Whats the deal Virgin?

[a320drivr]

I'm just curious what gives with the speeds you guys are flying at cruise? Mach .74 or .75 in an Airbus? Twice now coming into JFK ATC asked you guys to speed up and the pilots said no. They were then given a 90 degree turn and descended 2000 ft so we could get by. It would seem to me that the turn and descent cost you guys a lot more fuel then just speeding up to .78 or .79 for the last 200 miles of the flight.

 

[clickclickboom]

We run a cost index of 35 at jetblue.

That gives us .78 in nearly all conditions

 

[Spud]

They get paid by the minute...Just like you.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Get paid? If you want to call it that

 

[climb2slow]

just hope you never get behind us! we normally fly a CI of 5 or 6....not our choice, but anyhow! That being said, we will always accept an increased speed to stay on course over a vector.

 

[slavenaway]

I'm just curious what gives with the speeds you guys are flying at cruise? Mach .74 or .75 in an Airbus? Twice now coming into JFK ATC asked you guys to speed up and the pilots said no. They were then given a 90 degree turn and descended 2000 ft so we could get by. It would seem to me that the turn and descent cost you guys a lot more fuel then just speeding up to .78 or .79 for the last 200 miles of the flight.

It has to do with the CI we use. I would have sped up but people do things for different reasons. Neither of us were in the cockpit. Maybe they had a good reason...

 

[Bavarian Chef]

News today said Virgin needed more money. Any takers?

 

[Volasl]

United management is also asking for a cost index of 6 or 7 depending on 319/320. Block or better always rules

 

[Oh-ryan]

Sounds like something I mumbled on prom night.

 

[Headfake14]

Lots of people are flying slower. But NOONE should be dragging a s s into the JFK area. WTF...c'mon fellas.

Me personally...if we're wicked early...(JB--.78 normally)...I'll slow to .74ish. I'll tell ATC about it so we don't clog up the line. If they need us to speed up...then we'll do it.

I won't slow to the point where we're burning the same or more fuel to maintain that slower speed based on our weight. Whatever gives me the best economy...the QRH isn't always right in this case.

I've heard SWA on the radio at CRZ at .74 or so.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

At VA they are telling us to use CI 10 and 280 kts for descent. To counteract the reduced speed one can go as high as your weight allows.

So the net result SFO/LAX is now flown at FL380 and about .77 or .78. We used to do this leg at FL300 and CI 50. Fuel burns and time are about the same by my observation.

On the transcons, CI 10 means 10 minutes more block time, again flying at max altitude. Again, to me it is a wash. Slightly less fuel flow, for 10 minutes longer equals no real change, again just my personal observation.

BTW, we are supposed to fit the flow on arrivals if ATC asks us. To turn off course instead of speed up is kinda defeating the whole idea to me...

 

[Blue Dude]

That's nuts, since the primary fuel savings with a really low CI occurs with the lower speed on descent. If you use a CI of 10 and a descent speed of 280, you might as well just program it for 30 to 40 CI all the time and save yourselves the trouble of hardcoding the descent speed. Suit yourselves, though.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Preaching to the choir brother.. I don't make the policy, just fly it the way they tell me.

To me any savings is wiped out by the descent and the extra enroute time. I know fuel is expensive and all, but there is a cost involved in extra time on the bird, mx, rotables and such.

The graphs they show you in MIA show a pretty steep curve with the lowest overall cost being in the range CI 30 to 50. That may have shifted to the low somewhat with the fuel spike, but I doubt it is that much.

I get paid by the hour:beer:

 

[clickclickboom]

That's nuts, since the primary fuel savings with a really low CI occurs with the lower speed on descent. If you use a CI of 10 and a descent speed of 280, you might as well just program it for 30 to 40 CI all the time and save yourselves the trouble of hardcoding the descent speed. Suit yourselves, though.

Thats probably the same suggestion those formers b6 fo's had when they were in training at VA and got fired for making suggestions.....

 

[zkmayo]

Thats probably the same suggestion those formers b6 fo's had when they were in training at VA and got fired for making suggestions.....

The suggestions he made didnt help, but the one guy got fired for working at two 121 airlines at the same time.

 

[a320drivr]

Fuel is half price now Virgin so pour the coals to it.

 

[Mr.B]

Get paid? If you want to call it that

I'm sure the Japanese say the same thing about you...not too good a feeling eh?

Give the guys trying to make a living for their families a friggen break.

 

[Fubijaakr]

How about giving those of us whose contracts they're undercutting a friggin' break, Mr. B?

 

[Mr.B]

How about giving those of us whose contracts they're undercutting a friggin' break, Mr. B?

Hey until I see a union with enough balls to set that friggin parking brake you so proudly display and let the robber barons know we won't work for less than we made 10 years ago while they enrich themselves then you must be perfectly satisfied with what you have. (Hows that for a run on sentence)

"They're" not the problem....

 

[Dumb Pilot]

I'm sure the Japanese say the same thing about you...not too good a feeling eh?

Give the guys trying to make a living for their families a friggen break.

I don't make as much as them of course, but I do make as much as 12 year seniority legacy wide body captains (this is year two for me

) and to answer your question, I do feel pretty good about that. The question is, how do the VA pilots feel about being the lowest paid pilots in the Virgin brand (including Virgin Nigeria) It is shameful that we as workers accept pay levels as low as some of the poorest countries on the planet