Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[luvthe9]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-a...D&dist=hppr

 

[US Oringinal]

IT'S HAPPENING ALL THE TIME!!!

A friend of mine (allegedly)just worked ATH-PHL this week. They(allegedly) had to divert to BOS for fuel and apparently this has been(allegedly) happening all summer because (according to the Captain on that flight) they are being admonished and taken to task for requesting additional fuel(that may be needed due to weather or jet stream conditions)--allegedly. Additionally, on this flight previous years, during the heat of summer, there was a passenger load restriction that was necessary in order for the aircraft to make it from ATH-PHL without diverting for fuel. Well this year, the company has instead opted to fill the plane up and grab all the revenue it can and have the plane divert for fuel ---which it has many times this summer. Missed connections, angry passengers, pressured pilots, questionable safe-operation practices, additional takeoffs/landings........

When the pilots get the releases for their flights out of ATH they are often not even for ATH-PHL, rather they are for ATH-BGR or ATH-BOS(allegedly)..........

OH YEAH.....Tempe is full of GREAT IDEAS.....

Keep the revenue coming in......

( the above is just my opinion, I'm not in the mood for another Tempe requested "meeting" this week..)

 

[robbedagain]

that certainly in my opinion is a safety related issue. can the FAA or the Govt fine the airline for that?

 

[US Oringinal]

They are trying to fly airplanes from behind their desks in Tempe--sure doesn't sound safe to me!

They are trying to fundamentally change the way everyone here does their job....so that it complies with their "vision" whether or not it makes sense, or if it's safe :down: :down: --in my opinion

 

[nycbusdriver]

that certainly in my opinion is a safety related issue. can the FAA or the Govt fine the airline for that?

The FAA is a tombstone bureaucracy. Until there are tombstones involved, they basically do nothing. When they do have to deal with tombstones, their first reaction is to blame the pilots, then the controllers, then the airline, then the airplane manufacturers, then the industry, then the weather, then God, then they go to the phone book and start picking names at random to blame. Anybody or anything but themselves.

The FAA will do nothing until the Coast Guard has to rescue 200 people off the coast of Atlantic City.

(For the intensely naive or obtuse, the last line is hyperbole....look it up.)

 

[hp_fa]

The FAA is a tombstone bureaucracy. Until there are tombstones involved, they basically do nothing. When they do have to deal with tombstones, their first reaction is to blame the pilots, then the controllers, then the airline, then the airplane manufacturers, then the industry, then the weather, then God, then they go to the phone book and start picking names at random to blame. Anybody or anything but themselves.

I would not disagree with that. However, you would think that the beancounters would have figured out how much it costs to divert for fuel in the form of:

1. an additional landing fee;
2. additional labor costs of the crew;
3. additional labor costs on the ground;
4 the cost of the extra fuel for takeoff and to get back to altitude and make an additional approach;
5 the non-availablility of the plane to be doing whatever else it was supposed to be doing;
6. the labor costs for re-routing any mis-connects;
7. an extra cycle on the airframe and engines; and,
8. any costs associated with dealing with written or telephonic customer complaints.

What did I miss?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

In training, they said that every divert of an international flight costs the company around a million bucks. I don't know where those numbers come from, but your list looks pretty complete.

 

[EastUS]

The FAA is a tombstone bureaucracy. Until there are tombstones involved, they basically do nothing. When they do have to deal with tombstones, their first reaction is to blame the pilots, then the controllers, then the airline, then the airplane manufacturers, then the industry, then the weather, then God, then they go to the phone book and start picking names at random to blame. Anybody or anything but themselves.

NYC..We may be showing our "antiquity" here sir. While we've the fullest agreement on these issues...It's my understanding that the phone books have recently been replaced/"upgraded" to an in-house, early version- Apple II computer, that now calls randomly generated numbers to assign blame.
I've even heard rumours of "Somewhere..Over the Rainbow"..there being planned upgrades to the overall ATC system as well. Who knows what wondrous things we may someday see? In the meanwhile...it's seems best to plan and monitor fuel with common sense in command.....

 

[US Oringinal]

Haven't you guys figured it out??

THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!!

TheY don't, nor have they ever seen both sides of the equation. All they know is how to cram more people on an airplane and take everything else off that weighs an ounce that isn't FAA required or that they can't sell for $2 or $7. ....Including "excess" fuel.

THAT IS THEIR ONLY PLAN!!!

This might explain our stock price...

 

[nycbusdriver]

NYC..We may be showing our "antiquity" here sir. While we've the fullest agreement on these issues...It's my understanding that the phone books have recently been replaced/"upgraded" to an in-house, early version- Apple II computer, that now calls randomly generated numbers to assign blame.
I've even heard rumours of "Somewhere..Over the Rainbow"..there being planned upgrades to the overall ATC system as well.

You're right. I have a birthday coming, and I can't remember how old (ancient) I am.

I heard about that upgrade of the ATC system. It's the one every airline passenger has paid an extra fee for since about 1970. Oddly, we are still pretty much using that 1970 ATC system. But, it's just around the corner...

US Airways has their version of that story, too. It's called the Electronic Flight Bag. We're waiting for the next version because it's better than the one out now. The bad news is that EVERY current version has an improvement coming...just around the corner...so we decided to wait for it.

 

[curious]

As a former FAA type (and spouse of pilot) I can agree about the FAA blame game! But I have to differ on one thing when it comes to FAA improvements/changes/modernization - they got rid of Flight Service Stations (Automated Flight Service Stations for the younger crowd) <_< Big mistake in my opinion. OK, I've made my yearly comment, sorry to hijack the thread, back to lurking.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Haven't you guys figured it out??

THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!!

TheY don't, nor have they ever seen both sides of the equation. All they know is how to cram more people on an airplane and take everything else off that weighs an ounce that isn't FAA required or that they can't sell for $2 or $7. ....Including "excess" fuel.

THAT IS THEIR ONLY PLAN!!!

This might explain our stock price...

Tempe's Thinking, Why do they need all that fuel? US don't need all that fuel to Mexico. How do we expect Sandcastle to run an International Operation when they can not even run an Internal Operation. What's next, refueling stops between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. :down:

 

[sharktooth]

(according to the Captain on that flight) they are being admonished and taken to task for requesting additional fuel(that may be needed due to weather or jet stream conditions)--allegedly.

A Captain should never "request" extra fuel. As the "sole" authority for the safe conduct of that flight he should find a way to politely communicate the minimum fuel load he would be comfortable taking. period.

There is no negotiating to be done. The dispatchers are all really nice people but once a Captain says it, that should be it.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

A Captain should never "request" extra fuel. As the "sole" authority for the safe conduct of that flight he should find a way to politely communicate the minimum fuel load he would be comfortable taking. period.

There is no negotiating to be done. The dispatchers are all really nice people but once a Captain says it, that should be it.

Actually BOTH are responsible, but the Captain's gluteus is in the airplane. I've never seen anything but cooperation between Captains and Dispatchers. I wonder if somehow the company is generating some kind of "number" based on landing fuel of the airplane. I can't imagine that dispatchers have any hand in this at all, other than maybe they are suject to retraining in retribution as well.

 

[nycbusdriver]

A Captain should never "request" extra fuel. As the "sole" authority for the safe conduct of that flight he should find a way to politely communicate the minimum fuel load he would be comfortable taking. period.

There is no negotiating to be done. The dispatchers are all really nice people but once a Captain says it, that should be it.

I have never, ever had a dispatcher second guess my upping a fuel load as long as other weight and balance constraints continued to be met. I don't know if the dispatchers are into the snitch game, or whether the company has other systems in place to identify captains who increase the fuel loads (that would be pretty easy to do.)

Landing in PHL after a transatlantic crossing with the company's "ideal" fuel load is ludicrous. Yes, if everything operates like a fine Swiss watch, then that works well. I understand PHL once operated like a fine Swiss watch in 1962 at 4 am on a Sunday morning...it lasted 12 and a half minutes.

And you never know whether you will get the altitude your flight plan burn is based upon, the track your fuel burn is based upon, or whether you will end up holding in PHL for any one of dozens of airport operational glitches that occur on a semi-regular basis.

The company is going to end up with egg on their face over this. But, given all the "good will" that they've generated over the past couple of years, I guess they think they can afford it.