Yup
 

You said it Tintin. Can't write either :ugh:

You are destined for high office at Goat Airways Tintin :rolleyes:

Qr 026
 

You should be in the air with this poor guy today " unable due to fuel " then "request due to fuel "
What will EK think this QR cant aford fuel ?

Poor guy? Lulu
 

You say 'poor guy' I would say 'stupid guy' because he up-held the ridiculous fuel policies by not taking extra (necessary) fuel. :ugh: Hold steady and fly the aircraft safely boys.

Be a man and fill in the form! Who cares about those letters?

regarding form and so many other forms and paper work that we need to fill in...i think there's not arabic way..because what i know arabic people is quit efficient ( since long time back)...maybe its INDIAN way?????..well its arabic company running by indian...or....

I was trying to look for that letter in my bin, where I threw it a week ago, and I realized my maid (surprisingly) disposed of it...

I mean, I should have at least read it past the paragraph where it said "everyone would like to fly with full tanks..." :yuk:, but my uncontrollable urge to throw up when I saw that made me resist any attempt to finish reading this beautiful piece of material.

I remember the last time I asked the guy at the pump to "fill it up". It was 20 years ago at the flying club.... Is this how the TP sees me?

Sad, sad, sad...

MigratoryBird

Same same
 

I guess we all did the same . I will not fly around this crazy globe with minimum fuel . n 11 for approach in Doha , doint get FL over Pakistan ,or long R/V to DXB, holding at LHR ,WX at KIX or India ..... minimum fuel = not safe

Well, we are just supposed to simply go to the alternate, and the company will "support us". This is not in out Part A, but I remember being quoted on the first page of that magnificent letter (yeah, yeah, I read a bit more than the first paragraph, I admit, but I promise I did not read more than one page, honest ;)...) verbatim from another company's OPS Manual. So, let's see, am I supposed to follow another company's OM, or, if the company is so keen that we divert with their "support", why does this policy land in our Part A?

As far as I am concerned, I do as Lulu does: just carry the extra that I am entitled by law. Not "full tanks", not always the same X'thousand kilos, just what I consider to be fair, economic and safe.

HOWEVER, I was trying to go deeper than just what we do in our daily operation with my last comment. "Commander-Dispatcher" decision? "Dispatcher Empowerment"? Deviation from recommended practices in EGLL? :=

Aren't we loosing sight of the ball here? Is it only me who feels patronized?

Disturbing...

Cheers

MigBird