Cost index for U.S. Carriers with NG

[wisefox7524 9]

I know that Southwest uses CI of 20 on all flights.

[NGXfanatic 85]

Master list?? Didn't see that...... anyone know where it is posted?Phil

Here's the master list :http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2118807Folks, thanks so much for your replies. Anything I can glean from other NG fanatics, both virtual and real life drivers, on the nitty gritty of NG ops just makes the NGX experience so much more meaningful and educational.I understand that the CI is not set in stone for every flight, as no two flights are the same and there are circumstances that require flexibility in flight performance to adhere to schedule limitations like delays, international vs. domestic routes, and other details. But it does help to have a general "SOP" value for my reference. I am compiling a spreadsheet for my own reference so I can keep track of not only CI, but things like t/o flaps and engine ratings so that when I am switching among the many different carriers, I am using as close to the the real life carrier specific ops and NG equipment list as possible. Edited March 14, 2012 by 767fan

[MartinBeauchemin 0]

At westjet they usually use anything between 8 and 35. I know that for a fact.

[Ben Cap 89]

Personally, I use 1337.

:oOne time in an NG (In real life) I visited the cockpit of an Airtran 737 and they were using 15 cost index.

[NGXfanatic 85]

:oOne time in an NG (In real life) I visited the cockpit of an Airtran 737 and they were using 15 cost index.

From what I've read a while back in this forum, Airtran is extremely stingy with fuel costs and keeping wear and tear on engines to a minimum. They use a maximum derate (both TO2 and a high assumed/flex temp) on takeoff, and use almost all the runway relative to other NG operators. One more thing to remember when simulating Airtran ops!This is quite the opposite approach to Southwest, which uses NO set takeoff derate (but does use an assumed temp) and no derate climb. I saw this behavior between the two carriers at KPHL's runway, it was a neat thing to see.

[flightwatch 68]

Delta is down to 13 on all NG flights.

[Tabs 2,790]

Anything from about 10-50 or so is probably realistic at least somewhere in the world. The CI setting range is not linear, it's logarithmic - all the numbers above 60 are really similar in the result. (this makes me wonder why Boeing didn't change the scale at all and just make it 0-100 or something, it actually goes all the way to 499 I think)The big problem with the super low ones is that they result in really slow descents... I know several pilots who change it for the descent phase or speed intervene so as to not be descending at 250 knots.

[VOR_Active 4]

Here's the master list :http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2118807

On that list I see that some airlines have a fixed CI number. How come? I thought that the CI depends on the route. For example, Lufthansa uses different CI for EDDH - EDDF route, and another CI for EDDH - LSZH for their A-320s

[Sekstifire 10]

Anything from about 10-50 or so is probably realistic at least somewhere in the world. ...

I asked a buddy of mine that flies for KLM during the half time show of the superbowl (so its fairly up-to-date) what they use for CL in their NGs. He said they used 7 for the 700, 8 for the 800, and 11 for the 900, so CLs under 10 is not unheard of in this day and age

[EdubFlyer 2]

Anything from about 10-50 or so is probably realistic at least somewhere in the world. The CI setting range is not linear, it's logarithmic - all the numbers above 60 are really similar in the result. (this makes me wonder why Boeing didn't change the scale at all and just make it 0-100 or something, it actually goes all the way to 499 I think)The big problem with the super low ones is that they result in really slow descents... I know several pilots who change it for the descent phase or speed intervene so as to not be descending at 250 knots.

Ryan, I beleive the reason for that is because the calculation for CI has little to do with the airframe. Someone posted a link with a Boeing report on it. Something like fuel burn/time divided by something else or whatever . So a 747 for instance may normally use higher CI numbers since it flies past .8 mach than a 737NG that wants to fly .7x , and the climb/descent performance is different. If you input 100 or greater on the 37, you are real close to performance limits on the airframe, while a 47 or 67 could see quite a difference between a ci of 20 and say 200.Eric Wallace

[Fabo 213]

Cost index is very much airframe affected.Thing is, time-based costs are very much about airframe. Even crews, however different contracts may be, there will still be 3 F/As in a 737, 4 of them in a 738, and 15ish in a 747. Then you have maintenance costs, which are different in all the models.

[Spin737 102]

I asked a buddy of mine that flies for KLM during the half time show of the superbowl (so its fairly up-to-date) what they use for CL in their NGs. He said they used 7 for the 700, 8 for the 800, and 11 for the 900, so CLs under 10 is not unheard of in this day and age

He flies for KLM during the half-time show? What an odd schedule.

[ajpongress 467]

Here's the master list :http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2118807Folks, thanks so much for your replies. Anything I can glean from other NG fanatics, both virtual and real life drivers, on the nitty gritty of NG ops just makes the NGX experience so much more meaningful and educational.I understand that the CI is not set in stone for every flight, as no two flights are the same and there are circumstances that require flexibility in flight performance to adhere to schedule limitations like delays, international vs. domestic routes, and other details. But it does help to have a general "SOP" value for my reference. I am compiling a spreadsheet for my own reference so I can keep track of not only CI, but things like t/o flaps and engine ratings so that when I am switching among the many different carriers, I am using as close to the the real life carrier specific ops and NG equipment list as possible.

There is no "master list."It's already been said these figures change constantly. Any list you may find now or in the future will probably be outdated and changed by the time you look at it.

[SKEWR 364]

He flies for KLM during the half-time show? What an odd schedule.

:LMAO:Hmm.. Repositioning flight or aged pop star 20 years, past her prime... To her credit it wasn't putrid, but I think a half time flight would be the way to go!

[Ralgh 43]

Anything from about 10-50 or so is probably realistic at least somewhere in the world. The CI setting range is not linear, it's logarithmic - all the numbers above 60 are really similar in the result. (this makes me wonder why Boeing didn't change the scale at all and just make it 0-100 or something, it actually goes all the way to 499 I think)The big problem with the super low ones is that they result in really slow descents... I know several pilots who change it for the descent phase or speed intervene so as to not be descending at 250 knots.

We did actually get and use 500 for a CI one night going from Miami to L.A. It gave us arond .815 mach. I've never seen one anywhere near that before or since. Also the programming on our FMCs now sets 290 as the minimum speed for descents because we had that issue with it giving us 250 knots. I don't know if that is American specific or a universal change.