Last night, I flipped on the TV, and on was Larry King Live. The subject was US Airways and their unsafe tactics. Pilots for US Airways are claiming that management is pressuring them to use less fuel to the point where it is unsafe. There has been speculation that management is intimidating pilots to use less fuel below FAA standards, however this is not the case. US Airways said that they are not intimidating pilots. Yet is it right for management, who typically are not professionally trained pilots, to make these judgements?
Pilots are in charge of determining how much fuel is safe for flight. That’s imperative to this situation. Perhaps the pilots at US Airways are using more than the FAA standard and management is unhappy with that. The FAA standard says that a pilot has to have enough fuel for 45 minutes after the scheduled arrival time at the scheduled airport and the alternate airport. As you may know, more fuel = more weight. More weight = more fuel used. However, US Airways went over the line when they ordered eight pilots who requested 10 to 15 minutes more of fuel to have checkrides, that can put their licenses in jeopardy. The pilots are used to having 60 to 90 minutes extra of fuel time for each flight. However a spokesman for US Airways said that the 8 pilots were well above that range, hence their checkrides.
The problem that’s in hand with this fuel dilemma is when airliners are late and Air Traffic Control is pressured to land all these aircraft in a short time. Air Traffic Control would then be forced to use intersecting runways, which could endanger lives. ATC would also have to get these planes up in the air quickly so that they don’t have to turn around and go back to the gate to get more fuel (if there was a 45 minute + delay).
The pilots union for US Airways represents the airline’s 5,200 pilots. The union also paid for an ad in the USA-Today newspaper saying that corporate is forcing pilots to keep “you”, the passenger, unsafe.
US Airways is still using the regular and safe amounts for fuel, but they just want some pilots not to overdo it. I agree with them, but I also agree that if they’re going to do this, they need to be quick on the ground at airports so that airliners do not over-stress air traffic control. 45 minutes to me is ample time. I’m curious to know how much money 50 minutes of extra fuel (as a standard) would save the company.
Update:
I received a comment from Capt. Russ Webber, a US Airways 757 pilot, who talked about the two different unions that US Airways has. As I said in an earlier post, a few days ago, the US Airways merger is incomplete. There are two unions, the Air Line Pilots Association (America West pilots) and the US Airways Pilots Association USAPA (the east). USAPA is trying to get higher wages, like the pilots in the west, and might be drawing attention to themselves with this announcement. Personally, I think that Capt. Russ is right on with that comment. I’m sure this public attention is really killing US Airways public relations. It’s no wonder why the two unions won’t become one.
Image Source: www.planebuzz.com
On July 13, 2008 I was on a US airways flight from Palm Beach International airport in FL to Raleigh NC, through Charlotte NC. After the plane was moved back and forth along both ends of the runway, no less than 4 times, for an hour and a half. The pilot went back to the terminal after announcing that he had to get more fuel. After approx. 25mins at the terminal the pilot announced our “flight was cancelled by his company. “ No other explanation was given until all passengers were at the ticket counter trying to rebook. Counter personnel said the flight was cancelled due to weather. Funny how all other airlines were allowing their planes to take off from Charlotte, and the weather in Raleigh was announced to the passengers to be, “clear skies with a temperature of 92… we’ll be there in 27mins.” When US Airways customer service was called, at their 800 number, no refunds were going to be given because “weather” was the supposed cause of the cancellation.
No flight, no refunds, no available flights until 4PM the next day, no food, no hotel rooms, no bus ticket. Thanks for the customer service during these hard economic times. No taxpayer financed government bailout for the airline industry is my answer to their poor customer service. – N. Baker, FL
When the plane is airborne the Captain is the only authority that determines if he has enough fuel to continue to destination. If he feels that he does not have enough then he will have to divert to an alternate to get more fuel to make it to destination, costing the airline more in fuel and delays. Is the cost of an extra 15 minutes of fuel worth it?
Kind of makes you wonder if management is being penny wise but pound foolish.
Several months ago a British Airways Boeing 777 landed short of the runway in London and I haven’t heard anything else regarding this incident. Has anyone come to a conclusion as to the reason for this incident
In a story on CNN.com, the US Transportation Secretary says “If a pilot doesn’t feel that a plane has enough fuel in it for the trip that he or she is about to make, then they have the discretion of not flying that flight.”
Which sounds a more like shopping for a judge who will give you the verdict you want. If US Air has to go through 5 pilots to find one who feels safe flying with the amount of fuel they want to pump onto the plane, is the flying public supposed to feel good about that?
We need to conserve, but that’s not the same thing as letting industry move to unsafe practices.
NB – This is why a passenger’s bill of rights needs to be put in place. However, how long is that going to take? Who knows.
Richard – You’re spot on right there. Eventually that’s going to happen. But with the 45 mins + whatever the captain wants, assuming no delays, it should be ample.
Red Flyer – It’s not really unsafe. The FAA’s standard rule says you have to have 45 minutes extra of fuel for your alternate and planned arrival airport. As I said to Richard, assuming no delays greater than 45 minutes on the ground (which is unlikely if you’re flying out of PHL), the aircraft should be fine. But Air Traffic Control at airports needs to get aircraft up in the air quickly and efficiently, otherwise many planes will end up taxiing back to the gate to get fuel.
What this really is, is a power play by an insecure new union. A gross missuse of union funds, and an embarrassment to the professional pilots of US Air. I have been a pilot for US Air for over eight years, and in that time I have never felt inappropriate pressure about fuel. None of the people I work with have ever been questioned about their decisions to add fuel. Not knowing the specifics of the case with the eight pilots who received extra training, it is still hard to believe the company would do this with out gross provocation. We are in contract negotiations, and one of the tactics of the more radical elements is to drive up costs to “encourage” the company to settle on a new contract. This is not a good idea at this time.
Every one should remember that no one at any time allows an aircraft to fly that is unsafe. The absolute worst that could happen is to land at an airport short of the destination to get more fuel. This costs a huge amount of money, and the company doesnt want that. This BS about US AIr being unsafe is just smoke. I put my kids on those airplanes all the time, and so should you.
July 17, 2008
Dear Mr. King-
Yesterday I tuned in to your show with the hopes of seeing the CEO of US Airways speak to the crushing negative effects the speculative run up of oil is having on the airlines, the economy, and my career. What I saw was something all together different.
Instead of the scheduled speakers I witnessed a disjointed, subjective, discussion over
a “news” story that was generated by an ad placed by the leaders of the new rookie union at US AIRWAYS (USAPA).This ad was nothing more than an ill guided attempt by the fledgling union’s leaders to flex their muscle during contract negotiations.
The core issue here is not about how much fuel a pilot can carry, safety or “Captains Authority” but rather a dispute between the company and a segment of the pilots this new Union represents. (It should be noted that not one of the 1800 former ALPA represented pilots of America West have elected to join this new union.)
As a Captain for America West and post merge the New US Airways I have never had the company question the amount of extra fuel I choose to carry on any flight segment. Many of those segments routinely carry me and my passengers over the longest over water route in the world and as such I am very cognizant of the need for adequate fuel reserves for any contingency.
I was appalled by this new “Unions” attempt to bring safety into question when it is clear, based on the data collected, that this was a deliberate attempt by the pilots in question to carry and burn more fuel in an effort to influence the company to acquiesce to their contractual wishes.
As a one time Executive Vice President of The Airline Pilots Association I have seen and participated in my fair share of labor disputes but I have never witnessed nor would I condone using a bogus “safety” issue to apply leverage to a company. ALPA has a long and proud history of improving safety in the airline industry and would never taint that reputation by such actions. The leaders of this new Union would be advised to follow suit.
Sadly it is the passengers who are caught up in this squabble but that is all it is; a squabble between management and a very green union whose strategy and tactics are counter productive to their cause.
Sincerely,
Capt. Russ Webber
B-757
US Airways
Capt. Webber – That’s very interesting. I forgot about the duel unions, but I wrote about that recently. Adds another factor to the story, doesn’t it?
I would like to know who is the idiot that would even think of such a ridiculous plan. We have enough worries on being blown out of the sky or being flown into a high rise, now we have to worry about not having enough fuel ?
So now my life hangs in the hands of a CEO, that is sitting at home, sipping on Cognac, while my pilot is stressed and wondering if he has enough fuel to land his airplane, that is carrying three hundred passengers.
petes2cents.com
I just returned from a trip to Athens, Greece flying US Air. I was flying with a group of High School students on an educational trip. We left Pensacola, FL into Charlotte into Phillidelphia and then on to Greece….all on US Air. I was terrified and very uncomfortable the entire trip. The plane was nasty and felt lke a coffin crossing the Atlantic. The service was deplorable and rude. Never again will I fly this airline and am just very thankful we flew back on a German airline.