EZY - Lay off the ATC please

[ou Trek dronkie]

Can someone tell me why EZY out of CIA like to blame the Rome ACC for ”delays” caused when they ask for a non-standard departure ? It’s happening a lot lately. It seems that EZY often requests a departure off 33 instead of the duty R/W 15 and moan when they must wait to be fitted in. This was the case last Thursday (18th) when the captain whinged to us pax about the “usual war” with ATC whilst we were waiting for start. Although the flight was a wet-lease by European, the “real" EZY also do this a lot. Later in the flight she again referred to the so-called “struggle” with Italian ATC.

Now this is just not on. If you elect, as you certainly may, to fly a non-standard departure and thereby pick up a delay while the ACC tries to insert you into the traffic flow, it is you who are being uncooperative, IMHO, not ATC. Their sole interest is to get you on your way and away, they have no interest in a “war”, believe me.

So, why try to blame the Italian ATC when it is you who are being difficult ? Try asking for a departure against the traffic flow at LHR or STN and see how you get on.

I believe we would all get home earlier if we took our slot time and did not sit 20 minutes or more on the ground waiting for T/O clearance off the non-duty runway. This can translate into a 45 minute earlier arrival at our own front door. That’s what I call being on time, not exploiting the completely unrealistic timetable by bragging to the pax ”We are five minutes ahead of schedule”, simply because, I suspect, we want to save a little fuel.

Rant over.

[FlapsOne]

ou Trek dronkie

You certainly did pick up a lot of info on your flight with European didn't you. And now you lay the blame at EZ as well.

Can't comment about the so called 'war' with ATC as I wasn't there however has the runway request got something to do with performance by any chance?

I don't fly to CIA, and haven't done for a few years, but R15 had a take off obstacle that certainly affected performance considerably on other types. Surely the 737 is the same. I'll check the perf figures next time I'm near a book.

I do fly for EZ and can tell you that no pilot would request an 'off duty runway' to 'save a little fuel' as you put it, or to get home 5 mins earlier.

At Malaga, for example, we do sometimes request 14 for departure (wind permitting) as 32 can get limiting in the height of the Summer, with temperatures in the high 30s.

So, whatever it's done for at CIA, it sure ain't to save a thimble full of gas!

[Right Way Up]

Not sure if this is the case, but it might be a performance related problem. They could have required the other runway to be able to takeoff at the planned weight. This often happens at Milan Linate with high temps, heavy weights. The alternative is to leave some bags behind or even passengers.

Sorry FlapsOne you beat me to it!

[johnpilot]

Just a few points about CIA and non standard departures. CIA is not the primary airport it is a secondary so it is known for delays especially when things go wrong at FCO. It only has one approach in, which is an ILS to 15 and if you have to use 33 you have to circle so it does cause delays. FCO on the other hand has approaches to all sides 16 and 34 so the traffic flows. CIA ATC tries its best but cannot overcome the shortcomings of the airfield location. Runway 15 is used for landing even with a tailwind, but for take-off it is performance limiting, and when it is hot and you are full you cannot take 15 with tailwind as sometimes wind interpretation is very subjective depending on how keen one is to see you take-off. Just as ATC wants us to go, so do we want to go, but safety is always on our mind, before time schedule. It is not uncommon for FCO to be using runway 34 for departures, and CIA insisiting for runway 15 beacuse of inbound traffic. Even if these guys are circling, they are still coming in from the wrong side. There is no such thing as non standard departure, nor is there a reason for any of us to play games with ATC, however, if the numbers do not work, they do not work. One would think that smarter guys than us flying the line would have come up with ideas about mixing inbound and outbound traffic, but it all depends on flexibility and desire to increase movements. LHR, STN, and FCO are major airports located in areas where departures and arrivals do not mix beacuse of topographical shortcomings hence not an option for runway selection. In CIA however you have the mountains to the south, and even on an 737-800 on a warm day you cannot take off on runway 15.
I think that the pilots of EJ were probably tired and frustated with the situation and complained about ATC
JP:D

[Basic T]

Easy takes Rw33 tailwind performance at CIA purely due to performance restrictions.

The route was an original GO route from STN, back than their 737-300's were mostly 22k engine rated. Easy decided last year that the mayority of the ex-GO fleet had to be permanently derated to 20k due to the high extra maintenance costs. (with the exception of a couple for bases like BRS and NCL)
With 22k you can get off Rw15 if the OAT isn't too high.

Also as others have suggested already...Rome ATC can sometimes be funny due to events at FCO, leave you at the ramp for no reason or they can't be bothered to tell you.

[SOPS]

:O And if it was a wet lease, was it a 737-200? Then they REALLY needed the other runway. They could have "argued" with ATC for 5 minutes or 5 hours, but the fact is they NEEDED it.:O

[Lavdumperer]

It's always easier to blame ATC for delays anyway - regardless of whether ATC was involved or not....

[av8boy]

I'm not making a comment on the merits of runway choice based on operational requirements. Just wondering, what if ou Trek dronkie had stopped at: "Can someone tell me why EZY out of CIA like to blame the Rome ACC for ”delays” caused when they ask for a non-standard departure ?"

Admittedly, I didn't look carefully at the rest of the posting before I was put in mind of similar experiences elsewhere. For instance, enroute to my father's funeral I found myself in the coach section of a major US carrier waiting to depart an airport with which I was very familiar. The crew undertook to make some choices which guaranteed less-than-expeditious handling, then, as we sat and waited our turn, informed the passengers that the delay was because "ATC is just especially slow today."

Subsequently I was able to listen to the ATC tapes related to the period in question and found that it was not an ATC-induced delay at all. Granted I did not bash (and still have no interest in getting my pound of flesh out of) the carrier, but this kind of thing obviously happens.

I'm looking to avoid a flame war and get some input on this issue. Thoughts?

Dave :confused:

[Engee73]

I guess I am just big enough to be honest!

Occasionally of course it is easier to be a little economcal with the truth ;)

NG

[outofsynch]

AS a Go/ezyy pilot who has flown into CIA many times, it is indeed correct that 33 is ONLY requested for performance reasons, not flight time. There would be minimal time difference anyway.

What always amuses me, is CIA ATC always advise of delays when you request 33, but I have rarely experienced ANY delay, after arriving at the hold. Always thought Rome ATC did well fitting us 'non-standard' departures in.

Very wrong of any pilot to blame ATC in that situation.

[Jerricho]

This kind of reminds me of something that happened a couple of months ago. Without going into specifics (again......sorry if he's reading), a flight from Gatwick was late departing (very late). The excuse given was "ATC", but it turned out to be a staff problem, as revealed by cabin crew at a later stage.

I guess as E73 puts is, perhaps sometimes it's easier to be economical with the truth. Especially when the pther party probably won't find out they have been blamed.

[Engee73]

Further to the last;

Sometime I have had both ATC delays and cabin crew late arrival. The CC turned up in time to meet the delayed slot.

What should I have said then?

Of course sometimes the slot is late due to the late arriving cabin crew etc. etc. ad infinitum

At the end of the day our on time performance is improving (Not a lot of thanks to circusair!) and seems to be in the same league as other airlines.

:E

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Personally if the reason is genuinely an ATC related one I will say so, but, it can always be done in a way that is complimentary to ATC i.e. the good folks in ATC are having to restrict the rate at which aircraft get airborne so that they can guarantee everyones total safety along the route... etc. etc.

I think passengers are interested to know the why's but are not interested in hearing pilots blaming others - it smacks of "We are not to blame-itis" and raises suspicion that they may be being less than totally honest.

If all else fails blame ATC in Brussels - at least half the pax will be pleased to have another reason to bemoan the EU ;)

WWW

[ou Trek dronkie]

Av8boy – fair point. I was speculating of course and I’ve picked some useful info. Thanks to everyone for the interesting comments.

Fairly sure it was a –200 and that could explain a performance limitation, don’t know CIA. No problems for me saving fuel by using another runway. This was the case at the old Athens airport some years ago with 15L (saved fuel) and 33R (better for ATC), always picked up a delay, but my point is, we never blamed ATC for the delay.

Now my memory has been jogged, I remember earlier this year that EZY staff at STN blamed a delay on a “power failure at CIA” when in fact an air display was taking place (NOTAMed ?).

[Engee73]

It may shock and surprise you sir but we 'sky gods' of the orange order are occassionally wrong ;)

Might just be ATC lying to us though! :D

:p

[Jerricho]

Or just being economical with the truth ;)

ATC - we're never wrong, just sometime mistaken ;) ;) ;)

[Man Flex 32.5]

Hey outofsynch - as well as outofsynch you also seem to be outoftouch! Didn't anyone tell you go was bought by ej over a year ago. Do you think you sound like a more credible pilot rather than a dozy old incompetent ej pilot by mentioning GO?

MF

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Oh, I don't know - still flying Go liveried aircraft whilst wearing a Go uniform sporting Go name badges. Kind of fair to call yourself a Go/Ezy pilot really. ;)

WWW

[priscilla]

Outofsynch said:
AS a Go/ezyy pilot who has flown into CIA many times, it is indeed correct that 33 is ONLY requested for performance reasons, not flight time. There would be minimal time difference anyway.

When you say performance...it has something to do with weight ? Are you planning each time to use runway 33 ? Can you reduce your weight to be always able to take off on runway 15 ? (I do not mean a diet for the pilots ;-))
We have the same problem in MRS with runway 14 and it could become scary sometimes....:uhoh:

[Man Flex 32.5]

Well the go liveried a/c are so because they are going fortunately for everyone and being replaced by shiny airbus 319. Secondly i believe that the uniform will change by the end of next month. Lastly the name badges should not be worn.

So smoke that www and maybe revert back to chatting up sheep.

MF

[FlapsOne]

priscilla


The choice is:

Pax, Bags, Fuel.

Given that Fuel is unlikely to be a realistic option the only way would be to limit the pax/bag load.

So, take a full load off R33 with a slight delay, or leave a load of pax and bags in the terminal and go from R15 on time.

It's a no-brainer in commercial terms.

[priscilla]

OK...even if delay is more than 15 mn spent at the holding point?
It may occurs in our field

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Manflex - chill out man.

I am glad you are excited at the prospect of lots of shiny new airbi. You may believe the uniforms will be changed by the end of the month but then some people believed phones would arrive by the end of July. ;)

As for name badges - umm, what are we supposed to do? Remain nameless? It still says Go on lots of ID cards and nobody has provided easyJet name badges yet. So smoke that buddy.

Anyway - lifes too short to get excited about it. As for chatting up sheep - you couldn't pull in the Bethesda Friday market disco at 2 in the morning mate. You ain't Welsh and you ain't Kiwi ;)

Now I need to send myself a snotty message for thread wandering...

Bora da,

WWW

[outofsynch]

Hey WWW ... cheers mate! The beers on me. :ok: