Atreyu

Flying: Whiney Pilots Complain That Stingy Airlines Are Forcing Them To Fly "Uncomfortably Low On Fuel"



Ugh, those selfish pilots can't be bothered to help their airlines return to profitability. No, instead they're whining to NASA that they're being forced to fly "uncomfortably low on fuel" and that "safety for passengers and crews could be compromised."

These flight simulator jockeys want more fuel, but that isn't likely to happen anytime soon even with oil at $117 a barrel and crashing fast. The FAA finds the situation perfectly acceptable.

"We can't dabble in the business policies or the personnel policies of an airline," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr. He said there was no indication safety regulations were being violated.

The September 2005 safety alert was issued by NASA's confidential Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows air crews to report safety problems without fear their names will be disclosed.

With fuel prices now their biggest cost, airlines are aggressively enforcing new policies designed to reduce consumption.

Just look at the complaints flooding into NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System:

"I know our program manager is ranking captains on landing with less fuel. I don't care to be ranked. I think this is a safety problem and I believe fuel is your friend," the captain said. "Looking back, I would have liked more gas yesterday, and I was already carrying tanker fuel. If I wouldn't have had this extra there would have been real problems."

The captain of a Boeing 747 said he began to run low on fuel after meeting strong headwinds over the Atlantic en route to JFK in New York in February. After contacting his company to discuss a refueling stop, the captain said he was told by his operations manager that the flight actually needed less fuel than had been loaded on board and would have enough to get to JFK without stopping.

But by the time he reached JFK, his fuel was "far below my comfort zone and probably less than the minimum fuel required by the FARs (federal aviation regulations)," the captain said. "Our fuel situation had not become critical yet, but had we had any delay, I would have had to declare a fuel emergency."

"I am not sure if the 'flight plan' as given to me by my company was a real flight plan, or if they were just telling me it was so that I would continue to JFK ... thus saving them time and expense. ... In the future, if such a situation presents itself again, I will divert to my initial destination regardless of what my company says I can do. The safety of my crew far outweighs any financial burden to the company."

The captain of a Boeing 737 en route to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in February said he was forced to divert in bad weather to Palm Beach International Airport to refuel because less than the normal amount of fuel for the flight was loaded before takeoff.

"This was probably the new fuel-saving initiative by the company management to save money," the captain said. "North-South operation is very unpredictable along the East Coast. I don't think this is a place where we should skimp on fuel."

The captain said he had a "lengthy discussion" with his company's dispatcher "relaying my opinion on the reduced fuel load and my suggestion not to compromise fuel loads in and out of Florida." But the captain said he received the same reduced amount on his next flight.

"So much for my professional input!" he said.

The airlines have made it clear that pilots who don't stop whining and start flying will be fired.

American notified dispatchers July 7 that their records on fuel approved for flights would be monitored, and dispatchers not abiding by company guidelines could ultimately be fired.

Union officials responded that "it appears safety has become a second thought" for the company. American and US Airways blame the complaints on labor negotiations - both are in contract talks with the complaining unions.

Look people, it's been 18 years since a plane crashed because it ran out of fuel. That means there isn't a problem anymore. Besides, 85 people survived.




haha

andy171773

What a joke, stupid people should be taken out back and shot.

SomedayRJ

The classic tale of legality versus safety, and which one may be more important to the Feds and to the lines.

flyfresno

I think it would be more fitting if you just threw them out of the plane at 36,000 ft. It would lighten the load AND not waste a precious bullet. Everyone wins.

Seriously, putting ANY restrictions on the captain's final decision as to how much fuel should be taken is an extremely dangerous road to be going down. The flight crew should be able to add any amount they deem necessary to the preferred quantity that the company comes up with, no questions asked. But as usual, it's going to take 150 people perishing on a flight that ran out of gas and crashed 1/2 mile short of a runway because the flight crew was pressured to take less than they deemed safe before the public really start to get mad about the whole thing.

AirWillie

As that CAL CA put it on CNN about the fuel issue, you crew is not going to let the airplane run out of fuel. The issue is while declaring emergency for low fuel after go around in JFK, that 747 might collide with god forbid another airplane. The FARs were written in blood I guess...

Ziggy

While I am a strong advocate for captains authority. Is it possible a few bad apples are abusing this privlege. When you think of fuel remaining after a flight what is your comfort zone? 1, 1.5, or 2 hrs? As captains we shoulder alot of responsibility both for the flying public and the company. While this is certainly not the first attack on captains authority, it isn't the last. But we must always make sure our ducks are in a row.

ExperimentalAB

While I agree the Airlines may be pushing the numbers, I have to say that never have I ever seen a bigger group of whiners!!

One particular UAL Captain really impressed me while I was commuting home out of Denver...The fuelers shorted us what really is a trivial amount in a 757. Let's say it was the equivalent of 200 pounds off an RJ's release fuel with weather everywhere a severe clear with no delays. The FO brought it to his attention, at which point he replied "ahh hell...oh well. I'm not delaying this flight for that. There are only a thousand airports between here and Chicago."

stobelma

I have noticed our fuel loads going lower as well. Most of the flights I was on today were planned to have only 100-300 pounds of fuel above min for landing........doesnt leave much room for anything clear and a million or not

PCLCREW

what's more expensive... intending to land at ORD or by getting 2 S-turns and then having to land at RFD?
This 300LB CONT. fuel thing is just plain stupid... add a regional dispatcher who still knows nothing yet and you have multipule diversions just waiting to happen.

XJPILOT1

I absolutely 'LOVE' this statement!!