For the record, we need to set some facts straight on the fueling issue. All legally dispatched flights under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are required to meet certain minimum requirements for fuel, based on a number of criteria. While it ultimately is the Captain's responsibility to ensure an adequate amount of fuel is loaded to reach the destination, plus diversion requirements, the majority of the responsibility for legally dispatching a flight lies on the dispatcher. Now, most laypersons probably don't understand that dispatchers are also pilots, and they have often received more training than the left seat occupant in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's), and they are obligated to ensure that a safe margin is built into each flight plan. Regardless of any mandate from airline management to save fuel, a dispatcher will not send a flight release unless it meets the minimum FAA requirements, PERIOD.
This USAPA move is complete bullshiite, and is only meant to stir the pot and appeal to consumers who do not understand the regulations that keep their butts safe when they fly. In my opinion, USAPA is completely unprofessional by waging a war for public opinion that is not based on the truth.
Now I know where you get your "name" from. Let us start with the basics. FAR's are minimums and minimums do not always define safe, period. A quick for instance: yesterday I operated a shuttle flight. It had the usual taken-down-to-the-bones fuel load, but I decided to play the game to see what it looked like. By the time the ATC system got through with us, we landed below the famous "target arrival fuel" and this was on a stunningly clear day. ASAP #1 Filed. Going back from whence we came, we landed 1,000# over plan burn, again on a perfect day with no worries. See many of them? What happens when, say, a dog gets loose and the airport shuts down until it is caught. Happened to a friend of mine couple of weeks ago....the solution from his highly-qualified "dispatcher"? Maybe "we" (next time I'm in the bottom of a 12 foot hole digging folks out, I should look for the "we"?) can sneak in. He showed me the printer paper with that on it. So now, when something happens, "we" have to figure out Plan B. But in a no alternate situation this can take time. The fuel burns to alternates on a minute basis are nothing short of comical. So while "we" are figuring out where "we" are going to go, "we" are burning fuel at a Sheik-smiling rate. Try and get a hold of your highly-qualified" dispatcher in this situation....you'll die of old age. Anybody that runs the shuttle for a living understands one thing; you are on your own!
And just how interested is the company in saving gas? How about the following:
1. Island flights that have "burn-to" built into the w/b, some in excess of 500#, that could be deleted by a APU ON takeoff?
2. Running a full shuttle sked on the 4th. Avereage load=35 peeps.
3. Calling out a crew to run a round trip. Captain knew, sitting in his house, that this would be a fiasco. Shows up at gate. Asks agent how many peeps. Answer, zero. Calls his "highly qualified" dispatcher. Guy tells him he has 150 peeps in NY waiting for him. Capt. says..nah, they're all gone. Dispatcher tells him they need to run the flights. End result? Zero peeps down, no bags. 1 person back, no bags, 10,000# burned. Don't even start with the slot-preservation bs.
So, who is full of the brown stuff, spin? Sure as hell ain't USAPA, as you are going to be finding out.