Latest / The Operations Podcast with Fexingo: Process, People, and Profit in Modern Business / How a Danish Airline Cut Fuel Use by 12 Percent with Flight Operations
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this Danish regional airline — I'm not going to name them because they're privately held and didn't want publicity — but they fly a fleet of ATR turboprops on short runways, often making multiple landings a day. And they managed to cut their fuel consumption by 12 percent in eighteen months just by changing how they operate, not by buying new planes. Luna: Twelve percent on fuel — that's huge for a regional carrier. Fuel is typically their second-biggest cost after labour, right? Lucas: Exactly. For a regional airline operating older turboprops, fuel can be thirty to forty percent of total operating cost. So a twelve percent reduction goes straight to the bottom line. But what's interesting is how they got there. It wasn't one big innovation — it was maybe half a dozen small operational changes, each worth one to three percent. Luna: So marginal gains, the cycling coach Dave Brailsford approach, but applied to planes. Lucas: That's exactly the frame. And the first change was the simplest: single-engine taxi. Instead of taxiing to the runway with both engines running, they'd start one engine just before pushback, then start the second only when they were ready to take off. On arrival, they'd shut one down after clearing the runway. Luna: I've heard that saves fuel, but is it safe? What about the asymmetric thrust? Lucas: On a turboprop, asymmetric thrust at taxi speeds is manageable — the flight controls are effective. They trained every pilot on a standard procedure, and they only did it on taxiways they'd assessed as wide enough. The fuel savings were about two percent total. But here's the thing: they had to change the culture. Some senior pilots resisted because they'd always taxied with both engines lit. Luna: That's always the hidden cost of operational change — the people part. How did they get buy-in? Lucas: They did something clever. They installed a simple fuel-flow display in the cockpit — not a fancy electronic flight bag, just a tablet showing real-time fuel burn per phase. So after every flight, pilots could see exactly how much fuel they'd used taxiing, climbing, cruising, descending. That data made the case. Once pilots saw that single-engine taxi saved twenty to thirty kilograms per leg, the resistance mostly melted away. Luna: So you show them the number, not tell them. That's a good lesson for any ops change. Lucas: The second change was continuous descent approach. Instead of the typical step-down approach where you level off at different altitudes — which requires more thrust — they planned a smooth, idle-throttle descent from cruise all the way to the runway threshold. That saved another one and a half percent. But it required coordination with air traffic control, and not every airport plays ball. Luna: So they had to negotiate with ATC? That seems like a variable they can't control. Lucas: They couldn't control it everywhere, but they focused on their home bases — smaller airports where the airline had good relationships. They briefed the controllers on what they were trying to do, and over time, controllers started to prefer the continuous descents because they were quieter and reduced their own workload. It became a win-win. Luna: Okay, so the first two changes add up to maybe three and a half percent. Where did the other eight and a half come from? Lucas: The big one was weight reduction. And not just obvious things like removing empty water tanks. They did a detailed weight audit of every item on the aircraft. They found that the emergency equipment kit — the one that never gets used — weighed forty kilograms. They downsized it. The life vests under each seat: they replaced them with a lighter model. The onboard manuals: they digitised them, saving fifteen kilograms per plane. Luna: That's all small stuff. But I guess it adds up when you multiply by the number of flights. Lucas: Exactly. They calculated that every kilogram of weight saved on the aircraft reduced fuel burn by about point zero three percent per flight hour. So if they saved a hundred kilograms across the fleet, over a year that's a measurable chunk. The total weight-savings program gave them about four percent fuel reduction. Luna: Four percent from weight? That's impressive. But I'm wondering — did pilots resist that too? Because sometimes they like having 'just in case' stuff on board. Lucas: Great question. And that brings us to the third major change: fuel load optimisation. The airline discovered that pilots were routinely loading ten to fifteen percent more fuel than the legal minimum required for the route. It's called 'fuel for psychological comfort.' They'd add extra because they didn't trust the weather forecast or because they'd had a bad experience once. But that extra fuel itself burns fuel — you're carrying the weight of fuel that you're burning just to carry it. Luna: Ah, the classic irony. So how did they convince pilots to carry less? Lucas: They didn't force them. They introduced a 'fuel efficiency dashboard' that showed each pilot their own average fuel uplift compared to the minimum, and also showed the fleet average. Peer pressure worked. Pilots who were carrying twenty percent extra started to see that the norm was closer to five percent. Over a year, the average came down to about three percent extra. That change alone saved three percent of total fuel. Luna: So pilot culture was the biggest lever and the hardest nut. But you cracked it with transparency, not mandates. Lucas: Right. The last change was more technical: they optimised the climb profile. Instead of climbing at a fixed speed, they used a variable climb that maximised the rate of climb at lower altitudes and then tapered. They also reduced the cruise altitude slightly — flying lower means less headwind and better engine efficiency on a turboprop. That gave them another one and a half percent. Luna: Let me add that up: single-engine taxi two percent, continuous descent one point five, weight reduction four, fuel load optimisation three, climb optimisation one point five. That's twelve percent. Lucas: You got it. And the whole program cost them less than fifty thousand dollars — mostly for the tablet displays and some training time. The annual fuel savings were well over a million dollars. Luna: That's a thirty-to-one return in the first year. I can see why they kept going. Lucas: And they're still going. They've since started washing the engines more frequently — a clean engine is more efficient — and they're testing a 'single-engine cruise' procedure for very long legs, where they shut down one engine at altitude and feather the prop. That could save another three to five percent. Luna: Single-engine cruise? That sounds... bold. Is that even legal? Lucas: It's legal under certain conditions, but it requires special approval from the regulator. They haven't gotten it yet. But they're working on it. The point is, they've created a culture where every gram of fuel is questioned. And that culture is the real asset, not any single change. Luna: It reminds me of the Toyota production system — the idea that small, continuous improvements from the people doing the work add up to massive gains. But I think what's striking here is that the pilots themselves weren't the problem; the system was. Once they gave pilots the data and the tools, they solved it. Lucas: Exactly. And honestly, if today's episode moved your thinking forward in some small way — maybe you're looking at a similar cost-saving opportunity in your own operation — that's the link: buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's what keeps this show ad-free and independent. Luna: Yeah, listener support makes a real difference. We don't have sponsors, so it's just people like you who find value in these stories. And every little bit helps. Lucas: So back to the climb optimisation — the thing I love about that change is that it wasn't discovered by engineers in a lab. It came from a junior first officer who noticed that on shorter routes, climbing to the planned cruise altitude meant spending only a few minutes at that altitude before descending. So she asked: why climb so high if you're just coming right back down? That question led to a whole new procedure. Luna: So the improvement came from the front line. That's the holy grail of operations — when the people doing the work are also the ones improving the work. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the real takeaway from this episode. The airline didn't buy a new fleet. They didn't hire consultants. They just gave their people data, permission to question the status quo, and a way to see the results of their changes. And that saved them twelve percent on fuel. Luna: Which, in an industry with razor-thin margins, is the difference between profit and loss.