Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-01-2010 | 08:58 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
From: DAL Pilot
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 $$$ to get on a hot airplane and sweat until cruise. Don't be a cheapo, keep the pax cool. Also, you do realize that just because power is hooked up doesn't mean it works? Many guys don't plug it in right, or the power is rejected by the airplane. I have a lot of times where I push the external power button, & the airplane kicks it right off. I've had gates where I've tried it 5 times before leaving the APU on. Just because it's plugged into the airplane doesn't mean it's good.
In regards to SE taxi, I'm seeing a lot more of it. Go read the 320 hot topics on the 320 Flight ops page. The shuttle is being very good about SE taxi. I continue to encourage my CAs, & they're are being receptive. Some still want 2 started, & when they see a line they ask for one to be shut down.
Fact the matter is you know ZERO about the 320 fleet, and you need to stop the APU sheriff thing. You worry about YOUR fleet.
FYI, 320's DO SE Taxi in & out. 320's do shut the APU off at the gate with power & air hooked up. I do it & see it everyday. Fact of the matter is there are times that crews get to an airplane w/in 20 minutes of departure time with the APU running. At that point it is more costly to shut it off for 10 minutes and restart it because APU mx goes off start cycles. Also, there are plenty of gates in MSP, DTW, MEM that blow air that won't cool the cabin below 80 degrees with 0 pax & that is unacceptable. People do not pay $$$ to get on a hot airplane and sweat until cruise. 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.
08-01-2010 | 09:02 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
One other thing, unlike the DC-9 series planes 30 thru 90, SE taxi can run both packs just fine. We can't use the APU to run one pack and engine to run the other. When an engine is started bleed air for the pack must come from the engines, not APU. It has to do with ingesting engine exhaust thru the APU bleed.
The 320 has one of the worst % of SE taxiout...running around 10%. It's my quest to increase that %. It's one of leadership. Captains just need to reconsider and plan the taxiout as well as they plan the approach and landing.
Come fly the 320, you'll love it!
08-01-2010 | 09:06 PM
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
I'm not trying to give the 320 a hard time. If I saw -88's or 737's doing the same thing, I would bring it up. I only see this common issue on 320's which is why I brought it up. Sorry I've beat the dead horse to a pulp. It's just a lot of money, and I hate seeing money wasted. If ramp crews had access to this forum, I'd be bringing up a whole bunch of other subjects! Thanks for the response. In the future, I'll just shutup and stew.
I as an FO am always asking for SE taxi. If they want 2 I start both. If there is a long line, I really push shutting #2 down. I DH'd on a 320 LGA-DTW a few weeks ago. 30 minute taxi & they did SE taxi so the culture is changing. Some SE taxi in's are prohitbited. Gates in DTW & LGA come to mind. The guys I'm flying with are getting better about it. I did 3 legs on a 2 day this past week and we SE taxied in & out on all.
It is getting better, & I as an FO will continue to push for it.
08-01-2010 | 10:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
If management has any doubts about the quality of the pilots at DCI, the simple solution is to have Delta pilots fly those customers to begin with.
The day Delta management put the lowliest DCI pilot right out of the Delta Connection Academy at the controls of an aircraft flying a passenger who bought a ticket on Delta Air Lines, is the day Delta determined that these pilots were good enough for Delta.
08-01-2010 | 11:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
After reading SD's codeaphone message, this thing with the TSA is NOT new. This is the way we have been supposed to be doing it. A couple of years ago I had a trip were the last day started from a station where we bypassed security went to ATL and then a DH back to base. When I got to the aircraft for the first leg I made the hike out to security got screened so I didn't have to do it in ATL for my DV8 DH (I was nonreving because of a short connection time) commute back home. In passing I talked to the TSA as I exited and then turned right back around to be screened. He asked what I was doing and I told him. He thought it was ridiculous too. I figured if I had any problem in ATL, I was on the security tape going thru in my origination station.
I, too, think this is ridiculous but this the way it's been for at least a couple of years.
Denny
I, too, think this is ridiculous but this the way it's been for at least a couple of years.
Denny
08-02-2010 | 03:53 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Ain't happening. I talked to crew resources last week, and that wasn't even mentioned. The only thing of note was the SLC 767--->7er changeover. THat might result in a bit of movement believe it or not...
08-02-2010 | 03:54 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
That's our pay increase going out the back end of that engine. To those captains: Thank you. Inexcusable.
08-02-2010 | 03:55 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Reading Reddogs informative post brings up a question for fnwa pilots, what do you guys think of going back to where you get your numbers on the fly?
I have 2 reservations about it, I had an airplane overloaded once with bags from a cxld flight in DTW, it took forever to get the numbers and find out we needed to off load bags. That wouldve been an embarrassing PA to make after push back "sorry folks, we just figured out we're overweight..." the other was a LCC 320 that taxied out and was #1 on 27R in ATL and tower cleared them for TO and they had to tell tower unable, no numbers. Tower then cleared them down to 27R and to the back of the line.
Just wondering, how was it for you guys? And I hope when we do this they have a system where they gate hold flights that probably will have issues.
I have 2 reservations about it, I had an airplane overloaded once with bags from a cxld flight in DTW, it took forever to get the numbers and find out we needed to off load bags. That wouldve been an embarrassing PA to make after push back "sorry folks, we just figured out we're overweight..." the other was a LCC 320 that taxied out and was #1 on 27R in ATL and tower cleared them for TO and they had to tell tower unable, no numbers. Tower then cleared them down to 27R and to the back of the line.
Just wondering, how was it for you guys? And I hope when we do this they have a system where they gate hold flights that probably will have issues.
08-02-2010 | 04:03 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
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
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
08-02-2010 | 04:05 AM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
You're not a pain at all. I don't know if you are junior, but if you are I can only imagine the frustration you would feel as you see $$$ burned away.
One other thing, unlike the DC-9 series planes 30 thru 90, SE taxi can run both packs just fine. We can't use the APU to run one pack and engine to run the other. When an engine is started bleed air for the pack must come from the engines, not APU. It has to do with ingesting engine exhaust thru the APU bleed.
The 320 has one of the worst % of SE taxiout...running around 10%. It's my quest to increase that %. It's one of leadership. Captains just need to reconsider and plan the taxiout as well as they plan the approach and landing.
Come fly the 320, you'll love it!
One other thing, unlike the DC-9 series planes 30 thru 90, SE taxi can run both packs just fine. We can't use the APU to run one pack and engine to run the other. When an engine is started bleed air for the pack must come from the engines, not APU. It has to do with ingesting engine exhaust thru the APU bleed.
The 320 has one of the worst % of SE taxiout...running around 10%. It's my quest to increase that %. It's one of leadership. Captains just need to reconsider and plan the taxiout as well as they plan the approach and landing.
Come fly the 320, you'll love it!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
