In a radio programme today, O’Leary interview.
Can anyone think of where the 20% comes from?
In GA, we get a large number of CTOTs due to this (which ground us, delaying the departure) and we get often stupid routes, and sometimes have to re-file with VFR segments through the region of the ATC strike (which is difficult unless you have something with a decent size screen), but airliner routes, upper airspace, tend to be fairly straight.
Recently there was the French fueller strike which presumably was addressed by airlines loading fuel for both flights (so costing a bit more).
Some of it will be spent on the ground waiting for slots, a lot more of it will be by re-filing with non-optimum levels or routes to try and get around slots. It would be pretty common that on a route we normally fly at ~FL390, we can reduce the slot by re-filing at (for example) FL350. However when everyone does this, it congests the lower levels too and all of a sudden you end up crusing for hours maybe 6000’ below optimum which costs a reasonable amount of fuel.
All that said however, I have no idea where 20% comes from. I wouldn’t have thought it to be as high, and the source of the figure is known for using dodgy numbers to try to make his point.
I’d assume that the costs might come from:
a) sub-optimal flight levels also
b) re-routing via suboptimal, longer, route and
c) some flights being cancelled and therefore a/c being in the wrong places, so extra fuel for ferrying them around.
He’s a professional liar. The times will come where the industrial action will hit home for this guy, and he will think of ATC strikes as a drop in a bucket.
I know from 1st hand experience that 20% is the only number he knows.
It used to be on almost every internal memo. It was always 20% something.
Peter wrote:
Can anyone think of where the 20% comes from?
Various reasons. And he might actually be sort of right for a change.
ATC industrial action usually means reroutings to avoid the closed or restricted airspace. This can be anything from a couple of miles, altiitudes to massive detours. Not all of them are as brutal as if you have to circumnavigate whole countries (e.g. France, Iceland, Spain in the past come to mind) but 20% may well average that out for the avoidance of striked sectors or resulting reroutings to avoid delay in overloaded sectors elsewhere as a consequence.
Other than that, industrial action can cause waiting times with engines running on the ground, prolonged use of APU (if ground services strike and don’t hook up ground power) e.t.c.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And he might actually be sort of right for a change.
It can’t be nowhere near 20%.
Was it definitely on “Fuel”?
I can imagine significant additional costs when compensation for delays/cancelled flights are taken account of, but that’s not fuel.
