Adlerdriver

I guess my point to starting this thread was more about a little bit of mutual respect regarding this new directions we appear to be taking.

Yes, I want the company to succeed. I want its longevity to benefit future generations of pilots coming up through the ranks.

How about an honest approach to this new fuel policy rather than a bunch of double speak wrapped in disingenuous praise while claiming it's the result of a flag operations conversion that happened years ago.

If JH et al are willing to accept an "X" percent increase in diversions as a result of our new fuel policy, then how about simply saying that. Don't try to justify or blame the consequences of this new policy on a conversion to flag operations. Call a spade a spade: "We're willing to accept a higher potential for divert in the quest for fuel savings. We are going to deny requests for fuel increases if those requests are deemed to exceed FAR safety margins and appear to be business risk related only."

I have no problem with this as long as it's presented honestly. Let me know where I stand, be willing to accept my diversion decision when I make it and spare me the rest of the ass kissing BS.

MaydayMark

Just for discussion purposes ... I've diverted several times and I've never been contacted by anyone in Management about it. I'd have been glad to speak to them about it, maybe there were lessons learned to prevent a similar situation in the future.

That's probably how it should be.

busdriver12

Exactly. As pilots, our personalities drive us to look past the BS and analyze what's really happening. That's why we were hired. Looking past the peripheral stuff and being able to problem solve is part of our DNA. If we feel like we aren't getting honest information, it just increases our cynicism.

FedEx ALPA, take note.

pinseeker

I always thought that the FAR's were written with the intent that a captain plans to arrive at his filed destination, and therefore should put enough fuel on the aircraft to get there. If I know that there is weather or other factors that may require more fuel than the FAR legal fuel, then it is my responsibility to add that fuel in order to arrive at and land at my filed destination. If we are blocking out with the intent that any realistic delay in our flight requires us to divert, then IMO, we aren't doing our jobs as captains. I won't take a flight without having sufficient fuel to get me to my filed destination taking into consideration any realistic ATC or weather delays. Legal doesn't necessarily equal safe or smart.

golfandfly

Vomit is right. Yeah, I’ll get to divert and make an extra half hour for the extra landing. Not f’ing worth it. Then you’ll land, they’ll call it an operational emergency. No thanks

busdriver12

Extra half hour? Maybe not....it's probably covered under the "designated as a sweep flight" reason to deny.

I do think that if the company wanted to encourage us to be more comfortable with the burden of a divert, that they would do what other airlines do. Allow us divert pay. With a letter of agreement, not something that we need to use negotiating capital for.

In addition, access to C070 airfields would be a good start. Yes, I know they change, and I know they don't want to "overburden us with too much information", but it would be good to know about a couple of decent airfields nearby if we have to do a last minute divert. Low on gas you aren't going to have time to get help from GOC, and most of us would prefer not having to climb out the window because the airport diverted to doesn't have crew stairs. Or a fuel truck available at all hours of the day. Some things are pretty important.

FXLAX

Vector app updates info at least every 10 minutes. How often do these airports change? If they can refresh info from the vector app every minute, they can also provide the C070 airports.

busdriver12

That's a good point. Maybe, like flextodaline mentioned, they have Top Men working on it.

Airbusdriver

Okay guys, been on vacation since mid-June. Don’t return till 6 August (Yes, I am rubbing it in). I take from the comments the new fuel policy has not been widely hailed by our crew force? Anyone know of any additional diverts that probably would not have been under the old rules/policy? Anyone actually know of a Captain asking for more fuel and being denied? How about being denied and still taking the flight? Just asking before I come back to the salt mines.

Shaman

Its pretty clear that the powers that be believe in this policy and ultimately shouldnt we be asking whats in it for us vs trying to convince true believers why they are in error?

Management 101 says if you create the right incentives you can more fully assure your outcomes.

That said if we do as they wish and the resultant is truly more diversions will that not result in a modification or a cancellation of this policy? Thats not a rhetorical question either.