The EK Screwtape Letters
Anyone get a letter on the topic of fuel uplift? I presume 30% of our captains do every month according to what it says. I refer to the letter that somewhat libelously implies that professional integrity is in question because the recipient may be uplifting a bit too much fuel and this obviously impacts someone else's bonus.
At this point I will drop the popular term "Profit Share" as this implies some sort of equality basis is behind it. I can't really see how this can be if one declares a figure and then gives other multiples of this to various post holders in a company. Take it to the ridiculous conclusion: "A profit share of 1 dirham will be awarded to all, but there are a select few that are getting a multiplier of a million factored in for the excellent job they are doing". This somewhat skewed process causes some more senior post holders to take unbelievable actions like coming up with schemes to enhance this bonus whatever the consequences. Greed is a damaging motivator. We have seen whole countries wrecked by this phenomenon. I abhor it in the company that pays my wage and I have invested so much time and effort in.
Of course I am talking about the scheme to monitor, record and process data in order to take action on any captain who is in the top 30% of those uplifting any fuel above that nominated in the OFP in any month. Apparently these villains are frivolously taking far more fuel than anyone back on the ground actually thinks is necessary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving fuel and not uplifting anything beyond what I think is appropriate for the circumstances. It’s good for my (factored by 1) bonus, the environment, fits in with my professional ethics and is of course what is required and entrusted to me by the company who clearly don't actually trust me quite as much as I believed. So much so that they take the statistics then send me a not so friendly letter, loaded with insinuation and menace. It troubles me even more that this also goes on my record and a statistical database which could be reviewed at some future date should they need to find evidence of a substandard performance. Big brother and his penchant for keeping statistics and data without worrying too much about what it all means.
It is this data collection that is now being used for justifying a bonus rather than necessarily furthering the interests of the company as a whole. Anyone collecting data where they can control what is included, what is left out and how it is processed can use this to prove almost anything. As Disraeli so eloquently put: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. In this case statistics are used show how the instigators of this poorly conceived scheme are driving down the additional fuel uplift decided by trained licensed, current and competent ( and real!) captains so they can proudly display this warped statistical showpiece to their superiors to empirically demonstrate their case for the disproportionate rewards they strive continuously to gain or justify. I think if someone gave me the free hand to cherry pick and process data, I could probably prove that I alone was saving millions for the company every year, or perhaps the 330 lot are better than the 777 bunch who in turn outperformed the 380 folk. I need not even adjust for weight; after all I get to chose how the data is processed. Now there's an idea. Who knows - perhaps it’s in the pipeline.
I think we can all see where this could lead. Maybe the next iteration could be based on not only what you uplift, but what you actually burn. Welcome to the world of excessive taxi speed and unstable approaches etc.
I've been in the company long enough to see various fuel saver programs wither and die. Essentially because the variables that need to be included in a network of this size to give meaning to the program are complex and eventually sensible managers who were not receiving bonuses any larger than anyone else, and most of who actually flew on the line, decided the negative consequences outweighed any benefit. No one conceived of insulting letters on company letterhead or data stored in perpetualis. Ah - the days of honour and integrity amongst professionals. Welcome to the morally bankrupt 21st century.
So what are the parameters that are fed into this Machiavellian piece of uninformed computer programming? Does anyone know? Are there bonus (pardon the pun) points if the fuel is actually used on the trip thereby avoiding a diversion or worse? I hear that if one uplifts on a tankering sector because the ZFW drops and more fuel can then be carried (as required) for the return that this actually counts against you! I must have got the wrong end of the stick on this one because I truly cannot believe we have been debased to this.
Nor do I remember being informed of this program and the factors on which it works. It might have been in my email I suppose. I make a valiant effort to separate that which I am required to know from the endless stream of self congratulatory, irrelevant or disinteresting digital garbage that arrives in my company email every day. I'm sure no one actually believes that any human could keep up with it all. It is all part of the lamentable culture of evading accountability by telling everyone everything in preparation to avoid blame in any eventuality. Playground rules: "I told Johnny Sir - It’s not my fault"
While I find it puerile that a company should attempt to define its employees worth by meaningless statistics, I don't actually care if I get spotlighted for carrying fuel into a monsoon covered airfield, or to deviate around large areas of weather, or cater for facts I know the dispatcher cannot know or appreciate. The alternative is far more frightening to explore.
I hope others don't care either and have the courage to air their views on the subject. I have taken off fuel where I can and put on where I feel the need is appropriate. Sometimes I've been wise and sometimes overcautious but at least I’m still here. I constantly reflect on my decisions and use experience as I gain it. I also know they must be tempered to cater for the assessment, knowledge and comfort of the others in the flight deck. I have probably flown with at least half the pilots in the airline and have yet to see one take any more that they believe is necessary. I have at times pointed out I think the choice is excessive and given my reasons, and at times accepted reasoning behind taking more. And if I take more, I work out exactly what I believe is needed not using the "slap on a couple of extra tonnes" formula. I do this, but so do 99% of my colleagues so why are 30% getting insulting letters?
So why write this epistle? Simply because I feel a dangerous precedent is being set for all the wrong reasons. And it is an entirely inappropriate way to attempt to bring down fuel burns. I haven't seen any attempt to publish scientific literature or examples of fuel usage or saving strategies in a flight profile, I haven't seen ground-school attempting to educate the thousands of company pilots in the carriage of fuel and the assumptions and risk factors and costs behind fuel uplifts. Surely if unnecessary fuel is being carried then it is a matter of education rather than malicious waste from the pilots? If there is a problem then time should be allocated and resources made available to train the crew, rather than supply a set of rules and some fragmented and woefully inadequate information in a few manuals while at the same time dragging the cane out of the cupboard again.
I guess this takes us right back to accountability.....