Rode on two more Airbuses over the past couple of days. Both had APU's running at the gate with air and power hooked up. Both crews also 2 engine taxiied even though we had 15-20 minute long taxis. I just don't get it...

 

Heyas,

ACL is right. The ONLY reason we didn't furlough is the flow down provision. It was a complete logistical and financial sinkhole for the company.

No furlough clauses in the contract means absolutely nothing. Not even good to wipe your tail with. The flow down imposed a SERIOUS financial penalty to the airline. THAT you can take to the bank.

Now, whether you agree with the concept of flow down or not, or whether you think we have some moral obligation to the CPZ or MSA pilots on the respective properties that went there on the promise of a flow. Irrelevant to the big discussion.

That discussion is this: The flow down is rock solid furlough protection...proven not only at pre-merger NWA, but at the combined NWA/DAL. Tens, if not hundreds of DAL pilots owe their employment to this.

Management wants to get rid of this. There are some among us who would be happy for management to get rid of it with a stoke of their pen in order to stroke their "Delta hires Delta pilots" ego. Others would waive it away simply because, well, the company asked.

But consider the financial impact that this has had for the pilots, and the protection it serves. The process for getting rid of the flow is in black and while. 1 B 40 e. Pull the seats.

Now, consider the financial impact to the company, and the PERSONAL cost to those pilots who would have most certainly been furloughed. NOT to mention the fiscal givebacks and sacrifice the fNWA pilots gave to put that language in the contract in the first place.

Are you REALLY telling me you want to walk away from that?

Ask yourself: What do you want? Rock solid furlough protection? 68 fewer 76 seat RJs? Replacement 100 seaters on the property? A %20 pay raise?

I don't care what you ask for (well, I do, but it's your call), but for God's sake, ask for something worth what we are giving up.

Nu

 

Maybe they had an MEL that prevented single engine ops

Maybe the ground power was no good (the Airbus is notoriously finicky about ground power)

Maybe the external air was only blowing lukewarm air.

Maybe the crew felt that the turn into the gate would be difficult single engine.

Maybe the Captain and/or FO were doing IOE or were new to the aircraft and didn't need the distraction.

FWIW, a CA friend of mine was getting 'hassled' about the fDAL FO about single engine taxi. "Fine" he said, "you start #2 whenever you think it's a good time". 3 out of the next 4 flights they pulled over into the pad to give #2 3 minutes.

MYOFB, and let the crew working the flights do their job....just sayin'.

Nu

 

Amen.

And while were at it maybe we can get a "Gate Sheriff" instead of an APU Sheriff...

every 6 minutes of one engine running must be pretty close to 1 hour of APU use ;-)

Cheers
George

 

Hmmm... that's weird. I've flown on about 20 Airbuses over the past couple months during my commutes and most of them were in the jumpseat. Only 1 crew has single engine taxiied. None were doing OE (on the flights I jumpseated) and all were two engine taxiing out to the runway on long taxi times.

If that fDAL F.O. wasn't timing his second engine starts correctly, then I guess he got a sub-par F.O. It doesn't take a PhD to time your engine starts and warm ups.

MMOFB? You're kidding right? It is my business. It's my company, too. The problem is they're NOT doing their job right. Read the FOM... One of the first pages notes "economy" as one of the operational priorities. I'm just trying to figure out why the fNWA crews I've flown with are not attempting to save some gas. It's just throwing money away.

Also, I agree that we need to fix the lack of/lazy ground crews. We sat at JFK yesterday waiting for a jetway driver for 20 minutes with the APU running. Very annoying...

 

I think if we look at the flow (up and down) as anything but a negotiated benefit FOR Delta Air Lines pilots we do ourselves a disservice.

If the company wants to drop it. Pay us (Return scope).

If the company is concerned about quality of the people the continued flow will provide to Delta Airlines. Pay us (Return Scope).

If the company wants to remove a cushion we have in case they want to furlough again. Pay us. (Return Scope)

In essence, both sides need to evaluate how much this benefit is worth. I hope that DALPA is propping it up as a highly valued benefit, because I know the company is discounting it as worthless.

 

Seems like that was your chance. Did you say anything to the captain about doing a single engine taxi?

 

As a LCA I agree with the observations concerning SE taxi in the A320 at DAL. Part of the problem was that the paradigm at fNWA was not to SE taxi. This was due to a few reasons.

1) We never got our numbers at the gate, we generally got our numbers very close to the end of the runway. Not the place i want to load up my F/O with a #2 engine start and verifying numbers.

2) Our former Vol1 set up recommended weights to SE taxi. These were generally very low weights. They were based on max landing weight.

3) 1st flight of the day requires 5 minutes of warmup time, prior to applying takeoff thrust

During June, I challenged myself to conduct SE taxiout whenever I could. I kept track of the weights and minutes saved. What I discovered was that I could generally taxi at close to max take off weight, though this required some advance planning; turning the tail during pushback so as not to blow carts away during break away thrust....planning a taxi turn away from eng#1 etc. It wasn't that hard.

Even during first flight of the day taxis I was able to save at least 2 minutes on short taxis. Remember the effects are cumulative.

Cross bleed starts? I wish we could do that in the 320, however until the limitations are changed we are prevented from doing cross bleed starts without the parking brake set. This makes it impractical for most operations (standby ORD or LAX or ATL ground, I can't taxi yet as I am starting my #2 engine)

Can we do better. You betcha. How do we do that? It begins with the captain and his comfort with SE taxi, but it is all part of CRM. The F/Os need to speak up and recommend single engine start. It may be that the Captain doesn't want to add to the F/Os load. If the F/O states; "Captain, we're pretty light today, how about I start one engine?" it would be well received.

This isn't a North/South deal, or lazy Captain, Company captain. it's about re-learning fuel conservation.

I can hear the peanut gallery already. The ground power is never ready...we have to wait for a gate...they put too much fuel aboard..etc...etc...Yes all true. But here is something fellow captains where you can have a direct impact.

Challenge yourself. You'll like it! I have the data for June with weights and N1 and break away thrust. feel free to PM me and I'll be glad to share it with you.

Red Dog

 

WOW! Ok man, you really need to drop this subject. It's getting really old.

FYI, 320's DO SE Taxi in & out. 320's do shut the APU off at the gate with power & air hooked up. I do it & see it everyday. Fact of the matter is there are times that crews get to an airplane w/in 20 minutes of departure time with the APU running. At that point it is more costly to shut it off for 10 minutes and restart it because APU mx goes off start cycles. Also, there are plenty of gates in MSP, DTW, MEM that blow air that won't cool the cabin below 80 degrees with 0 pax & that is unacceptable. People do not pay $$$ to get on a hot airplane and sweat until cruise. Just because you are comfortable doesnt mean the poor guy who just ran from 2 terminals over to catch his connection is. Don't be a cheapo, keep the pax cool. Also, you do realize that just because power is hooked up doesn't mean it works? Many guys don't plug it in right, or the power is rejected by the airplane. I have a lot of times where I push the external power button, & the airplane kicks it right off. I've had gates where I've tried it 5 times before leaving the APU on. Just because it's plugged into the airplane doesn't mean it's good.

In regards to SE taxi, I'm seeing a lot more of it. Go read the 320 hot topics on the 320 Flight ops page. The shuttle is being very good about SE taxi. I continue to encourage my CAs, & they're are being receptive. Some still want 2 started, & when they see a line they ask for one to be shut down.

Fact the matter is you know ZERO about the 320 fleet, and you need to stop the APU sheriff thing. You worry about YOUR fleet.

 

Great post. Thanks for the information. This is the kind of stuff I was looking for. I'll let it go. Sorry for being such a pain.