How to change your reputation !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shannow

Shannow

Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,980
Location
'Stralia
Obviously not content with their reputation of safety, and reliability, Qantas seem determined to have a shake up and change their rep among travellers.

Offshoring pilots (easy when you have to go offshore as part of your business), offshoring maintenance (similarly easy to implement), evidence of baggage handlers handling the contents of baggage (admittedly old news).

Decided recently to fly 747s non stop from Oz to Dallas (must be the artwork thing), against the advice of their pilots...assisted by reducing their fuel reserve requirements.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-ne...2-1226066847635

Non stop has become unscheduled stops in New Caledonia for a couple of flights, so with a reduced mandatory reserve, they must have been really stretching it.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/01/pressure-builds-on-qantas-management/
 
Being a finishing airline/aviation management student this is indeed not good. Good thing there was a place to stop and get fuel. Oceans don't provide good places to land and get fuel.
 
Last night's news indicated some of the not goodedness of it.

Apparently...

Container of luggage (not individual bags) left on the tarmac, or 80-100 purposely vacant seats...in economy.

2 hour pit stop in the last hour or so of a non stop flight would drive me barmy
 
American and Delta were recently fined by the FAA because they are having unlicensed workers in El Salvador and Guatemala repair aircraft.

The kicker is that they are issued repair manuals in ENGLISH, and they don't speak or read a single bit of it.

Makes you wonder if a 747 is assembled like furniture at IKEA.
 
Taking on the least amount of fuel is nothing new. It happens most places. Our dispatcher gets a bonus if they dispatch a flight, with very low amount of contingency fuel. Last week they only dispatch us with 10 min of cont. fuel. When there's a storm sittinig in the middle of our route
 
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Taking on the least amount of fuel is nothing new. It happens most places. Our dispatcher gets a bonus if they dispatch a flight, with very low amount of contingency fuel. Last week they only dispatch us with 10 min of cont. fuel. When there's a storm sittinig in the middle of our route


Is it industrial-wide practice or is it just your airlines? If the latter, could you please let me know which one it is?
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
to [censored] in a handbasket.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/n...o-1226067626808

Quote:
QANTAS has been forced to ground one of its jets after rats were found on board.

Flight attendants discovered five rats in the cabin of a Boeing 767 yesterday as they were preparing for take-off from Sydney Airport, Sky News reported.

The rats were found in emergency medical equipment just before passenger were due to board.
 
Originally Posted By: hhu168
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Taking on the least amount of fuel is nothing new. It happens most places. Our dispatcher gets a bonus if they dispatch a flight, with very low amount of contingency fuel. Last week they only dispatch us with 10 min of cont. fuel. When there's a storm sittinig in the middle of our route


Is it industrial-wide practice or is it just your airlines? If the latter, could you please let me know which one it is?
smile.gif


Lots of airlines are doing it this way. The only time I ever seen a bunch of extra fuel is if we are tankering it, because where we are going the fuel is much more expensive. The more exra fuel we carry, the more fuel the airplane burns.

Here's an artical on AA

"Now one of the United States’ largest airlines is instructing its pilots to reduce the amount of fuel they carry on flights, resulting so far in little more than a brewing fight between labor and management. American Airlines wants to save energy and money by using computerized modeling to load less fuel, and if pilots object, they have to complete paperwork explaining why.
American’s management claims reducing a flight’s fuel load reduces the hauling of unnecessary fuel. After all, planes burn more fuel from carrying the weight of . . . more fuel. Pilots believe that the rules are onerous and are usurping pilots control."



http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/06/amer...ith-less-fuel/#
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
The more exra fuel we carry, the more fuel the airplane burns.


Of course.

Still, only carrying 10 min of contingency fuel is crazy, even suicidal.
 
Originally Posted By: hhu168
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
The more exra fuel we carry, the more fuel the airplane burns.


Of course.

Still, only carrying 10 min of contingency fuel is crazy, even suicidal.


Who said anything about only taking 10 min of contingency fuel? I said we were "dispatch" with only 10 min of it. Being dispatch vs doing it are 2 different thing. They can disptach anything they want but we don't have to sign the release.
 
Not too long ago there was a bit on Morning Express with Robin Meade about airliners not flying on full tanks. I actually didn't see it on TV but saw it on their website. People were acting like it was the end of the world. To make matters worse the show was acting like it was our fault that we were carrying minimum fuel or just above. I felt inclines to email them and explain why we don't fly with full tanks and we do have minimum fuel per FAA regs. I went further and explained the 737-700W and -300 performance and weight and balance. Needless to say I didn't get a reply.
 
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Who said anything about only taking 10 min of contingency fuel? I said we were "dispatch" with only 10 min of it. Being dispatch vs doing it are 2 different thing. They can disptach anything they want but we don't have to sign the release.


Sorry I misunderstood.

Yes you don't have to sign the release. But aren't you as the pilot and the dispatcher both supposed to make sure the flight is safe? By dispatching a flight at 10 min contingency fuel, isn't the dispatcher making a suggestion? If the suggestion has no effect, why would he make it and the company pays him a bonus?
 
Just a question, who carries the can ?

As an engineer, I'm given inventory reduction targets, and plant performance targets...don't meet inventory reduction (fuel load targets), and you get caned.Don't meet availability targets (no pats, plant stays down, no fuel planes don't stay up),and it's my name against the failure.

Who owns an aircraft running out of fuel ?

Recent light plane accident in my state, and the pilot was considered less than mud for having less than 45 mins reserve with his own family and no paying customers on board.
 
Originally Posted By: hhu168
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Who said anything about only taking 10 min of contingency fuel? I said we were "dispatch" with only 10 min of it. Being dispatch vs doing it are 2 different thing. They can disptach anything they want but we don't have to sign the release.


Sorry I misunderstood.

Yes you don't have to sign the release. But aren't you as the pilot and the dispatcher both supposed to make sure the flight is safe? By dispatching a flight at 10 min contingency fuel, isn't the dispatcher making a suggestion? If the suggestion has no effect, why would he make it and the company pays him a bonus?


Weather can change and quick. Dispatcher are not doing it to be unsafe. The flight was probably dispatch probably 30-60 min before departure time. The example I pointed out is rare. I only see it 5-6 times a year. You say 10 min of cont. fuel is crazy? do you know cont. fuel is not even required? If it was so unsafe don't you think the FAA would make it a requirement for us to have cont fuel?
 
When we fly across the country we usually get around 30 minutes of cont. fuel. Which turns out to be 2500 pounds or roughly 367 gallons of fuel. And if Jet A cost $6.25 a gallon that's an extra $2293.75 of fuel we're tanking around. It adds up when you have 300 aircraft carrying another $2200 in fuel. Usually if we have less than 2500 pounds on cont. fuel they stuff mail or parts on board.
 
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Weather can change and quick. Dispatcher are not doing it to be unsafe. The flight was probably dispatch probably 30-60 min before departure time. The example I pointed out is rare. I only see it 5-6 times a year. You say 10 min of cont. fuel is crazy? do you know cont. fuel is not even required? If it was so unsafe don't you think the FAA would make it a requirement for us to have cont fuel?


I guess this is where I got confused. In your original post you said:

"Last week they only dispatch us with 10 min of cont. fuel. When there's a storm sittinig in the middle of our route"

My impression was they dispatched flights with 10 min of contingency fuel knowing there was a storm sitting in the route. Guess what you meant was the storm actually developed after the flights were dispatched, or even after you were in flight.

But, isn't contingency fuel exactly that, fuel for contingencies? I know weather can develop fairly quickly, but I still think 10 min of contingency fuel is crazy when there is a chance of storm en route.
 
All we need for takeoff is the burn enroute, fuel to get to our alternate airport and 45 min of reserve fuel. Contingency fuel is not reqired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
The trouble with oil additives
Replies
11
Views
20K
Raptor6
Back
Top Bottom