New Fuel Initiative = Watch out
04-30-2007, 06:19 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A300 F/O
Posts: 193
I keep trying to tell Captain Mark to put the freakin speedbrakes in at cruise! But noooo, he has to lower the landing gear at 200 miles too! WTF! He just likes calling "min fuel" for some reason.
At least the mediated debrief still works.....
At least the mediated debrief still works.....
04-30-2007, 06:25 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by Huck
On the MD11, at least, you'll burn 1/3 of it just to carry it. I.E. If you add 3000, you'll burn an extra 1000.
The whole Millington thing is spooky to me, however. One big terrorist alert in MEM and we're all heading there. I always visualize the carriers off Vietnam during the fall of Saigon, pushing the excess aircraft overboard.
The whole Millington thing is spooky to me, however. One big terrorist alert in MEM and we're all heading there. I always visualize the carriers off Vietnam during the fall of Saigon, pushing the excess aircraft overboard.
ALPA has a lot of experience with this, with great safety and engineering. I trust them to do the right thing as long as they are involved.
04-30-2007, 06:34 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Assumed
Posts: 120
On this same thread - When did the FCIF/e-mail about non-tower alternates disappear? I tried to look it up, but couldn't find it anywhere (except, an oblique reference in the SVP's bulletin, as "Enhancing Alternate Selection Procedure"). I hope this means that pipe dream has gone up in smoke.
04-30-2007, 07:47 AM
#45
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by 42GO
4. There is a tendency for new managers to try and “establish” themselves by trying to do new and “inventive” things to try and show that they can trim costs better than the next guy.
04-30-2007, 07:50 AM
#46
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by Huck
If KIX-MEM had to divert it would miss the sort - that would cost millions - it's all express freight......
04-30-2007, 08:10 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Several years ago, during recurrent ground school, this subject came up. If I recall correctly, one of the management guys (maybe RS) came in and asked that Capt's not add fuel indiscriminately (of course with, "We understand there are lots of good reasons to add extra fuel, we're basically addressing the guys that add 5,000# extra EVERY leg).
They went on to explain that, "If you add 5000 extra in STN, it costs you 1200# to tanker that fuel so you only get to MEM with 3800# extra anyway." This conversation went around in circles for a few minutes before the class collectively decided that the point had been made, that we actually should have been adding 7500# extra if we wanted 5000# extra on arrival in MEM.
Definitely one of the funniest things I've seen at FedEx ...
Another funny extra fuel story ...
Several months after the first ALPA contract, the company slowly started to institute the "new" catering clause in the contract. Many guys were annoyed that they couldn't get their "tuna sandwiches" every leg as they had grown accustomed to. A few started adding extra "tuna fuel" in protest. Well, I was in MEM flight ops one day and observed the Duty Officer approach one of his buds and advise him that the company was noticing the 5000# of extra fuel some guys were loading in exchange for the tuna sandwiches. His response?
"What SOB is only adding 5000#?"
Regards,
Mark
They went on to explain that, "If you add 5000 extra in STN, it costs you 1200# to tanker that fuel so you only get to MEM with 3800# extra anyway." This conversation went around in circles for a few minutes before the class collectively decided that the point had been made, that we actually should have been adding 7500# extra if we wanted 5000# extra on arrival in MEM.
Definitely one of the funniest things I've seen at FedEx ...
Another funny extra fuel story ...
Several months after the first ALPA contract, the company slowly started to institute the "new" catering clause in the contract. Many guys were annoyed that they couldn't get their "tuna sandwiches" every leg as they had grown accustomed to. A few started adding extra "tuna fuel" in protest. Well, I was in MEM flight ops one day and observed the Duty Officer approach one of his buds and advise him that the company was noticing the 5000# of extra fuel some guys were loading in exchange for the tuna sandwiches. His response?
"What SOB is only adding 5000#?"
Regards,
Mark
04-30-2007, 08:37 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: MD10 FO
Posts: 307
If the company really cared about saving gas, we wouldn't be waiting with engines running 2, 3, 5, 10+ min for some dude to show up at the gate just to get parked!
If the company really really cared about saving gas we would not be routinely loaded with an extremley forward CG from places like CDG, FRA.
If the company really really really cared about saving gas, we wouldn't get a CDG release with 150+K cargo. Show up at the airplane to find it had been loaded hours ago, only to have 54K in cargo!!
If the company really really cared about saving gas we would not be routinely loaded with an extremley forward CG from places like CDG, FRA.
If the company really really really cared about saving gas, we wouldn't get a CDG release with 150+K cargo. Show up at the airplane to find it had been loaded hours ago, only to have 54K in cargo!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
