Pilots Pressured to Cut Costs by Cutting Down on Fuel, Safety Margins

By Kevin Tillman, AlterNet. Posted July 17, 2008.

And I'm flying today.

Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
10 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Today's Economic Crisis in Historical Perspective

Democracy and Elections:
More Unfinished 2008 Election Business: Verifiable Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
A New Approach to Drugs Would Save New York Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
Gabriel Sayegh

Election 2008:
Franken Lawyer: "We Are Going To Win"
Sam Stein

Environment:
Forget the Polar Bears -- The Climate Crisis Is About All of Us
George Monbiot

ForeignPolicy:
Obama Needs to Make a Clean Break on Latin America
Mark Weisbrot

Health and Wellness:
Obama's Health Care Reform Plan Is Based on the Clintons' Failed 1990s Model
Marie Cocco

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Immigration Reform After Bush: Let's Put an End to Punitive Policies
Roberto Lovato

Media and Technology:
Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives
Doron Taussig

Movie Mix:
Love Bites: What Sexy Vampires Tell Us About Our Culture
Sarah Seltzer

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
The Hymen Mystique
Carole Roye

Rights and Liberties:
Ban the Cluster Bomb
Brian Cook

Sex and Relationships:
Sex Ed for Seniors
Sue Katz

War on Iraq:
The Dilemma of Foreign Prisoners in Iraq
Ma'ad Fayad

Water:
Corporate Water Abusers Should Not Be Trusted As Stewards of the World's Water
Wenonah Hauter

More stories by Kevin Tillman

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

A few years ago, I was flying somewhere with a friend who was one of those nervous travelers who just has to get to the airport 17 hours before the flight. We got to the gate the agent had arrived and were hanging around shooting the bull nearby. Eventually, an airline employee came and started firing up the computers and whatnot, and shortly thereafter, a pilot arrived. The gate agent had noticed us loitering nearby, but the pilot apparently hadn't because he picked up a clipboard, glanced at it, and then remarked, loudly enough for us both to hear, "Oh, shit, not that fucking plane.

My friend and I were like, 'Who-what? Did he say what I thought he said?' The gate agent instantly freaked out and a big brouhaha ensued, in which the pilot, realizing he had made a major error, at least in protocol, tried to reassure us that he was just talking about the air-conditioning in the flight deck, or some such. Our reaction, naturally, was to declare that we sure as fuck weren't going to get on any fucking plane that the fucking pilot didn't want to fucking fly. (The potty-mouths were everywhere on that clear day.)

They bumped us up to first class on a later flight, gave us some drink coupons and eventually we were mollified (I'm easily mollified with free booze).

I recalled the story yesterday, when I came across this little item, via CNN:

The pilots union for US Airways said Wednesday the airline is pressuring pilots to use less fuel than they feel is safe, in order to save money.

The union also paid for a full-page ad in Wednesday's USA Today addressed to "our valued passengers." The ad accuses the airline of "a program of intimidation to pressure your captain to reduce fuel loads."

See more stories tagged with: safety, us airways, jet fuel

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

AlterNet Home » Story Tools: EMAIL PRINT 10 COMMENTS

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Hey, if it helps keep the Airline executives multi-million salaries [Report this comment] Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jul 17, 2008 10:30 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] and helps the share-holders bottom line, it couldn't be bad for the consumers, right? Isn't this the magic of free market fundamentalism? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Something interesting that happened on UScareways last week [Report this comment] Posted by: SteveO on Jul 17, 2008 12:08 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I was on a flight from Phoenix to Charlotte last week and we were held in the air over Charlotte for bad weather. We had hardly been in the holding pattern for 10 minutes when we were diverted (along with a bunch of other planes, all US Airways) to Columbia SC. I'll never know whether the diversion was because we were dangerously low on fuel or not, but cutting on board fuel reserves will get some people killed sooner or later. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] You can buy a lot of fuel [Report this comment] Posted by: Rod on Jul 17, 2008 1:08 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] for the cost of a crash. Short term management at it's best. Does this kind of order constitute a breach of responsibility thus making the CEO lose the shelter of corporate immunity? It should. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Not For Nothing... [Report this comment] Posted by: jvaljon1 on Jul 17, 2008 1:38 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] ...has US Airways been called, by its employees across the board--US SCARED. The last time, the issue was ALPA--those pesky PILOTS--DARING TO ASK FOR THEIR FIRST RAISE IN 17 YEARS. I don't blame that poor pilot; I'd fly a kids' helicopter beanie, before setting foot on anything by US SCARED. Sure--I know that the price of airline fuel is through the roof, but you don't compromise people's lives on that basis. The Rethuglicans have really ruined this country. They keep talking about Duh Terr'rists, but the only Terrorists I see when I look around me, is them. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Aren't these airlines [Report this comment] Posted by: chaoslegs on Jul 17, 2008 4:28 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] asking us to lobby Congress to look into oil price speculation? Maybe we should just regulate the fuel levels, they will ignore it or wink and nod it away, but at least it is something that pilots could use to have their back, besides the unions. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] This is REAL safety. . . [Report this comment] Posted by: BrianD on Jul 18, 2008 7:45 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Years ago, in the 40's & 50's, my dad worked for various airlines (before the blacklist forced him out). He held all the licenses: Pilot, Navigator and Flight Engineer. He was VERY safety conscious and before EVERY flight--no matter which "seat" he was occupying, he conducted his own safety inspection. On at least a dozen occasions, and, in spite of that aircraft having been inspected and certified by the ground maintenance people, he refused to take the plane off the ground or even taxi it! And, EACH and every time, the plane failed HIS inspection, it was found that he was correct and the maintenance people had "missed something!" You can only imagine the consternation and anger his actions caused. . .in the Front Office! And, with the passengers, too, who were forced to go back and sit in the terminal. . .The passengers'ire was generally assuaged and they were damned glad in the long run that he had pulled the plug on the flight for safety reasons. . .especially because, once airborne, HE made certain to tell them the reason for the delay--either over the plane's PA system; or, by walking down the aisle and telling them in person: "I'm the guy who did it! And, THIS is why!" Needless to say, he was often handed his walking papers by the airline company(s). It was hard to figure out why he was canned. . .Was it because of his "off the wall" behaviour before the flight(s). Or, because of his politics! [He'd been a volunteer in Spain in 1937, fighting against Franco and the Fascists. And, after returning from WW II duty with the US Navy in the Aleutian Islands, he'd again volunteered to fight "imperialism" . . .this time in Israel, in 1949, for independence from the British) If he was flying today, no doubt, he'd be VERY open-mouthed about The Present Situation. . .and, WHO was responsible! Not only for air safety. . .but, also responsibility for the other nonsense perpetrated by the Bushies and their "compatriots!" [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] No superheros left. [Report this comment] Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 18, 2008 9:15 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Hey! Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Super . . . Nope; it's a plane, all right, out of fuel and "augering in." [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] their thoughts: [Report this comment] Posted by: grethart on Jul 18, 2008 10:26 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Well, let's see now....we could raise the airfare $10 a head (too easy...lots of 'flack'); and we could take a cut in our exective salaries ..(Their salaries are Huge) put a moratorium on raises of the upper eschelon, and give those pilots a raise.... (what? huh?); Or we could fly the planes with no gas and kill everyone..... Hmmm, I think the 'gas idea' is a good one....prices are going up, and as good evironmentalists we should conserve, right? My thoughts: Greed has overtaken us. I wonder if the price of valium needed to get on these flights will go up? I will never fly again. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] It's really pretty reasonable on the surface... [Report this comment] Posted by: lexicon on Jul 18, 2008 12:01 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Because after all, reducing the "curb weight" of the aircraft at takeoff results in fuel savings. Hopefully, everyone here realizes that the plane CAN land with extra fuel, and so the issue is reducing "dead weight". But, having said that, I would bet that the incremental improvement in fuel efficiency achieved would be EASILY make up in other ways. For example, a plane having to fly EVEN ONCE empty, during the year, would dwarf the fuel savings achieved by shaving the fuel load during that year. In other words, EVEN ONE diversion of a flight, for whatever reason, during the course of a year (e.g. for weather, or perhaps because it's dangerously low on fuel)would be enough to negate the benefit. Now, I would like to imagine a scenario. I am a pilot, on a flight between Chicago and Boston, and I am carrying a close-calculated amount of fuel. Now, Chicago-Boston usually has a tailwind, but this time there is some odd weather. In fact, I end up having to change altitude several times because of it. So, I get as far as Albany, and my fuel warning light comes on. I radio ahead and find that BOS is a little stacked up due to the weather, and my fuel warning is on. I'm gonna have to hold for extra time. So, I make the decision to divert, and land in either BDL or MHT. Now, The airline decides to just bus those passengers to Logan, because I'm not going to get a takeoff slot for 10 hours. In 10 hours, I take off, fly EMPTY to BOS, and resume my loop. I have just wasted 10 times as much fuel as I had saved over the year... lexicon [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] So here's a riddle: [Report this comment] Posted by: howmad1 on Jul 18, 2008 1:53 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Take one fucked up airline like America West and merge it with another fucked up airline like US Airways and what do you get? You got it! One gigantic fucked up airline. Why am I not surprised. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Search: