SWA to have a Q1 loss?

[PCL_128]

This means during 4-5 minutes of aircraft movement, you're multi-tasking and/or heads down for that other engine start...recipe for trouble with 3500 aircraft movements daily, day in, day out.

We've been doing it safely for years without any problems. It saves tons of money. With no demonstrated reduction in safety, it's crazy not to implement it.

 

[The Prussian]

We've been doing it safely for years without any problems. It saves tons of money. With no demonstrated reduction in safety, it's crazy not to implement it.

OK...tell me...how many "tons of money"?....


and...let's talk SWA systemwide,...not just ATL..

 

[j41driver]

Even if you delay by 2-3 min the savings are large.

2 minutes x 3500 flts/day = 7000 minutes or 116.67 hrs
Whats idle fuel burn? Lets say 700lbs/hr at idle. That's 81669lbs or 12189 gal PER DAY
Over an entire year its almost 4.5million gallons or $15,500,000 savings at $3.50/gal.

Not insignificant and we've been doing it SAFELY on the AT side for years.

 

[j41driver]

It's over $23M annual savings if the delayed start is 3 min per flight. Whether were talking $15M or $23M they're both "tons of money" to me.

 

[The Prussian]

and....taxiing, crossing runways, getting cleared to line up and wait...in idle power, all within 5 minutes, while ascertaining the F/A's have secured the cabin....For those 5 minutes, which is a significant portion of SWA's schedule....things happen...

 

[goahead]

Is single engine taxi really that big of a deal, it's not unsafe and saves a ton of fuel annually. I don't see the problem with it, I don't know of any other similar airline that does double engine everytime. If its gonna be a five minute taxi or less then crack them both up. Do some of that piloting stuff man.

 

[easydoesit]

wussy

 

[ATLplt]

It ain't rocket science, Prussian. We do it all the time, even on short taxi in s**tholes like Flint. Quit making up excuses, and stop wasting our profit sharing checks.

 

[humveedriver]

I agree with the Prussian. It works mostly for SWA because the can turn an aircraft quickly and taxi out in short order at many airports. It also seems to play in well with the way they run their checklist items. AirTran on the 737 side is an oddball. We have a nasty habit of adding late bags. Especially in ATL running two concourses. As a result, we start number 1 first. I think we are just about the only airline that does this. So in addition to fuel savings, there is added safety, so joe ramper doesn't get sucked into the engine. The 717 engine placement meant the for years our rampers never had to worry about a running engine when throwing a bag into the forward cargo bin. It has been the norm at AirTran to start one engine and then immediately crank the other, if there is no line. I agree that it is more work, more repetitive. At high frequency, single runway airports like RSW, it helps. Too bad you can't just write, "Start both engines, unless it makes more sense to just start one" in the manual...

 

[texman]

I see both sides of the story. PCL and Humvee have good points. One thing to think about is SWA is not in ATL all the time like AT. SWA serves markets that are Quick in Quick out. Maybe we should do SE taxi in large airports.

 

[j41driver]

and....taxiing, crossing runways, getting cleared to line up and wait...in idle power, all within 5 minutes, while ascertaining the F/A's have secured the cabin....For those 5 minutes, which is a significant portion of SWA's schedule....things happen...

You could see the same savings by doing sgl engine taxi in. No excuses there.

 

[scoreboardII]

We've been doing it safely for years without any problems. It saves tons of money. With no demonstrated reduction in safety, it's crazy not to implement it.

But I bet your'e not doing it at 30knots...

 

[Cruncher]

Ok, I'm walking into this thread at page 4. So this may have already been said, but we've been beeotching about not having single engine taxi for years (& the subsequent waste of fuel)!

We know it does not distract from safety (like a DAL guy saying a 20 knot taxi is dangerous, yet they are getting ready to take the runway and, wait for it, gonna speed up to rotation speed, while on the ground, not in a simulator - sorry Mr' Beam speaking).

Every swingin' ... (ahhh, guy here) was a captain before, or at least showed a fed how to start a sim, it aint that f'ing hard.

Headwork my man, headwork.

Ah, my new thing is when a Delta plane is about a mile out, I just say "windcheck". I know, I'm a Richard, sometimes. Just trying to help a brother out Heck, I give my buds there tons of sheeot!

 

[Dan Roman]

Ok, I'm walking into this thread at page 4. So this may have already been said, but we've been beeotching about not having single engine taxi for years (& the subsequent waste of fuel)!

We know it does not distract from safety (like a DAL guy saying a 20 knot taxi is dangerous, yet they are getting ready to take the runway and, wait for it, gonna speed up to rotation speed, while on the ground, not in a simulator - sorry Mr' Beam speaking).

Every swingin' ... (ahhh, guy here) was a captain before, or at least showed a fed how to start a sim, it aint that f'ing hard.

Headwork my man, headwork.

Ah, my new thing is when a Delta plane is about a mile out, I just say "windcheck". I know, I'm a Richard, sometimes. Just trying to help a brother out Heck, I give my buds there tons of sheeot!

Forget the rule of twos? No posting for two hours after having two beers or two Starbucks

 

[The Prussian]

You could see the same savings by doing sgl engine taxi in. No excuses there.

We do...no issues there, except core cool down can take up to 3 minutes to avoid engine damage. For us, many times you're arriving at the gate by then. :cartman: