Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[UPNAWAY]

Read post #67, slowly.

Thank You, So if they screw up and the FAA saw it their liscense could be pulled.

How realistic is that, would the FAA even do that?

And even if they would shouldn't that Pilot be pulled off until what ever issue he had was corrected?

As most Union fights are this ones seems to be very loud about very little!

 

[sharktooth]

Thank You, So if they screw up and the FAA saw it their liscense could be pulled.

How realistic is that, would the FAA even do that?

And even if they would shouldn't that Pilot be pulled off until what ever issue he had was corrected?

As most Union fights are this ones seems to be very loud about very little!

No, the FAA would not pull a liscense (your spelling, moron) for that.

Maybe it is the management that needs issues corrected.

Frankly, little boy, I would think US would be a hell of a lot better were those who think like you be terminated.

 

[GolfNovember]

:blink: So you think this is the end of it? Just wait until tomorrow! As I said, the media sharks are circling. Bad move by USAPA THis should have been kept in house. I abhor ALPO and have so much looked forward to calmer heads at the helm of USAPA and I'll give them this one but it should not happen again. USAir doesn't need days of bad press! They get enough of that all by themselves.

Wurd. All one needs to do is remember all those times US got bad press last year. Maybe it comes in waves every six months?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Look if it is a saftey issue I have faith the pilots will not fly, simple as that.
Can anyone explain why training puts ones liscense at risk?

Yes. Gladly.

Anytime you climb in a company simulator there is always the possibility that the FAA can show up to "observe." During that "observation," your license is at risk no matter what reason brings you to the simulator. The yahoos in the training department can't figure out why no one takes them up on their "free" simulator 6-month brush-up called OTD. Besides the general hassle attached to going to the training center, why would someone volunteer for a "no jeopardy" sim session when there is no such thing.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I have been flying to Europe all spring and summer and not one of my Captians has said that we don't have enough fuel to get to our destination! Period!

Yeah. Captains discuss fuel loads in their F/A briefings all the time. Did he/she ask for your opinion on how much fuel would be appropriate? How about suitable weather alternates? Did the F/O ask you down to the ramp to take a look at a marginal tire before he/she called out a mechanic?

Just sling your cocktails. You don't know squat about this subject.

 

[Ralph]

Keep it on the issues. Calling people stupid or moron because they do not agree with you is one way to earn a trip to the cornfield.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

C&Pd from what I read @ yahoo...


US Airways spokesman Morgan Durrant said the decision to bring in the eight pilots for extra training was not meant to be punitive. "That's totally not true," he said.

During the past few years, the carrier has required its planes to carry enough fuel to pad their flight times by 60 to 90 minutes, Durrant said.

"These eight pilots have routinely been above the 60 to 90 minute range. It just behooves us as a company to talk to these guys, figure out what they're seeing that we're not," Durrant said.

What I don't get is, why are they being sent for training when the Company just wants to talk to these pilots, per the above quote by Mr Durrant. Sounds very fishy to me. I used to get a bit of the same issue where I work in that, the PIC requests more fuel from the vendor without calling Dispatch. Fueler, not wanting to argue, adds the fuel.... which somehow seems to find it's way to my Email within about 10 minutes asking why the vendor overfueled. Since then, I have instructed all my fuel vendors to get the PIC to sign for the additional fuel.... no signature, no extra fuel than what the Dispatch release says. Of course, getting the fueler to remember this is about useless since he doesn't give a 'Flying Flip' about anything more than getting off work and going to a party.

 

[Phoenix]

:blink: So you think this is the end of it? Just wait until tomorrow! As I said, the media sharks are circling. Bad move by USAPA THis should have been kept in house. I abhor ALPO and have so much looked forward to calmer heads at the helm of USAPA and I'll give them this one but it should not happen again. USAir doesn't need days of bad press! They get enough of that all by themselves.

The way it looks to me is that the company had plenty of opportunity to resolve this "in house", as you say.

Back when I flew freight across the pond my boss would routinely cut my fuel down to the minimum according to the computer. And I would routinely stop short (divert) and get fuel to continue to destination. People sitting at a desk are not capable of determining the fuel required to safely complete a flight, neither is it beneficial to assign that responsibility or authority to them.

It would seem that the company would be well served to simply acknowledge the role of the captains.

 

[Phoenix]

Thank You, So if they screw up and the FAA saw it their liscense could be pulled.

How realistic is that, would the FAA even do that?

And even if they would shouldn't that Pilot be pulled off until what ever issue he had was corrected?

As most Union fights are this ones seems to be very loud about very little!

The obvious point is being missed. The "training" looks, walks, and smells like a punitive "retraining" event. That is a foul.

This "fuel training" is being selectively targeted against pilots who have exercised their responsibility and authority to ensure sufficient fuel for a safe flight. A bean counter in the company (who is undoubtedly monitoring a multitude of flights, without particular knowledge of the circumstances of each flight in question) has effectively accused the pilots of erroneous fuel planning judgement. I don't care if it was the Chief pilot on the plane who said the captain had too much fuel. The captain is the captain and has the sole responsibility.

I am unfamiliar with any policy of negotiable fuel quantity? Perhaps adjacent to ALPA merger policy?

 

[Pilot692]

C&Pd from what I read @ yahoo...


US Airways spokesman Morgan Durrant said the decision to bring in the eight pilots for extra training was not meant to be punitive. "That's totally not true," he said.

During the past few years, the carrier has required its planes to carry enough fuel to pad their flight times by 60 to 90 minutes, Durrant said.

"These eight pilots have routinely been above the 60 to 90 minute range. It just behooves us as a company to talk to these guys, figure out what they're seeing that we're not," Durrant said.

What I don't get is, why are they being sent for training when the Company just wants to talk to these pilots, per the above quote by Mr Durrant. Sounds very fishy to me. I used to get a bit of the same issue where I work in that, the PIC requests more fuel from the vendor without calling Dispatch. Fueler, not wanting to argue, adds the fuel.... which somehow seems to find it's way to my Email within about 10 minutes asking why the vendor overfueled. Since then, I have instructed all my fuel vendors to get the PIC to sign for the additional fuel.... no signature, no extra fuel than what the Dispatch release says. Of course, getting the fueler to remember this is about useless since he doesn't give a 'Flying Flip' about anything more than getting off work and going to a party.

No wonder we're in the shape we're in.......the Captain is trying to execute the flight to the best of his/her ability utilizing all his knowledge of route factors etc, and you're worried about a signature...... "totally" whacked!

 

[sharktooth]

During the past few years, the carrier has required its planes to carry enough fuel to pad their flight times by 60 to 90 minutes, Durrant said.

Indeed, assuming touchdown and flame-out are simultaneous.

 

[LSS]

Guess we should be looking for another job since USAPA says "USAirways is UNSAFE to fly" GEEZZE Thanks USAPA!

Why are you making up this nonsense? The spokesperson for USAPA said precisely the opposite of what you've made up! Not only did he say US Airways was safe to fly, but it was not only US Airways pressuring pilots about fuel... many other carriers are doing it as well.

I really do thank USAPA! They warned the company that if they didn't back off on trying to infringe on captain's authority they would go public with this situation. The company evidently didn't care or didn't think they would do it because they said go ahead. They probably thought USAPA was bluffing, but I guess that comes from the many years of dealing with what someone referred to as the "paper tiger"... aka ALPA!

WAY TO GO USAPA!

 

[flybynite]

What's the difference in fuel prices in Europe compared to the USA?

 

[Megasnoop]

Bad move by USAPA THis should have been kept in house. I abhor ALPO and have so much looked forward to calmer heads at the helm of USAPA and I'll give them this one but it should not happen again. USAir doesn't need days of bad press! They get enough of that all by themselves.

Udder, I've got to disagree with you on this. USAPA gave the company two weeks fair warning that if they didn't back off on this ridiculous and punitive training that they would go public. The company had ample time to work something out and keep it in house. I guess Doug-Weiser thought he was still dealing with ALPA, which would have never taken a stand (unless it was for DAL, UAL, NWA or CAL). S

 

[LCC-STEW]

I think USAPA is full of sh*t. I've heard that they are wasting fuel because they are pissed off at the company and now they are putting out this propaganda. Whatever.