Remote Holding

[Secret Squirrel]

Some of you may know I work for CFE at LGW. Recently we have been granted our own forum and the moderator was so bored he dug up this subject of remote holding. Personally, I think it is a stupid policy but more of my opinions later.

Some of you may be aware that some Airlines operate a punctuality bonus scheme: In order to maximise our bonuses we compete with airlines on punctual departures. Now, to me it's all a big con because it's done on %age and CFE are the second most active airline at LGW after BA. The low cost airlines frequently beat us because they simply don't have as many movements and so it's not rocket science to see that it is easier to get 8 out of 10 departures away on time than it is to get 40 out of 50.

The policy in CFE and BA is that if you have a twenty minute slot delay you should ask to remote hold. This, to my mind, wastes fuel and is pulling the proverbial wool over the pax eyes. IMHO the fact that the aircraft lands on time is far more critical as many pax have meetings, relatives waiting to greet them or connections to make.

This I put to our moderator who is a supporter of this banal policy, when it occurred to me that it must be a real pain in the @rse for you too to have to move us about twice. I can think of only one good reason to remote hold, and that is to free up a stand which is, I suspect, how this ludicrous idea was born in the first place; Ocasionally you've moved us off to unclutter the taxiways and BA thought, "Hey, that's a good idea, if we ask them for remote holding we can improve our statistics".

I am curious if it's just me or do you also think that we are a pain in the @rse when we ask to remote hold without the need for the stand? I'm sure other airlines do it at other airports so any input would be appreciated.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[cossack]

Sometimes remote holding is required not just for punctuality but to get the stand freed up for someone else to use it.
If its just for figures and we're busy it can be a real pain in the @rse.
This summer on GMC @ MAN I spent 25 minutes getting a 737 from T3 to stand 60 against the flow of outbound traffic so it could remote park. It got to stand 60, disconnected the tug (yes it was towed there), started up and taxied to the holding point to make its slot! I can't remember if the stand it vacated was used immediately or not but this was a real pain.
There are numerous other reasons for getting pushed early, tug required on another aircraft with an earlier slot! is one that comes to mind. Why not just take the tug to the aircraft with the earlier slot? PUNCTUALITY STATISTICS!!!

[Secret Squirrel]

This is precisely my point. As I said in my post, I can understand it if the stand is needed. We don't get tugged to the stand, we have to power there which is an incredible waste of fuel.

If it is a shortage of tugs then getting tugged there seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. As I said, if there is a genuine reason, then fairymuff, if it is to improve stats, then it's bullsh!t.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[static]

Secret, as I understand it, you`re a pilot.
If you don`t want to remote hold, just don`t do it! Am I missing something here? My company sometimes wants me to start boarding the pax 2 hours before CTOT. If I don`t see the necessity, it doesn`t happen, simple.

Please explain further.

[Secret Squirrel]

Ok, static. Yes I am a pilot. Until Jan I don't get to play capt. When it becomes MY decision I will most likely not remote hold unless there is some need such as the ones outlined above by Cossack and myself, or if ATC specifically inform me that it would be in their interests.

The problem is that some people in our company do tend to follow every recommendation made by bean counters and commercial types to the letter regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. (you have many other qualities, though, Chippy!)In reality most of our skippers ignore this policy and this is perhaps why our moderator brought it up. I am in the process of informing him (it is not my position to convince him or instruct him) why I think most skippers don't adhere to this banal policy.

The other thing that's fishy about this is that at CFE ALL employees get the punctuality bonus which is fine, I've got no problem with that. However, it does rather beg the question of the motives behind such policy making, does it not? with a clear disregard for the real issues.

We too have to go for an on time boarding procedure but in my experience it is a good policy because slots do come forward all of a sudden and you don't want to be caught out. Having said that, of course, you do get a feel for when this is likely and I would agree with you that the captain should decide whether it is worth keeping pax on board, in cramped conditions, for a possible two hours with the consequent burden it imposes on the cabin crew.

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[This message has been edited by Secret Squirrel (edited 18 December 2000).]

[static]

Secret, glad to see most of the captains take their responsibility towards the world outside the company (ATC and other a/c).
As for boarding early; indeed you get a feel for the situation regarding CTOT. What I do is call the Flow control guys with my cellphone and get more background on the origin of the ctot. This way you can make an informed decision regarding the boarding time.
Once I was in the situation where our gate was needed and we had to board and push to a remote stand on schedule time, with 90 minutes to go to engine start. After I informed the pax, it turned out that ground staff had not informed them. About 10 passengers elected not to go to CDG anymore, since they would miss their meeting anyway.
It took an awfully long time to arrange for stairs and a bus to disembark the pax. Needless to say I will not easily accept this again. In my company the groundstaff has only one interest: get the doors closed on time. Whatever happens thereafter is not their concern. So they hardly ever inform the pax honestly. This is all because of departure statistics.
What a twisted world, eh?

[Evil Jethro]

I'm an ATCO at LHR and I don't know about LGW or MAN but all remote holders have to be approved by the ATC supervisor, in order to protect GMC from overload (fat chance). Recently statistics were published showing each watch's record of accepting and declining remote holders, and those who had turned down the most criticised for doing so, without any reference to circumstances. If its less than half an hour to the CTOT personally I don't see the point (unless the stand is required very urgently) in approving a remote hold, it can take 20-30 minutes to reach the holding point at LHR, let alone get airborne!!

[Sick Squid]

SS,

I had a discussion with our ops staff (the other operator at LGW, but you know that already!) about just this very point, plus lost/ late transfer baggage etc. Worth a visit, theirs is a very big picture...

Leaving aside Statics nightmare tale for the moment, I'm generally in favour of push and hold. Not only does it free up the stand, but it also re-inforces that the delay is not "Typical Bloody (insert your airline initials in here)!" but due to extraneous factors. I ALWAYS take the time to explain to the best of my knowledge exactly what has caused the slot, and if I have the information tell the punters where the delay actually IS downroute. Not a blame session, a truth session.

Now, holding on stand is fine as long as there are no inbounds for your gate, and the tug drivers can hack the time on the towbar. However, the minute you tell pax at a gate their flight will not be boarding for x-minutes, then I guarantee 10 of them will up-sticks to the nearest bar/bog/duty-free. If the slot then comes forward, which in my experience it does around 60% of the time (at least into the slow-taxi regime) then you have to round up the missing before you can do anything else.

I'd rather board the pax on time, push on time, then make a truthful, reasoned explanation of the delay, and if necessary shut down for a while at the remote hold. Yes it uses fuel to get there, and would be much better if we could be towed 100% of the time, but it gets us on our way, dispatched and highlights the underlying slowdown on the network. I agree that punctuality bonuses are bull****, there should be no need for them, but punctuality per se is 100% necessary and puch and hold highlights exactly what could otherwise be hidden under paperwork.

Statics situation is undefendable however.... in the case of ultra-long delays (hour or more post-push) then pax should be informed prior to boarding, to allow the business-connections to leave if necessary. That is, as he states, lack of proper communication between departments and a strong hint of blame-culture being left to us flight crew to sort out

Having said all that, the "backdoor" into CDG via BRU seems to be helping some of our worst delays, with even the increase in flying time bringing us in well before we would otherwise have been half way there.

No-one likes keeping pax on board an aircraft for a moment longer than necessary, but in my opinion to push and hold is at the moment the lesser of two evils.

Good luck in Jan, mate!

SS

------------------
Disappears in a cloud of black ink...

[Secret Squirrel]

Hey Sqiddling! Good to hear from you, Buddy. As I indicated in my last post I don't really have a problem with the on time boarding as such. Static seems to have a pretty practical approach but yes you do run the risk of losing your herd if you are not careful. I must admit I hadn't considered the angle of demonstrating to the pax that it isn't the airline's fault by pushing back on time.

On the other hand my beef is mainly with the blanket policy. i.e. to do it in every case because for our friends in ATC it can be a real pain.

Sick Squid, I'm going to e-mail you with my tel no 'cos I'd be interested in talking to you about EOG/CFE. Perhaps we could meet up in the new year for a drink and have a massive punch-up in the bar over seniority issues!!!

Cheers for the input.

SS

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

[static]

Squirels, thanks for your insights.
IMHO it is also wise to board on time with delays less then 1 hour. As I mostly fly to AMS, I`m regularly confronted with delays exceeding 1 hour. In that case I find that honesty towards the pax always pays. I delay boarding, however not too much, keeping any improvement feesible.
As to remote holding: if the gate is not needed, it`s a waste of trouble, I think. For a show to the pax; if you tell them via the PA what`s going on and the purser starts the FLT Safety demo right afterwards, the message is also clear, I guess.

Good slots to all of you.

[10W]

How about trying the US system where airlines control the ramp areas and ATC only do the taxiways outside those ??

Just think, at LHR, if it ain't been cleared onto the outer, who cares ?? :)

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[GWYN]

Errrr! Not just in the US, 10W old boy.

It's happening in Oz too.

[PaulDeGearup]

The remote hold apart am I correct in believing that if you board for a slot and send a "ready" message you lose the original slot and it's a lottery whether you get an improvement or not?

[cossack]

Paul
You are not correct.
A Ready (REA) message is an ATC message which tells Flow that you are ready earlier than your CTOT and wish to depart ASAP. You still keep your present CTOT, unless it either improves or, as sometimes happens, it goes back further when new restrictions are applied.
If you cannot make a CTOT and you ask ATC to send a Slot Revision Request (SRR) then as soon as we send that, your current CTOT is cancelled and you're in the hands of the Flow Computer.
If you think that you might not make a CTOT, I think it pays to be as realistic as possible. The number of times people call for start 5 minutes after their CTOT, are number 6 or more in the queue and get shirty when we refuse start up.
The monitoring of actual departure times in comparison to CTOTs is well established (The Slot Police) and we have to have a very good reason or have the prior agreement of Flow BEFORE you depart outside your CTOT.

[PaulDeGearup]

Thanks cossack, I was told the lost slot business by an ex ATCer, now pilot. Good to have the correct info.

[ATCO Two]

10W,

I've had to pull you up on this before. I wouldn't dream of commenting on any aspect of Oceanic Control, so please don't comment on Heathrow issues. Ramp control in the US works because many of the terminals are occupied by individual airlines and it is up to them how they run their operation. At Heathrow (as you know), terminals are occupied by a number of different airlines. GMC needs to allocate cul-de-sac priorities according to a number of factors - CTOTs, inbounds against outbounds, multiple pushback possibilities, stand availability, towing traffic and a few other issues. The overall objective is to give a safe, orderly and expeditious service. Without having the complete picture this would be very difficult to do. And how would these ramp controllers be qualified? Would they have to hold an ATCO's licence? To whom would they be accountable?
If Terminal 5 is built and becomes a BA only terminal, then BA may propose to do their own ramp control, but this would be strongly opposed by Heathrow ATC for the above reasons.

[cossack]

ATCO Two
It would be an interesting experiment to let BA play ramp control at T5. See how many of their aircraft get out to the holding point in time. I bet many wouldn't make it off the ramp in time!
It would be even more obvious how good ATC is!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

And... the culd-de-sacs in the USA are ten miles wide, not 50 yards like those at UK airports!

[10W]

ATCO Two

Sorry, which bit of my :) didn't you understand ?? (That means it's a tongue in cheek or humourus comment.) Lighten up :rolleyes:

PS I'm TMA and Upper Airspace valid, not OAC BTW.

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by 10W (edited 19 December 2000).]

[static]

10W,
I think you have a good point there, I think thins might even improve, if we try the american way.
Another thing: why is all the tow-traffic on ground freq on LHR?

[Chatterbox]

static,

If it's not a silly question which frequency do you think towing traffic should be on? It is a ground movemnet after-all.

[static]

There are no silly questions, just silly answers.

Mine would be: Any other, dedicated frequency, with a separate controller. Like on most other major airports around the world.
Ofcourse in an ideal world it is best if all traffic is handled by the same controller on the same freq, however, especially at LHR the amount of R/T is such that it is already difficult to squeeze your message in. No need for all the tow traffic on the same freq.

Having said all this, I firmly believe the ground control system in LHR is among the best in the world, just follow the greens, excellent!

Regards

[cossack]

Who will pay for this dedicated tow-controller?
Nice idea but it won't fly in th UK!!!
Having said that, at AMS because of the language problem, the GMC controller coordinates towing with a tow-controller who is not an ATCO. Still takes up thinking time and time is spent on the phone, so I think on GMC freq is the only real option on our congested manoeuvring areas.
A dedicated lighting panel operator as at LHR and LGW is the way to go, but again has to be paid for.

[This message has been edited by cossack (edited 21 December 2000).]

[static]

cossack,
I think a dedicated tow controller is at the end of the day cheaper then all the fuel that`s wasted by aircraft just waiting and trying to get their taxi request squeezed in.
Or their push-request.
Ofcourse the tabs are picked up by different persons, but still.

What`s the language problem at AMS?

[Evil Jethro]

I think a seperate controller would just make life harder as the controller would just be involved in more co-ordination. Just like when GMC at LHR is split the workload can actually increase due to the co-ordination. The importance of the split is that the RT load is reduced so that you fly-boys can get in on the frequrncy if you have a problem...Incidently if you are on the stand and have a problem, fuel leak etc etc Delivery is just as qualified and able to put an emergency on for you...

Back to the tow issue, if towing traffic is really bad we request that all towing movements are pre-warned through the tower supervisor, the live aircraft are flowed through delivery so the towing traffic is....thats the logic and the few times we've had to do its worked quite well. I'm sure its far from ideal for the airlines, but lets face it Heathrow is a far from ideal design for an airport!

[cossack]

static
I agree it all comes down to cash. Airlines prefer to have "on time" departures regardless of whether or not they've used more fuel. Our "employers" don't want to have too many people working as the contract becomes more expensive.
It was explained to me on a visit, that at AMS the GMC controller liases with a Tow Coordinator by phone, who in turn gives radio instructions to the drivers. It can't be guaranteed that all tug drivers will speak English, so this was their solution.
As EJ has said, more controllers or coordinators can make it harder to get the job done.
Most older airports are not the ideal design for traffic flow, and so it has to be made as smooth as possible and pre-warning towing and maybe declining push and park requests if the stand is not needed seems a very logical step. Might suggest it up here!

[Evil Jethro]

Out of interest cossack where are you...I get the feeling its MAN but could be wrong??

[cossack]

EJ
You got it!