Thrust Reversers are evil
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Eternal Beach
Thrust Reversers are evil
So.....
They add weight, increase fuel consumption are noisy & uncomfortable and their use is minimal plus in one place we get fined for inappropriate use.
I think slides are the next to go.
They are heavy and cumbersome, add weight and get in the way of door usage.
Actually, just get rid of the doors. They add weight and increase fuel consumption, noisy and uncomfortable and for most, are seldom used.
Fire extinguishers. Ppphhh! Whens the last time you used one of those?
Add your list of evil items to save spending money.....
halas
They add weight, increase fuel consumption are noisy & uncomfortable and their use is minimal plus in one place we get fined for inappropriate use.
I think slides are the next to go.
They are heavy and cumbersome, add weight and get in the way of door usage.
Actually, just get rid of the doors. They add weight and increase fuel consumption, noisy and uncomfortable and for most, are seldom used.
Fire extinguishers. Ppphhh! Whens the last time you used one of those?
Add your list of evil items to save spending money.....
halas
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 689
Likes: 16
From: Down south
Remove 10% of the seats, they are heavy and cumbersome, that will reduce weight in the cabin and allow more space to move around. It will also reduce the APS weight of the aircraft, it will also reduce the amount of food and drink that needs to be carried as there are fewer people on board to consume it, which will reduce the weight, further meaning less fuel required, and less trip fuel requires less tanking of fuel to carry that fuel, so further economies will be made. The cabin crew will have an easier time so will be happier in their work, seems like a good idea to me?
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: London
You guys worry me a bit. Who cares? It's an email, it's not binding or any real change to what we've been doing for years. Personally I don't like to waken the dead in the middle of the night to a noise sensitive long runway on a light bird. I'll use them all the way to the same runway with a tailwind, contaminated etc. If you want to use them or need to use them, use them. No one will ever question it and you don't even need to write a reason any more.
I think we've got bigger issues..
I think we've got bigger issues..
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
From: >FL310
Sorry Birdseed, it's a mindset that permeates cubicle dwellers of all airlines. Written by those who are not at the pointy end of the spear day in and day out. They want us us not to "fly" the aircraft for increased safety. Maximum autopilot usage is an added safety measure. Wouldn't reversers be an addd safety measure? If there are NO variables, I am happy with idle reverse. I have seen a number of issues, like missed HS turnoffs, fast closure of the end of the runway, hot brakes and more by relying only on auto brakes where the numbers say no problem but in reality, conditions are way different than entered in the OPT. which then the whole issue of airmanship comes in. One cannot expect a 3000 hour, less than "heavy" driver to have the experience/airmanship do do other than the Master's calling.
But if you do remove seats, as has been said, less weight, less catering, less baggage handling, less complaints, less safety issues in aircraft evacuations, less fuel burn, more on time departures and arrivals....the advantages are enormous. With the yield management geniuses we have working here, losing 10% of the seats would actually help the bottom line. And this is not sarcasm.
But if you do remove seats, as has been said, less weight, less catering, less baggage handling, less complaints, less safety issues in aircraft evacuations, less fuel burn, more on time departures and arrivals....the advantages are enormous. With the yield management geniuses we have working here, losing 10% of the seats would actually help the bottom line. And this is not sarcasm.
Last edited by TangoUniform; 22nd February 2017 at 15:52.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Eternal Beach
@ Bird seed hopeful 1
Jolly good ol' boy. Stiff upper lip and all that, wot! There's a good chap!
It's a funny email with a funny side and here it is. Well done for picking that up!
halas
Jolly good ol' boy. Stiff upper lip and all that, wot! There's a good chap!
It's a funny email with a funny side and here it is. Well done for picking that up!
halas
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 871
Likes: 41
From: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Remove all the managers. Nothing will change, but it'll save a packet...
Otherwise, you are correct, there would be no foreseeable difference to the operation beyond enormous cost savings.
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: ...contact ground on 118.35.
I'll use full reverse as much as possible because I love the roar associated with its use, and to let the neighbors know who's in town. Just like the company decides to fly me at 95+ hours a month, I have no reason to be cautious about the costs associated with full reverse, not doing single engine taxiing, etc... 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
From: usa
Perhaps the author of the letter will achieve greater compliance if he honors the commitments he has made to a number of departing pilots - only to renege after the fact.
He will know what's being alluded to.
He will know what's being alluded to.