Fuel is one of the biggest expenses that airlines have (especially at the moment), so British Airways is planning on introducing an intriguing new scheme to incentivize pilots to cut fuel burn. This seems smart on the surface, though it does raise the question of whether this could cause pilots to adopt some less than ideal practices.
In this post:
British Airways pilots may get 1% bonus for cutting fuel burn
Bloomberg reports how British Airways has proposed a new incentive scheme that would reward pilots for reducing fuel burn and carbon emissions.
Under the plan, which would kick in as of 2027, pilots would get a potential bonus of up to 1% on their basic salary if collective targets are met. Pilots would need to collectively cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60,000 tons above 2025 levels to unlock the payout.
The plan is expected to be put out to a vote among members of the British Airlines Pilots Association (BALPA) in late April 2026. It’s not clear to me what downside there is to pilots, so I’m not sure why they’d vote against this.
As you can tell based on the timeline, this isn’t specific to the current spike in oil prices, since it would only be implemented in 2027, but instead, is about long term savings.
Per the document to pilots, “flight crew decisions have a direct and measurable impact on fuel burn and emissions,” and “the incentive exists only to recognise and reward fuel efficient behaviours when, and only when, they are compatible with uncompromised safety and sound airmanship.”
How could British Airways pilots reduce fuel burn?
I think most people would agree that the concept of incentivizing reduced fuel burn seems like a win-win. I think the logical question that some people may have is how much control pilots actually have over fuel burn.
For example, we could see how something like this would work for those driving cars — some drivers constantly accelerate fast and then slam on breaks, and obviously that’s not great for fuel burn, vehicle maintenance costs, etc.
Flying a plane is a bit different, though, since pilots are following checklists, air traffic control instructions, etc. The amount of engine power applied at takeoff is based on the length of the runway and other factors, rather than based on a pilot’s “vibes.”
This initiative is apparently largely focused on reducing fuel burn through updated taxiing procedures and also fuel load planning. When it comes to taxiing, I imagine we could see planes primarily taxi with just one engine, to reduce fuel burn on the ground. That’s easy enough to implement, though I’d say the trickier topic is adjusting fuel load planning.
Planes obviously carry fuel reserves in case they need to enter holding patterns, deviate around weather, divert, etc., as that buffer is important for the safe operation of flights. There’s a cost to all that excess fuel, even just purely in terms of the fuel burn for carrying the weight of the extra fuel that won’t be used.
So I have to imagine this project would incentivize carrying as little extra fuel as possible. Admittedly there are regulations about the minimum amount of extra fuel that needs to be carried, so it’s not like pilots can be reckless here, and I wouldn’t call this “dangerous.”
At the same time, one does wonder if such an incentive system makes sense, especially when there’s an annual target. Ultimately the captain has final say on how much extra fuel is carried (beyond the minimums), and it does seem to me like this potentially gets rid of some buffer, even if it’s by no means “unsafe.”
Bottom line
British Airways is planning on incentivizing pilots to reduce fuel burn. If targets are met, pilots could get a bonus of up to 1% on their annual pay. The idea is that pilots could use new taxiing procedures and updated fuel load planning to cut emissions.
This seems like a reasonable enough concept, though perhaps eliminating some buffer on how much extra fuel is carried is something passengers may not love.
What do you make of British Airways’ proposed bonus for pilots?
Shouldn’t the pilots be doing that all along?
“If you turn off the engines at 40,000 you can glide a long way before you have to turn them back on again.”
Lace all airport food with horse laxatives to reduce the overall passenger weight.
All of these comments are hilarious. No, pilots won't suddenly start flying slow or cutting corners. However it could disincentivise extra fuel carriage in excess of minimums for holding.
The bigger problem is this incentive is wrapped up into a paydeal so it's a vote on all or nothing. The rest of the deal is toilet.
Are their Dispatchers also going to get a bonus if they plan less fuel on the flights they are responsible for? In the US the captain and dispatcher share joint authority for each flight they are assigned. The dispatch release and the fuel plan are usually completed at least 90 minutes prior to departure and are released into the system about 70-75 minutes before departure. In many cases the aircraft will be fueled before the...
Are their Dispatchers also going to get a bonus if they plan less fuel on the flights they are responsible for? In the US the captain and dispatcher share joint authority for each flight they are assigned. The dispatch release and the fuel plan are usually completed at least 90 minutes prior to departure and are released into the system about 70-75 minutes before departure. In many cases the aircraft will be fueled before the captain has pulled up his or her release. If you want to save fuel you would be better off giving your dispatcher’s a fuel saving bonus rather than your flight crews.
aviation disasters did an episode on this issue. pilots did not want to do a go around partly bc of bonuses related to fuel savings (in indonesia I recall) well… it didn’t end well and the correction was getting rid of the fuel savings bonus at the airline.
this seems like a really stupid idea to go and repeat
BK and DL are spot on. Ben, I’ll be waiting for the article on a BA flight diverting due to low fuel. It’s been tried before and there’s always one Captain that will go overboard. They they don’t cost of one divert will negate a lot of savings.
The cost of
I was Once on a Lufthansa flight, where to save fuel they turned off the cabin air intakes. I was literally suffocating after half an hour - I'm asthmatic so I'm sensitive. - and I will not fly Lufthansa again as a result. Sounds like that's going to happen on BA.
I look at this like I'd look at my taxi driver getting such an incentive. I don’t want to be traveling down the highway at 45mph.
Not even RyanAir is this cheap. It's like BA and Lufthansa are in a competition to see who can be the worst flag carrier in Europe.
Fact Chiffy, both BA and LH are streets ahead of the nearest U.S. carrier in the World Rankings don’t you know sunshine? Not a good look bumping your gums out of gross ignorance, yes? …. :-)
So BA flights arrive late as pilots get incentivized to save fuel beginning 2027? So in addition to losing bags and putting up with surly security at LHR transfers your flight arrives late?? Only BA!
Absolutely RD, BA may have the odd challenge (like all World Class players at this time) but by comparison with the U.S. offerings, it is exemplary don’t you know! …. :-)
Start the descent from 100 miles out and glide, rather than powering into a 30 mile TOD combined with a steep descent.
I’ve witnessed similar efforts decades ago during previous fuel crisis..
Arguments between captains and flight dispatchers about carrying extra fuel.
Pilots arguing as captain ordered the airplane be defuelled.
Fuel that had been offloaded, had to be secured and not returned to the farm tanks due to contamination concerns and only could be offloaded onto tanker trucks, and only given to other company aircraft.
Pilots employing inventive techniques..
Those that don’t know...
I’ve witnessed similar efforts decades ago during previous fuel crisis..
Arguments between captains and flight dispatchers about carrying extra fuel.
Pilots arguing as captain ordered the airplane be defuelled.
Fuel that had been offloaded, had to be secured and not returned to the farm tanks due to contamination concerns and only could be offloaded onto tanker trucks, and only given to other company aircraft.
Pilots employing inventive techniques..
Those that don’t know the history are destined to relearn.
That old pilot adage that says learn from the lessons of others
The three likely ways this will happen - 1) single engine taxis (already widespread at BA I'm sure) 2) increased use of Vertical speed mode rather then open climb/descent (airbus) or flight level change mode (Boeing) to smooth out descents and climbs and make them more continuous, and 3) happy to fly at a lower mach number (maybe even selecting a lower mach number vs what the cost index is set to) rather then manually increasing the speed suring cruise
BA has ridiculous fuel surcharges during normal times (when oil was cheap) that they can't raise them anymore when oil goes up - and have to resort to shutting off the engines 20 minutes before landing (joking here but you get the point).
So would they think twice before going around when landing on an occupied runway?
That’s rich, considering LHR is the only major hub where you can expect a 10-15min holding pattern for every arrival.
Every good captain I fly with adds 5,000 pounds of fuel to whatever dispatch planned for us. Cutting safety margins for an extra $5k at the end of the year won’t change that practice.
Respect.
They fly into Heathrow a lot. Coming from the other side of the pond you spend a lot of time overflying the English countryside in lazy racetrack formations before you get permission to enter the landing queue. Not much they can do about that unless BA changes its hub airport, and that is not likely. Not sure how you quantify the 1% number if there are schedule changes from year to year. Sounds like it...
They fly into Heathrow a lot. Coming from the other side of the pond you spend a lot of time overflying the English countryside in lazy racetrack formations before you get permission to enter the landing queue. Not much they can do about that unless BA changes its hub airport, and that is not likely. Not sure how you quantify the 1% number if there are schedule changes from year to year. Sounds like it would have to be carefully negotiated by the pilots otherwise they might spend a lot of time planning and receive very little for it.
"Well folks, we can't make up some time this evening, the FO and I don't want to lose our bonuses."
A few other concerns:
Pilots trying to fly through rough weather rather than around it
Delaying departure if there are currently waits for takeoff expected to dissipate
Justin, wrong assumption old bean. Ask Mr Google if you are unconvinced.
Great initiative in theory but I'd rather have my pilots focus on safety than hitting their next bonus target.
Get-there-ititus will be at an all time high
What could possibly go wrong…
*SAS almost takes off on taxiway*
Can also be called move-the-metal
Only the most naughty will be getting a diversion! I think this fuel saving incentive plan had been similarly used before for other airlines