Welcome to St. Paul Airlines, !
Main Menu

Who's Online
 Welcome Guest
Join Us!


 Login:
User:


Password:


Remember me



Retrieve lost Password
 Online
 Members:2
 Guests:3
 Total:5
 Online Members
 Westcoast 
 wschneid 

SPA Recommends
VirtualCol Simulations

Return to Misty Moorings

flyawaysimulation.com

Avsim.com

Flightsim.com

SimRoutes

Flight Simulator Navigation

FS Goof's

Airman's Information Manual

NOAA Metar Access

IFR Refresher Magazine

History of MSFS

Flightaware.com

Fly Better

Aviator90 videos

search pnForum latest posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts

to previous topic Print topic to next topic

Start ::  Pilot's Lobby ::  Suggestions/tips/comments ::  Cost Index
Moderated by:

Bottom 

Cost Index

Anonymous Posted: 15.04.2015, 11:21
Unregistered User Most airlines have a standard Cost Index that is used when programming the FMC. I was wondering if our line had an established Cost Index; trying to stay as real as possible and maximize profits for the shareholders!! Love this line, I have been here over a year and enjoy all this line has to offer. Thanks for the hard work and efforts of our management crew.
Scott Sinclair
Top 
 
Westcoast Posted: 15.04.2015, 14:02

Westcoast

registered: Jan. 2006
Posts: 939

Status: online
Excellent question Scott. The short answer is no. The majority of our pilots are primarily interested in bush flying and, of those interested in "heavy metal", I think a minority fly aircraft equipped with fully operational FMCs that allow choice of a cost index. Having said that, I have occasionally thought about establishing a set of SOPs for passenger aircraft operations out of the Minneapolis Hub. This might include a lot of things: preferred gate usage, standard procedures for the sequence of operations around push back, engine start and taxi, standard procedures for touchdown (how far past the numbers), flight planning and fuel loading, company routes, etc. Recommended values for the cost index could be in this mix.

I guess I've concluded that there would not be sufficient interest to justify the work which would be required to generate these SOPs. I wonder how our other pilots feel about this.

Mike Daugherty
MSP Hub Manager

Westcoast
Top  Profile send PM
 
k5yrf Posted: 15.04.2015, 21:28

k5yrf

registered: Feb. 2008
Posts: 22

Status: offline
last visit: 15.04.15
I like it the way it operates currently. Thanks for all the work that goes into it. Jim SPA322
Top  Profile send PM
 
jer029 Posted: 18.04.2015, 12:26

jer029

registered: Nov. 2011
Posts: 740

Status: offline
last visit: 23.04.18
It might be nice for pilots who wish that level of realism, but might take the fun out for those who like some flexibility, so I wouldn't want to see it a requirement.

Perhaps there some information already out on the net that could be tailored to what Mike want's at SPA.

I try to fly the times and gate (H) out of MSP as I recall. I set my cost index on the A-320 to 30 as the Tutorial Flight suggested. I believe it gave a range for different fuel-savings and performance needs. I'd be happy to plug in routes as well - although I use my Foreflight application to show real-world routes and altitudes and usually plug those into the FMC.

Again...I do much of this to fly the plane in a more realistic and 'proper' way, but sometimes I just want to get her up and flying with the least amount of prep work.

The nice part of SPA is the variety of flights (Bush and heavy metal), and the flexibility pilots have of route and plane choice.

Another optional enhancement would be tracking those addons that allow more of the business management aspect as some VA's offer. Although their webpage is specifically designed with those features, I think FSPassenger and FSFK have those tracking options and a way to upload those to the VA if the VA is configured to receive and display that information.

John

jer029

Top  Profile send PM Homepage
 
Westcoast Posted: 18.04.2015, 17:56

Westcoast

registered: Jan. 2006
Posts: 939

Status: online
Consistent with the usual "SPA" approach, I don't think that any enhancements we might add to increase the degree of realism available would be a "requirement". Truth be known we scarcely enforce our current rules. This is the case because there seems to be no point in the first place and no appetite among our skeleton management staff to waste time enforcing rules. Our objective is to provide opportunities for our pilots.

Having said that, the question remains: is there some sort of increased structure or detail we might add which would interest a significant number of our pilots, and if so, what would that be?

Westcoast
Top  Profile send PM
 
Anonymous Posted: 20.04.2015, 19:17
Unregistered User I agree with John and Jim above. One of the draws of this line for me is the easy fit of regulations, suits me perfectly. I have completed most of my flights in a Kodiak Qwest, which include the round the world trip and I am currently doing the Marco Polo run. Of course, there is no Cost Index for that ship. I didn't want to stir up a big rukus, I was just wondering. When I do fly the heavy metal, I use the CI of 30. But with all this gorgeous scenery provided by FTX global, why fly at 37,000 where you can't enjoy any of it!?! Thanks again to our management, we appreciate your efforts in keeping this thing afloat, it is much appreciated!
Scott Sinclair
Top 
 


Users online:
wschneid - Westcoast

This list bases on the users active in the last 60 minutes


Powered by pnForum Version 2.6

Copyright 2000 - 2012 St. Paul Airlines

Web site powered by PostNuke ADODB database library PHP Language