Search
Notices
Endeavor Air Regional Airline

Question for Endeavor pilots

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-08-2014, 06:28 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: CA
Posts: 534
Default

Let's paint Delta on the side of their planes, have them fly our pax to our destinations, give them new checklists like ours, make them follow the "Delta way", and...get this...make them interview and start over to "officially work for us"! Go 'Merica!
HIREME is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 11:43 AM
  #22  
No longer cares
Thread Starter
 
tsquare's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Default

I also think there is something with the fuel being considered "contaminated" when it comes off of an airplane. I do not know that for a fact, but I would be willing to bet that there are some EPA concerns, and probably a whole bureaucratic paperwork nightmare to be followed to have that fuel then considered "safe" for use again.... Probably cheaper to burn it on the ramp, sad as that sounds...
tsquare is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 11:50 AM
  #23  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare View Post
I also think there is something with the fuel being considered "contaminated" when it comes off of an airplane. I do not know that for a fact, but I would be willing to bet that there are some EPA concerns, and probably a whole bureaucratic paperwork nightmare to be followed to have that fuel then considered "safe" for use again.... Probably cheaper to burn it on the ramp, sad as that sounds...
There was a program at NWA to have some of the ground vehicles burn de-fueled Jet-A since it can't go back on an airplane. It probably got lost in the merger shuffle though, the equipment may have been to expensive as well, not sure though.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 11:54 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: B737 F/O
Posts: 425
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare View Post
I also think there is something with the fuel being considered "contaminated" when it comes off of an airplane. I do not know that for a fact, but I would be willing to bet that there are some EPA concerns, and probably a whole bureaucratic paperwork nightmare to be followed to have that fuel then considered "safe" for use again.... Probably cheaper to burn it on the ramp, sad as that sounds...
Ex-fueler here, I don't know if this is industry wide, but what I'm describing holds true for all stations for a large company that specializes in 121 carrier fuel management.

Once you defuel an airplane, all the fuel in that tanker must then go into the company's aircraft that you de-fueled from. Say you have a truck with several thousand gallons or so in it and you would do a defuel from a 9E airplane, you would need that truck to only work 9E flights until it is empty. That can get to be a massive pain at small stations/places that don't see many flights from the affected carrier. At my ex-employer, if the fuel vendor personnel really want to follow the rules, the fueler should call their tank farm people to do a density test on the fuel in the truck immediately before de-fueling into it. Plus, I always found it funny how many of my coworkers had difficulty with the paperwork/basic math. The truck meter only counts upward, whether the fuel is coming in or out, so your gallons 'through' the meter no longer equalled the amount 'out' of the tank.

Apologies if I bored you all to death, but just figured I'd explain the rocket surgery behind a simple process.
LostInPA is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:03 PM
  #25  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by LostInPA View Post
Ex-fueler here, I don't know if this is industry wide, but what I'm describing holds true for all stations for a large company that specializes in 121 carrier fuel management.

Once you defuel an airplane, all the fuel in that tanker must then go into the company's aircraft that you de-fueled from. Say you have a truck with several thousand gallons or so in it and you would do a defuel from a 9E airplane, you would need that truck to only work 9E flights until it is empty. That can get to be a massive pain at small stations/places that don't see many flights from the affected carrier. At my ex-employer, if the fuel vendor personnel really want to follow the rules, the fueler should call their tank farm people to do a density test on the fuel in the truck immediately before de-fueling into it. Plus, I always found it funny how many of my coworkers had difficulty with the paperwork/basic math. The truck meter only counts upward, whether the fuel is coming in or out, so your gallons 'through' the meter no longer equalled the amount 'out' of the tank.

Apologies if I bored you all to death, but just figured I'd explain the rocket surgery behind a simple process.
That makes more sense... I had to defuel about 20,000 lbs the other week and they didn't make a deal out of it. Of course, this was at the mothership and most of the traffic is company aircraft.

I'll agree with the sentiment on 9E guys being more apt to single engine. I did it every flight unless I couldn't... most were of similar mindset mostly no matter how disgruntled.

It makes much more sense now that I never once saw an XJ plane do a delayed engine start. Not allowing an FO to start an engine sounds like something AA would do... It's logical that culture and mindset could carry on.

9E is also a lot less lenient on overweight landings. At DL, if we're going to be overweight going into a hub or mx station, we just land and log the VS in the logbook. A quick sign off and off we go again... none of this sitting burning gas, holding, or the like.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:08 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Windsor's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Zee Airboos
Posts: 404
Default

For those that knew me back in my angry 9E days, I was a huge proponent of being a d**k and burning the place down. I hated the place, the drawn out negotiations, the displacement, low pay, you name it, I woulda b****ed about it. Looking back at my attitude and my actions (nav light cover write ups) I sincerely regret it. What did any of that accomplish? Nothing. Being pi**ed off and thinking I'm somehow "gettin back" at the company by not trying to save fuel or playing games with crew scheduling or whatever, really accomplished nothing. If I had to do it all over again, I woulda done it the right way. Instead of seeing being professional as "helping the company", I would see it for what it really is. Being professional means putting aside all the crap thats going on outside the cockpit and do the best possible job you can in it. The burn it down attitude is contagious, especially in DTW. But it's self defeating. The best attitude to have is to show up and do your job to the best of your abilities regardless of outside matters. Hopefully I'll be able to carry that attitude with me to my next airline, cause guess what? The same ****** that is happening at 9E is happening or has happened at every major airline. The company may be able to take away pay or vacation or travel benefits or whatever, but if you come to work and do a good job and take some pride in your flying, they can never take that away.
Windsor is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:16 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Default

Originally Posted by Windsor View Post
For those that knew me back in my angry 9E days, I was a huge proponent of being a d**k and burning the place down. I hated the place, the drawn out negotiations, the displacement, low pay, you name it, I woulda b****ed about it. Looking back at my attitude and my actions (nav light cover write ups) I sincerely regret it. What did any of that accomplish? Nothing. Being pi**ed off and thinking I'm somehow "gettin back" at the company by not trying to save fuel or playing games with crew scheduling or whatever, really accomplished nothing. If I had to do it all over again, I woulda done it the right way. Instead of seeing being professional as "helping the company", I would see it for what it really is. Being professional means putting aside all the crap thats going on outside the cockpit and do the best possible job you can in it. The burn it down attitude is contagious, especially in DTW. But it's self defeating. The best attitude to have is to show up and do your job to the best of your abilities regardless of outside matters. Hopefully I'll be able to carry that attitude with me to my next airline, cause guess what? The same ****** that is happening at 9E is happening or has happened at every major airline. The company may be able to take away pay or vacation or travel benefits or whatever, but if you come to work and do a good job and take some pride in your flying, they can never take that away.
Sounds like you'd be a model prisoner.

The Shawshank Redemption - Institutionalized - YouTube
flyprdu is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:40 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
bedrock's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: ERJ, CA
Posts: 718
Default

Respect:

You have to give it to get it. Do they teach that in MBA school?
bedrock is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 02:27 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
swamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Delta chihuahua Capt.
Posts: 462
Default

Originally Posted by Captain Tony View Post
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?
Well if it would have been your sh/+ty airline, you would have been delayed for 2+ hours or the flight would have cancelled. Honestly I avoid expressjet like the GD plague!
swamp is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 02:29 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cartean's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: CRJ
Posts: 309
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
9E is also a lot less lenient on overweight landings. At DL, if we're going to be overweight going into a hub or mx station, we just land and log the VS in the logbook. A quick sign off and off we go again... none of this sitting burning gas, holding, or the like.

Wait......so it was standard practice to T/O knowing you would land overweight? And you actually did land overweight in a non emergency? So you knowingly exceeded limitations?
cartean is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
USMCFLYR
Military
16
08-28-2008 09:15 PM
USMCFLYR
Hangar Talk
3
08-23-2008 08:37 PM
cargo hopeful
Cargo
21
03-05-2006 06:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices