Pilothouse, I am a captain with over 4,000 hours on type, both NG & Classic. I have worked for two previous 737 operators as well as spending several years flying turborpops around Europe. From the tone of your reply it sounds very much as though it is you who has very little experience of our industry. If you are experienced then I'd guess that it all comes from Channex, because there is no way on earth that you'd be so accepting of PMs lousy attitude if you had any other relevant flying experience.
So, you find it acceptable to operate with one pack only? Indeed if you check the MEL it is so with certain altitude restrictions. However, do you then find it acceptable to be operating on one pack, have the remaining pack trip off at FL230 & continue to operate from MAN to BUD when the initial trip off occured at LAMSO? Jet2 do. They operated this aircraft in just such a manner & then had to return from BUD to MAN at 8,000ft with an aircraft full of passengers!
How about ATC informing a crew shortly after rotation that they ..."have fuel spraying from the right wing..." & the passengers calling the cabin crew to inform them that they could see liquid coming from the wing. The Decision? Hell, lets carry on because the leak ceased at approximately FL120!
How about three of our very good FOs warning the company that one of the MAN based contract Captains was a dangerous operator & something needed to be done? (Full credit here must go to a training captain who took the problem seriously & tried to deal with the situation only to be basically humiliated & over ridden in his decision making by the management.) They moved this guy to LBA, as we all know a far more technical airfield, & what happened? On his first day the FO refused to fly with him ever again & on his second day he nearly went off the end of the runway. Only then did Channex dismiss him. He nearly had to crash the bloody thing before they would take any action! And which captain am I referring to? Look at the newspapers from two weeks ago.
The issue of the APU poses me with a problem. I frequently start up the APU even if ground power is available because I personally think that we are following a potentially lethal course with this ridiculous policy. Someone is going to be seriously injured or even killed to save this half assed airline a few dollars. My SOPs, however, state that the APU is not to be used. Now we are having problems with the APUs because they weren't meant to be used in this way (for such short periods: on & then off again five minutes later) & so any savings that we have made are about to possibly go out of the window. Again, smacks of a management team who don't have a clue, doesn't it?
Sorry Pilothouse but you talk absolute tripe when you attempt to claim that by working seven days in a row you somehow get more days off together so it's good for the commuters. If you get two days off together after a seven day duty then you are blessed. We frequently finish on a late & start on an early, so commuting, or having quality time at home with your family, is damn near impossible. No, this is not the industry norm, thank God.
Last edited by X-Centric; 7th September 2005 at 17:03.