ag386

Eagle/Envoy has been the same for at least the past two decades. Management wields a HUGE stick and you are threatened at every turn if you don't mold yourself into the exact parameters the company demands. Very little, to absolute zero carrot offered anytime. And by a carrot, you might get some crappy dinner if you happen to work on a holiday like Thanksgiving and are at the airport between a certain set of hours.

For the above case, this kind of stuff has been happening for years. Likely the guys above the person who sent this email out told him to do it. When the pushback and visibility got to be too much, an apology and lets move on. Later, after this dies down, they will certainly try a different tactic complete with threats and perhaps just word it differently.

The flow is just about the only thing that keeps a few guys hanging on I'm sure. I would be very concerned if I was hired after about 2010 at Envoy in regards to the flow getting me to AA. Look at the forced upgrade disaster recently. Envoy is short Captains and eventually it will likely get to the point where the company will NEED every one on property just to operate. Expect a temporary halt in the flow, and some change in the flow with lower numbers later on and maybe a few bucks thrown your way.

blizzue

Joe, let it go.

Flightcap

Over at RAH we see the fuel programs from all three legacies. AA is by far the most stringent and sometimes downright sketchy when it comes to fuel.

Last year I was in recurrent training with the former E-170 Program Manager. Fuel came up in conversation and he told the story of how AA came to us around a decade ago and said "You guys are carrying too much gas." "How do you know that?" we said. Their reply: "Our bean counters have looked at your diversion numbers vs. everyone else's and you are diverting less than any other carrier in our system. That must mean you are carrying way too much fuel."

Al Czervik

Not buying that.

ChickHicks

Just my 2 cents.

Had an envoy dispatcher on the Jumpseat a few years ago, when they started this fuel initiative. He told me, his bosses would rather see us divert, then the dispatcher give additional fuel.

Then just last week, I had a dispatcher from RAH on the Jumpseat. They said Delta never wanted diversions or return to gates. But AA was always bare minimum on the fuel. But this person always filed arrival fuel, no less than 3100-3200lbs. And last leg to the hotel was .78 or better. I thought that was nice of them.

BIueSideUp

Just spit my coffee. Thank you for this ^

CaptJackSparrow

I had a similar talk with a dispatcher last year. He said that basically they'll give us the minimum fuel and when they exceed their diversion "quota" for the month per a specific base that only then will they start putting on a bit more fuel.

Inop2

Thanks for the correction. Jump sat yesterday and the Airbus was burning 650lbs aside at idle.

ORDinary

If anyone gets CA ADD and needs an additional explanation, here is an extra one to add: almost none of envoy's flight plans plan for a correct top of descent based on published arrivals. Be sure to add this to your list of reasons why you need the fuel, since sabre doesn't calculate TOD based on published STAR altitudes.

This is insanity. Considering it is the Captain who must agree to accept the fuel planning, NOT calling for add fuel when you believe you need it is non-compliant, according to the FARs.

E175 Driver

You guys are too paranoid. How many planes have ran out of gas?