(EK) Disciplined for carrying fuel?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: in my caravan
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(EK) Disciplined for carrying fuel?
Heard a rumour that a SFO crew offloaded some bags to carry extra fuel rather than fly a refile plan. Same rumour says the Capt was carpeted and given a final warning letter.
I thought the Captain was responsible for the fuel, as per the CAR's? Oh hang on, that's right, I'm in DXB.......
I thought the Captain was responsible for the fuel, as per the CAR's? Oh hang on, that's right, I'm in DXB.......
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: France
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, you are in DXB.
You now get a pay deduction if you are late for your pickup....1200 AED on your salary. YES I'm not joking (It happens sometimes and they shouldn’t blame you for a ONE time mistake like that). I don't think cars drivers get blame for not showing exactly on time....
Imagine, it is going to get worse before NEVER getting better...
New joiners, be prepare for the worse......
You now get a pay deduction if you are late for your pickup....1200 AED on your salary. YES I'm not joking (It happens sometimes and they shouldn’t blame you for a ONE time mistake like that). I don't think cars drivers get blame for not showing exactly on time....
Imagine, it is going to get worse before NEVER getting better...
New joiners, be prepare for the worse......
palm,
Did I miss something? Where is the communication outlining a fine for a late pickup? Not saying it's not true, but certainly the first I've heard of it.
Did I miss something? Where is the communication outlining a fine for a late pickup? Not saying it's not true, but certainly the first I've heard of it.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have throughout my career, carried the fuel I wish to carry, "within reason". The Captain has and always will have, the discretion to carry more fuel should he/she so wish I believe.
I will continue to carry extra fuel if I consider it prudent to do so. The company I work for is aware of this. If they are not happy with that, they of course will replace me.So far I still have employment but I have not however had an expensive diversion over fuel issues, for e.g., for many, many years.
Fortunately I am in a branch of aviation where I am not treated like a complete robot, therefore allowed to think for myself once in a while.
I will continue to carry extra fuel if I consider it prudent to do so. The company I work for is aware of this. If they are not happy with that, they of course will replace me.So far I still have employment but I have not however had an expensive diversion over fuel issues, for e.g., for many, many years.
Fortunately I am in a branch of aviation where I am not treated like a complete robot, therefore allowed to think for myself once in a while.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refile Not New
Refile flight plans have been around for over 30 years. People's Express Airline used to use them from Newark to West Palm when the planes were full and fuel was tight. They used to file to Jacksonville Fla., then if all went well and they didn't need an alternate, refile to West Palm. Purely a means to get the customer where they want to go in a timely fashion when business is GOOD!
I'm sure the the People's Express customers appreciated getting where they wanted to go WITH their underwear!
I'm sure the the People's Express customers appreciated getting where they wanted to go WITH their underwear!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 43,000 ft
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been flying for EK for nearly 19 years and have never once been asked to explain why I took extra fuel. If I think I/we (FO has a say in this decision as well) need extra fuel I/we take it, and if I/we feel that CFP fuel is correct for the sector I don't - this is all they ask!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Suspension city
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know I have nothing against refilling a plan to be more efficient, however let’s do it correctly then.
On our plans now we are planning to fly to DXB with decision being made abeam Kuwait. Now my understanding of it all is that if that’s the case then destination should be filed as Kuwait and then we should re-dispatch to DXB? Is it not?
Once again if fuel is needed, then take it.
Secondly, whats this about pickups and fines etc....
Oh and by the way, I recon the only way we could be "late" for pickup is if we've overslept or just got it totally wrong, which I have done before, cos the 20 Mins we allowed is ample time to rush through the "pre-departure" formalities.
Sleep tight
On our plans now we are planning to fly to DXB with decision being made abeam Kuwait. Now my understanding of it all is that if that’s the case then destination should be filed as Kuwait and then we should re-dispatch to DXB? Is it not?
Once again if fuel is needed, then take it.
Secondly, whats this about pickups and fines etc....
Oh and by the way, I recon the only way we could be "late" for pickup is if we've overslept or just got it totally wrong, which I have done before, cos the 20 Mins we allowed is ample time to rush through the "pre-departure" formalities.
Sleep tight
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desertflyer there are plenty of old bad ideas. Refiling enroute is one of them. If fuel to destination plus holding plus diversion is the safest way, then it is the safest way regardless of the customers underwear. I'm sure he would rather leave his packed underwear behind for a day than leave the ones he's wearing hanging from a smoldering tree half a mile short of the runway.
If its safe to do refiling sometimes then its safe to do all the time, If its not its not.
If its safe to do refiling sometimes then its safe to do all the time, If its not its not.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the SFO-DXB flight the one that repeatedly experiences a problem with the LIDO flight plan regarding estimated fuel burn? (in the range of two tonnes).
If so, that Capt should have got a NAJM award and not some disciplinary action. What a bunch of clowns we have running the show here!
If so, that Capt should have got a NAJM award and not some disciplinary action. What a bunch of clowns we have running the show here!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect this is indeed related to the DXB -SFO- DXB trips.
I thought they learned their lesson in dispatch after we had a few too many diversions using DPP on this sector. Everyone flying the T7 knows that the burn is ALWAYS 2T more than planned. Have you ever seen what all these Indy pax bring on board with them? Indeed count on a TOW that is a few tons more than on paper...
In the western world, one would adjust the fuelburn for this trip. Not here ofcourse... No brains.
It is verys simple for me: If they try to dispatch me via DPP to SFO then cargo/bags will be kicked off. And btw. no problem : get T&B ready so I can kick some @55es.
5star
I thought they learned their lesson in dispatch after we had a few too many diversions using DPP on this sector. Everyone flying the T7 knows that the burn is ALWAYS 2T more than planned. Have you ever seen what all these Indy pax bring on board with them? Indeed count on a TOW that is a few tons more than on paper...
In the western world, one would adjust the fuelburn for this trip. Not here ofcourse... No brains.
It is verys simple for me: If they try to dispatch me via DPP to SFO then cargo/bags will be kicked off. And btw. no problem : get T&B ready so I can kick some @55es.
5star
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There's Only One Way to Do EVERYTHING"...Says Wacked
Wacked, thank goodness you weren't in the cockpit of the UnitedDC-10 that lost all hydraulics and the guys got it onto the tarmac with no flight controls and only thrust.....never been done before. Bad idea? Ask the folks who survived. While REFILING is not a cure-all for every situation, it is another tool to put into the kit to use when appropriate to get the customers and their stuff where they want to go in a timely safe fashion. To disregard something you obviously have never tried or used......pretty trite to call it down out of hand. Why is it that all airlines don't have the same training department, FOM, or ops specs? What's the saying about teaching an old dog new tricks? The problem with the SFO flight is the -300ER when fully loaded with UNFAVORABLE FORCAST winds is on the edge. Knowing things can change drastically over a 16 hour flight I would rather have the "option" of refiling and getting to the destination with all the customers and their bags, rather than pissing them off before even pushing back. But, fortunately, the company gives great latitude for the Captain to make the final choice.....aviation....ain't it great! A common theme on this site is most "complaints or reports" are based on rumor, not fact. Remember the one about guys staying on a couple of months longer at 50% pay raises and no night turns.....NOT
This would be a great place to exchange ideas.......if they were based on fact. So Wacked, come clean.....have you ever used a "REFILE" flight plan in your career? If so, how did it go? Inquiring minds want to know!
A common theme on this site is most "complaints or reports" are based on rumor, not fact. Remember the one about guys staying on a couple of months longer at 50% pay raises and no night turns.....NOT This would be a great place to exchange ideas.......if they were based on fact. So Wacked, come clean.....have you ever used a "REFILE" flight plan in your career? If so, how did it go? Inquiring minds want to know!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in land of tiny cabbages
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ethics? (I realise the absurdity)
Just wondering about ethics of refiled flight plan.
It is surely obligatory that the fuel on board will permit the flight to reach the filed destination with all required minima according to forecast weather enroute?
If I understand correctly this would necessitate an original filed flight plan filed to a destination closer than, in this case, DXB, and then making an AFIL enroute.
If the aircraft departs with the filed destination being different to the destination to which the passengers intend to travel via the advertised direct non-stop service, is this a case of deliberately misleading passengers?
Taken to a further level, could this be considered as attempted kidnapping as you have, by filing a flight plan, legally stated that your intention is to bring the passengers to a destination that they do not wish to fly to and there has been no attempt to get their agreement to the rerouting.
Just a thought.
IF2
It is surely obligatory that the fuel on board will permit the flight to reach the filed destination with all required minima according to forecast weather enroute?
If I understand correctly this would necessitate an original filed flight plan filed to a destination closer than, in this case, DXB, and then making an AFIL enroute.
If the aircraft departs with the filed destination being different to the destination to which the passengers intend to travel via the advertised direct non-stop service, is this a case of deliberately misleading passengers?
Taken to a further level, could this be considered as attempted kidnapping as you have, by filing a flight plan, legally stated that your intention is to bring the passengers to a destination that they do not wish to fly to and there has been no attempt to get their agreement to the rerouting.
Just a thought.
IF2
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refiling a flight plan en route, or flight planning with with an "en route alternate" is a recipe for trouble, IMHO. Bit like this "Island hold" nonsense, which maybe "legal" but not necessarily safe.
I am also aware of the term "affordable safety".
Maybe getting air to air refuelling approved for civilian operations might be a viable option. At least until the tanker invoices arrive.
I am also aware of the term "affordable safety".
Maybe getting air to air refuelling approved for civilian operations might be a viable option. At least until the tanker invoices arrive.
Itchy.
That's a real stretch.
Re-file has been used for decades by many very reputable Airlines, Qantas and BA amongst them.
We carry a contingency fuel as part of our overall load, and it varies with route distance.
If, say, a 600KG contingency is safe for Muscat-Dubai when departing there, why is it less so when OVERFLYING muscat en-route from SFO?
It should not mean any increase in risk to the safety of the flight, It DOES increase the likelihood of a diversion short of destination, but that is a commercial risk the company is willing to take.
That's a real stretch.
Re-file has been used for decades by many very reputable Airlines, Qantas and BA amongst them.
We carry a contingency fuel as part of our overall load, and it varies with route distance.
If, say, a 600KG contingency is safe for Muscat-Dubai when departing there, why is it less so when OVERFLYING muscat en-route from SFO?
It should not mean any increase in risk to the safety of the flight, It DOES increase the likelihood of a diversion short of destination, but that is a commercial risk the company is willing to take.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: >FL310
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refiling or better known as redispatch is used daily by many US airlines heading westbound from Europe. They are origianlly dispatched to some intermediate destination, say BOS, and then redispatched as a "domestic" flight, where the fuel requirements are less than international. Sort of the same as EK in some cases. ATC never knows the difference and doesn't take into account that BOS could be a destination.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you missunderstood me, It is safest to carry flight plan fuel to desired destination(plus extra if needed). I did not say I have never refiled enroute or done critical point planning. I did it in a business jet where if I did'nt, the passenger wasn't going not just his underwear. I also knew this aicraft could be flown at long range cruise and save significant amounts of fuel.
We have all compromised ourselves at some point to the god of commercial pressure but to think it is perfectly safe and normal is self delusion.
We have all compromised ourselves at some point to the god of commercial pressure but to think it is perfectly safe and normal is self delusion.
It is safest to carry flight plan fuel to desired destination(plus extra if needed).
Why is landing with final reserve, alternate fuel plus a small contingency allowence more safe after a short sector than after a long one, assuming there is a suitable en-route alternate?
That, effectivley, is the result of re-file flightplanning.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refile IMHO
There is absolutely no problem refiling etc to achieve the aim of getting folks and their bags to destination. That is the commercially sensible way to use jets.
But of course that implies that you have the plan that works in the first place.
There have been numerous ( well at least a couple) EK diversions from apparently inaccurate lidos in EK on the SFO route.
I personally know one captain who refused the refile plan , took the extra fuel and less freight etc, and made DXB with just the fuel he legally needed.
And as far as safety is concerned , doing a refile plan that eventually results in a diversion - after say 15 hours flight time, and then being expected to do the refuel, and another take off and landing is arguably more dangerous ( statistically ) than not doing it.
And of course you will be expected to do the extra sector. And even if it is technically legal, after several variation one and twos, a couple of 9 day trips to Oz and a few night turns in your 92 hour monthly roster, I for one would not be happy to have to stop for gas if I didnt have to.
Similarly, the company policy to is to protect the hub - hence why I was told to take 50 tonnes in a T7 on a 1.8 hour flight to Tehran when there was fog forecast back in DXB ( which the met men have been doing to hedge their bets for most days in the last week). Guess better to have it than not but does seem to be an overkill...
Hence the conflicting signals that seem to be sent - fuel the company puts on is good fuel... but fuel that the pilot might want to take is bad fuel to achieve the mission?
Of course I have never been called into the office for extra fuel so I hope that this is just a rumour.
Of course what fuel is actually in the tanks versus what is on the load sheet ( to make it legal) could always be a bit out... and what you write on the OFP is of course another thing... like never fill in the extra and the little indian man that types in what you put there doesn't ever bother the compare the tech log with the OFP min fuel...I am sure you can all work that one out...
It is easy to get your maths wrong after what I just said about 92 hour rosters ). It just depends on what your limit is MTOW or MLW really. Similarly, use of the Max taxi weight versus TOW seems to be a bit light on in this outfit. The extra 1.5 T that you can throw on ,most jets to get to the runway is not oft used in EK - since I have been there at least.
So a few options to keep things on the rails.
Wja
But of course that implies that you have the plan that works in the first place.
There have been numerous ( well at least a couple) EK diversions from apparently inaccurate lidos in EK on the SFO route.
I personally know one captain who refused the refile plan , took the extra fuel and less freight etc, and made DXB with just the fuel he legally needed.
And as far as safety is concerned , doing a refile plan that eventually results in a diversion - after say 15 hours flight time, and then being expected to do the refuel, and another take off and landing is arguably more dangerous ( statistically ) than not doing it.
And of course you will be expected to do the extra sector. And even if it is technically legal, after several variation one and twos, a couple of 9 day trips to Oz and a few night turns in your 92 hour monthly roster, I for one would not be happy to have to stop for gas if I didnt have to.
Similarly, the company policy to is to protect the hub - hence why I was told to take 50 tonnes in a T7 on a 1.8 hour flight to Tehran when there was fog forecast back in DXB ( which the met men have been doing to hedge their bets for most days in the last week). Guess better to have it than not but does seem to be an overkill...
Hence the conflicting signals that seem to be sent - fuel the company puts on is good fuel... but fuel that the pilot might want to take is bad fuel to achieve the mission?
Of course I have never been called into the office for extra fuel so I hope that this is just a rumour.
Of course what fuel is actually in the tanks versus what is on the load sheet ( to make it legal) could always be a bit out... and what you write on the OFP is of course another thing... like never fill in the extra and the little indian man that types in what you put there doesn't ever bother the compare the tech log with the OFP min fuel...I am sure you can all work that one out...
It is easy to get your maths wrong after what I just said about 92 hour rosters ). It just depends on what your limit is MTOW or MLW really. Similarly, use of the Max taxi weight versus TOW seems to be a bit light on in this outfit. The extra 1.5 T that you can throw on ,most jets to get to the runway is not oft used in EK - since I have been there at least.
So a few options to keep things on the rails.
Wja