Thursday night diversions CLK

[valhalla634]

Nice lightning show last night. How many diversions were there? CX 722 spent the night in Canton. Minimum fuel and maximum duty days have a price.

[Baywatcher]

It's as if you take great delight in costing the Company money!

[Sqwak7700]

It's as if you take great delight in costing the Company money!


You get the labor force you deserve I guess...:hmm:

[twotigers]

Ugh.. Yeah I love it.
I'm taking my profit share out of theirs.
How many extra tonnes today? Gear down flap 3 at 3000ft
Yup

[Arfur Dent]

It does seem rather short sighted (if you can call a corporate attack that started in 1991 short!) to put an entire workforce offside. Perhaps the thought is that the odd few tonnes carried that could have been left behind is far cheaper than giving Aircrew a common salary, a bit of respect and a share in the profits they contribute so much to. How about never again using the phrase 'whichever is lower'. The pure mechanics of an aircrew career deal us a fatal blow when compared to a corporate career. Any Manager worth his salt can move within the same industry fairly easily and would not have to start again as the 'graduate tea boy' - indeed he may be head hunted for promotion. Unfortunately, aircrew do not have anything like the same options so the workforces tend to stay where they are and become ever more bitter towards those who 'manage' them. A consistent theme in all the 'Undercover Boss' programmes around these days is that people are pretty good types generally and react far better to being valued than they do to being despised or taken for granted (obviously). Perfect opportunity you'd think to do some proper managing at CX. I don't think any of the Junior managers would have the nerve to suggest such a thing because they'd be lynched by the likes of our Management caricature. Pity. Here's to his bonus!:ok:

[crwkunt roll]

According to a response from one of them in the CX World letters section....."Poor management practices are not acceptable at CX".

[UA405]

Thought this thread was about the lightning show last night. Found myself with front row seats to the show last night on departure, scary at the same time exciting staff.

I actually wondered how guys were getting in with the squall all the way to DONKI

[valhalla634]

You are right UA405. This thread was about the lightning show, but at lightning speed with reply number one, the point was mis-understood. I have since heard there were numerous diversions and Shenzen was refusing aircraft due lack of parking space.

[UA405]

How bad was CAN, any idea? we almost diverted there after prolonged holding at BETTY on arrival. Very tough day in the office last night.

[mach92]

CX722 KUL –HKG on March 28 was diverted to CAN for a refueling stop due to being in the holding pattern for approx 1 hour.
Upon our arrival in CAN at approx. 6:30pm, the captain informed the passengers that this will be a short stop of around 2 hours while we refuel and depart to HKG.
After 2 hours, the refueling was completed and the captain made a second announcement, that we would have to wait another a little longer as now HKG was closed. By this time I suspected that the flight crew would be out of hours very soon and that a new flight crew would be required. Sure enough, within the next hour the captain made the announcement that “we are now out of hours” and we are talking with CX about the situation. About 1 hour later, new announcement “we are arranging with the Chinese flight authorities to allow us to send a plane from HKG to take you there, this make take 2-3 hours”.
After a another hour, “the Chinese have agreed to sending a plane to collect you, it will be here in 2 hours”
Another hour goes by, “the Chinese have changed their minds so there will be no flight and now we are trying to book hotels in Guangzhou for you as soon as possible”
Another hour later approx. 2 or 3 am “The Chinese will not allow any passengers to disembark as the terminals in CAN are full with passengers from all the diverted flights and the hotels in Guangzhou are full. Please make yourselves as comfortable as possible as you will be sleeping on board tonight. CX are aware of the situation and working on a solution”. Fortunately the flight was not full and there were many spare seats.
After another 4-5 hours, next announcement “a new flight crew will arrive in CAN at 9:30am and we will have you back in HKG asap”.
Eventually we land in HKG 12:40pm, 17 hours after the original arrival time.

[Sqwak7700]

Sure, China should not be like this, but it is. We know this already. Question is, why does an airline that knows this, that got through this every time a plane diverts to ZGGG, continue to use that airport as an alternate? That is what I would be asking as a passenger.

[Dan Winterland]

The problem is that CAN seem to actively discourage diversions and makes life as difficult as possible. This is known and the airport is the last choice for an alternate. We only file it as a last resort. But if HKG is out, Macsu is probably as well, and Shenzhen has no more parking space, then you have few other options.

[The FUB]

If the wx at dest is iffy you need a wx alternate. If the wx at dest is good all that's required is a crash alternate. Unfortunately with poor wx forecasting and even worse ops planning many flights are arriving with few options. However, carry cfp fuel and divert, at least some of our ac have crew bunks, and then let the vast army of office workers sort the mess out.

[cxorcist]

If this is suspected to be the case, load the gas and use RCKH. It's a great alternate when the PRD is a mess. That same gas gives you ZSAM if necessary.

[broadband circuit]

However, carry cfp fuel and divert, at least some of our ac have crew bunks, and then let the vast army of office workers sort the mess out.

Couldn't agree more.

[Arrowhead]

Should have goe to Macao and got on the ferry?

[Neptunus Rex]

For Hong Kong based airines, try Xiamen. On a similar occasion, when most aircraft were diverting to Guangzhou, we were the only crew to choose Xiamen. It has engineering support and the helpful airport authority allowed the passengers to go to the terminal, which not only kept them happy, but allowed us to declare split duty. Ours was the first diverted aircraft to land back in Hong Kong.

[valhalla634]

One big problem is not the choice of diversion alternates, but actually getting the ATC clearance to get there As proven on two black ATC days last year. One cannot simply opt out of HKG, request a nice little vector to a convenient STAR waypoint on the approach of one's choice. HK ATC gets overloaded and a/c get stuck in holding patterns with the Fuel Mayday being the final trump card. TCAS saved the day on one of those days, too. Or not really, as they would have missed by a few feet anyway!

There will be more black ATC days this summer. Let's hope someone does not run out of panic buttons to press to get the aircraft on the ground safely.

[blade]

It happened last year..Then we were given 60 min rec extra,now it seems 30 to 45 min is the cfp mandate..

Guys these are the times to load more gas,not the gin clear days..Ops dont fly these A/C day in day out..We do..put on the gas you think you need..

Regionally its a no brainer..

[broadband circuit]

It happened last year..Then we were given 60 min rec extra,now it seems 30 to 45 min is the cfp mandate..

Guys these are the times to load more gas,not the gin clear days..Ops dont fly these A/C day in day out..We do..put on the gas you think you need..

Regionally its a no brainer..

Whilst I don't disagree, your solution is to merely treat the symptoms. What next? 1 hr, 2hr, 3hr??? The root cause never gets fixed that way. Because the real problem(s) is(are) systemic (ATC, mainland airspace, plus, plus, plus), the only way to improve things is political/commercial pressure.

We all know how much sway big business has with the HK government. If the bomb-burst of CX/KA aircraft diversions from HK to places like ZGSZ, ZGGG, ZSAM, RCKH etc was to start happening twice a week, the pax complaints in the press would be possible to ignore, and CX/KA/Swire/CAAC would be all over the HK governent, both publicly & privately. Only then will there be genuine systemic improvements.

CX do a cost-benefit analysis. They accept a certain percentage of flights will divert when CFP is carried. As long as that is cheaper (totalled over a year) than giving every single arrival into HK another 15 min REC EXTRA, then things won't change. What they count on is for us to be destination minded & carry some extra when necessary.

It's a chain of events. Effective today, we should always carry CFP - no more. If that's not enough & too many people end up elsewhere, they'll raise the standard REC EXTRA. If that gets too expensive they'll take it up with the HK Government.

And before anyone starts casting "unprofessional" accusations, I'm not espousing less than CFP (unlike some STCs). I'm definitely not suggesting ignoring the requirement to always have fuel to go somewhere & land (quite the opposite). Take CFP - if you need to divert, then do it.

[Captain Dart]

The problem is more than the Hong Kong government. It's the 'glass wall' north of HKIA and 'bizarro world' beyond. The chaos after HKG weather events just gets worse every year, to the point that HKG as a hub (during the summer months at least) may become unviable.

Mach's post about the CX722 delay is incredible reading. What should be a routine diversion anywhere else on the planet becomes a 17 hour endurance test for passengers and crew.

They can build all the runways they want at HKIA but until these imbeciles north of the border sort out their airspace and their aircraft and passenger handling it's just going to get worse.

China running the world any time soon? I don't think so :hmm:.

P.S. And why won't they let us use Zhuhai as an alternate FFS?

[SweepTheLeg]

Whilst I don't disagree, your solution is to merely treat the symptoms. What next? 1 hr, 2hr, 3hr??? The root cause never gets fixed that way. Because the real problem(s) is(are) systemic (ATC, mainland airspace, plus, plus, plus), the only way to improve things is political/commercial pressure.

We all know how much sway big business has with the HK government. If the bomb-burst of CX/KA aircraft diversions from HK to places like ZGSZ, ZGGG, ZSAM, RCKH etc was to start happening twice a week, the pax complaints in the press would be possible to ignore, and CX/KA/Swire/CAAC would be all over the HK governent, both publicly & privately. Only then will there be genuine systemic improvements.

CX do a cost-benefit analysis. They accept a certain percentage of flights will divert when CFP is carried. As long as that is cheaper (totalled over a year) than giving every single arrival into HK another 15 min REC EXTRA, then things won't change. What they count on is for us to be destination minded & carry some extra when necessary.

It's a chain of events. Effective today, we should always carry CFP - no more. If that's not enough & too many people end up elsewhere, they'll raise the standard REC EXTRA. If that gets too expensive they'll take it up with the HK Government.

And before anyone starts casting "unprofessional" accusations, I'm not espousing less than CFP (unlike some STCs). I'm definitely not suggesting ignoring the requirement to always have fuel to go somewhere & land (quite the opposite). Take CFP - if you need to divert, then do it. 100% agree. I don't know why we even go through this song and dance at dispatch talking about how much fuel we want. It's simple - CFP. Divert if you don't have enough and once your at your ALT it's no longer your problem. Let Ops sort it out. Your ALT is ZGGG? Not your problem, don't get worked up about it. Just tell the punters CX felt ZGGG was the best alternate for the company and they will deal with this situation. Give them customer service's phone number and be done with it.

[Frogman1484]

Wait until most of the senior ATC controllers leave. I think it will get a lot worst than just diversions!:{

[1200firm]

If flying regional then load Manila plus an hour & a half. This gives you Clark as well.

[nitpicker330]

Sweeptheleg:-----
Sorry bud but as front line staff WE have to be on the Aircraft dealing with the 12 hour delay in ZGSZ as well and that's NOT something I want to live through thanks all the same. :eek:

So you take CFP and I'll take what I decide appropriate under the circumstances. That's what they pay me the big bucks for!! ( or not, as the industrial case may be !! ) :sad:

[Tornado Ali]

speaking from experience: not only do you end up dealing with untold hassle and misery during a 12hr delay...you don't even get PAID for it.

[treboryelk]

It'll never catch on Dan......thinking for yourself? What a novel concept in aviation!

[geh065]

Dan,

This rumour board is for "Professional Pilots" and quite rightly we should be getting passengers from A to B (not C). Many of the posts here are from pilots who are not very professional.

HOWEVER, if management are going to intimidate people for taking extra fuel, as has been happening a lot in the recent months, then all it does is to encourage the thinking we see here. You will not get a pat on the back for taking extra fuel and landing at destination. You will not be called up to the office if you take CFP and end up diverting. You WILL be called up to the office if you often take more than CFP and the Line-ops spread sheet pings you as being in the top part of the list of captains who take more than CFP.

Truth is, the occassional additional uplift done sensibly should keep you away from the 3rd floor but if calling captains up to explain their fuel choices continues, then why shouldn't we be boycotting taking extra and just take CFP every sector? If they want to intimidate then its their mess to deal with.

[NoAndThen]

So very typical of a CX pilot... a few of you guys think way to highly of yourselves. I can't believe you actually think CX "pays you the big bucks" (WTF??) to make a fuel decision.

CX pays you to play with their train set operated by their rules! I can't believe some of you still think otherwise! Don't give this this "I'm a professional blah blah blah." If you were a professional you'd do what you were told and stop complaining about a diversion. They've made it clear what they want, but us CX pilots always know better...

[NoAndThen]

I'm not complaining about a diversion, I'm complaining about advocating CFP fuel when the WX forecast is +TSRA 1000M 150/25G35

You go ahead and continue to be intimidated and take CFP fuel in marginal wx. I'll continue to make sensible, justifiable fuel decisions.

Dan,

You make it sound like they give you no REC EXTRA when the WX is forecast to be something like this. Show me one flight plan where this is the case! They give you the REC EXTRA they want you to take. They've made it clear that this is what they expect. Why would you expose yourself and let CX continue to abuse our professionalism by taking any more? Really? What upside is there?

[nitpicker330]

Ignore the ignorant trolls Dan.

I agree with you ( in my post above and here ) 100%

At the end of the day we are paid to do a job and "most" of us do it to a very professional standard.

If those idiots wish to spend 12 hours in ZGSZ with their Pax then go for it!! :}

[BusyB]

NoAndThen,

Thats why they gave me the "Summer" alternate for RJCC with snow forecast for both dest & alt!!!!

Take what you need :ugh:

[NoAndThen]

At the end of the day we are paid to do a job and "most" of us do it to a very professional standard.

Nitpicker330, that's right you are paid to do a job, something you are obviously not doing well. As broadband circuit pointed out, CX does a cost benefit analysis of how much a division cost. They have the big picture... you, though it is obvious how full of yourself you are, do not. Seems this attitude is most prevalent on the Airbus as supported by your very accurate username?

I'm pretty sure that I each time I walk through despatch, every guy in that room thinks he's the smartest one there...

BusyB,
Thats why they gave me the "Summer" alternate for RJCC with snow forecast for both dest & alt!!!!

Really, how much extra fuel did you take? And let me guess you used it all to divert to NRT and saved the day right? Talk is cheap, why don't you back it up. Let's see how terrible that forecast was?

[SweepTheLeg]

Nitpicker,

Let me guess you also work G days being the consummate professional you are!

By taking more than CFP in the current environment when other guys are getting harassed or by working your G days its the same thing - screwing the pilot body in the long term.

[BusyB]

NowAndThen,

Its easier than that, you just take the CFP and forecast back to despatch and ask why. They then say, Mistake-Summer schedules started so no-one had looked at forecast. I was then given a revised CFP as per CX policy with RJAA and Rec extra, and no, I didn't have to divert although it was snowing.:ok:

[nitpicker330]

SweepTheLeg:-- Nope, I haven't worked a G day in over 10 years and I won't in the future.

You?

[nitpicker330]

NoAndThen:-- Well it looks as if your definition of professional and mine will differ greatly :D

Enjoy ZGSZ or whatever other place you end up in after blindly following Flight Dispatch's canned CFP and loading Flight plan fuel. :ok:

( oh and don't bother reading the TAF's either, you live by their judgement anyway don't you? )

[geh065]

NoAndThen Why would you expose yourself and let CX continue to abuse our professionalism by taking any more? Really? What upside is there?


I thought part of being professional was having the ability, intellect and responsibility to make decisions. If we merely follow orders ALL the time then I do not think we deserve to be called professionals and we might as well get our and let KMB bus drivers take over. Before you say anything, I know we are heading that way already but shouldn't we at least be glad we have the ability to make our own fuel decision? Blindly following CFP fuel on all flights is just one step closer to having KMB come and take over our jobs.

[Arfur Dent]

Also, the Fleets tell us to divert when we get to Min Div Fuel or would you go a bit sooner if most others were diverting too?? How much sooner?

[NoAndThen]

I know I'm feeding the trolls here, but what would you carry fuel-wise if your destination airport had a; 40-50 minute holding notam? Still cfp fuel?

Dan, show me a flight plan with that notam and I'll show you the REC EXTRA they gave you to cater for it. Let me guess, you see that notam and in your superior knowledge carry an additional hour on top of CFP which already has the REC EXTRA to cater for the notamed delays.

Blindly following CFP fuel on all flights is just one step closer to having KMB come and take over our jobs.

geh065, can you clarify exactly how flying an aircraft halfway around the world is related to driving a bus in HK?

Arfur Dent,
Also, the Fleets tell us to divert when we get to Min Div Fuel or would you go a bit sooner if most others were diverting too?? How much sooner?
How long is a piece of string??

[Pucka]

SOP's are merely a skeletal framework, around which we build up layers of airmanship judgement calls etc. On a CAVOK event, then possibly min SOP is fine..its up to us as experienced aviators to apply the extra gravy that makes as little impact on the sector in question going totally pear shaped.
Just like the days when we applied,(altho not every one did..), MSS. I personally witnessed two a/c lose their slots in AMS as a consequence of a CX Bus taxying at such a slow speed to 36L..poor airmanship suffocated by politik..maybe that was the start of our loss of Professionalism as a pilot collective..small 'p' intended...sad days brothers and sisters!!

[geh065]

geh065, can you clarify exactly how flying an aircraft halfway around the world is related to driving a bus in HK?

You know exactly what I mean. Our profession is being whittled down slowly. What was a prestigious career looked up to by the general public and widely admired is becoming a blue collar job. We are partly to blame of course, and individuals amongst us who do not act like professionals do not exactly help our cause.

[Arfur Dent]

Never had my judgement questioned so all this is pure speculation. There are quite a few examples of Captains who habitually put fuel on 'for Mum' being asked up to the '3rdFloor' to explain their expensive actions. Why not?? Also, take fuel off when the ZFW drops ( I believe that originated from a certain Capt Best many years ago and has saved CX a fortune). If in Fleet Management, I would be annoyed by pilots who take extra fuel unnecessarily so the message is (and has ever been) - 'only exceed CFP fuel if you have a reason' and, if challenged, be prepared to justify your actions. As I said - never happened. Sample? - 26 years as PIC. Reason for landing with 20 tons somewhere? 'Thought I might need it'. Also, as a previous contributor mentioned, if the weather is really forecast to be awful, the rec extra will reflect that, originating from the DOM, presumably. If you disagree, take some more. Twas ever thus.....:ok:

[LongTimeInCX]

You guys do realize we're not in the army, right?

True, but the training the military gave many of us, has stood us in good stead. We do not in general blindly follow strategic directives without looking more closely at the tactical situation at hand. (capitals for the benefit of curtain stick)
It has kept many of us, our passengers and crew safe over the years by looking at things objectively, and not being afraid to stand up and do what is right and sensible, sometimes in the face of crass directives (eg CFP fuel) from those higher up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of 3t for mum on every flight, that is unprofessional and would show belligerence, underconfidence or lack of comfort in doing ones job. However one should never feel guilty in taking thinking mans fuel when the situation justifies it. I've been a skipper for over 20 yrs, and never been questioned on fuel uplifts. I frequently take extra, but only when warranted, similarly I decrease fuel when the ZFW drops. The latter is not to justify the former, it is just the right thing to do.
I understand the rationale from proponents of the 'Take CFP fuel and divert if necessary' and agree that in the main, that is what the company is prepared to cope with. .......however, the timescale between CFP production and when you make your decision, is often such that strategic changes may have occured that justify changing the fuel load. From my point of view, we are paid to look at all aspects on a continual basis to ensure both safe and efficient operation, and not be automons relying on the Nurenburg defence after spending 17 hrs on the ground in ZGSZ.

I always used to scoff at the NTC phrase 'Please be guided accordingly', but perhaps there is some scope for some captains to re-evaluate if they are really being safe and efficient or whether they are happy to justify the position the have found themselves in by saying "I was just following orders"

[Arfur Dent]

Curtain Man. Landing with 20 Tons does not mean you were wrong at all. If the enormous thunderstorm has just passed by and left the approach clear- your luck's in and you didn't need Manilla fuel or 45 mins holding or whatever contingency you decided upon. How is that wrong??:hmm:

[cxorcist]

So true Dan

[Steve the Pirate]

cxorcist I actually agree with you - weird huh? Dan et al, I'm with you on this one. As far as Curtain rod's (or should that be curtain rod, or even Curtain Rod given his dislike of random capitalisation? :)) assertion that

you've got 12 hours and 100-1000+ options along the way to decide what to safely do about it

I disagree. He is clearly only looking at the situation from a ULR perspective. Regionally, the situation is clearly different when the options to "do something safely about it" would be limited should you decide to take CFP fuel into an area experiencing known ATC or weather-related difficulties.

Even on ULR operations, you don't really consider options until you are towards the end of a flight - would Curtain rod divert to Chitose on the way back from Vancouver if the weather in Hong Kong indicated passing heavy showers? I doubt it very much, so there goes one of his so called 100-1000+ options.

As many others have said, the CFP is a guide for the crew to make a fuel decision on how we can best get our fare-paying passengers to their planned destination somewhere near the scheduled arrival time. This way, they might actually choose to fly with us again.

STP

[landrecovery]

Ask dispatch who decides recommended extra during the major holidays, it is IOC, Yes that's a non pilot.

As for notamed holding, What holding? Radar vectors for 10-15 mins do not require a notam.:ugh:

As professionals we look after the passengers, not the managers, who have other priorities.
They pay us to get to the destination not the alternate because of lack of fuel.

[nitpicker330]

Mods:--- time to lock this thread, it ain't achieving anything useful!!:eek:

[geh065]

Mods:--- time to lock this thread, it ain't achieving anything useful!!

You can't use that as a reason to lock a thread. There would be no topics left to read!!

[broadband circuit]

For those that haven't read the email from P.E., it's in your Outlook inbox. Have a read.

Now, more than ever, the emphasis is to take CFP, and not a drop more. In fact, he highlighted that the RecExtra is "subject to payload", so if you're landing weight limited, they want you to carry the payload, rather than the fuel.

Fine with me. Anyone got some good tips for nightlife in RCKH????

[crwkunt roll]

These guys should REALLY GET OUT OF THE OFFICE and see how a one line TAF in Singapore really looks upon arrival. While CEO pockets a 30% payrise whilst crying poor, I, like Dan, am insulted.

[China Flyer]

Not only was the content an insult, so was the writing style. It made me feel like I was back in primary school.


Deleted.

[FlexibleResponse]

I love to fly with Captains (and First Officers) who think for themselves and use personal initiative in spite of being swamped by bureaucratic bull****!

May their species survive forever and protect the innocent traveling public...

Cheers and safe flying,
FB

[CISTRS]

Quoting Arrowhead,
Should have goe to Macao and got on the ferry?

We can't get the aircraft up the gangplank.
:rolleyes:

[boocs]

Speaking of fuel efficiency....

The airline industry's big sham: fuel surcharges (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/blogs/travellers-check/the-airline-industrys-big-sham-fuel-surcharges-20130429-2inrj.html)

b.

[moosp]

It has often amazed me that the press hasn't caught on to the fuel scam. Do the math.

If an aircraft burns 80 tons of kero on a 10 hour flight and carries 300 passengers then each passenger could pay for 80/300 or 266 kgs of fuel and you could fill 'er up. At a kero price of around 1100 USD a ton that is around 292 USD per passenger.

So if you are charging USD500 fuel charges you are making a whole bundle for the CEO's bonus per flight. And this is without the freight and excess baggage revenue, don't get me started.

No so called fuel surcharge should be more than the cost of the fuel on board. There is a cost of doing business, and if you have an input you need to cover that in your fixed revenue, not in your variables.

Or am I being teeeribly naive here?