Happened to me once. On my BFR coming into RDU ATC told me to maintain best forward speed. Southwest 737 was right behind me. ATC then asked me to turn on the first taxiway so the 737 did not have to do a go-around. I was able to and the SW pilot thanked me. Told me a go around is a thousand $$. He was very polite and I bet he was right.

After fueling and heading out ATC put me in front of two 737's. I thought about it and pulled over to let them go by. I figure them idling behind me and then my slow takeoff was hundreds of $$ as well. Again, both aircraft said thanks for letting them go in front of me.

This reminds me of Mark Grady from AOPA telling me he shot an ILS in a blimp one time. Total time - 45 minutes. Not sure if he was joking or not, but that's one way to clog things up.

If you follow the footnote 30 (today) when fact-checking your references, you'll see that Wikipedia article cites facts from this article:
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/artic ... 277527.php

And the "each such flight" is a 2.5 hour flight from Seattle to Los Angeles to support the $8500 fuel cost.

I think we can agree that a go-around uses materially less fuel than a taxi, takeoff and 2.5 hour flight from KSEA to KLAX.

I remember reading Flying magazine years ago about an airline captain complaining about the cost of doing a 360 for spacing...

Airline captain: "Do you realize it costs my company $1,500.00 for every 180 degree turn I have to make?"

Controller: "Roger, give me a three-thousand dollar turn to the right!"

Regards,
John

Greg,

I flew a Cirrus SR20 into BWI to drop off a passenger (faster than driving in Washington/Baltimore traffic). When leaving, instead of sending me out the normal 33R ATC had me taxi all the way across the airport and take off runway 10. I was queued up between a United (I think it was a 767) and a SW 737.
They had me wait for a few minutes after the United took off and asked me to turn left before the end of the runway and as soon as practical.

When I called a few days later to ask why they made me go all the way across the airport, the answer was not sure but likely for spacing or training (as in throw all sorts of stuff at a trainee and see how he/she does).

Tim

I guarantee you that almost everyone on this list would enjoy flying the old 737-200 because it had the flying "feel" of a Bonanza/Baron/King Air. It was/is a wonderful flying airplane that, if you screwed up the landing,you had to totally not be paying attention. Anyway.........

From a go-around to a subsequent landing 10 minutes later would take another 200 gallons (appx.) You can do the math for fuel cost. If you were able to receive a closed pattern to a visual, it would be much less than that.

(All estimates are from memory which is becoming more and more distant!)

If you follow the footnote 30 (today) when fact-checking your references, you'll see that Wikipedia article cites facts from this article:
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/artic ... 277527.php

And the "each such flight" is a 2.5 hour flight from Seattle to Los Angeles to support the $8500 fuel cost.

I think we can agree that a go-around uses materially less fuel than a taxi, takeoff and 2.5 hour flight from KSEA to KLAX.

Part of the problem is the varying approach speeds with different series 737's out there. I believe some controllers at smaller airports do not realize the difference in Vref speeds from a 900 series vis a vis a classic 300 or 500 (of which I think only SWA has any longer).

The GA cost is inconsequential for myself and if I have to execute the maneuver than it is what it is. You'll never hear me complain about the cost because if needed its a safety issue. Besides.....I'm not paying for the fuel anyway.

Southwest's fuel cost per gallon is $3.08 last quarter. They have us plan 1500 pounds for a go around and getting vectored for another approach. Visual approach would be less fuel of course.

737-300 target speed at max landing weight(114,000 lbs.) is 142 kias, higher in gusty winds.

737-700 target speed at max landing weight(128,000 lbs.) is 138 kias, higher in gusty winds.

737-800 target speed at max landing wieght(144,000 lbs.) is 145 kias, higher in gusty
winds.

Avg fuel burn per hour fleet wide is about 730 gph.

Our fleet consists of 300,500, 700 and 800. The Classic fleet (300/500) is slowly being retired and replaced with Next Gen and Max starting in 2017.

Bf

Brent,

Did the 700 add the winglets? I would expect as the MLW increases the Vref would also increase.

Tim

In this particular case, the 7 3 had winglets, and it was vfr. He did a big 'ol pattern and landed.

All of our 737 have winglets except some of our highest time airframes. i did not see a difference in approach speeds when they added them on few years back. the 700 was already hard to slow down, with winglets, needed an extra 3 miles to slow. It is a slick bird, 800 is harder cuz it's heavier.

They did save about 4% on fuel burn on avg. this is a savings of 200,000 gal of jet fuel per year, per airplane. They paid for themselves in just 3 years.

Fuel is only part of the equation. If the ten minute run around the pattern causes passengers onboard the 737 to miss their connecting flight, perhaps the last one of the day leaving for their destination, the airline has to pay for their hotel and meal expenses. The increased flight time means each crewmember gets paid an additional ten minutes if the flight was on sched. The 737 lands ten minutes closer to the next required inspection. In the airline business, it is all about TIME.

Traffic related go-arounds can be caused by:

insufficient spacing on the part of ATC
pilots not clearing the runway in a reasonable time
pilots not paying attention to large speed differences on final
late speed reduction on final
pilots not maintaining a listening watch to add to their situational awareness
(not being aware of traffic behind them)

It happens...

pilots not clearing the runway in a reasonable time
pilots not paying attention to large speed differences on final
late speed reduction on final
pilots not maintaining a listening watch to add to their situational awareness
(not being aware of traffic behind them)

It happens...[/quote]
===========

Pilots not clearing the rwy quick is one of my pet peeves. There is always the Potato head that after he lands just taxis the airplane on the rwy slowly passing one or two exists so he can pull off near his exit. I even see it here at KFXE once in a while, the controllers here are pretty good so they tell them to clear at this or that exit,, but still some common courtesy dude.
Usually I am against having the "authority" get into our lives in any way, but for those I would make an exception.

Just another comment, there is a smaller, shorter parallel rwy that I was truly surprised the Cessna wasn't assigned. The timing seemed really odd too. The Cessna was over the threshold when the 7 3 began the go around, and he was super close, so much do that somebody musta said, " HOLY SHNIT!!! SOUTHWEST 123, GO AROUND!!!" Like everyone was sleeping.
The 7 3 was way closer than a mile, in my opinion. Personally, I don't think the Cessna was at fault, unless he was assigned 19L, but took 19R.

It always amazes and bugs me but at Elp (El Paso) we have 26L and shorter non carrier 26r. I always ask for 26r and hardly ever get it and a lot of times get it and then get moved back to 26l. They don't seem comfortable using both at the same time.