AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
A FRESH LOOK AT FUEL TANKERING OPTIMIZATION
By Lars Kornstaedt
Group Manager A380 Operational Performance
1. INTRODUCTION
In the frame of airline economics, the usual message is, that in order to minimize fuel burn it is most
economical to carry the minimum required fuel for the sector.
When there is a large difference in fuel prices between departure airport and destination, it may however
be profitable to carry extra fuel on the outbound leg in order to reduce the refueling quantity required for
the return leg.
The purpose of this article is to explain the shift in the Airbus approach to this old subject, to present the
new method, which is now also implemented in the ground computation tool FLIP, and to use this
opportunity to widen the perspective on the follow-on costs of fuel tankering.
1.1. When to consider tankering
Obviously tankering can be considered for economical reasons, when the difference in fuel price between
departure airport and destination are significant, but there may be other drivers.
In some locations fuel supply is unreliable, either because they are remote, or for political reasons. Some
airports are not supplied in fuel of adequate quality or type. In some cases, fuel transportation may be
simply driven by the turn-around time saving achieved by skipping the fuelling process for the return leg.
1.2. Cost of tankering
The increase in weight due to the tankered fuel will result in an increase of fuel burn on the outbound leg,
the cost of the outbound flight will thus increase, while not all of the initially tankered fuel will be available
for the return flight. If the flight is operated at given Cost Index, the increased weight will also, in a second
order effect, increase cruise speed, which in turn will increase burn off. For large tankering quantities, the
weight increase may lower optimum altitudes, which has to be taken into account in the flight plan, and
may have other operational consequences.
At takeoff, the weight increase will often reduce the amount of possible thrust derate via a FLEX
temperature reduction.
Equally it may not be possible to select the same level of climb derate. Even in cruise, thrust output, and
thus EGT may be higher, causing an overall increase in engine wear.
Finally, the landing weight increase at destination will increase wear and tear on the landing gear and
brakes.
Operational factors may influence the tankering balance, like reduced margins for operations on short
runways and/or in hot and high environment, increased risk of overweight landings, versus reduced
exposure to diversions.
From an ecological point of view, the increased burn-off directly translates into increased CO2 and NOx
emissions, which may translate into economical penalties via potential emission taxation.
Chapter 08-07 Page 1
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
2. TANKERING QUANTITY OPTIMIZATION
2.1. Computation of Net Gain
Based on price per weight, fuel is a fairly low-value item, and the potential profit of fuel transportation is
limited to a few cents per kilogram (and rapidly diminishing with distance). This means that in comparison
to any other payload (such as passengers or freight), fuel transportation by air is rather inefficient.
Due to the fuzziness of the direct and hidden cost structures, fuel tankering should be considered
worthwhile only if the analysis safely predicts a significant benefit.
The following analysis considers fuel costs only.
We consider a reference scenario involving two flight legs. The fuel cost with no tankering (FCREF) is:
FC REF = FPDEP × TFOUT + FPDEST × TFRET
where FPDEP is the fuel price at departure,
FPDEST is the fuel price at destination,
TFOUT is the trip fuel for the outbound leg and
TFRET is the trip fuel for the return leg.
In comparison, the total fuel cost with tankering (FCTANK) is:
FCTANK = FPDEP × (TFOUT + FQTANK ) + FPDEST × (TFRET − FQTANK + FBOOUT )
where FQTANK is the tankered fuel quantity and
FBOOUT is the increased fuel burn off on the outbound leg due to the weight increase.
The net gain of tankering is the difference between both costs:
GAIN = FC REF − FCTANK
= FPDEP × (− FQTANK ) + FPDEST × (FQTANK − FBOOUT )
= (FPDEST − FPDEP ) × FQTANK − FPDEST × FBOOUT
The first part of this expression is the virtual gross gain due to the price differential of the purchased fuel
(positive when FPDEST > FPDEP ) and the second part is the loss due to increased fuel burn-off.
The equation can be transformed to show the profit not in absolute currency but in fuel weight equivalent
(at arrival):
= (1 − FPR )× FQTANK − FBOOUT
GAIN
FPDEST
where FPR is fuel price ratio between departure and destination FPDEP FPDEST .
Page 2 Chapter 08-07
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
The relationship between FQTANK and FBOOUT can be expressed as the load transportation factor
(LTF).
ΔTOW − ΔLW
LTF =
ΔTOW
FBOOUT
=
FQTANK
The load transportation factor is aircraft and mission-specific. It increases with air distance and is slightly
non-linear with weight. The same weight increment at a high gross weight will incur a higher fuel burn
increment than at low gross weight.
This non-linearity suggests that there may be an optimum tankering quantity to be found for a given
mission and FPR.
Chapter 08-07 Page 3
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
2.2. Maximizing gain with optimum tankering quantity
Based on the previous chapter, a positive net gain can be achieved, when the following term is fulfilled:
1 − FPR − LTF > 0
This allows to identify a break-even FPR, above which the net gain becomes positive:
FPR < 1 − LTF
For a given flight, the air distance, payload and FPR are fixed, which only leaves the tankering quantity as
a means of maximizing the net gain.
For an A330 on a 2000nm sector, the net gain expressed in fuel quantity at destination was calculated for
various FPR values as a function of quantity of tankered fuel. To obtain the gain expressed in money, the
net gain quantity must be multiplied with the destination fuel price.
For high FPR values, which stand for a low price difference between departure and arrival airport, any
additional fuel quantity on board will yield a net loss more or less proportional to the tankered quantity,
since the extra burn off is not compensated by savings on the return flight.
200
100 FPR = 0.95
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Net gain [kg of destination fuel]
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Tankering quantity [kg]
For moderate FPR values, the shape of the curve shifts, and a gain is generated for a tankered quantity
less than the maximum possible one.
Page 4 Chapter 08-07
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
15
10 FPR = 0.925
5
0
Net gain [kg of destination fuel]
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Tankering quantity [kg]
In this example, for a quantity of around 6500kg, the gain is maximized, but amounts to just about 13kg of
arrival fuel. Such a small gain will most probably be compromised by other factors resulting from the
increased gross weight and is unlikely to be secured in actual operations.
An FPR value can be identified, for which the gain at maximum tankering fuel quantity becomes just
positive. We define this value as the break-even FPR.
40
30
20
Net gain [kg of destination fuel]
10
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-10
-20
-30 FPR = 0.923
-40
-50
Tankering quantity [kg]
Chapter 08-07 Page 5
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
For FPR values below this break-even one, significant gains will be possible, and the yield will increase
more or less linearly with tankered fuel quantity.
500
400
300 FPR = 0.9
Net gain [kg of destination fuel]
200
100
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
-100
-200
Tankering quantity [kg]
As a conclusion of this analysis, gains from tankering can only be secured when the FPR is below the
break-even value, and that the gain is maximized for the maximum possible quantity.
Examples of break-even FPRs are given below:
Aircraft Mission Break-even FPR
A320 1000nm 0.937
PLD 15t
A330 2000nm 0.885
PLD 30t
A340 3000nm 0.828
PLD 35t
2.3. Fuel tankering quantity limitations
While maximum gain is achieved with the maximum tankering quantity as soon as tankering is actually
worthwhile, the maximum quantity is limited by a number of factors.
The maximum certified and performance limited Takeoff Weight must not be exceeded.
The maximum certified and performance limited Landing Weight must not be exceeded.
The maximum tank capacity cannot be exceeded.
Obviously, the tankering quantity plus the reserves on the outbound leg should never exceed the fuel
requirements for the return flight.
Additionally, considerations like reduced performance margins for short and/or hot & high airfield
operations should weigh in the balance of the tankering decision.
Page 6 Chapter 08-07
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
3. GLOBAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
We have seen that for moderate FPR values, the potential gains are very sensitive and difficult to secure
in real life. On the whole, fuel has a relatively low price per weight, and compared to any other cargo, its
transportation by air is relatively inefficient.
To obtain small gains, the gross weight must sometimes be increased significantly, which in turn will
generate additional operating costs by reducing the takeoff and climb thrust derate capability, requiring
increased average thrust during cruise, and putting higher stress on landing gear and brakes at landing.
All of these factors will impact maintenance costs unfavorably.
While the absolute impact on operating costs resulting from these effects very strongly depends on the
individual cost structure and contracts of each airline, they can be measured in physical terms.
This has been done for the example of an A330-200 flight on a 2000nm sector and a payload of 30t. For
such a flight, with typical assumptions, we find
TOW 185.9t
LW 162.4t
Trip Fuel 23.5t
For a FPR of 0.85, which is well below the break-even value, the optimum tankering quantity is found to
be 22.1t,limited by the landing weight at destination. The following weights result from this tankering
quantity:
TOW 208.0t
LW 182.0t
Trip Fuel 26.0t
The net gain is 783kg of fuel, to be multiplied with the destination fuel price.
This gain is reduced by the increase in maintenance costs:
For takeoff, if we assume along runway without obstacles at sea level in standard conditions (takeoff
performance limited by second segment climb gradient), the FLEX temperature has to be decreased from
63°C to 61°C.
For the climb, using the criterion of climb in the same time to TOC for the actual weight and with derated
climb as for MTOW at MCL thrust, the recommended climb derate level drops from approximately 15%
(DCL2 setting) to 10% (DCL1).
The optimum altitude profile will be impacted by the weight increment as shown in the graph below:
400
350
300
250
FL
200
150
100
Reference Flight
50
Tankering Flight
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
DISTANCE [nm]
Chapter 08-07 Page 7
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
This results in an average thrust increase over the whole flight of 12%, which corresponds to an average
EGT increase by 15°C.
For landing at destination, again assuming a runway at sea level and a deceleration on dry runway with
Autobrake MED, the absorbed brake energy increases from 36.2MJ to 45.7MJ, as much as a 25% more.
By how much these effects offset the potential saving made by the tankering depends on a lot of factors,
but in practical terms, the conclusion must be that tankering should only be considered when a significant
theoretical gain is predicted.
It has been suggested that the maintenance cost increment can be taken into account by artificially
increasing the departure fuel price for the tankering evaluation, which assumes that maintenance cost
increase is linear with the cross weight increment.
Another common practice is to reduce the Cost Index in case of tankering by a few points in order to
offset at least the weight induced increase in ECON speeds.
Page 8 Chapter 08-07
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
4. IMPLEMENTATION IN FLIP
A new function is now available in the FLIP (Flight Planning) tool included with the PEP (Performance
Engineer’s Programmes). This function allows to calculate the break-even FPR for a Standard Mission
with given payload, and to obtain the maximum tankering fuel quantity limited by MTOW, MLW and fuel
capacity.
This method is based on the above analysis, and will only recommend tankering if the maximum
tankering quantity yields a net gain. It can naturally only consider the fuel component of the equation, the
maintenance effects cannot be assessed in the frame of the software.
In the interface, if a Standard Mission is selected and a Payload is given, the fuel tankering option
becomes available, and an FPR can be specified.
The computation produces a first set of results applicable to the flight without tankering. The maximum
tankering quantity is then determined based on the applicable weight limitation, usually the structural
MLW, but MTOW and capacity are also taken into consideration. For performance limited airports, the
applicable values must be entered in the “General” tab.
Then, a second set of results is produced for the tankering mission, using the appropriate limitation. In
this computation, the tankering fuel is counted into the payload, so this parameter must be disregarded in
the output.
Chapter 08-07 Page 9
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
The tankering and the reference mission are compared, and a summary as below is provided.
FUEL TANKERING SUMMARY :
------------------------
Tankering yields a net gain.
FUEL PRICE RATIO 0.800 : Reference Mission : Tankering Mission : extra weight when
tankering
RANGE NM 3500 : (no tankering) : (full load) :
=================================================================================================
==========
: : :
TAKEOFF WEIGHT KG : 438575 : 485417 : 46842
LANDING WEIGHT KG : 352620 : 391000 : 38380
PAYLOAD KG : 55000 : 55000 : 0
FUEL ON BOARD AT DEPARTURE KG : 101467 : 148309 : 46842
FUEL ON BOARD AT ARRRIVAL KG : 15512 : 53892 : 38380
TANKERING FUEL 46842 KG
SURPLUS BURNOFF (extra trip fuel for tankering mission) 8462 KG
LOAD TRANSPORTATION FACTOR (ratio of extra burnoff / extra load ) 0.181
TANKERING NET GAIN (for cash result multiply by arrival price) 906 KG
BREAK-EVEN FUEL PRICE RATIO (in order to get zero net gain) 0.819
The tankered fuel quantity and the extra fuel burn incurred are displayed. The Load Transportation Factor
is obtained by dividing the latter by the former. The remaining tankering fuel at destination is shown as
well as the net gain to be made based purely on fuel considerations. If the actual FPR entered by the user
is below the break-even one, this value will be negative.
It is important to understand that for moderate FPRs, no quantity optimisation is made, since potential
gains are deemed negligible based on our analysis.
5. FCOM TABLES
The FCOM contains in the Flight Preparation chapter a section 2.05.70, in which fuel tankering charts are
provided.
These tables are established for moderate FPR values, and show the optimum tankering quantity derived
from the optimum TOW for a given distance/FPR combination. These tables are actually based on the
local optimum in the net gain/tankering quantity graphs discussed earlier. The recommended quantities
are thus fit only to yield minor gains, the significant profits being accessible only beyond the end of the
curves.
Based on the analysis exposed in this article, the charts will be removed from the FCOM at the earliest
opportunity and replaced with a more relevant information.
Page 10 Chapter 08-07
AIRBUS Performance & Operations Conference
Flight Operations Support & Services Puerto-Vallarta 2007
6. CONCLUSION
Tankering should only be performed when the actual FPR is below the break-even one. In that case,
tankering the maximum possible quantity will yield the largest savings. The resulting gross weight
increment has unfavourable maintenance impacts, so tankering should only be performed when
significant savings are predicted.
A prediction can be computed with a new FLIP function. However, the current FCOM charts do not allow
to access the truly useful information and will be replaced at the earliest opportunity.
Chapter 08-07 Page 11
