What's new

Parker no shows on Larry King

Blindsided? Everyone knew that USAPA told the company they would take this public if they didn't back off on captain's authority. USAPA basically announced it to their membership. I knew about it from reading this message board at least a week or two ago. I was wondering what took them so long to follow through.

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 (deleted by moderator), 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.
 
Who told you that? You know the FAR's. Was it the chief pilot or Parker himself?? 🙄
NO PILOT EVER HAS TO TURN A WHEEL IF HE DOESN'T THINK HE HAS ENOUGH FUEL. :angry:

If I have to, I'll get the FAR for you. And no, that is "not good enough".

UU


Yeah we all know what the rules say. But the reality is that sometimes mngrs try to push.

I was scheduled on a 10 hour flight across the pond and the "boss" decided I only needed 500 lbs over the computer fuel. I said it wouldn't work. He asked, "Are you refusing to fly?" I said, "No." After I got off the phone with him I checked the wx at a fuel stop three hours short of my destination and called the fuel company to ask them if they could provide 40K of fuel at xxxx time if I dropped in for fuel. They were excited.

After three hours at cruise the fuel dropped below min fuel for original destination and I re-filed to land short to visit my new fuel buddies. It was the biggest sale they had all week. I never heard another peep about fuel load.

(this was not at USAir, and hopefully it won't have to be)
 
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.
 
If I didn't show up for work you better believe my supervisor would be on the phone demanding to know why. It's considered a dependability issue. Some days I don't feel like going to work, but unless I am extremely ill or unless there is a crisis, I go to work. BTW, I've never had a no show. I always show up to work and I'm on time. No, actually I show up early.
you show up so we can laugh at people before you leave
 
Doug had such a good oppurtunity, reaching out to the public, and his employees by appearing on Larry King. He even offered Mr. Parker to appear inside his hotel room for an interview!! What is really going on?? This doesn't look good for US Airways stand alone plan! :unsure:
 
This USAPA move is complete (deleted by moderator) 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.
While dispatch determines the minimum fuel "required", FARs specifically authorizes a Captain to add fuel based on his or her experience. Flying around with the minimum fuel provides only one option, divert. If that is what the company wants, then that is what they will get, a lot of diversions.

BTW, the flight plans are incorrect with, among other things, inappropriate (low) missed approach times and fuels. Whoever put the criteria in forgot that, generally speaking, when one aircraft goes missed, a lot of other aircraft are likely in the same boat, crowding the skies and increasing times/fuels significantly. The dispatchers I deal with are well aware of that, but, apparently, others are not.
 
🙄

I have to begin by saying I have been a fan of USAPA from the inception. I truly think ALPO had to go.

However.....I think the union made a HUGE mistake by taking this thing public. NOW look! A stupid Larry King show with the only three sensible people being Mary Schaivo, the CAL pilot and yes, the USAPA spokesman in terms of what he said about fuel.

I think Doug Parker is livid~! Being a fringe person who is not so emotional about this, I would be too. This is NOT the way USAPA should make a name for itself. No USAir pilot is forced to go without the fuel he thinks he needs on board and that is a matter of fact.

For USAPA to do this when they are in contract negotiations with the company is in my mind........uh....rather stupid.

All the remarks about Parker drinking and missing the show for that reason are just plain silly. I'm sorry because I am on YOUR side but this kind of thing was shortsighted at best. The news media will be all over this for days and you know it! How does that help anyone, either USAPA or USAIr???? :unsure:

If any of you have been refused the fuel you want, please stand up here and be counted.

UU



Finally, someone with rational thinking. after the way Usairways was beaten up last night!

I am in no way a fan of out present management team but come on, that ad was the dumbest thing to do in todays enviroment.

What did it prove? This is about 8 pilots not 5400 or however many pilots we have. If we survive this it will be a miracle.

This could be the begining of the end. Thanks U S A P A.

By the way U S A P A HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE CASH TO PAY FOR THAT FULL PAGE

AD. USAIRWAYS IS UNSAFE TO FLY. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT GRAPIC WAS UP!

TOTAL SHOCK! GOOD LUCK TO ALLF US
 
As a retired Captain, I've been able to keep informed about the "Captains Authority" situation. FWIW, it seems to me that the Company has enjoyed somewhat of a superior position when it comes to these "shoving matches". Most likely, this is due to the economic environment, and the lack of really good paying pilot jobs elsewhere. ALPA would complain, kick, and scream.....but in the end, the company knew that ALPA would not take any MEANINGFUL action.

It appears to me (albeit from afar), that USAPA tried to engage the company honestly, and respectfully. I may be wrong, but from my seat.....deep in right field...this is what it appeared to me.

What the company didn't count upon, was the fact that these people DID INDEED mean what they said. In other words, they were not just complaining, but that they were also willing to take action if the stalemate (i.e. a type of shoving match) did not get resolved.

In my opinion, after it all settles down....there will be a new RESPECT, a respect that hasn't been present for a long, long time. Wise leaders (both company, and pilot) could use this as an opportunity to operate in a win-win manner. The other possibility leads back to more "shoving matches". What actually happens remains to be seen.....
 
I do know the FARs. ALPA, apparently, did not.

I went home from PIT, the secretary (mary) tried to moderate the situation. The PHL chief pilot is at fault for the problem. ALPA tried to grease the PHL chief pilots office and failed, thanks Tosi, you freak.

ALPA is gone. This is USAPA land now. You're right about the chief pilot because HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. YOU KNOW BETTER<-----. :up: I'm sorry this happened to you but it happened under the auspices of ALPO. It was a very smart move to get them off the property. But yeeeeeeeeesh! Making this issue public was still a mistake. :down:
 
:blush: Maybe Doug's flight was diverted for a fuel stop and he missed his connection. 😳 😛
 
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 (deleted by moderator), 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.

The 3 airline pilots in my life have told me precisely what you wrote.......the dispatchers never refuse fuel to a Captain. I think this is more about the company trying to put a chink into Captain's authority and to browbeat pilots some more. I am sure those 8 captains grieved the issue with USAPA. IF USAPA did this to gain favor with consumers......well ding ding ding! That's a 10 on the stupid scale. I haven't turned my TV on yet today and I don't think I will.

USAPA will learn a big lesson from this and that is not to air the family's dirty laundry in public. It serves no purpose. I'm sure it was not USAPA's position to piss off the dues paying members, but they succeeded with some of them anyway. I am dead sure they did not intend to scare the flying public! But perhaps they did that too.
 
Blindsided? Everyone knew that USAPA told the company they would take this public if they didn't back off on captain's authority. USAPA basically announced it to their membership. I knew about it from reading this message board at least a week or two ago. I was wondering what took them so long to follow through.

Blindsided? Only if he's been in a stupor for the past two weeks.

What caught him by surprise is that USAPA has the cojones to follow through on their remedy. ALPA, the quintessential "paper tiger," would not have done that in a million years.

Welcome to the big leagues, Doug. Now you have to decide whether you want to make it better or worse. Your choice....olive branch or down-and-dirty. We've had just about enough on the labor side; "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

Well I didn't know USAPA would take this public. The traveling public didn't know it either. Of course ALPA would not have done it; they didn't do anything for anybody for a very long time.

I think the phrase "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" is a stretch and only because taking this public was a huge mistake and I think that will become VERY obvious over the next week or so. "If it bleeds, it leads" or if planes fall out of the sky, oh my dear lord! The media can scream they told you so!

This is a PR debacle of gigantic proportions for USAPA. Most of the general public will be left wondering about safety. USAPA knows that a Captain can have as much fuel on board as he thinks is necessary. USAir has no say in that. They can flap their mouths all they want but to no avail.

Meanwhile, Captains should not be threatened by USAir over this issue with looming unsched check rides and such. That's a grievance issue.

I take back the "gigantic". Let's just use the word "Mayday" instead.
 
This is a PR debacle of gigantic proportions for USAPA. Most of the general public will be left wondering about safety. USAPA knows that a Captain can have as much fuel on board as he thinks is necessary. USAir has no say in that. They can flap their mouths all they want but to no avail.

[b]The public will not remember squat past tomorrow night. They will remember there was a problem, but they will not remember the airline. They probably are getting on American and Continental flights today, asking the flight attendants if the pilots have enough fuel. They buy their tickets on Priceline and don't even know the airline on which they are flying until they click "purchase". It is, was and always will be about price for the general public.[/b]
 
Now, most laypersons probably don't understand that dispatchers are also pilots,

You just lost any credibility with that statement. Dispatchers are not pilots. Many dispatchers happen to also have pilot licenses, but there is no requirement for a licensed dispatcher to have ever piloted an aircraft.

Where do you get this crap?
 
Back
Top