Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[BoeingBoy]

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

Don't know about "in the tank" prices, but the spot price FOB Amsterdam, Rotterdam, & Antwerp was $4.2263 on Monday. FOB NY harbor it was $4.2631, Gulf coast was $4.1581, and Los Angeles was $4.1031.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

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.

I've never seen this. You're making it up. Talk about being full of something.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

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.

This is not correct. I've NEVER seen fuel added to a release on an international flight WITHOUT talking to the dispatcher. EVER. The new release has to have the new fuel burns and everything else on it. The dispatcher is the one that generates that info.

This is another post from someone with no clue.

It ABSOLUTELY is punitive. If it wasn't, why not just put a section into our MANDATORY distance learning (re: homework) module or schedule a block for EVERYONE at CQT?

 

[Megasnoop]

QUOTE (LCC-STEW @ Jul 17 2008, 09:40 AM)
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.

I've never seen this. You're making it up. Talk about being full of something.

Oldie, LCC-STEW's just another Westie who can't let it go. The election is over. This isn't a "wasting fuel" issue. The company can track fuel consumption of every CA. If CAs are out there deliberately wasting fuel, then they need to be brought in for some counseling. That's a legitimate concern of the company. And if they are brought in, our union has an obligation to defend them, just like in this bogus fueling training. I don't think anyone back east has ever been called in for wasting fuel.

Again, the company had adequate warning that USAPA was going to go public. They just thought they were still dealing with ALPO.

Last week, we were running late for Europe and got caught in the long line-up for 27L. We were behind a West bus going to PHX, so probably near max-gross. He was doing the SE-taxi thing. No problem there, it's procedure, supposedly tempered with common sense. but we all know how bad the parallel taxi-way is, ruts, low spots, soggy spots where the cracks were tarred over. Every time he moved moved, he'd have to run the working engine up to near cruise power, or that's the way it felt. You do that on a 757 and you're going to torque out the nose wheel. Any wonder why we don't SE-taxi in PHL with a full load of fuel and pax? S

 

[UtterlyUdder]

Indeed, assuming touchdown and flame-out are simultaneous.

Now THAT'S funny!

 

[UtterlyUdder]

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

You can call me Shirley surely but please don't call me Udder. I prefer Utterly. I know what you write is true but look at the backlash that going public has caused. Perhaps USAPA overestimated the average brain power of the public these days. They would have been better off writing this in crayon some obscure wall somewhere. I also agree with you about ALPO. They were a joke and continue to be a big one.

Don't get me wrong, I think USAPA's time had come. I simply question the wisdom of going to the media which everyone knows is far past the rational state. You are civil and so am I so we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

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?

You mean like waves of nausea? As a twice pregnant woman ( I had twins 2 years apart. Can't stand the pain of more than one at a time.) I know those waves up close and personal.

How about we settle on a one-time case of self-inflicted Montezuma's revenge? Once you have that, you never want to have it again. Public relations is an oxymoron these days.

Utterly

 

[ReadyNow]

I saw the full page ad on this issue. How counterproductive to bash your own company. US Air should fold its tent at let the airlines with competent employees AND managers take over their routes. US is finished....I will try and avoid them "when I have a choice"



I am a member of the flying public with a interest in all things aviaiton...no skin in this game...

 

[UtterlyUdder]

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.

I think both sides are at fault here. Your last sentence is the more pertinent issue. Captains RULE once they are in their airplane. To give those Captains unscheduled check rides is to me intimidation. USAPA can't ever give an inch on that. Not even a teensy tiny bit! Hence it was right for them to push back hard but just in in public.

Utterly yours,
Utterly

 

[Res]

I saw the full page ad in the USA Today. How stupid to put a label on our company....that we are unsafe to fly. There are other ways to address this issue.

Now the flying public is concluding we are unsafe to fly because of 8 pilots - sent for retraining ......we can't afford for anyone to book away from US -- this stunt has AND WILL cost US a bundle - $$$$$$.

Passengers will book away from US-because of this ad. As an employee, I am angry -that this internal issue was not addressed internally !!

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> I am angry that this internal issue was not addressed internally !!

I’ll guess that so is USAPA.

 

[Megasnoop]

You can call me Shirley surely but please don't call me Udder. I prefer Utterly. I know what you write is true but look at the backlash that going public has caused. Perhaps USAPA overestimated the average brain power of the public these days. They would have been better off writing this in crayon some obscure wall somewhere. I also agree with you about ALPO. They were a joke and continue to be a big one.

Don't get me wrong, I think USAPA's time had come. I simply question the wisdom of going to the media which everyone knows is far past the rational state. You are civil and so am I so we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

UTTERly (did I get that right?): it's relaxing to have a civil disagreement on this board. I don't think there will be much of a public backlash. Maybe we underestimate the average brain power of the public. At least I hope they see this for what it is, a company that is squeezing the bottom line and a union that won't let them get away with it.

No matter how we feel about USAPA's recent actions (the lawsuit and the ad), one thing I hope we can agree on, USAPA stepped up to the plate and came out swinging. They're not going to do an ALPO and wait for ball four (I hate baseball analogies, but this one seemed to fit). S

 

[trunion]

I saw the full page ad in the USA Today. How stupid to put a label on our company....that we are unsafe to fly. There are other ways to address this issue.

Now the flying public is concluding we are unsafe to fly because of 8 pilots - sent for retraining ......we can't afford for anyone to book away from US -- this stunt has AND WILL cost US a bundle - $$$$$$.

Passengers will book away from US-because of this ad. As an employee, I am angry -that this internal issue was not addressed internally !!

Did you read the add? It clearly stated that the captain will not fly the plane without a safe fuel load. Relax... If you read the letter to our passengers in the USA Today, it provides comfort not fear. At least that is my take.

 

[freedom]

This is an outrage , the pilots should have taken this up with the FAA , not the general public …

Your literally helping to kill our company …


You must be stopped .

 

[ussnark]

I saw the full page ad in the USA Today. How stupid to put a label on our company....that we are unsafe to fly. There are other ways to address this issue.

Now the flying public is concluding we are unsafe to fly because of 8 pilots - sent for retraining ......we can't afford for anyone to book away from US -- this stunt has AND WILL cost US a bundle - $$$$$$.

Passengers will book away from US-because of this ad. As an employee, I am angry -that this internal issue was not addressed internally !!

Actually, the issue was addressed, internally.

The company was informed that an ad would be placed were any pilots sent to extra training.

The company proceeded anyway.

Why don't you talk to your company? Ask them why they put the company "at risk"?