefully calculated to achieve a specific environmental and economic outcome.

Dependent upon the aircraft type, the cost penalty of flying at 0.01 Mach high or low could be 10 cents per
mile. With cost index optimizing the speed, any necessary changes in the aircraft speed can be mitigated
though the en-route phase of flight. However, it is more difficult to offset these effects as the flight
approaches its destination.

Modern aircraft Flight Management Systems are able to calculate the effects of a proposed change quite
quickly. For example, many aircraft have a “Required Time of Arrival” [RTA] function and over an appropriate
route segment, the FMS can be programmed to ensure that an aircraft reaches a point with a high degree of
accuracy.

As a rule of operation, Controllers should cancel speed restrictions as soon as they are no longer required.

It is an inevitable part of ATC that within radar areas that aircraft will be vectored. Where there is a choice,
however, and provided the route segment is sufficiently long, pilots will generally prefer speed control rather
than vectoring. Another option (assuming there is sufficient time) is for Controllers and Pilots to consider the
alternatives available to achieve the more efficient routing and altitude. While a vector that adds just 8 miles
may appear insignificant, in cruise it amounts to a minute or US$ 120 a minute for the average aircraft daily.

If there is a message that comes in clear from all airlines, it is that VECTORING ALONE FOR SPACING
USES TOO MUCH FUEL. It is more efficient to decrease speed to achieve separation than to add distance
by vectoring at normal speed. Speed control, in combination with appropriate vectoring, is much more
efficient from a fuel consumption and environmental point of view. In fact, although there is a small penalty
for increasing speed, there is, in most cases, considerable saving in decreasing speed. A dialogue between
ATC and ATOs will achieve a mutually beneficial set of procedures for a destination in terms of the
environment and economics utilizing all available options.

Within the Terminal Control Areas, keeping the pilot informed is the key. Advising the pilot as soon as the
position and sequence are known assists them in adjusting the flight profile and improves situational
awareness while increasing the ability to monitor other traffic. A vital piece of information for pilots is the
distance remaining to touchdown. The sooner the pilot is advised, the better the chances of adjusting the
approach profile and minimizing fuel consumption.

12.9 Direct Routing

The benefits for using direct routing will usually translate to a decrease in fuel burn. However, direct routing
may not always be in an Operator’s best interest. In some cases, assigning a direct route can actually take
that aircraft into adverse weather conditions that will negate any track mile savings. It may also invalidate
already programmed arrival procedures. The use of direct routing has to be used in concert with the pilot and

214
 Role of Air Traffic Management in Improving Fuel Efficiency

it is a matter of good technique, (in particular where the direct routing is over a relatively long distance) to
offer the direct routing rather than simply clearing the aircraft. For example: an A320 on a direct route that
saves a distance of 10 miles per flight for 10 flights per day will result in: (A320 burns 2,500 kg per hour, at
10 flights x 10 times per day = 100 NM). At 400 Nautical miles per hour, this is equal to ¼ of an hour or
2,500 kg / 4 = 625kg x 365 day = 228,125 kg less fuel burned, at a cost of US$ 0.50 per kg this is a reduction
of US$ 114,062 fuel cost per year or a reduction of almost 720 metric tons of CO2 per year.

12.10 Descent
A properly planned and executed descent provides the greatest opportunity to save fuel. The ideal profile is
an unrestricted descent from cruise altitude top of decent point (TOD) without using engine thrust or drag
devices until on final approach.

On many aircraft the start-down points are pre-calculated by the FMS with the following factors taken into
consideration:

 Descent wind profile

 Airport altitude
 Air miles to go (including anticipated vectors)
 The planned runway
 Landing weight.

If a descent is interrupted and the aircraft forced to level off at an intermediate altitude, unless assigned a
hard speed, most pilots will tend to slow down as much as possible while level and then trade surplus height
to regain descent speed and profile unless a specific speed has been assigned.

Continuous Descent is one of several tools available to aircraft operators and ANSPs to benefit from existing
aircraft capabilities and reduce noise, fuel burn and the emission of greenhouse gases. Over the years,
different route models have been developed to facilitate CDO and several attempts have been made to strike
a balance between the ideal of environmentally friendly procedures and the requirements of a specific airport
or airspace.

Future developments in this field are expected to allow different means of realizing the performance potential
of CDO without compromising the optimal Airport Arrival Rate (AAR).

CDO is enabled by airspace design, procedure design and facilitation by ATC, in which an arriving aircraft
descends continuously, to the greatest possible extent, by employing minimum engine thrust, ideally in a low
drag configuration, prior to the final approach fix/final approach point (FAF/FAP). An optimum CDO starts
from the top-of-descent (TOD) and uses descent profiles that reduce controller-pilot communications and
segments of level flight. Furthermore it provides for a reduction in noise, fuel burn and emissions, while
increasing flight stability and the predictability of flight path to both controllers and pilots.

A significant increase in fuel burn results when descent is commenced either too early or too late. The
penalties are greatest where descent is initiated too late. In cases where descent is started just ten miles
early will result in a penalty of over 200 kg of fuel on a B747.

12.11 Holding
Holding, although expensive, is an essential ATC tool to maximize the use of runways and is therefore
inevitable. To help to reduce the fuel cost and the environmental impact ATC should consider the following:

 When a pilot is advised that a hold is expected, most will wish to slow down to absorb as much time
en-route as possible. Some pilots refer to this procedure as a "linear hold". ATC should ensure that the
pilot is advised of the approximate length of the hold and the sequence of the aircraft in the holding.

215
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Most pilots will want to remain at altitude as long as possible. Holding at lower altitudes burns more
fuel.
 If holding is anticipated, attempt to provide the Pilot with a realistic holding time.

12.12 Approach and Landing

The most fuel-efficient aircraft in the approach and landing phase is the NASA space shuttle. It uses no fuel
but rather a carefully calculated system of energy management, which results in the elimination of potential
and kinetic energy simultaneously.

While aircraft do not operate in the space shuttle sterile environment, when the same principles are applied
to landing aircraft, the result is a dramatic decrease in fuel consumption and emissions.

To achieve maximum efficiency, Pilots will favor procedures that:

 Use runways which reduce flying time

 Use speed adjustment rather than flying extra miles
 Keeps the aircraft “clean” as long as possible to reduce drag
 Fly visual approaches whenever possible
 Carry out reduced flap landings whenever possible.

Controllers should be aware that “idle reverse thrust” (positioning the thrust levers at the idle reverse position
during landing) is more fuel efficient than selecting “full reverse thrust”. This procedure is being
recommended for use by airlines whenever operationally feasible. Modern aircraft when using auto brakes
can stop at the same point on the runway regardless of the level of reverse thrust used. Auto braking gives a
selected rate of deceleration, which under normal conditions will slow the aircraft at the needed or desired
rate. Except in slippery conditions, where the anti-skid system might release braking pressure to prevent
wheel locks, the stopping point should be the same as an aircraft using both full reverse thrust and braking.
Advising the pilot of runway conditions and the spacing of aircraft on final will help pilots plan the landing roll
to minimize the use of reverse thrust and to clear the runway safely and efficiently.

ATC should work with the local airport operators and the user community at large and review runway and
taxiway geometry for optimum departure and arrival capability. An example is shown in the picture below of
the South Runway complex at LTBA. In this case landing in either direction a modern aircraft using low noise
low drag approach procedures with minimum flap setting and idle reverse are unable to make the high speed
turnoffs (except with very strong headwinds). Knowledgeable pilots will moderate their landing techniques to
compensate for the trade off in additional taxi time verses fuel saving on the landing techniques. This
compromise results in additional loss of efficiency. The ideal solution would be to develop the business case
for construction of additional high speed and supporting taxiway construction to accommodate the new
landing techniques.

There is also a need to support departure operations. ATC, Airport Operators and User Communities should
review and develop business cases for the provision of parallel taxiways leading into departure runway
thresholds. These parallel taxiways allow for separation of departing traffic based on departure fix and assist
with separating CTOT flights from unrestricted fights with the aim of always having an aircraft available to fill
and available takeoff slot.

ATC should also take the lead in implementing datalink pre-departure clearances and datalink taxi
instructions. All these techniques reduce frequency congestion and reduce fuel consumption and emissions
by ensuring that all ground movement operations can be conducted in near optimal execution conditions.

This example is not to single out LTBA but to underscore how the operational needs are changing and how
the airport infrastructure needs to evolve over time to support efficient ATC operations and reduce fuel

216
 Role of Air Traffic Management in Improving Fuel Efficiency

consumption and emissions. A review of most airports with expanding traffic will show that there are many
opportunities for improvement in the infrastructure to improve operations.

High speeds are frequently missed by acft using

reduced flap & idle reverse
Blue sections indicate more appropriate location
to fit current needs

Figure 81: LTBA South Runway Complex

12.13 What Can Air Navigation Service Providers do?

 Review and actualize airspace concept, SID and STAR design to utilize modern aircraft's capability
rather than the lowest common denominator or ground based navigation infrastructure approach,
using PBN
 Establish a regular interface between the ANSP and ATOs
 Create more efficient coordination mechanisms between ATS units (LOAs)
 Appoint and empower an Environment and Fuel Champion
 Introduce performance metrics and indicators for Environment Key Performance Area
 Introduce environment and fuel conservation training for Air Traffic Controllers
 Require Air Traffic Controllers to undertake Familiarization Flights on a regular basis
 Agree to a system of structured familiarization visits for Pilots to Air Traffic Control Centers and Control
Towers as part of their regular competency checks.

217
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

12.14 What Can Air Traffic Controllers Do?

Whenever safety permits ATC should:

 Inform Pilots or Operators of any delay to push back as soon as practicable

 Endeavor to keep aircraft on taxiways moving at all times and where there is a choice between an
aircraft and a vehicle, have the vehicle wait
 Accommodate aircraft taxiing with some engines shut down
 Approve alternate runways when practicable
 Provide clearances in time to accommodate rolling takeoffs
 Approve takeoff in the direction of flight
 Cancel the SIDs as soon as feasible
 Cancel speed restrictions as soon as practicable
 Have available the latest meteorological information for their sector to assist Pilots in assessing
appropriate level and speed
 Be aware of the impact of assigned levels on fuel efficiency
 Offer direct routing rather than just clearing a Pilot on a direct route
 Try to approve optimum altitudes
 Co-ordinate and issue descent clearance timely and at Pilot’s discretion
 If a hold is anticipated advise the Pilot as soon as possible
 When holding is anticipated, Pilots will normally prefer to slow down to absorb as much of the delay
while en-route prior to entering the holding pattern
 Use speed control rather than heading vectors where possible, otherwise use a combination of the two
 Be aware of “idle reverse thrust” and auto braking and their effect on the length of runway used.

218
13 IMPLEMENTATION OF FUEL EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT
INITIATIVES
13.1 Fuel as a Corporate Initiative
In recent years, growing financial competition and increasing environmental consciousness have led most
airlines to develop some type of fuel saving initiative in their operation. Initially, airlines only focused their fuel
conservation initiatives on Flight Operations, and as a result, missed opportunities to save fuel and reduce
emissions in other areas.

Even those airlines that considered initiatives outside of flight operations often maintained their fuel group
within the Flight Operations department. Consequently, these fuel programs were often limited in scope and
less effective than they could have been with a more comprehensive and systematic approach.

Fuel is usually the airline’s biggest expense and, as such, requires everyone’s attention to use fuel
efficiently. Where airlines have emphasized fuel efficiency with their workforce, fuel-saving initiatives have
been instituted in many departments throughout the airline. However, such actions often occur as
departmental initiatives, and not as part of an overall corporate effort. While commendable, a decentralized
approach often leads to sub-optimizing the overall corporate fuel initiative. In some instances, optimizing the
efficiency of a departmental fuel initiative may compromise the overall fuel efficiency of the airline.

Implementing a Fuel Efficiency / Emissions Reduction program as a corporate-wide, cross-functional

initiative is the most effective way to oversee and manage the program. Upfront cross-functional coordination
sanctioned by corporate leadership helps to eliminate errors and speeds the process of implementation.
Administrative overhead is reduced, the implementation process is more controlled and creativity and
innovation are enhanced.

A corporate initiative is easier to align with corporate objectives and gain executive support and visibility.
The corporate fuel team should be comprised of representatives from all areas of the company that can
contribute to fuel savings and be led by a corporate Fuel Efficiency Manager that is knowledgeable, credible
and capable.

The Fuel Efficiency Manager must have access to the executive leaders and the executive leaders must
provide support to the fuel team. All fuel efficiency projects should be managed and coordinated through the
corporate fuel team to ensure affected departments are working together effectively in support of corporate
objectives.

13.2 Fuel Efficiency Implementation Policy

An airline must organize its Fuel Efficiency Implementation Policy around the process of using fuel and not
just the tasks that are fuel related. The Fuel Efficiency Manager and the Fuel Team must understand and
take charge of the process of using fuel and manage their fuel program from that perspective.

Addressing the Fuel Efficiency program in this manner helps prevent a silo-based (sub-optimum) approach.

Fuel Efficiency / Emissions Reduction Initiatives require a systematic approach to implementation and
Management of Change, requiring:
 Executive Commitment
 A corporate Fuel Efficiency Manager
 A company-wide, cross-functional initiative
 Use of proven methods and tools
 Leveraging / Communicating success
 Measuring the improvements / Fuel Metric System
 Sustainment and Control of the improvements

219
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

13.3 Continuous Improvement Program

Fuel saving initiatives should be part of a continuous improvement program for every airline. A large portion
of the industry is already working towards fuel conservation and fuel efficiency through their quality
monitoring systems. Fuel conservation should not be a one-time task. Rather, it must be a continuous
ongoing initiative that is constantly monitored to ensure the continued success.

13.3.1 The DMAIC Process

IATA suggests using the DAMAIC process to facilitate fuel efficiency improvement. DMAIC can help to
define problems, and ensure that the improvement goals are consistent with the perceived need and
enterprise strategy.

Figure 82: The DMAIC Process

In using the DMAIC process, objectives have to be defined, along with appropriate measurements, so that
progress (or the lack thereof) can be measured, analyzed and improved as necessary. As with any
continuous improvement effort, the DMAIC process needs to be carefully controlled.
 

13.4 IATA Documentation

For details on implementation of fuel efficiency improvement initiatives please refer to the “IATA Fuel
Program Implementation Guidance Material” available from the IATA on-line store:

https://www.iataonline.com/Store/Products/Product+Detail.htm?cs_id=9795%2D01&cs_catalog=Publications

220
14 IATA ENHANCED OPERATIONAL SUPPORT: COLLABORATION FOR
REAL RESULTS
14.1 IATA’s Fuel Program

14.1.1 The Significance of Fuel

Fuel is a critical element in any airline’s cost structure, accounting for up to a third of total operating costs
(and more for cargo, charter and low cost airlines). It is also the most volatile expense, with the price of Jet
A1 quadrupling in price over the five years between April 2003 and April 2008, when it peaked at almost
USD 4 per US gallon. Though prices subsequently declined, the political changes in the Middle East and
North Africa and the current global economic climate have steadily pushed priced upwards since early 2009.

As well as its importance and volatility, fuel remains one of the most difficult areas of expense to reduce;
indeed, between 2005 and 2010, fuel was the only significant cost that has consistently increased.

14.1.2 Fuel Hedging and Efficiency

The practice of fuel hedging has gone some way to reducing the risks associated with fuel price volatility and
providing airlines with a degree of planning and financial certainty, but reducing the quantity of fuel burned in
a way that does not compromise the safety and security of operations remains the single greatest
controllable measure an airline can deploy to reduce its expenditure.

Fuel efficiency measures broadly fall into two categories: optimal operational processes and procedures; and
reducing the weight of aircraft. In both cases, burning less fuel not only improves the bottom line of an
airline’s finances, but directly benefits the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby
enabling responsible airlines to reduce their carbon footprint.

14.1.3 The IATA Green Teams

In 2005, the Board of Governors established the concept of the ‘Green Team,’ tasked with identifying and
developing comprehensive and practical measures whereby airlines could improve the performance of their
aircraft and operations on the ground and in the air, thus optimizing fuel efficiency and reducing CO2
emissions.

14.1.4 IATA Fuel Program Objectives

This initiative has since evolved into the world’s leading fuel conservation program and remains true to its
five original objectives:

 Optimize airline operations, procedures and quality assurance controls

 Help airlines take advantage of industry best practice
 Identify excessive costs resulting from inefficient working practices in Flight Operations, Flight Planning
and Dispatch, Maintenance and Engineering, Ground Operations and Commercial
 Provide detailed recommendations to address operational issues in the above mentioned areas of
activity
 Collaborate with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and other suppliers to identify
technological initiatives to promote fuel conservation

14.1.5 IATA’s Fuel Program

Since 2005, IATA has assisted over 100 member and non-member airlines with fuel conservation, identifying
over US$ 9 billion in fuel savings on a combined budget of above US$ 40 billion and achieving a reduction of
over 30 million tons in emissions.

221
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

14.1.6 Practical support

IATA offers airlines practical support in three main areas:

 fuel efficiency consulting

 fuel efficiency and conservation training; workshops and
 remote support (extranet and webinars)

14.2 Fuel Efficiency Consulting

14.2.1 Scope
Whilst IATA is able to assist airlines in any aspect of their fuel program, the scope of assignments typically
includes: flight operations, flight dispatch and planning; maintenance and engineering; ground operations;
commercial; and other relevant areas.

14.2.2 Methodology
IATA offers a tried and tested methodology, built around an unrivalled research and development program
that has established and continues to refine best practice. IATA Consulting uses only the finest expertise in
aviation and will typically deploy between three and six carefully selected specialists, dependent upon the
nature of the assignment. A fully integrated program will involve three phases:

a. Assessment Phase
An IATA assessment typically lasts between three and five days, is designed to establish an airline’s fuel
efficiency relative to industry best practice and will result in a comprehensive report that:

 sets out and quantifies areas where potential for fuel efficiency improvement exists;
 identifies barriers to the achievement of potential efficiencies;
 recommends changes to policies, processes and procedures;
 documents a detailed and prioritized action plan; and
 establishes specific targets, objectives and owners of deliverables.

The report is presented in PowerPoint format to nominated members of the airline’s management team.

b. Launch Phase
The Launch Phase usually begins immediately after the completion of the Assessment Phase and typically
lasts for ten days. Its purpose is to put in place the program infrastructure for the Implementation Phase and:

 prioritizes identified cost saving opportunities;

 develops a detailed implementation program plan;
 establishes an in-house implementation team and program manager; and
 facilitates knowledge transfer to designated individuals.

c. Implementation Phase
During the Implementation Phase, IATA provides specialist support to successfully deliver the program in the
target areas identified, a process that normally takes up to three months. The key purpose of this phase is to:

 provide expertise and focused support to address specific issues;

 establish revised operating procedures and policies; and
 monitor and review progress on a regular basis through regular reports.

222
 IATA Enhanced Operational Support: Collaboration for Real Results

Figure 83: IATA fuel efficiency methodology

14.2.3 Benefits
IATA leads the industry in the field of fuel consulting through its extensive research and development
program and the learning that is acquired with every assignment. IATA has a proven track record of success;
with savings ranging between 2% and 15% for integrated programs and a typical saving of 5.9%. Viewed in
a context where fuel accounts for 33% of the total, this represents an opportunity to reduce total operating
costs by an average of 2%.

For more information, or for an assessment of potential savings without obligation, please contact
[email protected] or visit http://www.iata.org/ps/consulting/Pages/fuel-consulting.aspx.

14.3 Fuel Efficiency and Conservation Training

IATA offers a three day on-site course, delivered through the IATA Training and Development Institute
(ITDI). This training program focuses on fuel management and the optimization of operational costs.

14.3.1 Background
This course is conducted by international experts who have participated in the development of the current
IATA Guidance Manual and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management, and who have been
actively involved in IATA’s consulting engagements.

14.3.2 Course objectives

The course has three principal objectives. These are to:

 identify fuel saving opportunities for the airline (typically 3-6%);

 improve operational efficiency and minimize overall operational costs; and
 reduce environmental impact from airport and aircraft operations.

14.3.3 Skills development

By the end of the course, participants will have acquired, the theory and practical knowledge required to:

 increase fuel efficiency while improving safety;

 improve on-time performance while reducing costs;
 use cost index optimization;
 perform a ‘fuel efficiency audit’ of their own organization;
 identify areas whereby waste can be eliminated;
 identify opportunities and implement fuel efficiency actions;
 develop a Fuel Management Information System (FMIS) to track progress;
 understand the link between fuel conservation and the environment; and

223
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 build an environmental profile of their operation.

14.3.4 Participation
For more information or to participate in this course, please visit http://www.iata.org/training

14.4 IATA Fuel Efficiency & Implementation Regional Workshops

14.4.1 Objective
The IATA Fuel Efficiency Implementation regional workshops are two-day practical sessions where the
airline participants exchange their experience in various fuel efficiency topics and get concrete input from the
IATA experts to develop, monitor and measure the outcome towards a defined fuel efficiency implementation
target.

14.4.1 Targeted Audience

 Airline Fuel Managers
 Operation Cost Control Managers
 Department representatives in Flight Operations, Flight Dispatch, Maintenance and Engineering,
Commercial and Ground Operations
 Managers and Specialists dealing with fuel efficiency improvement initiatives
 Environment and Government Affairs airline representatives
 IATA Strategic Partners

14.4.2 Benefits
 Improve your understanding of fuel efficiency improvement / emission reduction initiatives in the areas
of Flight Operations, Flight Dispatch, Maintenance and Engineering, Commercial and Ground
Handling, using the industry’s best practices in fuel management.
 Become familiar with methodology used to identify potential savings and how this can be used for
tracking results for implemented initiatives.
 Learn the process and methodology used to set priorities to implement initiatives and how to prepare
implementation plan including identifying required data and tracking achieved results.
 Learn from the successful experience of the IATA Green Teams.
 Apply these techniques in your own business and operational decisions.
 Exchange experience, ideas, results and challenges with other senior airline participants.

If you want to receive information about the next scheduled workshop in your region please contact
[email protected]

14.5 IATA Remote Support

14.5.1 Objective
IATA provides remote support to the airlines that prefer this personalized channel. E-mail exchange,
conference calls and technical support is provided depending on the airline specific needs. Webinar sessions
are scheduled on a regular basis and airlines can login, participate in a presentation and post their inquiries
online to be responded by the IATA Green Team.

14.5.2 Fuel Efficiency Webinars

The IATA Fuel Efficiency Webinars as part of the IATA Green Team remote support are interactive online
sessions supported live by IATA subject matter experts that present fuel efficiency industry hot topics in the
areas of Flight Operations, Flight Dispatch, Maintenance and Engineering, Commercial and Ground
Operations as well as in other current interest subjects like EU-ETS and alternative fuels.

224
 IATA Enhanced Operational Support: Collaboration for Real Results

14.5.3 Benefits
 Improve your understanding on fuel efficiency hot topics and their impact on the airline fuel
management and cost control plans.
 Using interactive chat tools and conference call facilities to share experiences and best practices with
other senior airline representatives and IATA subject matter experts.
 Learn the process and methodology used to tackle main fuel efficiency issues within the airline and
generate concrete savings.
 Learn from the successful experience of the IATA Green Teams.
 Apply this knowledge in your own business and operational decisions.

If you would like to participate in one of the upcoming webinars, or would like to register for the IATA extranet
website, please email [email protected].

14.6 The IATA Fuel Quality Pool (IFQP)

14.6.1 Objective
The IATA Fuel Quality Pool is currently developing industry-wide quality and safety requirements for jet fuel
handling. The IATA team performs the following services for the Pool:

 Monitoring the audit schedule

 Planning and management of training
 Accreditation of Inspectors
 Maintenance of the website (which provides audit results)
 Organization and representation on-site events
 Overall management (Administration and Finance)
 Participate in IFQP missions

14.6.2 Improving Safety and Quality Control

A number of airlines have established an audit pool to share results, thus avoiding multiple audits by the
same provider at the same location. The management of such a pool, including training and certification of
auditors, annual allocation of stations, collection and consolidation of audit results, update of the pooling
website and preparation of the auditing schedule, requires a professional organization and established
procedures.

The IFQP program not only greatly reduces workload and costs by up to 85% for participating airlines, but
also reduces costs for handling companies and fuel suppliers worldwide. The purpose of the Pool is to
improve safety and enhance quality control standards of fueling facilities at airports, while reducing the
overall cost associated with such requirements.

14.6.3 Common Objectives

The Pool uses the highest quality industry standards available, which are fully in line with the latest version
of the Joint Inspection Group (JIG) guidelines, and has developed a comprehensive set of procedures and
checklists for conducting airfield inspections and audits. Although ensuring the safety of aircraft operations is
the primary objective of the IFQP program, participating airlines also derive important financial benefits in
terms of drastically reduced airport inspection workloads and associated costs, while ensuring full
compliance with regulatory requirements concerning airlines’ provision of quality control and management
oversight of airport fueling services (EU-OPS 1 and FAR 121.373).

The IFQP programs are well regarded by handling companies and suppliers as they drastically reduce
repetitive audits at many airports. These programs also improve the quality of inspections as accredited

225
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

IFQP inspectors; trained in accordance with stringent evaluation criteria established by the Pool, carry out
fewer but more effective audits.

Moving forward, the comprehensive training of inspectors and the development of standardized inspection
procedures will ensure improved air quality, operational safety, and quality of service.

For more information, please visit www.iata.org/ifqp

14.7 IATA De-Icing / Anti-Icing Quality Control Pool (DAQCP)

14.7.1 Objective
The main goal of the DAQCP is to ensure the safety guidelines, quality control recommendations and
standards of the De-icing/Anti-icing procedures at all airports are followed.

The DAQCP is well regarded by the Handling companies and work closely together to achieve the airline
regulators’ requirements. A number of airlines established an audit pool to share the audit results - thus
avoiding multiple audits of the same provider at the same location, while improving the quality of inspections
as fewer and more effective audits are carried out by accredited DAQCP inspectors in accordance with
stringent evaluation criteria established by the Pool. The stations are assigned each year by the Pool and
are based on the airports served by airline DAQCP members.

14.7.2 Improving Efficiency and Cost Control

The Pool has developed its own set of procedures and checklists for conducting airfield inspections and
audits. Although the primary objective of the DAQCP is to ensure the safety of aircraft operations,
participating airlines derive important financial benefits in terms of drastically reduced airport inspection
workloads and associated costs.

14.7.3 Benefits
The De-Icing/Anti-Icing Quality Control Pool known as DAQCP currently consists of about 100 member
airlines and provides de-icing/anti-icing services and post de-icing/anti-icing checks during the winter season
at about 600 companies at more than 240 airports. The DAQCP also offers a passive membership to
operators that do not have an audit organization or the experience in winter operations.

The quality control is based on the AEA Recommendations for De-icing/Anti-icing of aeroplane on the
ground and the JAR-OPS 1, EU-OPS 1. The audits are accomplished in annual intervals during the winter
season between October and April and are based on checklists developed by the steering committee.
Checklists are updated yearly after consideration of the latest developments in de-icing/anti-icing techniques
and are in line with the AEA-Recommendations. Audit reports as well as the audit related communication are
exchanged within the DAQCP by electronic mails within a required timeframe as defined in the pool
agreement. Safety related findings are reported to all members immediately with Alert-letters if applicable.

The DAQCP audits comprise the following subjects:

 Compliance of Procedures and Documentation with acceptable standards

 Training and Qualification of personnel
 De-icing/Anti-icing Facilities
 De-icing/Anti-icing Equipment
 Integrity of sprayed De-icing/Anti-icing Fluids

For additional information on membership, fees and training, please contact: DAQCP Administration: daqcp-
[email protected]

226
 IATA Enhanced Operational Support: Collaboration for Real Results

14.8 The IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO) and IATA Ground
Operations Manual (IGOM)

14.8.1 Objective
Improved Ground Operations are not only critical in terms of safety, but also contribute to reducing expenses
for both airlines and ground service providers. The implementation of the IATA Safety Audit for Ground
Operations (ISAGO) aims to drastically reduce accidents and injuries on ground.

ISAGO is modeled on IATA Operational Safety Audit program (IOSA), an audit system conducted in a
standardized and consistent manner, using internationally recognized quality auditing principles.

Supporting the ISAGO audit process, IATA, in partnership with industry experts, is developing the IATA
Ground Operations Manual (IGOM). This manual will be the essential, core instruction based manual which
provides ramp staff with the default operations required to safely and efficiently handle aircraft on the ground.

14.8.2 Program Principle

ISAGO is the global audit program for ground handling companies serving airlines at airports. The audit is
built on a backbone of audit standards and ground operations instructions applicable to all ground handling
companies worldwide, coupled with specific standards tailored to the activities of any ground handler. As a
result, the ISAGO audit combined with IGOM can be applied consistently to multinational ground handlers,
as well as to smaller companies providing services at a single station.

Audits are conducted at both corporate and station level of a ground handling company every two years,
using airline audit resources working in a pool managed by IATA. As with IOSA, there is a formal process
and defined timelines for closing findings and registration.

14.8.3 ISAGO Goals and Benefits

ISAGO, together with IGOM, aims to improve operational safety in the airport ground operations environment
in terms of fewer injuries to personnel, reduced damage to aircraft and equipment, and to improve audit
efficiency by reducing the number of redundant audits. Airlines, ground handlers, regulatory and airport
authorities all benefit from the program.
14.8.3.1 For Airlines:
 Reduction in number of audits
 Lower risk of ground damage
 Cost savings
 More efficient processes
 Improved quality standards
 Better understanding of high risk areas within ground operations
 Reduced GOM production and distribution costs
14.8.3.2 For Ground Services Providers:
 Reduction of incidents and accidents
 Fewer injuries to personnel
 Reduction of redundant audits from customer airlines
 Opportunity to refocus resources on operations
 Standardized ground operations instructions
 Improvement of operational safety capability
 Enhanced company image and reputation
14.8.3.3 For Regulatory and Airport Authorities:
 Enhanced regulatory safety oversight

227
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

 Uniform audit process and harmonized standards

 Improvement of oversight by airport authorities

14.8.4 The ISAGO Audit Pool

A number of IATA Member airlines have formed a pool to commit auditors to carry out ISAGO audits with the
intention that Pool Members may share audit reports, thereby saving themselves the cost and effort of
conducting their own audits at all of their stations.

Pool Members sign up to a Multilateral Agreement that describes the responsibilities of Pool Members and of
IATA.

14.8.5 Joining ISAGO

All IATA Member airlines can participate in the ISAGO program. For more information, please contact
[email protected] or visit www.iata.org/isago

The IGOM development Task Force has involved experts from Airlines, Ground Service Providers,
Manufacturers and Regulators. The first edition of IGOM is scheduled for release in Q2 2012.

14.9 IATA Technical Fuel Group (TFG)

14.9.1 Objective
The IATA Technical Fuel team from the Operations Department, along with the Commercial Fuel team from
Industry Charges, Fuel and Taxation, work closely together to build the most informative program possible
for the Aviation Fuel Forum, the industry’s premier fuel event. The team collaborates with the IATA
Environmental Committee.

Through the Technical Fuel Group (TFG) and the IATA Fuel Quality Pool (IFQP) www.iata.org/ifqp, IATA
coordinates with industry suppliers and service providers to ensure a reliable supply of safe and quality jet
fuel.

From the refinery process through the delivery of fuel into-plane, IATA establishes and publishes industry-
recognized standards, best practices and procedures.

The IATA Technical Fuel Services and Alternative Fuel Project team is comprised of experts with aviation
industry backgrounds, specifically in the areas of fuel specifications, fuel quality standards, refueling
procedures, supply-chain quality, aircraft fuel system design, fuel system maintenance and also manages
the audit quality pools.

The team also provides expertise in the production of traditional and alternative jet fuels, in the future
availability of fuel, in the associated consequences for aircraft operators and engine design.

14.9.2 Benefits for Members

 To work with industry suppliers and service providers to ensure on specification fuel is supplied at all
airports.
 To investigate all fuel-related incidents, accidents, spills and make recommendations to enhance the
safety of the fuelling operation.
 To work with international and national standard setting bodies to pursue harmonization efforts in view
of achieving one global standard for jet fuel specifications, its proper and safe handling and quality
control.
 To encourage the participation of airlines in the IATA Fuel Quality Pool to achieve economic benefits,
meet safety and technical objectives and comply with regulatory requirements.

228
 IATA Enhanced Operational Support: Collaboration for Real Results

 To improve and standardize aircraft fuel handling procedures, thus enhancing safety and
environmental practices.
 To support all industry effort to achieve IATA fuel efficiency and emission goals.
 To investigate the potential offered by alternative fuels.
 To ensure effective working relationships are developed and maintained with other groups, both within
and external to IATA, particularly relationships with the supplier community and the Commercial Fuel
Working Group.
 To develop work programs and reports to IATA
 To manage achievements.
 With the Commercial Fuel Working Group, the TFG plans and organizes the bi-annual Aviation Fuel
Forum to ensure full airline participation.

For more information please visit www.iata.org/workgroups/tfg.htm

14.10 The IATA Alternative Fuel Program

14.10.1 Objectives
The IATA Alternative Fuel Program is driven by three primary objectives:

a. Continuity – build a long-term sustainable aviation industry;

b. Climate – deliver on industry-stated environmental goals;
c. Cost – pursue affordable biojet solutions.

This program is a cooperative effort supported primarily by the IATA Technical Fuel Group, the Commercial
Fuel Working Group and the Environment Department at IATA. This program produces an annual report on
alternative fuels – now in its sixth edition – that describes certification of new fuels, sustainability, biofuel
economics, company profiles and more, that has been cited in high-profile reports by the UNFCCC and
others. These reports are available for free download at www.iata.org/alternative-fuels.

IATA plays role of facilitator, enabling airlines to communicate directly with biofuel producers through IATA’s
online biofuel producers’ directory (www.iata.org/biofuel-directory) and the IATA Aviation Fuel Forum. The
directory lists producer information such as feedstock type, production technology, production capacity, and
is searchable by region. The Fuel Forum is a bi-annual meeting of commercial and technical aviation fuel
experts from across the airline and petroleum industries. An IATA working group consisting of fifteen airline,
petroleum and biofuel industry representatives will release in early 2012 a Guidance Material on Biojet Fuel
Management. This document covers a step-by-step approach for airlines adopting biojet fuel, including
sections on certification, sustainability regulations, handling, and commercial aspects such as insurance and
purchase contracts.

In order to ensure airlines have the necessary knowledge to embark on a biojet fuel program, the IATA
Training and Development Institute (ITDI) offers a two-day biojet workshop (www.iata.org/aviationbiofuels).
This workshop offers participants an introduction to biofuels that covers lifecycle emissions, production
technology, comparisons and contrasts with conventional jet fuel, sustainability regulations, emissions
trading and biofuel economics.

14.10.2 Benefits of the Initiative to the Industry

 Technical certification and sustainability of new fuels
 Ensuring biojet fuel can be dropped in to existing common fueling infrastructure
 Simple, harmonized biojet accounting and reporting procedures
 Best practices for biojet purchase and insurance
 Engaging governments to incentivize biojet production
 Bringing together stakeholders in biojet production and finance to identify suitable projects for funding

229
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

For more information please visit www.iata.org/alternative-fuels.

230
15 GLOSSARY
TERM MEANING
ACARS Automatic Computerized Aircraft Reporting System
AGL Above Ground Level, pertains to the height of the aircraft above the Earth’s surface.
AIREP Air Report, a formatted position report made by a Pilot en-route to convey position and
other in-flight information.
ALTN Abbreviation for Alternate (airport or aerodrome)
AMM Aircraft Maintenance Manual, document that details all maintenance procedures for an
aircraft.
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
AOM Aircraft Operating Manual
APM Aircraft Performance Monitoring, set of procedures and data used for the monitoring of
aircraft performance.
APU Auxiliary Power Unit. Small jet engine powered system carried by most aircraft today
to provide electrical and pneumatic power independent from the main aircraft engines
ARINC Aeronautical Radio Company Inc
ARINC 424 Industry specification for the digital exchange of aeronautical infrastructure data.
These data are used by flight planning systems and aircraft FMS to provide
information on airport and airspace structures and definitions, waypoints, fixes and air
routes.
ATC Air Traffic Control.
ATCSCC FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center. Unit responsible for managing flow
control across all US airspace.
ATO Air Transport Operator
ATS Air Traffic Service.
ATSP Air Traffic Service Provider
ATSP Air Traffic Control Service Provider, the agent or agency responsible for the provision
of air traffic control and management services.
Autoland Act of allowing aircraft to land based solely on the automatic flight computers
CDA Continuous Descent Approach
CDL Configuration Deviation List
CDM Collaborative Decision Making. Process started in the US where operators and the
ATSP collaborate to understand air transport system problems and work together on
resolution strategies.
CFM CFM engine company.
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit.
CFR US Department of Transportation Certification and Flight Rules, regulations that
govern all aspects of US air operations.
CTA Air Traffic Control Area
Derated Airline word meaning operating an engine at less than its Rated Thrust
EcoPower System developed by Pratt & Whitney for the core wash of turbine engines
ECS Environmental Control System, system that provides air conditioning and pressurized
air for the aircraft and its systems.
EFB Electronic Flight Bag. Laptop that carries flight manuals, performance data and other
information required to support flight Crews in pre-flight preparation and in-flight.
Advanced systems are able to integrate with flight data system onboard the aircraft.
EGT Exhaust Gas Temperature, basic means of measuring engine performance by
sampling the exhaust gas temperatures as they exit the combustion chamber(s).

231
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

TERM MEANING
EMM Engine Maintenance Manual, document that defines all maintenance requirements for
an aircraft engine.
EDTO Extended Diversion Time Operations
EUROCONTROL Centralized Air Traffic Service Provider for the core areas of Europe
EZFW Estimated Zero Fuel Weight. A fundamental aircraft weight for planning a flight. This is
the weight of the aircraft plus all the operating variables (CREW, catering, etc) minus
any usable fuel.
FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Control system, computer system that controls all aspects
of engine operation and performance.
FAF Final Approach Fix, position on an approach to an airport at which the aircraft begins
its transition from the en-route mode to the approach and landing mode.
FAK Fly Away Kit, essential spare parts carried in a kit aboard an aircraft to allow foe repair
and replacement in the field where spare parts are not readily available at destination
airport.
FAR Federal Air Regulations. The Regulations that govern air operations under the
jurisdiction of the United States of America
FCOM Flight Crew Operating Manual, manual that contains procedures for flight Crews in the
operation and management of their aircraft.
FEA Fuel En-route Alternate, part of JAR-OPS Contingency Fuel procedures.
FEGA IATA Fuel Efficiency Gap Analysis. Study of airline fuel usage and practices
conducted by the IATA Green-Teams
FIR Flight Information Region, division of an ATC en-route control region confined to the
lower section of the controlled airspace. Typically lies below a UIR.
FMCS Flight Management Computer System
FOB Fuel on board. Fuel total on the aircraft at any specific point in time
FOD Fuel over Destination
FOM Flight Operations Manual; a manual containing procedures for operation of aircraft.
GE General Electric Company.
GPU Ground Power Unit, ground based system that can provide parked aircraft with
electrical and in some cases air-conditioning services.
GRIB Gridded Binary Code. Developed by the World Meteorological Organization this code
is used for the dissemination of digital upper air forecasts. These forecasts provided,
amongst many other data, the wind direction & speed, pressure and temperature for
fixed forecast points across the Globe at a 1.25 Degree grid (thinner at the Poles).
Gridded As in a grid, used to describe the Lat Long grid for digital upper air weather forecasts.
GSE Ground Support Equipment, servicing vehicles and other equipment needed for the
servicing of an aircraft.
HF High Frequency radio system used for long-range radio voice and data
communications.
HPT High Pressure Turbine, section of the turbines in a jet engine that have the highest
gas temperatures and pressures.
IAE International Aero Engine Company.
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization. International organization with responsibility
for development and publication of international air operation Standards and
Recommended Practices.
IDG Integrated Drive Generator, geared drive from the engine on an aircraft that provides
drive to the engine generator.
IFQP The IATA Fuel Quality Pool (IFQP) is a group of airlines that actively share fuel
inspection reports and workload at locations worldwide.
IFR Instrument Flight Rules. Conduct of a flight operation that relies on flight and ground
based instruments to conduct the flight including flight in instrument Meteorological

232
 Glossary

TERM MEANING
Conditions (IMC)
ILS Instrument Landing System, system designed to provide Pilots with both azimuth and
vertical guidance to the landing threshold of a runway.
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions, actual instrument conditions encountered
during the conduct of a flight operation.
IROP Irregular Operation, various disruptions to the airline business plan (schedule) that
necessitates adjustment to the business plan (delay, reroute or cancellation). airlines
are always in a "low-level state" of irregular operations, the role of Operations Control
& Dispatch is to maintain and manage the "low level state" of operations and prevent
these disruptions from becoming "high level state" of disruption.
ITEL Illustrated Tool and Equipment List, document that details correct tool and application
for aircraft maintenance procedures.
JAA Joint Aviation Authorities, international body responsible for the development and
publication of airworthiness requirements and procedures for its member states.
JAR-OPS Regulations of the Joint Aviation Authorities
KIAS Knots Indicated Airspeed, primary measure of aircraft speed. Speed in Nautical Miles
per hour.
Kt Abbreviation for Nautical Mile Per Hour. Basic speed measure used in defining the
speed of an aircraft.
LIMC Low Instrument Meteorological Conditions usually used in connection with lower than
CAT One operations (CAT2, CAT3).
LLP Life Limited Parts, aircraft parts that have defined time limits for operational use, at the
end of the life cycle they must be replaced with new or refurbished parts.
LOPA Layout of Pertinent Areas (aircraft) document that details aircraft dimensions and
cabin configuration.
LRC Long Range Cruise. Obsolete method of managing cruise segment of flight designed
to give Pilots a relatively stable means of approximating best lift over drag speed (99%
VL/D).
MDA Minimum Descent Altitude, minimum altitude that an aircraft is allowed to descent to in
the conduct of a non-precision instrument approach, at this altitude if the runway
environment is not discernable by the Pilot a missed approach must be initiated.
MEC Main Engine Control, systems related to managing aircraft engines.
MEL Minimum Equipment List
MLS Micro Wave Landing System.
MMO Maximum Mach Operating Speed for an aircraft.
MoD Abbreviation for the UK Ministry of Defense
MPD Maintenance Planning Document, document that details aircraft maintenance planning
procedures and requirements.
MRB Maintenance Review Board: the body having responsibility for defining maintenance
procedures for aircraft airframe, engines or systems.
MRC Maximum Range Cruise, optimal lift over drag cruise for an aircraft - performance
setting that produces the maximum range for a given amount of fuel burn. LRC was
set at 99% MRC due to difficulty in older (analogue aircraft) of managing thrust setting
to maintain MRC.
MRO Maintenance Repair and Overhaul, functions related to aircraft repair and servicing.
MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight of an aircraft.
MVT Movement, IATA Standard Message Identifier for an aircraft movement message that
contains information about an aircraft operation at a given location.
NOTAM Notice to Airmen - distributed by Aeronautical Information Services organizations to
notify Pilots and other airspace users about status of aeronautical infrastructure.
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
OFP Operational Flight Plan, navigation and flight release document produced for Pilot use

233
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

TERM MEANING
in conduction a flight operation.
OGV Outer Guide Vane, fix section of jet engine compressor or turbine.
OTD On Time Departure, related to airline schedule performance.
OTP On Time Performance, measure of schedule reliability in airline performance.
Overflight Industry term applied to an aircraft flying "over" the airspace of a Country or State.
Usually associated with access fees for support of the airway, airport and ATC
infrastructure and services.
P&W Pratt and Whitney engine company.
Pitot Tube Instrument for measuring ram air pressure as a means to compute airspeed.
PRNAV Precision Area Navigation. Minimum set of requirements for navigation equipage,
Crew training and navigation performance required for a specific aircraft to enter and
operate within selected airspace.
RAD Route Advisory. Produced by CFMU (EUROCONTROL) to provide operators with
tactical route restriction information.
RCF Reduced Contingency Fuel, part of JAR-OPS Contingency Fuel procedures.
Reclear Act of changing the destination and routing for a flight while it is in the en-route phase
Redispatch Technique used as a means to reduce contingency fuel requirements by planning the
flight to a destination short of the intended destination, then re-clearing the flight in-
flight to its intended destination if available fuel at the Re-dispatch point permits.
Re-fueller Airline name applied to personnel responsible for fuelling aircraft
Replanning Act of updating and revising a flight plan or flight profile during the en-route phase of a
flight
RPL Repetitive Flight Plan
RR Rolls Royce Company.
RTA Required Time of Arrival, used in the context of managing the arrival of an aircraft to a
known position (runway or en-route waypoint) at a specific time (speed and altitude
are also a part of RTA).
RUC Rapid Update Cycle. Form of Gridded binary upper air forecast produced each 3
hours. Takes multiple observations of upper air data from sources like ACARS and
Profilers and integrates them with the Global GRIB data to produce higher resolution
forecast data than provided in the Global Grib forecasts.
SFC Specific Fuel Consumption, basic performance measure of an aircraft or an aircraft
engine relating to the range achieved for a given amount of fuel.
SID Standard Instrument Departure. A standard departure route developed to organize the
flow of aircraft from an airport to an en-route fix. Typically aligned to a specific
departure runway and may carry specific aircraft limitations or performance
requirements.
STAR Standard Terminal Arrival Route. A standard arrival route developed to organize the
flow of aircraft from an en-route fix into an airport. Typically aligned to a specific
departure runway and may carry specific aircraft limitations or performance
requirements.
Sumping Draining of a fuel tank to remove impurities such as water.
Tankering Transporting fuel in the aircraft tanks from one location to another for economic or
supply reasons
TCA Terminal Control Area. The ATC airspace surrounding a major airport. See TMA
TDMC Time Dependent Maintenance Cost, those costs attributed only to actually flying the
aircraft as opposed to maintenance cost associated with ownership or cycle costs.
TFG Through the IATA Technical Fuel Group (TFG) and the IATA Fuel Quality Pool (IFQP),
IATA coordinates with industry suppliers and service providers to ensure a reliable
supply of safe and quality jet fuel.
TLA Throttle Lever Angle, setting related to thrust setting on an aircraft.

234
 Glossary

TERM MEANING
TMA Terminal Maneuvering Area. The ATC airspace surrounding a major airport. See
TCA
TOD Top of Descent, point at which an aircraft is planned to begin a descent, either to a
lower flight level or to descend for approach and landing.
TSFC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption, basic measure of engine performance related to
cruise.
Twintex Manufacturer of composite cargo containers
UIR Upper (Air) Information Region, division of an ATC en-route control region confined to
the upper section of the controlled airspace. Typically sits on top of an FIR.
VFR Visual Flight Rules. Ability to operate an aircraft by purely visual means of separation
and where necessary navigation.
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions, where visual flight rule procedures and see and be
seen separation can be performed or augmented by Pilot actions.
VMO Maximum Operating Speed based on KIAS for an aircraft.
VNAV Vertical Navigation, used in context of managing the vertical profile of an aircraft either
in climb or descent, manages both rate of altitude change and airspeed.
VOCs Volatile organic compounds - associated with hydrocarbon gas emissions
VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol. Voice transmission via the internet or an intranet.
WPG Work (scope) Planning Guide, document that defines the scope of work for various
maintenance cycles on an aircraft.
ZFW Zero fuel weight, used in determination of aircraft weight for weight and balance and
performance purposes. Equals the weight of the aircraft plus its payload and other
operating variables (Crew and catering etc) minus any consumable fuel.

COPYRIGHT The contents herein are copyright IATA. No part of this document may be reproduced, recast,
reformatted or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written permission from IATA.
IATA © All Rights Reserved 2011

235
 Guidance Material and Best Practices for Fuel and Environmental Management

236
 to order : International Air Transport Association
www.iataonline.com

[email protected]

+1 800 71 66 32 60

+1 (514) 874 9659

Ref. No: 9791-05

Printed in Canada ISBN 978-92-9233-662-2