Cui Bono? fuel ordering and KPI?

[Rated De]

As posted in another thread...

From down under, the continued push for 'fuel reductions', driven by management continues.. Management claim that the 'data' suggests less fuel can be ordered lessening FOD and therefore carriage...

The problem with data captured yesterday, assessed tomorrow and released next week, is that it tells you what already happened. Its ability to predict the unknown is of limited value. Sometimes experience tells a pilot he needs more fuel...Have certainly been there

Cui bono?

Pilots at this 'large carrier domiciled in Australia' get an 'app' on their company tablet to compare company offered fuel and whether or not their order and subsequent burn is 'competitive'

What about pilots at BA, CX, EK and anyone else wishing to comment!

Given that 'strict liability' for having sufficient fuel, including reserves always sits with the PIC and all state rules are derived from, as I recall ICAO Annex 6 (SARPS) do Captains/FO consider it a conflict for a pilot manager to push for continued fuel order reductions, increased single engine taxi and APU usage, when financial inducements may flow to the management pilots pushing this agenda?

Should ever the people charged with the safe operation of an airline's fleet make personal financial gain from reductions and actively push pilots, without declaring their financial conflict?

Who benefits? :confused:

[Rated De]

Fuel Loads: Ryanair set up a system to benchmark pilots against each other on their use of fuel. A twenty page table was produced with the pilots’ names, base, fuel burn, fuel target and percentage of use above or below the target.
The effect was like reading out school scores of children to pressurise them into competing with each other.
Pilots who were on precarious self–employed contracts felt the most pressure.



Is this where Australia's international airline goes with this?

The Real Story Behind The Ryanair Cancellations - People Before Profit (http://www.pbp.ie/the_real_story_behind_the_ryanair_cancellations)

[witwiw]

I once worked for a carrier in India where they calculated individual pilot average fuel burns and compared where your average fuel burn on respective sectors sat among your peers - much like Ryanair.

I remember being "chatted to" for regularly taking an extra tonne or two of fuel on the BOM-DEL sector thus pushing my average burn up. DEL was notorious for short notice closures due to VIP movements - closures that weren't Notamed for "security' reasons - and on three such closures a bit more fuel allowed me to hold those 15 - 20 minutes until the VIP departed whilst other company aircraft couldn't hold and went to their alternates. My extra burn was nothing compared to the typically 3-hour disruptions for those aircraft that diverted let alone the 5 extra tonnes or so burnt to-and-from their alternates - albeit at a good average burn, though. LOL!!!

When I politely but firmly drew this to their attention all criticism stopped. They realised that their fuel saving figures were rubbish and that "average" burns were meaningless if more fuel overall was being used, even if it was at a lower hourly rate.

That's what happens when the bean counters get involved.

[Captain Dart]

CX runs a ‘fuel ladder’ where you get a regular email regarding your discretionary fuel uplift for the month (their disastrous fuel hedging decision, i.e. management problem, seems never to be mentioned).

The magnitude of this airline’s fuel hedging loss makes their nickel-and-diming of fuel almost futile, but fuel loads have been cut to the bone anyway.

[73qanda]

The magnitude of this airline’s fuel hedging loss makes nickel-and-diming fuel almost futile.
Normally the magnitude of management KPI bonuses makes fuel conservation policies pointless.

[dragon man]

The solution is very simple and it’s what I have done. Don’t download the app. Then you don’t have to look at anything and just continue to order the same fuel as you always have.

[blow.n.gasket]

Re-education camp for the conservative fuel ordering recalcitrants ?
What empowerment does CAR 233 & 234 have ?
Sounds like a company sponsored competition for a new Min-Op Mike !
Are KPI's involved and who benefits , if so ?

[Rated De]

Sounds like a company sponsored competition for a new Min-Op Mike ! Are KPI's involved and who benefits , if so ?

That exactly is my read on it.
Who benefits (Cui Bono)? Is the DFO and his deputy pocketing a bonus for pushing fuel order reductions on pilots and 'encouraging' pilots to assess their fuel order. How long before a little chat with a pilot manager and HR over fuel ordering? Or is it a requisite condition for promotional suitability that FO exhibit a 'consistent fuel order target' like Ryanair?

The CAR 233 and CAR 234 and many regulations carry the term:

An offence against regulation ... is an offence of strict liability[/I]' imply that the offence is such that it is not necessary to prove a criminal intent in order to prove a breach of the regulation ]

Given that the pilots carry strict liability, why isn't the union asking exactly who pockets the $$ from savings achieved? Where is the regulator? /sarc

[Capt Fathom]

How much fuel do the managers carry?

[GA Driver]

Depends which manager and how uncurrent they are....

[maggot]

How much fuel do the managers carry?

Last time I flew with the CP - **** loads

[maggot]

The solution is very simple and it’s what I have done. Don’t download the app. Then you don’t have to look at anything and just continue to order the same fuel as you always have.
Qf? It's Gunna get pushed now. I, and many others, had deleted it so... Yeah will never open it.

Has it been updated, wasn't aware it compared other airlines

[Keg]

Is this where Australia's international airline goes with this?

The Real Story Behind The Ryanair Cancellations - People Before Profit (http://www.pbp.ie/the_real_story_behind_the_ryanair_cancellations)

Nope. That not where it goes.

[Keg]

Pilots at this 'large carrier domiciled in Australia' get an 'app' on their company tablet to compare company offered fuel and whether or not their order and subsequent burn is 'competitive'



I'd call that a gross mis representation of the app and the info it provides. Competitive? Really? Hyperbole at its best.

... do Captains/FO consider it a conflict for a pilot manager to push for continued fuel order reductions, increased single engine taxi and APU usage, when financial inducements may flow to the management pilots pushing this agenda?


If my boss gets extra $$$ because the airline has saved 1000 times $$$ then why do I care? I want my company to be successful and if we can find ways to save gas then why not. I carry the fuel I reckon I'll need. If I can save some through track shortening, efficient altitude selection, shutting down an engine on taxi in where appropriate and shutting down the APU after arrival where appropriate then what's the problem?


The app is a pretty good tool. It provides info that helps me to assess past decision making processes. Kept in the right perspective it's pretty useful.

Used for purposes other than intended though and it could become a problem. People driving agendas either way is just one example.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A little bit of (relevant) history.

Many years ago (I mustn't mentioned names to protect the guilty) a large international airline domiciled in Australia went on a purge of "surplus fuel", Captains could compare their "fly-spot" charts, a comparison of their fuel orders, with every other Captain in the fleet. Various educational publications, let's call then Flight Standing Orders, were distributed.

The boss, lets call him the Captain D.F.O. , boasted he never carrier surplus, only the MOR --minimum operating requirement, min. fuel to the rest of you.

But unlike Captain D.F.O, we didn't get to hand pick our trips. In those days, we had 4 flights a day to UK, plus other European services.

But we did solve the problem. Quite simply, over one roster period, over a northern winter, we, the line pilots, resolved to faithfully follow the boss's fine example of compliance with company policy. Can't be criticised for that, wouldn't you say.

The weather gods were quite remarkably cooperative.

Of course, the results were as funny as they were predictable, schedules were shot to sh1t, revenue hours were seriously off, and fleet fuel consumption skyrocketed --- as did passenger complaints. As (bad??) luck would have it, one flight from Singapore diverted from London twice, one 13 hour flight took over 2 days, including crew min. rest. Crew overtime earnings blew the Flight Ops. (Captain D.F.O's) budget. Didn't do his annual KPIs bonus all that much good, either, I would think?

Suddenly, the whole "surplus" fuel issue went very, very quite, and the chap who produced the "fuel savings" charts was redeployed.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: As I used to explain to my students: If I only ever took the min. fuel the law allowed, the company would go broke from delays and disruptions to schedules, if I took what I liked, the company would still go broke from excessive fuel costs and loss of capacity, our job is to get the payload offering to destination at minimum reasonable cost, and as close to schedule as we can get. Minimum risk (aka "safety") is a given. On a long range operation, it means every flight is different.

[73qanda]

If my boss gets extra $$$ because the airline has saved 1000 times $$$ then why do I care?
I'd agree with that sentiment Keg if I knew that the ratio you used was accurate but I am not convinced it is. I'm proactive at determining efficient levels ( CFP is usually pretty good now days) , I use single engine taxi when appropriate and push for ground power so I can get the APU off but.... nobody has told me what the savings are regarding discretionary fuel uplifts and I suspect they are quite minor in the scheme of things.
Eg, if every QF jet flight carried CFP min fuel for the next 12 months, how much extra burn would we save? After we have that figure, subtract the cost of the app development, the cost of the man-hours spent assessing and pushing fuel efficiency,the cost of diverts that wouldn't have happened, and the cost of the KPI's themselves, and what figure are we left with? Now that we have that figure, how does it compare with 50% of the CEO's salary?
My gut feeling is that the whole discretionary fuel push is cost neutral or worse but I don't know and neither does any other pilot.
I'd be pretty impressed if you'd have a crack at putting a figure on these things.
Cheers

[Rated De]

and the cost of the KPI's themselves

I actually don't know the answer to that, but I think it is pertinent to know exactly what pecuniary benefit is secured by those management pilots with a keen interest in fuel conversation, for the sake of transparency.

Of course one might assume that their actions are motivated by higher purpose alone.


One might also ponder whether the lack of a dual aisle twin to replace the 767 left Qantas with more single aisle 737 than was optimum.. Has that meant a consequent increase to the fuel burned, whether engines to lift them or APU to cool them? Carrying a similar amount of passengers spread over more air frames might be another own goal?

[Ken Borough]

Putting a cost on the carriage of "excess" or discretionary fuel is difficult for several reasons. It's tail-chasing exercise.

1. How much fuel is burned to carry that additional fuel? The theory does not consider the variables of an actual flight.

2. Less fuel may be required to be uplifted at the destination airport which has cheaper fuel than that uplifted at the point of origin.

3. Revenue payload can suffer. For example, 2000kgs of additional fuel could require the offload of a pallet of freight. Apart from the direct cost, what is the longer-term cost of this?

Unless additional fuel uplifts are considered habitually excessive, surely it's better to allow sleeping dogs sleep. I'm with Keg.

[Sykes]

I'd call that a gross mis representation of the app and the info it provides. Competitive? Really? Hyperbole at its best.

Perhaps not at the mothership, and perhaps not yet. I wouldn't be saying "Never".

Not DIRECTLY related to the App, but Qantaslink pilots have been told that there will soon be a ‘fuel ladder’ published in every crewroom ranking pilots on their fuel use.

[73qanda]

That's my point Ken, nobody can make an argument using figures, we just get told it's extremely expensive to carry that extra 300kg and get regular correspondence reminding us. Over time it becomes accepted that carrying extra gas is unprofessional and expensive. But is it? How expensive is it? Nobody has ever been able to tell me because of all the reasons you stated.
I'd love it if someone with access to info such as how many sectors a year QF does could chuck in a series of assumptions and come up with some ball park figures. Anyone game?
Eg number of 737 sectors per annum x the cost of carrying CFP+ 200kg =$................

[Capn Bloggs]

Anyone game? Eg number of 737 sectors per annum x the cost of carrying CFP+ 200kg =$................
Pretty easy. Tankering costs 3.5% per hour.

[Ken Borough]

If and when the Company is able to

- present aircraft that are perfectly aero-dynamic, have engines tuned to perfection and trimmed with load that's spot-on,

- guarantee that winds and levels will be as assumed by the flight plan,

it may be able to justifiably report on additional fuel carriage with some credibility. I think the data all too nebulous to be of any value, especially as the reasons for additional fuel carriage is unknown.

As an aside, I wonder if Marketing consider the cost of additional fuel burn when they wish to add some dazzle-dazzle, whizz bang stuff?

[Rated De]

it may be able to justifiably report on additional fuel carriage with some credibility. I think the data all too nebulous to be of any value, especially as the reasons for additional fuel carriage is unknown.


If the intent is less innocent and derived from the same warped logic as Ryanair or the CX 'fuel ladder' then they will cherry pick the fuel ordering to suit a 'performance management agenda'.

An honest system, driven by a heartfelt desire to reduce CO2 pollution would ALSO include any financial inducement to management pilots (DFO or deputy) to drive an agenda.

Further any assessment would balance fuel ordered versus needed, including those times when instinct, experience or a vibe means pilots added fuel not strictly necessary but that decision saved a diversion and unscheduled overnight of crew, aircraft and passengers.

One suspect that in the absence of an inclusive real cost benefit model and transparent disclosures of any financial benefit, a more nefarious motive may be in operation.


Of course establishing a benchmark Ryanair offers insight into how this operates...

Ryanair set up a system to benchmark pilots against each other on their use of fuel. A twenty page table was produced with the pilots’ names, base, fuel burn, fuel target and percentage of use above or below the target.

Maybe ask your DFO or his 'deputy' whether or not he makes money from you carrying less fuel whilst you carry strict liability before dismissing what other airlines have done to their pilots and they may yet do to you.

[bazza stub]

A mate was "marked down" on a line check because he took discretionary fuel to a place notorious for springing a TEMPO on you. The weather had all the ingredients for thunderys, but none were forecast. He used his discretion, experience and knowledge of meteorology to predict the highly predictable. The thunderys eventuated and he had to hold for 50+ minutes. The checkie still berated him for not blindly following the company "fuel policy" and then sat back while he tankered 5500kg back to a CAVOK home base (as per the company fuel policy), at the princely sum of 55kg per 1000kg. Company fuel policy has been pushed so aggressively that in some places that you can be penalised for using your noodle.

[neville_nobody]

Additional to 73qanda's point until Companies publish meaningful figures on the cost of diversion the entire argument is totally pointless. No point saving $1000 in fuel to then divert.

[Rated De]

A mate was "marked down" on a line check because he took discretionary fuel to a place notorious for springing a TEMPO on you. The weather had all the ingredients for thunderys, but none were forecast. He used his discretion, experience and knowledge of meteorology to predict the highly predictable. They won't count that on the app!

Imagine a 'performance interview' for an FO with the viscious HR manager present as adherence to fuel policy is considered a 'requisite' for promotion?
HR want control of pilots, they know pilots do not answer to corporate control channels. Ever wonder what the Qantas 'uniform policy' was a clumsy attempt at?



Company fuel policy has been pushed so aggressively that in some places that you can be penalised for using your noodle.
And who makes the money from it being 'pushed'?

It suprises me from a legal perspective that most pilots do not understand what strict liability means. Fuel policy is nice to know but ultimately the only one being cross examined by the regulator's barrister is the PIC.

[bazza stub]

Fortunately my mate has a spine and despite knowing he would be marked down for carrying out his duty as a Captain, he chose to do what was right rather than what would get him through unscathed. The sad reality is that CASA enable these training organisations to push their own version of fuel policy to the potential detriment to safety. CASA should really lift its game here I think.

[swh]

The reality of the situation is that ICAO has a statistical based fuel policy for many years now, which many airlines have adopted.

Th real key to these policies is not following the black and white, it is how to and when to apply the grey to your advantage.

[coaldemon]

I am aware of one Captain from a major Airline getting marked down on a line check as he called the Flight Planners and asked for CBR as an alternate for MEL as he wanted more fuel on board (It was 5000m in Showers). Happily took the extra fuel loaded and proceeded to taxi. Check Captain had noticed though that Canberra was closed for the period due to Fog. Made for an interesting discussion at the end apparently about professionalism.

Fuel is easy. If you need it take it. If you are making up excuses to always carry more than it may be time to reconsider your position and don't even bother to go to the Long Haul operators as you won't last long there. As for HR they should never be in any of those sort of meetings and they know it.

[Keg]

I'm baffled as to why you're so bent out of shape about the FlightPulse app Rated De? Your descriptions of it bear virtually no resemblance to the internal Comms QF crew have had about it.

Your linking of the app with supposed KPI or 'performance interviews' (neither of which occur in the 'major Australian airline' with the app) is surreal.

There are regular exhortations to crew and information published to assist crew in being wise with their fuel making decisions. In 23 years I've never felt pressured about the discretionary fuel I've loaded. This app certainly doesn't add anything to that pressure.

Could it be used for evil instead of good? I guess so but that's about 178 steps further down the list of where we are at for the time being.

[Snakecharma]

Keg, i work for a different airline but I am with you, i have never felt any pressure to manage my fuel loads in an adverse way.

I have been given information on how much it costs to carry fuel, what the impact of that is on the business and how I can make an impact on those costs, BUT i see that information that I can use when deciding on what fuel to load.

On a previous widebody type i flew with an individual that wanted to load an extra 300kg on for a reason that i wont go into here, but on face value it was not an unreasonable line of thought.

Except, the aeroplane doesnt assign fuel to various segments, i.e. that extra 300kg you loaded is for taxi, or the extra xyz kg is for whatever.

To my way of thinking 300 kg, 500kg even up to a tonne is neither here or there in the grand scheme of things (note the numbers vary depending on the aircraft -300kg might be a significant number in a 737 but isnt necessarily a worthwhile number in an airbus or boeing widebody).

I prefer to make an assessment on the entirety of the flight and then adjust the fuel to suit and where i need to make adjustments i will do so in multiple tonnes, rather than stick 300kg on, if i need fuel i will make it a meaningful amount 1500kg-3000 kg - 5000 kg. I will play with alternates to give me more and better options and i will make decisions enroute that might see me pull the pin and divert to an enroute airport before i put myself in an untenable position (that said though i have not diverted or put myself in an untenable position so it is a bit academic i guess).

I have however looked at the taf, ttf and other available info, including past experience, and said that tempo starting an hour after our sta is more than likely to come forward so I am loading the juice on now. Was it technically required? No, but on almost every occasion where I have done that there has been a significant enough change in the weather such that the extra fuel has been the thing that has avoided a diversion.

There is a lot to be said for listening to that little voice in the back of your head.

The above is a very long winded way of saying that i welcome as much info as the company can give me to allow me to make better, more informed decisions, but I dont feel pressure to not carry extra fuel.

I do however make sure I have considered every option, including enroute diversions and different levels, speeds etc when i need to limit payload to allow me the fuel i want. That, to me, is good airmanship and good management.

[maggot]

Agreed snake charmer
Make it count. No point loading a tempo (just) and ten hours later having 55 mins...

[Berealgetreal]

What do most QF 73 guys land with on a gin clear day into ML SY BN out of interest?

[mrdeux]

I once wrote the powers that be a suggestion for a new fuel policy. I called it the Retrospective Fuel Policy. As far as I could see, it was the perfect policy, as it would cover all situations, whilst still actually carrying the minimum possible. It even saved a bit of wear and tear on the engines, as you could arrange for them to self shut-down as you approached the gate through fuel exhaustion. Strangely, I never got a reply.

All of the gibberish we get about fuel is always retrospective. When I order fuel I'm making a prediction. World of difference.

When the fly speck existed, it had a number of outcomes. First we all thought we had to win...and that was by carrying the most fuel. It was quite some time later that an FO told me that I had it the wrong way around.

And it was easily manipulated. One flight had an intermediate landing. For cost reasons we'd tanker fuel out of the departure point, to limit the loading in the middle. But, if you offloaded ALL of the tankered fuel, that gave you a negative fuel order for the fly spec, thus making you look good. And you then took the flight planned load out of the next spot, again scoring a zero, but actually loading expensive fuel.

Fly specs disappeared very quickly indeed.

Going back even further, there was a captain nicknamed 'Vapours'. He only ever carried the flight planned fuel. His diversion rate was so high that the company ultimately created a special adjustment just for him, giving him a extra 5,000 kgs on every sector.

[DirectAnywhere]

Keg,

'performance interviews'

are on their way next year according to a HOBO. No idea what their content or format will be.

[mrdeux]

Should be good for a laugh...

[mrdeux]

....are on their way next year according to a HOBO. No idea what their content or format will be.

"a HOBO". There is only one. It means 'Head of Base Operations".

[DirectAnywhere]

"a HOBO". There is only one. It means 'Head of Base Operations".

Clearly you haven't been to the Street for a while - there are plenty hanging around there.

You are correct. Wrong acronym - I can't keep up with the management reshuffles and operational charts. Suffice to say, the meat of what I posted is from the horse's mouth, whatever their title.

[Rated De]

Your linking of the app with supposed KPI or 'performance interviews' (neither of which occur in the 'major Australian airline' with the app) is surreal. Is it? I suggest with respect that you ought get out more, dislike the message but at least do some research before dismissing out of hand what is occurring outside the Australian exceptionalism to which some people still subscribe. Control of pilot work forces is an objective that runs deep in HR circles.

The CAR 234 gives you protection to do as you see fit, yet they will take it away from you without resistance just as they are hoping; You refuse to see what may be coming. Each individual can choose what they like, however you get no choice when it comes to CAR234. Strict liability is all yours.. The road to hell is paved with good intention

Fuel ladders exist at Cathay, as other poster have pointed out, ask the pilots at Ryanair. At least in Europe we have far more alternates.

'performance interviews' may well be on the way. Probably to be introduced with a change to contract, sold to myopic people as some sort of upside.

Just like your clumsy uniform policy; an attempt to exert control

[Rated De]

All of the gibberish we get about fuel is always retrospective. When I order fuel I'm making a prediction. World of difference.
A very succinct distinction.

Sadly though will not stop them trying and bar room bravado will ensure that despite much talk most fall into line and reduce fuel ordering. Control assured and works just fine performance managing people until one day that fuel was actually needed. The only person standing in the court being cross examined (should they survive) is the clown who gave away whatever it is they tell you for continued strict liability and all that entails in a court of law.


Union resistance or regulatory intervention....The magic eight balls says 'good luck with that'!

[Keg]

Keg,



are on their way next year according to a HOBO. No idea what their content or format will be.

Perhaps. They've been coming 'next year' since about 2014 so I'll believe it when I see it! :ok:

5:30 for a 20 minute chat and catch up with a bloke or girl I've known for years? Bring it on! :} I don't expect that fuel will be a significant part of that discussion. The CARs will be everyone's default answer.

[Keg]

Is it? I suggest with respect that you ought get out more, dislike the message but at least do some research before dismissing out of hand what is occurring outside the Australian exceptionalism to which some people still subscribe. Control of pilot work forces is an objective that runs deep in HR circles.

OK. So your beef initially appeared to be against said app and the 'major Australian airline's current use of it. It appeared you were making allegations that management were using it to feather their own beds. That's not your actual concern? You're raising a future, potential issue with it rather than what you think is a current, actual issue?

[mrdeux]

When they give me an instruction, in writing, to carry min op fuel I'll be happy to do so. Just as I'm sure they'll be happy to go pick the aircraft up from wherever it ends up. And any interview would be recorded. Even the mention of fuel would be intimidation, and subject to a report directly to CASA.

Reminds me of the time they got snarky about the 767 pilots who were offloading cargo on some of the Brisbane to Singapore flights, so that they could ensure they'd have 60 minutes of holding on arrival.

Management came out and said that they didn't want cargo offloaded, and that they were prepared to accept the risk. Now, such a statement would assume that they knew exactly what they were risking, and what the odds were. The following week, over 50% of the flights diverted, and a couple of them terminated. So, obviously the actual odds were high, but what they hadn't actually thought through was what they were actually risking. The flights were being performed under what was called the 'op spec', which basically allowed a 2 man crew operation to be planned to 8:30 flight time, but which simultaneously took away the pilots' ability to extend to 9 hours. The flight that didn't terminate breached the rules. So, if a diversion took place, the pilots would not have any option but to terminate the flight.

The next week, all operations using -300s were planned with 60 minutes, and with -200s an SO was added to the crew.

[Rated De]

It appeared you were making allegations that management were using it to feather their own beds. That's not your actual concern? You're raising a future, potential issue with it rather than what you think is a current, actual issue?

To make it clear my concern has three parts:

1. Ask your DFO or his Deputy whether they make any personal financial gain from fuel savings achieved? If you have indeed asked them, then yes or no do they secure pecuniary benefit from your colleagues saving them fuel?

2. Will the app be utilised for performance management of pilots?
Suggest you read the following article, read what Cathay Pilots, Ryanair pilots among others say on the matter before you dismiss any probability of the app being a performance management tool.

3. Do you consider yourself a 'management pilot'?

[Keg]

1. I know the answer to that question. It makes absolutely no difference to me and what I do. I can't see what relevance me shutting and engine down on taxi in, using idle reverse for landings where appropriate, or using a Config 3 (Airbus) approach where appropriate, have to do with discretionary fuel uplift. These initiatives are entirely separate.

For the avoidance of doubt, my main concern is stopping the aircraft safely. If I can do so using those other measures then my company is more profitable. I'm happy with that as an outcome. I'm not sure why someone would have an issue with this or providing info back to crew as to how it's occurring. From what I've seen my numbers are pretty close to everyone else's in this regard.

2. Will it? Dunno. It's not currently. I'd be surprised if they get very far trying to use it that way in QF in the future. What other airlines do is up to them.

3. No. I'm not sure what the relevance of that is to your original post either.

[73qanda]

they were prepared to accept the risk
Heh heh that's quite funny. Did anyone point out that they weren't qualified to accept the risk?

[LeadSled]

there was a captain nicknamed 'Vapours'.Folks,
Remember him well, wasn't at his retirement presentation (out burning a bit of A1) but I am told the then DFO presented him with a large flagon of said Jet A1.

As long as there are airlines, there will be airline managements, as long as there are airline managements there will be drives to reduce costs, some will be sensible, some will be "widely discussed" and some best not discussed in polite company at all.

Most will die a well deserved death, because, at the day to day operations level, and over the top fuel orders are one, there are not too many variable costs. Hence "surplus fuel" coming up on a regular cycle over the years. The current "app" is just part of the regular cycle, it will not influence the thoughtful and conscientious pilot in command, and that is the great majority.

When it comes to fuel, the powers of the pilot in command are, in most western jurisdictions, robust in law, and I hope they are never eroded (but please look closely at the soon to emerge CASA AU CASR Part 91 NPRM, very iffy and fluffy in this area, and also seeks to expand the power of ATC to "issue orders" on pains of strict liability criminal offenses by pilots) because by far the majority of pilot's fuel orders are prudent results based on the circumstances of the day.

Will "the law", unions and regulatory authorities severally or jointly stand up to coercive airline management in the future, to maintain the authority of the pilot in command ??

I certainly hope so, but looking at some of the actions and in-actions of CASA AU, I am far from 100% confident. For those many countries where there is no real "rule of law", fingers crossed.

Tootle pip!!

[mrdeux]

Heh heh that's quite funny. Did anyone point out that they weren't qualified to accept the risk?

I'm sure it was...but the following week's outcome was fairly conclusive.

The term 'risk management', when it comes from airline blunts, is always amusing. What it means is that they'll manage it, you take the risk!

Anyway, app or no app, they are easily ignored.

[mrdeux]

......Pax will be asked to judge your PA's and anything that they perceive that the pilots can do better to make their flight more enjoyable. You will be asked to justify why you made this PA and why didn't you make that PA 5 months ago. Pax complained it was a bumpy flight, care to explain why?

I generally try not to kill my passengers, and I consider it a successful flight if that is the outcome.

If they don't like my PAs, I'm happy not to do any.

And if you ask me anything beyond 60 minutes after the flight, I'll have totally forgotten it.

[Rated De]

Be careful how quickly you dismiss this.
The new QF International boss has a track record of introducing KPI's in their area of influence.

Having read the bio there were a few puzzled looks...She isn't there for her depth of aviation and operating acumen...Mr Evans moved to JQ to help with IFRS 16 would be in part my guess.

I generally try not to kill my passengers, and I consider it a successful flight if that is the outcome.

Whilst keeping take offs and landing to the prescribed statutory ratio of 1:1 is really the only KPI that matters, other airlines have shown it is a great management tool for pilots particularly those seeking upgrades. As I said HR have long targeted control of pilot work force.

[Capt Fathom]

As I said HR have long targeted control of pilot work force.
Interesting concept!
Are they taking over and administering the regulatory role from CASA?

[LeadSled]

Are they taking over and administering the regulatory role from CASA?
Fathom,
I am certain they would if they could, and this pesky nonsense of the "authority of the pilot in command" would have to be the first thing to go.

Anybody in/from Qantas remember a few years ago when "they" started writing letters addressed to J. Smith, captain, and articles appeared in Qantas news referring to aircraft captain J.Smith --- presumably to distinguish J.Smith cricket captain or a hotel bell captain --- but there was no doubt it was intended to downgrade the status of Captain J. Smith in the company --- by some people with very small minds.
On that occasion, very senior management put a stop to it, quick smart.
Tootle pip!!