Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Are we putting profit before safety?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Are we putting profit before safety?

Old 28th Jul 2002, 17:45
  #41 (permalink)  
Union Goon
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Are they saving money?
Depends on who you ask.
Good will is not really a balance sheet item unless you want to deduct it to show a loss. It never shows on the plus side.

However, crew costs ARE a balance sheet item and it is always where they are tempted to scrimp and save (usually a false economy) If you can reduce your costs by 1 percent You make a big change in the bottom line.

The good will lost doesn't show up there and neither does the degredation of safety. Unfortunately gutting safety doesn't adverserly effect the bottom line, even if you have a crash. The dollars saved while you gutted safety DO improve the bottom line however.

As an example of why it doesn't cost to bump pax... it was explained how things are bumped at AA when a flight is overweight for takeoff. The first thing bumped are the people, not the bags or the freight. Here is why: if you bump a person's bag but carry them, they are angry and you have to spend money linking up the person with their bag, so you have spent money the pax is pissed AND you will never see them again. Can't bump freight, its time sensitive. So you bump the people and write them an x dollars voucher for another flight. Why do that? The people think they have gained something, in the meantime they rarely travel alone (if the guy was on business he will pocket the voucher and use it to go somewhere with his wife, so he won't travel alone either) so they think they have been given another flight for free, and yet they are gonna wind up roping in another pax for us. As a result the bumping fares are probably carried as a promotional expense (I don't know this for certain) rather than an operating cost...

So back to the thread the answer to the question of the thread (are profts before safety) is OF COURSE THEY ARE....

The problem with all of this is we all as pilots know we are right. Unfortunately I can't think of too many airlines that are run by pilots that are successful. So impirical evidence doesn't bare us out.



Cheers
Wino

Last edited by Wino; 28th Jul 2002 at 17:53.
Wino is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2002, 18:23
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: North West
Posts: 167
>>I have noticed is that the rushing and the pressure is actually done by the pilots. Not the roster. If you just do your own thing at your normal pace and schedule be damned, then they will adjust the schedule to allow more time and thus reduce the delays. <<

Gentlemen, I believe what we are talking about here is 'pereived pressure. Whatever memo's and directives come from the airline management there are still those conventions that come with the culture of the airline. If the ethos is fast turnounds and r'ush rush rush' than that will have a bearing on how the operation is conducted. Of course, If the management perceive this to have a bearing on safety then they are duty bound to act. In the case of some low cost carriers they perhaps don't do this. That is all that is needed to perpetuate the bad 'hurry' culture. Of course, there will be the individual Captain who doesn't subscribe to the ethos and slows down to abide by the letter of the law. He will doubtless be noticed by the Fleet management.

Before I retired I parked my jet alongside a B737 from a low cost carrier. We were on a fairly pressurised 40 minute turnround. I did a full walkround inspection AND security inspection. The low cost B737 arrived and departed within our turnround. As far as I could see neither pilot nor engineer did an external check which I thought quite appaling.

They could have missed a bird in the engine, a nail in a tyre or a suspect package in a hatch.
Wig Wag is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2002, 02:15
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: london
Posts: 46
nosig

You mentioned that Carmen was introduced to make the life of the rosterers easier....what all 8 of them? Are you seriously suggesting that over 1000 crew have been knarcked off because 8 rosterers did not like the computer programme they had? It really does beggar belief.

And as for your codswallop that it was not a cost cutting measure, .....we all recieved a letter telling us how much money it was supposed to save. I am all for cutting costs to make the business lean,please do not misunderstand me.

Yesterday, a scottish based cabin crew positioned LTN to operate a LTN service with me and then nightstopped in a hotel at LTN before positioning back to GLA today. So exactly how do you think we are saving on HOTAC? This is going on daily.

And correct me if I am wrong, but has not this wonderful system managed to cancel the night Athens due to insufficient crew?Exactly how much is this money saving idea costing us?

Last edited by pilotofjet; 29th Jul 2002 at 02:20.
pilotofjet is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2002, 08:41
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,635
Seems strange that both BD and EZY have had problems with
finding the right system for their complicated flying programmes.
The current AIMS system does not have a useful "pairings optimser" whereas Carmen does. AIMS is an industry leader but its pairings tool is quiet labour intensive compared to Carmen or even perhaps RM Rocade.
Also at the end of the day you have to consider other practicalities
such as crew shortages,overall, within each rank, and at specific bases. In addition pairings that get delayed week in week out
need to be split etc. Its no use churning out all the pairings without the crews to operate them at the right place and time.
In my experience a lot of the systems in use are eventually guided
by the user towards the pairings that are operationally acceptable, not just what can be achieved in theory on the system used.

A better and more cost effective remedy would be a 5 day a week trip planner, someone with high Crewing and Scheduling experience.Rest assured the results would come out the same
as the expensive toy!


Mr Angry from Purley is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2002, 14:37
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 59
Posts: 454
Folks,
Companies are going to push their crews as far as they can untill they meet some resistance!

Over here in the USA, we have a FAR(don't have it in front of me) that says the pilots will not fly tired!! I would be willing to bet you have the same somewhere. Just have the whole crew exercise that right some day, maybe two, and this will stop!

You can mandate this buisness to DEATH! We all don't want that. We like our jobs with our time off! You have an option available to you. Might be a tough road alone, but if the crew stands up together and says "We're Tired" Then folks might listen!

Just my two cents worth, and we know what two cents are worth!
Willit Run is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2002, 17:23
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,703
Air Navigation Order Article 72 Fatigue of crew - operator's responsibilities:-
(2) The operator of an aircraft to which this article applies shall not cause or permit any person to fly therein as a member of its crew if he knows or has reason to believe that the person is suffering from, or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue while he is so flying as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.
Air Navigation Order Article 73 Fatigue of crew - responsibilities of crew:-
(1) A person shall not act as a member of the crew of an aircraft to which this article applies if he knows or suspects that he is suffering from, or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.
Captain Stable is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2002, 00:37
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 4
If you decline to operate extra sectors, that you only found out you had to do as you landed from your rostered last sector, it'll be front and center before management. The last time this happened the F/O said he/she was fatigued!

Who needs commercial pressure.

No Sig: Do you think 5.7 crews per aircraft is workable with the current system?

Regards BofS
IlBarbiereDiSivillia is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2002, 13:24
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Can't recall, but wasn't a CO pilot just put through the ringer due to fatigue related incident involving a landing on a GUM/HKG sector?
wes_wall is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.