Pilots: Pressured to cut fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: still trying to know
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots: Pressured to cut fuel
Watching the enclosed Yahoo video link, and reading the USA Today article, I can only think of coming days news saying something like this:
A little extra fuel could have saved their lives
Obviously, they will all blame the pilot for not taking enough fuel, and a little extra for the extra mile. But I ask you the following: What would they come up next with, in order "to save on costs"?
See the video, as shown in Yahoo news, and the actual news, as shown in USA Today. This is awesome, awful to say the least.
Pilots worried about flying with less fuel
http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/8852898/abc/20080717/av_abc_wnt/_goodmorningyahoo_abc080716_wn_lstark_airlines
US Airways pilots: We're pressured to cut fuel
http://m.usatoday.com/detail.jsp?key=872582&rc=main
US Airways pilots: We're pressured to cut fuel
7/17/2008 7:03 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The pilots union for US Airways said Wednesday the airline is pressuring pilots to use less fuel than they feel is safe in order to save money.
US Airways Captain James Ray, a spokesman for the US Airline Pilots Association, which represents the airline's 5,200 pilots, said eight senior pilots and the union have filed complaints with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The union also paid for a full-page ad in Wednesday's USA TODAY addressed to "our valued passengers." The ad accuses the airline of "a program of intimidation to pressure your captain to reduce fuel loads."
Ray said soaring jet fuel prices have sent all the airlines scrambling to find ways to cut the weight of airliners because the heavier the plane, the more fuel the plane burns. US Airways, based in Tempe, Ariz., has recently removed movie players, redesigned its meal carts and replaced glassware with plastic to cut weight.
Jet fuel has surpassed labor as the airline industry's greatest expense.
But US Airways recently crossed the line when it ordered eight pilots who requested "an extra 10 to 15 minutes worth of fuel" to attend training sessions, or "check rides," that could put their pilot licenses in jeopardy, Ray said. The pilots were supposed to report for their training sessions Wednesday, he said.
A little extra fuel could have saved their lives
Obviously, they will all blame the pilot for not taking enough fuel, and a little extra for the extra mile. But I ask you the following: What would they come up next with, in order "to save on costs"?
See the video, as shown in Yahoo news, and the actual news, as shown in USA Today. This is awesome, awful to say the least.
Pilots worried about flying with less fuel
http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/8852898/abc/20080717/av_abc_wnt/_goodmorningyahoo_abc080716_wn_lstark_airlines
US Airways pilots: We're pressured to cut fuel
http://m.usatoday.com/detail.jsp?key=872582&rc=main
US Airways pilots: We're pressured to cut fuel
7/17/2008 7:03 AM
US Airways Captain James Ray, a spokesman for the US Airline Pilots Association, which represents the airline's 5,200 pilots, said eight senior pilots and the union have filed complaints with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The union also paid for a full-page ad in Wednesday's USA TODAY addressed to "our valued passengers." The ad accuses the airline of "a program of intimidation to pressure your captain to reduce fuel loads."
Ray said soaring jet fuel prices have sent all the airlines scrambling to find ways to cut the weight of airliners because the heavier the plane, the more fuel the plane burns. US Airways, based in Tempe, Ariz., has recently removed movie players, redesigned its meal carts and replaced glassware with plastic to cut weight.
Jet fuel has surpassed labor as the airline industry's greatest expense.
But US Airways recently crossed the line when it ordered eight pilots who requested "an extra 10 to 15 minutes worth of fuel" to attend training sessions, or "check rides," that could put their pilot licenses in jeopardy, Ray said. The pilots were supposed to report for their training sessions Wednesday, he said.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kwick....dont really want to elaborate to much here.....as a Capt on the Bus,"West side".USAirways...I have never been 'influenced" by mgt on any fuel issues...When Ive felt Ive needed more fuel,I and in agreement with my dispatcher...Ive always been given it...never once have I been questioned.....this whole issue is nothing more than political gesturing by a minorty of "east" usair pilots who have short dicks!!!
There is much behind this story and would love to discuss it over a few tinnies with you.....and it has been discussed on previous threads here....these so-called "experienced" pilots are doing nothing but scaring the public into thinking we run flights short of fuel,and it is our mgt that is to blame.....no professional pilot would ever allow such a thing..Period!!!!!...and it is simply not true....these idiots are being given training so that they may see the error of there ways....look at the history of the old USAIRWAYS....IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
These clowns want to "burn down the house"...and dont much care for who resides in it....very UNPROFESSIONAL for sure
There is much behind this story and would love to discuss it over a few tinnies with you.....and it has been discussed on previous threads here....these so-called "experienced" pilots are doing nothing but scaring the public into thinking we run flights short of fuel,and it is our mgt that is to blame.....no professional pilot would ever allow such a thing..Period!!!!!...and it is simply not true....these idiots are being given training so that they may see the error of there ways....look at the history of the old USAIRWAYS....IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
These clowns want to "burn down the house"...and dont much care for who resides in it....very UNPROFESSIONAL for sure
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
These clowns want to "burn down the house"...and dont much care for who resides in it....very UNPROFESSIONAL for sure
Still, there is a real cycle of "fuel savings" programs. Fuel loads are cut back, fuel is saved until a few expensive diverts occur then more fuel is put on the flight plan and the cycle starts anew.
Last edited by Airbubba; 17th Jul 2008 at 19:34.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my company there is an unwriiten rule to prefuel aircraft to "2000kgs" under flight plan in the expectation that zero fuel weight goes down and the top up will be less than 2000kgs. In my experience the crew have 99.9% of the time gone with flight plan fuel and often put on extra for holding fuel.
The Captain has the last word and long may that be so
The Captain has the last word and long may that be so
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain has the last word and long may that be so
In a ham and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed....
When it comes to flight safety, the dispatcher is involved, but the flight crew is committed.
Mistrust in Management
Pressured to carry a fuel figure that manages risk in a resonsable manner
That is how I would put it.
The airlines I have worked for have been trying to make Flight Crews do this for at least 30 years - they don't like crews adding another 'x' kilos for 'mum'; on account of 'mum' costs 3 to 4 % per hour of any extra fuel loaded. i.e. a 10 hour flight with another 10 tonnes over min flight plan fuel will cost between 3 - 4 tonnes of extra fuel all gone (paid for and added into the global warming thingy)
I have always loaded the fuel I think will cater for the conditions that I may 'reasonably' expect to arise at the destination and alternate airfields. (The word 'reasonably' means I make my own assesment of 'risk management' which would be something I hope along the lines that aircraft designers build into the aircraft when they consider the strength of the main spars versus the likelyhood of an idiot pilot driving their aircraft into the mother of all CB's)
I never carry fuel for 'Mum', although over the decades before the LH seat I flew with many who did. I do carry extra fuel when I believe that safety or an unnaceptable commercial risk requires it. I have never felt 'uncomfortably' short of fuel.
We are paid as Captains to manage risk in every aspect of our working day (take the loading of the aircraft for instance - do we check every aspect of that? Or look at performance - I could go on and on)
Any airline I have worked for will allow me to carry the fuel that is appropriate to the risk - in 34 years in this business I've never had one complaint from management about extra fuel - and I doubt that will change. For those who persist in carrying 'a bit for mum', well you deserve some critisism because you are not resolving those 'risk management' decisisions appropriately in my opinion.
Regards
Exeng
The airlines I have worked for have been trying to make Flight Crews do this for at least 30 years - they don't like crews adding another 'x' kilos for 'mum'; on account of 'mum' costs 3 to 4 % per hour of any extra fuel loaded. i.e. a 10 hour flight with another 10 tonnes over min flight plan fuel will cost between 3 - 4 tonnes of extra fuel all gone (paid for and added into the global warming thingy)
I have always loaded the fuel I think will cater for the conditions that I may 'reasonably' expect to arise at the destination and alternate airfields. (The word 'reasonably' means I make my own assesment of 'risk management' which would be something I hope along the lines that aircraft designers build into the aircraft when they consider the strength of the main spars versus the likelyhood of an idiot pilot driving their aircraft into the mother of all CB's)
I never carry fuel for 'Mum', although over the decades before the LH seat I flew with many who did. I do carry extra fuel when I believe that safety or an unnaceptable commercial risk requires it. I have never felt 'uncomfortably' short of fuel.
We are paid as Captains to manage risk in every aspect of our working day (take the loading of the aircraft for instance - do we check every aspect of that? Or look at performance - I could go on and on)
Any airline I have worked for will allow me to carry the fuel that is appropriate to the risk - in 34 years in this business I've never had one complaint from management about extra fuel - and I doubt that will change. For those who persist in carrying 'a bit for mum', well you deserve some critisism because you are not resolving those 'risk management' decisisions appropriately in my opinion.
Regards
Exeng
The FAA's "rubber stamp" , in order to still "promote air transportation"-in lieu of safety-is probably behind a different version of this from the "back door". This would never be allowed without approval of "our friends" at the FAA, with your families' safety always at the forefront
. There might easily have been pressure from the ATA-the US airline lobby group- directly on the FAA (all top cabinet members are White House appointees-don't forget...). The motive? $$ . It can mean dispatching many flights with about 2-4,000 lbs less fuel, reducing operating costs. Next winter might prove interesting.
There are new changes for the required forecast or observed ceiling/visibility at the destination, determining whether an alternate airport (domestic) is needed with the resulting increase in dispatch fuel load. This quite often reduces payload/revenue. These new rules require alternates to be planned in fewer cases than existed for decades. This is for Part 121 aircraft, whether the CRJ, B-737 or B744 etc.
For many years, +/- 1 hour, less than 2,000' ceiling or 3 miles required a suitable alternate (1-2-3 rule).
Months ago they reduced these, if the crew/aircraft and approach at the destination are qualified for Cat 2 (currency, Notams, MELs etc).
Recently there is a second change, to 1,000' and 3 miles if the destination has a Cat 1 approach etc, and I'll double check when I go back to work.
Does anybody else smell some federal rats (no-not just the ATF/KGB..)?
Just wait-this is only the beginning.
. There might easily have been pressure from the ATA-the US airline lobby group- directly on the FAA (all top cabinet members are White House appointees-don't forget...). The motive? $$ . It can mean dispatching many flights with about 2-4,000 lbs less fuel, reducing operating costs. Next winter might prove interesting.There are new changes for the required forecast or observed ceiling/visibility at the destination, determining whether an alternate airport (domestic) is needed with the resulting increase in dispatch fuel load. This quite often reduces payload/revenue. These new rules require alternates to be planned in fewer cases than existed for decades. This is for Part 121 aircraft, whether the CRJ, B-737 or B744 etc.
For many years, +/- 1 hour, less than 2,000' ceiling or 3 miles required a suitable alternate (1-2-3 rule).
Months ago they reduced these, if the crew/aircraft and approach at the destination are qualified for Cat 2 (currency, Notams, MELs etc).
Recently there is a second change, to 1,000' and 3 miles if the destination has a Cat 1 approach etc, and I'll double check when I go back to work.
Does anybody else smell some federal rats (no-not just the ATF/KGB..)?
Just wait-this is only the beginning.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 18th Jul 2008 at 07:01.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'In agreement with my despatcher'. Why does the despatcher have to agree with you? It's your licence on the line. I know that's the way it's done in the US but it's not right. I tell the despatcher how much fuel I require, period.
Flap 5:
Good point, it is the same for us but as in previous years our Dispatchers are required to put a comment on the new release amendment, such as "Cont. fuel increase per Captain's request".
We have several new Dispatchers and there is no doubt that the supervisors "lean on them".
The reported events at USAirways look really bizarre and there must be more to the story.
Stay tuned until next week.
Good point, it is the same for us but as in previous years our Dispatchers are required to put a comment on the new release amendment, such as "Cont. fuel increase per Captain's request".
We have several new Dispatchers and there is no doubt that the supervisors "lean on them".
The reported events at USAirways look really bizarre and there must be more to the story.
Stay tuned until next week.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually this has gone beyond nonsense. There is no pressure at US Airways to trim fuel to an unsafe level. In fact over the last 2 years, and especially since dispatch was consolidated in PIT I have had to have fuel taken off because we were going to bump payload to carry unneccessary fuel. Landing in HNL with 2 hours of fuel on a VFR day is way beyond what is required. Fuel loads are too conservative, if anything.
These 8 pilots were taking on way more fuel on a percentage basis that all the other captains. The East pilots are also running the APU in flight to burn extra fuel "to show the company we mean business in our negotiations". What this has become is a rookie union, who had its roots in anti - ALPA radicals, trying to flex some muscle when they lack the spine to support it. They are playing a bogus "safety" card in negotiations knowing full well that there is no safety issue involved. The company was bringing them in for a day of ground school to determine why they were uploading so much fuel. There was no sim check involved nor was there any punishment involved since they would have had to be served Section 19 (discipline section of the contract) letters before they could be brought in. This is just some very unprofessional pilots making the rest of us look bad.
These 8 pilots were taking on way more fuel on a percentage basis that all the other captains. The East pilots are also running the APU in flight to burn extra fuel "to show the company we mean business in our negotiations". What this has become is a rookie union, who had its roots in anti - ALPA radicals, trying to flex some muscle when they lack the spine to support it. They are playing a bogus "safety" card in negotiations knowing full well that there is no safety issue involved. The company was bringing them in for a day of ground school to determine why they were uploading so much fuel. There was no sim check involved nor was there any punishment involved since they would have had to be served Section 19 (discipline section of the contract) letters before they could be brought in. This is just some very unprofessional pilots making the rest of us look bad.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Desert
Age: 48
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget to let our fellow readers know that these are the same numbnuts that where taking legal actions against 18 of the "West" pilots. That by the way was dismissed by the court and their Arses where handed to them with a note Not to re-file this frivolous lawsuit.
Bottom line is, the East rookie union will do as before....Burn the house down from within.
Bottom line is, the East rookie union will do as before....Burn the house down from within.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA's "rubber stamp" , in order to still "promote air transportation"-in lieu of safety-is probably behind a different version of this from the "back door". This would never be allowed without approval of "our friends" at the FAA, with your families' safety always at the forefront.
Rubbish.
As has been mentioned by others, it is an 'east union' ploy, nothing more, nor less.
Now, lets say, for the sake of argument, that an airplane actually does run short of fuel.
Ever hear of a diversion?
Been used for many years, works good.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zero fuel weight lies
A little food for thought for any fellow flight crews who, maybe foolishly, dispatch with actual plog fuel on a regular basis.
In Europe, (unfortunately Im not in a position to coment on the situation in the USA) under JAR ops....your ZFW as calculated by the flight planning system is based on average weights....it has been my experience that these weight are in fact "VERY AVERAGE". To explain further...your pax weights are average 85/75 kgs for m/f and baggage weights 13 kgs for european dests with 10k cabin baggage. Now, how many people do you know, go to sunny spain from the UK for thier 2 weeks of bliss, would have 13 kgs of luggage?? do you really expect all cabin baggage to weigh 10kgs, or, lets face it, are all the pax less than or equal to "average" weights.
So, take your 150 pax with say max permitted luggage of 26kgs ( why we use one figure for flight planning/fuel purposes and an entirely different figure ie double that, before we charge an excess charge requires consideration also).......and they WILL have max bag weight for a trip..thats an extra 2 tonnes for cash thats not accounted for in your performance calculations...and thats presuming that all the punters are coming straight from the local health farm, having shed lots of pounds, in order to board at that beautiful "average" weight.
Im making the point, purely from the point of view of safety...so taking the extra 500kgs of fuel, for "mum" makes a lot more sense than you may think. Also, round up those performance figure for either the flex temp.....take next lower, or T/O weight...drop down to the next line to ensure theres adequate performance for the intended op.
Please dont start a slagging match around this post,as it is, in my humble opinion good airmanship and a safer approach to flight planning.
and....may you always have 2 tonnes in the wings on landing
VHF1
In Europe, (unfortunately Im not in a position to coment on the situation in the USA) under JAR ops....your ZFW as calculated by the flight planning system is based on average weights....it has been my experience that these weight are in fact "VERY AVERAGE". To explain further...your pax weights are average 85/75 kgs for m/f and baggage weights 13 kgs for european dests with 10k cabin baggage. Now, how many people do you know, go to sunny spain from the UK for thier 2 weeks of bliss, would have 13 kgs of luggage?? do you really expect all cabin baggage to weigh 10kgs, or, lets face it, are all the pax less than or equal to "average" weights.
So, take your 150 pax with say max permitted luggage of 26kgs ( why we use one figure for flight planning/fuel purposes and an entirely different figure ie double that, before we charge an excess charge requires consideration also).......and they WILL have max bag weight for a trip..thats an extra 2 tonnes for cash thats not accounted for in your performance calculations...and thats presuming that all the punters are coming straight from the local health farm, having shed lots of pounds, in order to board at that beautiful "average" weight.
Im making the point, purely from the point of view of safety...so taking the extra 500kgs of fuel, for "mum" makes a lot more sense than you may think. Also, round up those performance figure for either the flex temp.....take next lower, or T/O weight...drop down to the next line to ensure theres adequate performance for the intended op.
Please dont start a slagging match around this post,as it is, in my humble opinion good airmanship and a safer approach to flight planning.
and....may you always have 2 tonnes in the wings on landing
VHF1
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: still trying to know
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One good friend used to comment the following:
The only time that you have excess fuel in your tanks is when your aircraft is on fire.
Please note I am not in favor of taking excess fuel to a point it becomes useless as an aicraft anchor.
The only time that you have excess fuel in your tanks is when your aircraft is on fire.
Please note I am not in favor of taking excess fuel to a point it becomes useless as an aicraft anchor.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See The Big Picture
Battles between pilots at one airline...east vs. west.
people on this thread talking about court cases against "west" pilots (for those who don't know...these pilots may have sent FECAL matter through the US Mail to show their displeasure at the new union...the case was removed from federal court and will probably show up again in a state court...more appropriate in this matter).
BUT the real question is Captain's Authority.
The new union at USAIRways made quite a line in the sand. Either the captain is the boss or he isn't. And if he isn't, who is the boss of the plane?
And those of you who don't think adding fuel for "mom , dad, the kids" etc. is wise...how come all those pilots, long retired did it? And they safely reached retirement!
This should have been handled by sensible discussion between the union and the management. sensible usair management...hmmm that would have been ed colodny///even butch schofield is looking damn good these days!
...
PS...if management really wanted to save money by reducing fuel weights...tell me why USAIR didn't seek the waiver reducing reserves from 10 percent to 5 percent like American and Continental did?
I'd really like an answer to the that one.
people on this thread talking about court cases against "west" pilots (for those who don't know...these pilots may have sent FECAL matter through the US Mail to show their displeasure at the new union...the case was removed from federal court and will probably show up again in a state court...more appropriate in this matter).
BUT the real question is Captain's Authority.
The new union at USAIRways made quite a line in the sand. Either the captain is the boss or he isn't. And if he isn't, who is the boss of the plane?
And those of you who don't think adding fuel for "mom , dad, the kids" etc. is wise...how come all those pilots, long retired did it? And they safely reached retirement!
This should have been handled by sensible discussion between the union and the management. sensible usair management...hmmm that would have been ed colodny///even butch schofield is looking damn good these days!
...
PS...if management really wanted to save money by reducing fuel weights...tell me why USAIR didn't seek the waiver reducing reserves from 10 percent to 5 percent like American and Continental did?
I'd really like an answer to the that one.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does USAIR use re-release (re-dispatch) procedures for north Atlantic flights...and if not, why not?
Been using re-release for years, never had a problem, Atlantic or Pacific ops.
Sudden thought, perhaps USAIR doesn't know how...
Been using re-release for years, never had a problem, Atlantic or Pacific ops.
Sudden thought, perhaps USAIR doesn't know how...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re-release is SOP for usair and has been for at least 15 years if not more
Other than 'east' union malcontents, that is.