COST INDEX survey.....

[cavaricooper 2,615]

Captains-My friend Steve B and I are working out some fuel calculations to arrive at definitive fuel planning strategies and obviously cost index plays a large role in these, so here's are the questions-1) REAL WORLD OPERATORS- would you share your airline's CI with us?2) VIRTUAL AIRLINE DISPATCHERS- please also share your CIs.3) Captains, please share what you habitually use.I imagine 99 is fairly unrealistic, especially with fuel costs being what they currently are....so lets get a handle on this thing!Thanks!Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png

[Guest Jacob Lee]

>Captains->>My friend Steve B and I are working out some fuel calculations>to arrive at definitive fuel planning strategies and obviously>cost index plays a large role in these, so here's are the>questions->>1) REAL WORLD OPERATORS- would you share your airline's CI>with us?>>Thanks!>>Best->Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225>http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png I know that the airline I work for doesn't use the same CI for each flight. The CI they use depends on the payload (I work for a cargo airline), expected departure time (compared to the scheduled departure time), and the altitude flown at. Generally, if the flight is late then a higher CI is used. If the payload is high or there are a lot of "premium" packages (Next Day Air Early A.M.) then a high CI is used so as to make the flight arrive early.-- Jake

[jc_150 3]

Hi CarlI am in the catagory of your question3. That is an armchair sim pilot with maybe 10 or so fun hours in real life Cessna. When I bought the 747 made by a rival company for fs 2000 and then updated for fs2002, on their tutorial flight it explained what cost index was for and suggested that CI 50 would do for most sim flights, and I have used that ever since and its never let me down. That has got to be some 5 years back or more, so all my planes with an fmc get programmed with CI 50best regardsJohn Calleja BAV BAW352

[ronzie 21]

A lot depends on the airline you are emulating. A regional low cost carrier might use a lower CI to conserve fuel and sacrifice climb rate and cruise speed. Regionals competing on short haul routes with longer leg aircraft using parabolic vertical profiles (limited cruise altitude distances) might be assigned lower cruising altitudes by ATC to reduce ATC traffic management load reducing conflicts and congestion with longer haul aircraft. Note that a lower CI can limit your highest cruise altitude and other factors, at least in my 737NG sim experience. Try a few values and look at your CRZ FMC page after loading all other parameters to see the optimal cruise altitude and airspeed and note the differences.I've generally been using 80 to gain the FL360 altitude I generally use winds aloft allowing with the 737NG 700/800 series. I need the snappier performance with Radar Contact ATC since I need quicker flight testing.I think if you search this forum for CI or cost index, you will find a few existing threads on the subject including some replies from r/w pilots.

[cowpatz 243]

The airline I fly for uses cost index 50 as the norm. A CI of 100 is used when the particular sector length exceeds preset times so as not to impact on flight schedules. In the good old days it was a normal CI of 100 and high speed of 300. Oh for those days when jets were supposed to be flown fast!

[cavaricooper 2,615]

Thanks- exactly the sort of thing we are looking for. A BA driver from OZ sent me a chart showing BA using 0 for climb and 90 for cruise.....hmmmm.... Never considered that possibility. Neat- anyway- keep them comming please! Q- would love to get your take on this.Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png

[G-CIVA 62]

Gents,Thanks for the replies so far...I guess Carl & I would be emulating a long-haul carrier such as BA!!I have been using a CI of 90 as a base for my fuel calcs...Carl has been using a lower number...ranging from 50-77 I think.

[Qavion 19]

Haven't checked recently, but I'm sure they've changed with the way fuel prices are these days. Cost Index infrequently changed with the route on our 744's. Most were 100.There were variations between Boeing types in the fleet.I believe spur-of-the-moment cost index changes resulted from delays (speedier air time required).I was once told that Cost Index was a commercially sensitive* issue, so forgive me if I don't post the results of any new findings ;)Cheers.Q>*i.e. my airline didn't want other airlines to know what cost indices they were using.

[jon b 2,047]

In the good old days we used CI 150 with M.86 for fixed mach cruising.Now sadly we use CI 60 M.85 and 280kts in the descent.CheersJon

[rgamurot 1]

On my B744, I use a CI of 80 but set the FMC to cruise at M086. I don't really know why I don't set a CI that would give me M086 right off the bat. I just don't. Just out of curiosty, would having a CI=80 and my cruise set to M086 still change some aspect(s) of my flight as opposed to selecting a CI that would give me M086?Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa296.png

[jon b 2,047]

Ryan,I believe there would be a slight difference in OPT and MAX FLs on the FMC VNAV page when inputting a fixed M number compared to ECONcheersJon

[jacsantos 0]

about 80 to 99 on the 737

[Guest shogun007]

At Q we use C.I 100 for the majority of our flights.