Originally Posted by
LoyalToTheDollar
Southwest is known for short turnarounds to optimize airplane in-air time, which decreases costs. However, it seems like short turnarounds could be at odds with "optimal" refueling. Being able to add just enough fuel during a stop so that the plane can reach the next destination (plus safety margin) optimizes for weight, which also decreases cost.
Does anyone know more about Southwest refueling policy? In particular:
1) How much does WN's short turnarounds affect refueling? For example, if ~25 minutes is always enough to top off a 737, then I guess there's no issue!
2) I guess there's two extremes, given that WN has no redeyes: (1) only refueling overnight and never refueling at stops or (2) refuel at every stop. Anyone know if WN follows (1), (2), or something in between?
In the vast majority of cases, SWA flights refuel at each stop. That is not the same as "topping off" as in "filling her up" as if the aircraft was a vehicle. The reality is that aircraft have multiple operational weight limits, and running around with completely full fuel tanks would cut into the ability to carry routine payloads. Accordingly, fuel loads are mission-specific to the individual flight at-hand. This isn't unique to SWA--all airlines are pretty much likewise constrained by the various limitations associated with the aircraft, plus the length of an individual flight itself.
That said, when it is economically and operationally indicated, some degree of "tankering" fuel can be accomplished, and this extra fuel onboard from AAA-BBB may well be sufficient to operate the aircraft's next leg BBB-CCC. The ability to economically tanker fuel is determined by internal computer programming that considers fuel costs (that differ) at the affected stations, plus the trip length, and how much of that tankered fuel would be consumed in carrying the additional weight of the tankered fuel.