Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[oldiebutgoody]

The president of the dispatchers' labor group said Thursday that the charge by pilots is "nothing more than hot air."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080717/pilots_fuel.html?.v=2

NOBODY said or even implied that the dispatchers or anyone else wasn't flight planning enough fuel. The issue here is whether Captains, based on experience and education, have the authority to add a few minutes extra fuel for contingencies. That's all. Sometimes, even on clear, VFR days airplanes have to hold going into PHL (i.e.when they are landing to the east, or thunderstorms out west), and the Captains need to be able to take these issues into account and adjust accordingly.

If anyone was intentionally costing the company money, by needlessly running the APU, etc, then maybe some kind of punishment is in order. Never having witnessed this myself, I doubt that it is the case.

I do not know of each individual case here, but I can't imagine how egregious the fueling increase would have to be to get the company to notice.

 

[PHLFlyer]

Just who is intimidating who here? The sole purpose of all this was to create a PR nightmare for our company and it will probably backfire on USAPA. The FAA has even said it sounds like an issue between the company and the pilot's union. They only give it a smidge of concern because they have to take any safety concern seriously even though they know this is typical union tactics during contract negotiations. Even the union rep was bragging about how many media outlets were wanting to interview him.

The union will regret this. It's like creating panic at a bank you work for and causing a run on deposits and then the bank collapses. Way to go guys.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Just who is intimidating who here?

If I were one of the 8 pilots in question, I would be very happy my union took a stand on my behalf.

The sole purpose of all this was to create a PR nightmare for our company and it will probably backfire on USAPA.

At least the company was given fair warning in advance. By default, if the union did nothing, you would be screaming bloody murder that USAPA is weak, ineffective and broke. Sorry the PR nightmare is just the fault of the company for trying to take hostages. And for what? If fuel is such a concern why is it that we all aren't brought in for a day of training? Personally I would like the extra PNC.

The union will regret this. It's like creating panic at a bank you work for and causing a run on deposits and then the bank collapses. Way to go guys.

Regret? For protecting the pilots? I don't think regret will ever be a way to describe the outcome of events. By spotlighting what is going on, it directly will have / had the effect of protecting them. It would be kind of hard to terminate a pilot now for a substandard performance on something that has no basis in the AQP and training syllabus. But the underhanded attempt at subjugating Captains Authority was BS from the get-go. If we didn't fight this, I wonder what would be next on the industry list of eroding flight crew decision making.

 

[PHLFlyer]

BTW: just because the captain has final authority doesn't make his decision the right decision. His actions can still be questioned by anyone. Just because a captain thinks he has the authority to grope a flight attendant doesn't make it right.

Also, I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased pilot that these eight pilots were deliberately causing financial harm to company because they were disgruntled and I believe him.

 

[Dorf]

The union will regret this. It's like creating panic at a bank you work for and causing a run on deposits and then the bank collapses. Way to go guys.

The flying public is not panicing over this, I was on a flight from SFO the day the ad ran in the paper, I overheard several people talking about it in the boarding area. The passengers in question actually read the whole ad out loud and specifically pointed out the part at the end that said the pilots are there for their safety and would never let economics decide how much fuel to carry for the safety of flight. They were actually laughing at the part about managements decision on the pretzels. One even made a comment to the effect that he was glad the pilots were flying the airplane and not company management.
The "Boy Blunder" that leads your company is just po'd because he's not used to anyone calling his bluff. If he's smart (which I'm questioning) he'll get over it and move on in time to actually try running an airline. One could only hope.

Dorf

 

[ussnark]

Also, I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased pilot that these eight pilots were deliberately causing financial harm to company because they were disgruntled and I believe him.

and, how would that "pilot" know all this? Personal experience, meaning that pilot has flown with each of the eight or did he get that info from the chief pilot's office? Is he on TA?

 

[Dorf]

Also, I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased pilot that these eight pilots were deliberately causing financial harm to company because they were disgruntled and I believe him.

And I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased MBA that the "leadership" of USAirways couldn't manage a 1 pump gas station because they are incompetant and are financially harming the company by their poor performance as "managers"....and I believe him.

 

[flybynite]

Let's make this real clear for everyone.

CFR part 91.3

The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Specific authority authority extends to all operational activities associated with an aircraft, including preflight, flight, post flight.

Coordination of all support functions for a flight or aircraft, such as boarding, fueling, maintenance and any other activities associated with the operation of a US Airways aircraft.

If my captain is comfortable, I'm comfortable. End of story.

 

[Phoenix]

BTW: just because the captain has final authority doesn't make his decision the right decision. His actions can still be questioned by anyone. Just because a captain thinks he has the authority to grope a flight attendant doesn't make it right.

Also, I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased pilot that these eight pilots were deliberately causing financial harm to company because they were disgruntled and I believe him.

Where is the evidence? What is the accusation?

OK. I see. A friend of a friend on a web board alerted me to the fact that the disgruntled, FA groping pilots are causing deliberate harm to the company. I also heard that some of them forgot to carry their flash light too. Witnesses also saw them parting their hair on the left side in direct violation of company policy. But this pales in comparison to some who are refusing to wear their watch on their left wrist.

Nowwww I'm a believer. Because of all this, let's single them out for useless special training on a subject unrelated to any of the violations that we secretly won't tell you about.

Sorry, but punishment must follow a conviction. And convictions don't precede specific accusations.

If a competent company has evidence of wrong doing then they should come out with it.

What is the accusation? That pilots and the union are in favor of carrying sufficient fuel? As a passenger, the way I see it is that USAir is unable to prevent pilots from carrying sufficient fuel despite economic pressures to the contrary.

And that's a bad thing, how? :blink:

 

[USFlyer]

The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Specific authority authority extends to all operational activities associated with an aircraft, including preflight, flight, post flight.

Yes, but others (FAA/NTSB, management, union, peers, etc.) have the right, in fact the obligation, to audit, review and provide feedback.

 

[luvthe9]

And I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased MBA that the "leadership" of USAirways couldn't manage a 1 pump gas station because they are incompetant and are financially harming the company by their poor performance as "managers"....and I believe him.

Now this one is believable.

 

[luvthe9]

Yes, but others (FAA/NTSB, management, union, peers, etc.) have the right, in fact the obligation, to audit, review and provide feedback.

What part of "FINAL AUTHORITY" don't you understand, It's the CAPTAINS butt on the line he will have to answer, not the FAA/NTSB, management,union,peers,etc.

 

[Harry Callahan]

And I was told by a very level-headed, intelligent and unbiased MBA that the "leadership" of USAirways couldn't manage a 1 pump gas station because they are incompetant and are financially harming the company by their poor performance as "managers"

Priceless

 

[USFlyer]

What part of "FINAL AUTHORITY" don't you understand, It's the CAPTAINS butt on the line he will have to answer, not the FAA/NTSB, management,union,peers,etc.

His/her actions are subject to audit and review. These are normal checks and balances. The pilot is not a "god" who can never be questioned. NO ONE has a job like that, they don't exist.

Suppose a pilot decides to fly to LGA in lieu of EWR, on his "final authority", just because he didn't want to fly to EWR. Are you telling me this is ok? Of course not. Suppose a pilot opts for enough fuel to fly PHL-LAX when he's simply flying PHL-PIT. Is this ok? Of course not. Sure, he has the "authority" to make the decision while the flight is in operation (pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight), but his actions are subject to review.

 

[hp_fa]

The issue here is whether Captains, based on experience and education, have the authority to add a few minutes extra fuel for contingencies. That's all.

Hi Oldie.

I have a question if you don't mind.

Is the quoted remark the full issue, or is another issue that if the pilots are in a training environment that the FAA can make an unannounced visit and if the training being received by the pilot is contrary to the FAR's, the IOM and any other pertinent requirement that the pilot and his/her license was now in potential jeopardy? I thought I had read that somewhere and, if true, it makes a compelling argument to me.

Thanks.