Airline Pilot Central Forums - Question for Endeavor pilots

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Endeavor Air (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/endeavor-air/)

- - Question for Endeavor pilots (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/endeavor-air/80890-question-endeavor-pilots.html)

There were a few check airmen who harped on guys during line checks about SE taxiing, and a lot of guys still have the abused puppy mentality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erdude32 (Post 1619026)

Endeavor guys have ZERO incentive to SE taxi....kinda like when NWA was being put through the ringer and taxied on 2 +APU and then flew transcons at 72 or less if they could get away with it. You can only screw guys so long and not expect an adverse reaction. DAL & 9E are now reaping what they've sown. And with the joke of a 30% pass rate of the SSP don't expect them to fall for any more false carrots. The situation will only spiral downwards. The only thing that could turn it around at this point is a full on no strings attached Compass like Flow. RA sent BW over there to ckean up the mess. I'll be amazed if he can.

I'll give you a little something to think about, and you can take it for what it's worth. Years ago, when I was a lowly 727 plumber, the wise old captain told me this: It doesn't hurt anything to single engine taxi when you can, and you as an FO/FE should encourage your captains to do so because it is YOUR captain gas that is being spat through the tailpipe. Take that a step further, and since it is DAL that is paying for that gas, it truly is YOUR captain gas that you are wasting in the process at getting back at the man.

I get the angst and anger at the company. I truly do. It is not going to last long my friends. Single engine taxi saves fuel. Your fuel. I hope that you and I get to burn it together on a Europe trip someday real soon.

Sorry if this seems like a PSA. I DH'ed last night on Endeavor, and we were held out from the gate for awhile, and both engines were running the entire time, and I was curious... I don't mean to get preachy. Guys are gonna do whatever they are going to do, I just wanted to add a little perspective from a wise man that I once knew... and that advice has served pretty well. (Along with the "don't eat in a hotel and don;t sleep in a restaurant on layovers" advice)

Thanks for all the answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1619104)

Yes, the FOM calls for it. However, I usually only single engine taxi when there is more than a few minutes of taxi expected. Otherwise, it just more workload on the FO. I think it's widely used in places like NYC and ATL, but in DTW, not so much...

That's fair, and nothing otherwise is expected....

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1619175)

When Endeavor Dispatchers stop wasting gas... Oh never mind :D

I had a trip where we had to burn hundreds of pounds of gas in the pad, every leg, for several days. I'm pretty sure our total "burn it in the pad gas" came out to almost 400 gallons. That's one crew on one rotation.

Since you bring it up, what's the deal with you guys and burning gas in the pad? I've had to DH on several PCL flights where we pushed back the sat doing a runup for 20 minutes. Why are you always pushing overweight? I've flown 200/700/900 and never had this problem. Is it something weird in your op specs? Can you not defuel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cencal83406 (Post 1619187)

That is a problem. It IS a big problem if it is endemic to the overall operation. Are the CPOs interested in this if you bring it up with them? I would think they would run it up the flagpole if they get enough complaints about it. IMHO, if that is something that happens on any kind of regular basis, it is pretty unsat...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tony (Post 1619193)

Defueling is most likely an action that one tries one time only to realize the time and $$ saved by burning the gas in the pad>The time spent waiting for the fueler to return and complete the defuel.

The way I heard it explained: FOs were never allowed to do engine starts because senior management did not want the added training expense of getting that procedure approved by the FAA. As FOs were prohibited from doing engined starts, the XJ procedure for SE taxi was to pull aside from the taxi line, if needed, set the brakes, and run the applicable items from the before and after start checklists parked with the parking brake on. No one wanted the hassle, especially as the company refused the hassle of training FOs to start the second on the roll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1619213)

We have been doing it for years. The 200 can carry people and bags, or it can have an alternate. So, when DX doesn't pay attention and loads us with extra...

I never realized how long it takes to download fuel from a plane.

No one at the top cares. Fuelers are told to roll in an extra 200LB or so to accommodate for fuel settling, APU use, but sometimes 200 becomes 400, 600, 2000!

Ever thought it would be cool to fly from MSP-FNT at 5000? Not I, so I had to correct DX and get new burns. That's 800LB of unnecessary gas right there.

You will love this final gem. We are in the business of carrying DAL pax. If it weren't for crews being creative and burning this extra gas, I think I would have stranded many plane loads of folks by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tony (Post 1619193)

Defueling takes much longer, according to the folks that constantly over fuel us.

We push overweight due to poor DX planning, and wanting to accommodate pax and bags (and sometimes being given 1000s of #s more pax/bags than planned).

We are also landing weight limited for takeoff. We would have to re-route or change altitude or speed and re-release before takeoff.