FDX Flight Plans
06-02-2007, 01:24 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Michael Vick's favorite animal
Posts: 267
What's interesting is how the move to save gas by sllllooowwwwiiiinnnngggg down affects our productivity as well.
The way I see it, if they ratchet the cost indexes down, lot's of us will be sitting in the jet for longer hours for the same pay. Of course, the trips that are generated by block-time only will benefit though, but I haven't flown that many of those as of late.
I am all for max-pay/min-hours in seat, so it looks like that approach will be trashed.
It's gonna suck to be flyin' around at .74 hangin' on the wing. Somebody with ADOBE photoshop needs to change the slogan on the jet to say "The World Whenever We Get There"
The way I see it, if they ratchet the cost indexes down, lot's of us will be sitting in the jet for longer hours for the same pay. Of course, the trips that are generated by block-time only will benefit though, but I haven't flown that many of those as of late.
I am all for max-pay/min-hours in seat, so it looks like that approach will be trashed.
It's gonna suck to be flyin' around at .74 hangin' on the wing. Somebody with ADOBE photoshop needs to change the slogan on the jet to say "The World Whenever We Get There"
06-05-2007, 07:16 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Airbus Capt (duh)
Posts: 37
If we had to do this, we would probably exceed 8 in 24 the way the pairings are built today. Can you imagine, exceeding 8 in 24 in the field because you flew at .75 mach and 150kts at 40 miles out?
06-05-2007, 10:10 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
I don't think that changing the cost index will result in very slow (ie, .74-.78 Mach) cruise speeds. It doesn't really save that much gas, and truth be told, it doesn't increase flight times all that much either. Of course, this addresses flights that are not all that long anyway. Flights of less than 4 hours, if you flew mach .74 instead of .80, would probably only add 10 to 20 minutes. For the international long haul flights, well that's a horse of a different color. And for the flights of an hour or less, I just can't imagine much savings anywhere.
06-05-2007, 05:00 PM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Airbus Capt (duh)
Posts: 37
The way I see it Mark, GOC may have a new software to help you reduce fuel usage, but it is still Capt's authority on how much fuel you need and how you fly your aircraft. Obviously, if you make a decision and can not support that decision to Mother, then you have a problem, but it would be difficult for the company to determine when you can and cannot upload extra fuel. If the company requests that I fly with less fuel than I am comfortable with, I might accommodate them but my bingo fuel still remains the same. Instead of holding for 45 minutes in order to allow that Spring thunderstorm to blow through, when I hit my bingo fuel, I'm going to my alternate. With that in mind (based upon the optimized programing), when I arrive at my alternate, I will more than likely be illegal to continue, if not fatigued due to the long day (or night). After a few diverts, the cost expenditure of diverting will be more expensive than carring that extra fuel. I think we need to realize that GOC is more of our friend than scheduling. Most of our pilots I have spoken with do not trust scheduling and are tired of getting the ****** trips on substitution because of the company's inability to properly predict payload. I like GOC guys and gals, I think they are trying to help us. On the other hand, Scheduling is where you need to beware.
06-06-2007, 07:43 AM
#57
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD10/11 Capt
Posts: 57
. I think we need to realize that GOC is more of our friend than scheduling. Most of our pilots I have spoken with do not trust scheduling and are tired of getting the ****** trips on substitution because of the company's inability to properly predict payload. I like GOC guys and gals, I think they are trying to help us. On the other hand, Scheduling is where you need to beware.
The GOC Flight Specialist, "Dispatchers", are our friends!
I spent 16 years of my 30+ years and counting in Flight Control/GOC. Prior to the formation of "GOC" our Flight Controllers were part of the Flight Department. Post formation they fall under CSSD, i.e. ground ops.
However, despite the above the primary mission of our "dispatchers" is SAFETY of FLIGHT. They have a responsibility to the company to make the system operate as efficiently as possible as long as safety is not compromised.
The system is designed as a check and balance system. The Service Recovery Specialist's primary mission is to protect, and move the packages. So as you can see the dispatcher will cooperate to make the system work as long as safety is not an issue.
Everyone in GOC holds an Aircraft Dispatchers Certificate. Even though FedEx is a Supplemental Air Carrier, and the dispatchers do not hold release authority, their certificates are still in jeopardy. Our local and regional FAA office have advised in the past that if in the case of an incident or accident investigation it became apparent that there was negligence on the part of the "dispatcher" then the FAA reserves the right to exam the qualifications of the person holding that certificate.
06-06-2007, 08:27 AM
#58
Line Dawg
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: 777 Captain LCA
Posts: 150
The GOC Flight Specialist, "Dispatchers", are our friends!
I spent 16 years of my 30+ years and counting in Flight Control/GOC. Prior to the formation of "GOC" our Flight Controllers were part of the Flight Department. Post formation they fall under CSSD, i.e. ground ops.
However, despite the above the primary mission of our "dispatchers" is SAFETY of FLIGHT. They have a responsibility to the company to make the system operate as efficiently as possible as long as safety is not compromised.
The system is designed as a check and balance system. The Service Recovery Specialist's primary mission is to protect, and move the packages. So as you can see the dispatcher will cooperate to make the system work as long as safety is not an issue.
Everyone in GOC holds an Aircraft Dispatchers Certificate. Even though FedEx is a Supplemental Air Carrier, and the dispatchers do not hold release authority, their certificates are still in jeopardy. Our local and regional FAA office have advised in the past that if in the case of an incident or accident investigation it became apparent that there was negligence on the part of the "dispatcher" then the FAA reserves the right to exam the qualifications of the person holding that certificate.
I spent 16 years of my 30+ years and counting in Flight Control/GOC. Prior to the formation of "GOC" our Flight Controllers were part of the Flight Department. Post formation they fall under CSSD, i.e. ground ops.
However, despite the above the primary mission of our "dispatchers" is SAFETY of FLIGHT. They have a responsibility to the company to make the system operate as efficiently as possible as long as safety is not compromised.
The system is designed as a check and balance system. The Service Recovery Specialist's primary mission is to protect, and move the packages. So as you can see the dispatcher will cooperate to make the system work as long as safety is not an issue.
Everyone in GOC holds an Aircraft Dispatchers Certificate. Even though FedEx is a Supplemental Air Carrier, and the dispatchers do not hold release authority, their certificates are still in jeopardy. Our local and regional FAA office have advised in the past that if in the case of an incident or accident investigation it became apparent that there was negligence on the part of the "dispatcher" then the FAA reserves the right to exam the qualifications of the person holding that certificate.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. GOC controllers have never questioned any decision that I have made including extra fuel or in the rare occasion that I have refused to fly that extra leg for fatigue, legality, etx. It's my experience that they have always been suportive and respectful of the Capt's authority. Schedulers on the other hand are only concerned about filling a seat / task. We still have the hammer though whether its in the field or in ops. However, just because a trip might be considered "tough" isnt justification to refuse it. IMHO
06-06-2007, 08:59 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
The way I see it Mark, GOC may have a new software to help you reduce fuel usage, but it is still Capt's authority on how much fuel you need and how you fly your aircraft. Obviously, if you make a decision and can not support that decision to Mother, then you have a problem, but it would be difficult for the company to determine when you can and cannot upload extra fuel. If the company requests that I fly with less fuel than I am comfortable with, I might accommodate them but my bingo fuel still remains the same. Instead of holding for 45 minutes in order to allow that Spring thunderstorm to blow through, when I hit my bingo fuel, I'm going to my alternate. With that in mind (based upon the optimized programing), when I arrive at my alternate, I will more than likely be illegal to continue, if not fatigued due to the long day (or night). After a few diverts, the cost expenditure of diverting will be more expensive than carring that extra fuel. I think we need to realize that GOC is more of our friend than scheduling. Most of our pilots I have spoken with do not trust scheduling and are tired of getting the ****** trips on substitution because of the company's inability to properly predict payload. I like GOC guys and gals, I think they are trying to help us. On the other hand, Scheduling is where you need to beware.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
