Cost-cutting measure fuels debate at American Airlines

[PITOCC71]

Story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-biz-0627-pilots-fuel-20100626,0,2566155.story

In regards to the 4th paragraph, I think FARs 91.3 and 121.535 determine who has the final authority as to fuel and AMR management needs to get that through their head.

End of story.

 

[TWU informer]

Story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-biz-0627-pilots-fuel-20100626,0,2566155.story

In regards to the 4th paragraph, I think FARs 91.3 and 121.535 determine who has the final authority as to fuel and AMR management needs to get that through their head.

End of story.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, AA Execs refuse to acknowledge savings that could be obtained by reducing the head count of overstaffed management ranks, and doing something about the warm bodies plugged into positions that have no idea how to do the job they are filling. Attention Bean Counters take a serious look at this matter.

Now time for the management defenders to be activated.

 

[patriot00]

Story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-biz-0627-pilots-fuel-20100626,0,2566155.story

In regards to the 4th paragraph, I think FARs 91.3 and 121.535 determine who has the final authority as to fuel and AMR management needs to get that through their head.

End of story.

YOU GUYS SHOULD BE MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE SHORT CUTS MANAGEMENT IS ALWAYS TRYING TO GET THROUGH AND HOW THEY TRY TO FIND SOMEONE WITH LITTLE EXPERIANCE OR COMMON SENSE TO SIGN OR DO SOMETHING WITHOUT LOOKING OR UNDERSTANDING THE MANUAL. WITH THE UPGRADES THE LAST 10 TO 15 YRS THEY ARE NOT HARD TO FIND. lEAST YOU KNOW HOW MUCH FUEL YOU HAVE !

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

This tells you everything you need to know-

American has diverted flights to airports that were not the scheduled destination at a far higher rate than its network airline peers over the last two years, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics data.

Apparently those that know the cost of everything and the value of nothing aren't going to be happy until an AA plane literally runs out of Jet A and falls out of the sky.

 

[eolesen]

Sorry, but this seems to be much ado about nothing. Pilots aren't being denied fuel. They're just being asked to explain why. If the planning process is flawed, how do you expect to fix it if there's not some documentation to show why it's wrong?....


JFK Fleet, did you bother to read further in the article?

In April, 0.32 percent of American flights were diverted, compared to 0.19 percent diverted at Delta Air Lines, 0.17 percent at Southwest Airlines and 0.14 percent at United.

-snip-

American officials said that a big reason for the higher diversion rate is that the airline's three busiest hub airports — Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago and Miami — are frequently socked by storms. Only 0.015 percent of American flights were diverted because of fuel-related issues, said Roberts, the airline's managing director of flight operations.

So AA diverts 0.32% of their flights compared to 0.17 at WN and 0.14 at UAL.

Yet only 0.015% was due to fuel planning...

Guess you could also say AA's 99.985% accuracy on fuel planning.... That's probably better than the uptime on FOS.

Again, lots of hand wringing over safety here, but before I get too excited, try to show me one case where a pilot was denied extra fuel....

 

[OgieJFK]

Whenever I see Tim Wagner's name in print I think of this guy....

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

What I got from that article is that once again American Airlines has decided their policy shall be law and deviation from said policy is verbooten.

 

[eolesen]

What I got from that article is that once again American Airlines has decided their policy shall be law and deviation from said policy is verbooten.

Where exactly does it say that deviation is verboten? All they're asking for is to document the deviations. Seems reasonable enough if you're going to call out the calculations done by FOS that you would want to build up the documentation to get the calculations revised....

The best that the talking heads from the APA and TWU could say here is filling out the P-2 'might be bad' but they couldn't come out and say that safety was being compromised by second-guessing the pilots request for additional fuel, and since APA never miss an opportunity to show how unsafe management is, this is really sounding like a mountain out of a molehill...

I know the union hates anything being on paper because they feel it's a threat to be used against someone in a 29F or a BOI. The only time it would be a threat is if there is actually a pilot or three who request additional fuel simply to piss off the company, knowing it costs money to have to tanker the dead weight around...

 

[FWAAA]

As usual, the truth is difficult to discern. This 767 pilot sounds fairly reasonable:

American says the union is overreacting, and some pilots appear to agree.

"The pilots union keeps preaching 'captain's authority,' but the company is padding more than the FAA minimums," said Dave Aldrich, a Boeing 767 pilot for American. "There are times when we are overfueled."

No doubt some pilots have overfueled their planes not out of concern for safety, but in an attempt to drive up AA's costs. Same pilots who refuse to taxi on one engine or refuse to engage other fuel savings strategies.

 

[Bob Owens]

As usual, the truth is difficult to discern. This 767 pilot sounds fairly reasonable:



No doubt some pilots have overfueled their planes not out of concern for safety, but in an attempt to drive up AA's costs. Same pilots who refuse to taxi on one engine or refuse to engage other fuel savings strategies.

Reasonable, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52


Taxi on one engine? Bad idea as well, especially if headed out, increases the changes of FOD because they have to pull a lot more power to get rolling, plus if the start valve fails you lose your place in line, have to return to the Ramp for a manual start and would probably need more fuel as a result. What if you have an engine fire on start up?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Reasonable, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

That's a straw man, Bob. The Avianca crash had nothing to do with planned fuel load but rather the pilot's holding longer than they should have. They should have made their critical fuel status known a lot earlier so they could have diverted to an alternate or ATC could have gotten them in sooner.

While I certainly agree that the PIC should have final authority on fuel load for departure and that AA (like US a couple of years ago) might be exerting some pressure to reduce fuel loads, making extraneous arguments does nothing to further anyone's case.

Jim

 

[frontline]

It's all just a bunch of talk. Most of you know as well as I do that there is plenty of extra on board and a pilot simply won't fly unless he feels it's safe. APA is always looking for ways to poke the company in the eye, and this is no different.

 

[Mach85ER]

It's all just a bunch of talk. Most of you know as well as I do that there is plenty of extra on board and a pilot simply won't fly unless he feels it's safe. APA is always looking for ways to poke the company in the eye, and this is no different.

Not really. When AA sends out a Flight Plan that results in the low fuel warning lights illuminating on approach, there might be a problem. There is also a minimum amount of required fuel to keep the Hydraulic fluid coolers covered in the main tanks of the Boeings.

While not statiscally valid, the Southwest flight I jumpseated on carried more fuel into a VFR airport than I see done at AA.

The big problem with the letter was the term "we expect you to accept the flight fuel". That statement directly interferes with the intent of the FAR's regarding joint Dispatcher/Captain responsibility for a flight.

Another poster mentioned pilots carrying fuel just to get back at the company. Maybe a few rare cases now and then, nothing to justify the letter. Ordering more fuel is generally a PIA. It takes time, maybe on a pilots own cellphone, there is a few minutes wait to print the new plan and recheck it, if we're heavier, we get restricted to lower cruise altitude which limits getting out of bumps. Nobody is going to think 300 gallons of fuel is worth bouncing the crap out themselves for 3 hours to make a point. Extra fuel may also limit Nonrevs and jumpseaters. Not all check the loads for non-revs, I've limited the fuel plenty of times for non-rev because the AA Flight Plan I'm supposed to accept, plans for more fuel than needed.

The best source for adjusting the flight plan to save money on fuel is the pilots. Try negotiating a contract and settling the hundreds of outstanding grievences that costs us $$$ legal fees and AA will be buried with fuel savings ideas.

 

[eolesen]

Has APA considered gain sharing over fuel savings ideas as a component for variable comp?...