Cost index help

[Turbine777 13]

For me it depends on the circumstances. I will normally shoot for 100, and in very long hauls probably about 80. But if I'm behind schedule and the winds are to high causing my arrival to fall too far behind I'll bump it up higher. Not sure I've done this with the queen though but shouldn't matter, I think I have but mainly been flying the MD-11.

[downscc 1,327]

I've not gotten that far down my to-do list to play with CI; I use 88 unless I'm flying SWA, which used to use 33.

[PinkPony 171]

I've not gotten that far down my to-do list to play with CI; I use 88 unless I'm flying SWA, which used to use 33.

Southwest use 20 now on all flights. (as of Jan 7,2010)Believe it or not, that wiki article is not too far off at all! Lufthansa use 70-300 on their 744. 70 is the norm but up to 300 if late!And regarding the topic starter.Want MAX endurance use Cost Index 0! but you need to enter the winds before hand so that you know before you actually takeoff if you will have enough fuel!Leo

[KLMMD11 0]

i would like to thank everyone for all the help you have given me! thanks to you all i have just completed a 14 hour flight (not in 1 go like) with no problems at all! i did have to off load cargo to get the right ammount of fuel and i used 90 for my Cost index then i knocked it up to 150! once again cheers fellas

[ezy6rm 0]

Does any one no what cost index Cathy pacific use on 747-400

[BIGSKY 316]

Even tho this is an Airbus document, it is the most in depth info on cost index I have seen.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smartcockpit.com%2Fdata%2Fpdfs%2Fflightops%2Faerodynamics%2FGetting_To_Grips_With_The_Cost_Index.pdf&rct=j&q=Getting%20to%20grips%20on%20cost%20index&ei=PjuUTZWxEaiy0QHA7-D-Cw&usg=AFQjCNGpV94XZG5kSkNlMwdDFcHNtZBHqg&sig2=Yxf7EwiiLFgKKQyEImObLQ&cad=rja

[scandinavian13 5,192]

no offence or anything but wikipedia could and most probably will be wrong

That is incorrect.For some reason, there are several out there who have a baseless assumption that information placed online, in a wiki environment is completely unreliable. I normally stress to them that there are several reputable encyclopoedias that have less peer review and content checks than that of wikipedia.Furthermore, if you really, actually doubt the validity of the data, go down and look at the referenced sources. If the sources check, then the data is just as valid. Dismissal of a potential source is just as dumb as sourcing an invalid/unreliable source. I can't tell you how many times I had a prof tell me not to use wiki article, and all I had to was go down to the bottom, and use one of its referenced sources instead. Apparently, the source document, although it provided the material for the article, is somehow more valid, even with the same information.People need to get away from the whole idea that the internet is purely baseless. While yes, there are thousands of sites on the internet spewing false information, sites like wikipedia, given the proper checks (as they have already: mods, editors, etc) along with proper references, are perfectly valid.The real problem is that sometimes, there are things in life that are not written in books just yet. Who did Einstein reference with his theory of relativity? Sources occasionally play absolutely no role in documents (of course, a situation such as this occurs very rarely, and in the beginning, without proof, the concept may be doubted).In your defense, however, looking at the article on CI on ze German wikipedia, it provides no references, and as such, could be considered unreliable.

Trust me I know quite a few airlines that use a cost Index above 100, I also have a 777 Captain sitting across the living room from me, his airline is currently using 180 on the 777

Agreed. I think a major cargo carrier uses some range of 200-220 and conditionally 80, if I recall correctly. I could be wrong.