Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[mwalters9]

I never post so I will stand by for the arrows

I have been reading about the average amount of fuel that US lands with and I want to bring up a small point. I only fly in the US so I don't have your experience or know what you go through on the long hauls. I have a lot of flights where I land with 2+00 hr of fuel due to tankering of fuel to save the company money due to lower cost of fuel at the departure station. I also have a lot of flights where they try to make me land with FAR limits plus a little due to fuel cost. I just want to bring up that a company can say that the average looks good and still try to run you out of fuel.


Good luck to you all

Michael

 

[dariencc]

I never post so I will stand by for the arrows

I have been reading about the average amount of fuel that US lands with and I want to bring up a small point. I only fly in the US so I don't have your experience or know what you go through on the long hauls. I have a lot of flights where I land with 2+00 hr of fuel due to tankering of fuel to save the company money due to lower cost of fuel at the departure station. I also have a lot of flights where they try to make me land with FAR limits plus a little due to fuel cost. I just want to bring up that a company can say that the average looks good and still try to run you out of fuel.


Good luck to you all

Michael

Michael,

Thank you for making a very important point. Let me apply your post to a real world Transatlantic scenario.

Some pilots enjoy bidding different cities in Europe, while others prefer to return to a favorite place time and again. With this in mind, would it be surprising that a Captain who normally flies to Stockholm may be "guilty" of adding fuel more frequently than one who flies Madrid? Remember, folks, that we're talking about adding fuel for "contingencies" such as rapidly changing weather that often does not match up with the forecast.

Michael is correct. The averages do not tell the real story and can be spun in such a way as to distort the truth. Who to trust on your European vacation? Forget the corporate shills and put your money on the people who fly these routes every week!

 

[ussnark]

I'm not sure, but I think this all started as a ploy for the PHL CPs to make names for themselves. That's probably why only PHL pilots were selected for this round. Now they're in the "save face" mode. But I doubt we will ever see round 2 of "gas class."

Do you think the PHL chief pilots would have done this without the "blessing" of higher ups?

It is not too much a stretch to imagine, at a weekly conference call of all the bases, someone opining that it appears PHL pilots added more fuel than any other domicile. Ignoring any statistical basis or equalizing the data between domiciles, it is way too "tempe-ish" to take a statistical item out of context and then formulate a cause of action, "gas class", an opportunity to assert control over those "uppity" pilots whose message will quickly propagate throughout the company, if not industry.

Yes, it might be a couple of cps making a name for themselves, but, they do seem to work pretty tightly with upper management, judging from their seemingly and continuous lack of original thought in problem-solving.

 

[ussnark]

The averages do not tell the real story and can be spun in such a way as to distort the truth.

Both Michael and Dariencc,

Good points.

Would you ( the customer) sooner fly with crews who fueled based on 50% probability of having a fuel problem or ones who fueled based on a 00.0000000001% probability of a fuel problem? Sounds to me like the $30 (cost of carrying the extra fuel) of "insurance" to carry the extra fuel could be easily absorbed by competent management. It seems to all depend how much one is willing to pay for what place on the probability curve.

The entire "gas class" episode is so indefensible, from so many different angles, that one can only conclude that "collective punishment" was the only rationale for the "class".

 

[Edward]

Since there is a new thread I'm going to close this one out.