Logistics Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Going Farther On Fumes
   Next Article → LEADERSHIP: Russians Desperately Seeking Sergeants
April 24, 2012: The U.S. Air Force is spending an additional billion dollars this year for fuel, mainly because of higher fuel prices. So to save money the air force has ordered its transport pilots to adopt more fuel saving practices that have long been common for commercial cargo haulers. Thus air force cargo pilots are now flying higher and slower.

But the air force has been adopting commercial aviation fuel saving techniques more energetically for over a decade. This includes installing more fuel-efficient engines on older aircraft and changing flight paths and operating techniques. For example, pilots are ordered to minimize the time they operate their engines while on the ground and crews have been ordered to get rid of any non-essential equipment on the aircraft. As a result of all this, fuel consumption is down four percent over the last five years. This happened despite the fact that 27 percent more cargo is being flown compared to 2007. Currently, the air force transports carry out over 900 flights a day.

One thing the air force has been unable to cut much is flights they make to carry senior government officials, including members of Congress. Since Congress decides how much money the air force gets each year, cuts in Congressional flights is seen as false economy.

Next Article → LEADERSHIP: Russians Desperately Seeking Sergeants
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
HeavyD       4/24/2012 12:22:22 PM
I know, why don't we invade and conquer one of the most oil-rich nations in the world and set-up favorable contracts for our own oil companies?
 
Oh, so close.  We spent the trillion for the first part of the idea, and then lost out on many contracts to China.
 
HEy, wait a minute, I've never heard this as part of the conspiracy:  we needed to placate China somehow into continuing to buy our bonds.  Maybe IRaq was a part of this.... 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/24/2012 5:38:45 PM
I know, why don't we invade and conquer one of the most oil-rich nations in the world and set-up favorable contracts for our own oil companies?
 
Oh, so close.  We spent the trillion for the first part of the idea, and then lost out on many contracts to China.
 
HEy, wait a minute, I've never heard this as part of the conspiracy:  we needed to placate China somehow into continuing to buy our bonds.  Maybe IRaq was a part of this.... 
Maybe the reason the plan failed was because it was never the plan at all, except in the minds of the world’s leftists and other reflexive US haters. The US did not invade to conquer one of the most oil-rich nations in the world for the purpose of set-up favorable contracts for our own oil companies. They left decisions about developing and maintaining the oil to the Iraqis, and they decided (or more likely were bribed, that being the standard decision making process in most the 3rd world) to go in some cases with Chinese contracts this time around. I believe that the French got most of the contracts in the 1st round.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/24/2012 5:40:11 PM
Question -- When is the Air Force going to re-engine the B-52s? Lots of potential for savings there.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Warnerd:   4/24/2012 8:53:26 PM

1) Thanks for smacking HeavyD around;

2) Re-engining the B-52 is like buying a Volt or Hybrid, gas has to remain over $5 a gallon for years before the excess cost of the new vehicle...so too the Billions necessary to re-engine the B-52, it would take these hi fuel prices to last for YEARS to justify the costs.  In fact, in the limited time left for the B-52 we might NEVER re-coup the costs.

 
Quote    Reply

HogKiller    Huge Savings a   4/24/2012 10:59:49 PM
If the AF would stop hauling Barry's sorry butt around and make Moochelle fly coach we'd save billions.  Not to mention completely reverse any 'global climate change'.@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       4/25/2012 3:43:32 AM
Rolls Royce  offered to re-engine the B-52 with 4*RB211 (and smiths with 8*BR700) back n 2003, even then, it would have been cost efficient to re-engine the aircraft, and that was based on much lower fuel prices, and before they got heavily used in Afghanistan.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rez.manzoori/fakes/524-buff.jpg" alt="" /> 
 
 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rez.manzoori/fakes/524-buff.jpg" alt="" /> 
 
Quote    Reply