hoover

we only have about 13 airports in our FMS because it is so crappy. Too bad they have that language that will not allow them to use a non FMS alternate. Seems pretty easy to me to build the airport, arrival, and approach.

GOCKY

I'm trying to figure out how the customer would even know what alternate is listed on the flight release? Was an alternate even required per the weather conditions? Was it a supplemental flight where a destination alternate must be listed?

Anyways, a captain following company procedures and getting fired for it? Wheres the FAA on this? I guess ABX doesn't have an ASAP program?

I hope there is more to the story.

cp44fla

Okay......this deserves it's own thread!!!

captjns

That's the point. It was in an article, which is not the Operations Specificatoins, nor their Flight Operations Manual. Any ABEXers care to shead light on non FMS airports. Would it be an RNP-1 requirement for arrivals and departures?

HercDriver130

only 13 foreign airports in your FMS....holy crap.

As for the customer and alternates ...again.. I will use DHL as an example ... weather conditions allowing ...they direct our alternates in Europe at least. DoD also requires certain alternates as well with certain cargo.

I know... that wasn't the issue here... just saying.

As it would appear the CA was just following company guidelines... I hope they screw ABX to the wall.

cactusmike

The old non Pegasus FMS in the 757 had about 750 kilobytes of memory. Maybe the ABX 767s have the old boxes.

This is total BS from the company. I hope the guy hammers them in the lawsuit.

Deespatcher

We used to have a customer that would require flight releases sent to them and they would inquire why we would plan to land with x amount of fuel to our management. They audited every release and compared to their flights on the same day (same routes, same type). Some airlines have a very strict fuel policy.

I think there is more to it than being put to public, and I base this that article has the wrong origin airport listed :-). It's the easy facts that should be a "no brainer" to get right.

Larry in TN

The more distant alternate required more fuel which resulted in freight being bumped.

ABX is a Supplemental carrier. Alternates are always required.

No FARs were broken. The FAA doesn't get involved in what they see as "labor disputes".

They do. How is it supposed to help? No FARs were broken.

The FOM section which said that this operation was only allowed for domestic airports was supposed to have been updated but never was.

cactusmike

The way I read the story, the freight was bumped but they took off under gross by the amount they bumped.

NCR757dxr

Then ABX has no leg to stand on unless there was some type of flight crew bulletin on this issue stating something contrary to the GOM and was approved by the POI.

There was a forum post over on airlines.net (I know I know) that did raise a few good points and a few questions for me having had worked for another ATSG carrier in the past.

Airliners.net
It was stated in the written statements that JAL, the customer, agreed on naming another ALTN but it then escalated from there. In addition, I wonder how much cargo was actually bumped? I know that very rarely did I ever get an actual payload before the flight. So was this a "paperwork" bump only? Or was it an actual bump as well?

Plus the "bravo-sierra" of PIC and Dispatcher agreeing on blah means nothing at ABX since they're 121 supplemental and they only have "Flight Controllers" who only have watered down operation control.

My gut feeling in this entire matter is that the flight controller didn't want to agree to anything b/c of the toxic environment at ABX (ABX fired all flight controllers a while back and hired them all back the next day as contract controllers in a contract operation at a fraction of their wages) and pulled a CYOA tactic getting the CP involved after JAL had agreed on RJBB. Plus the Captain also suggested two other airports that were in the FMC database, legal, and would't require a bump. One needs to realize this alternate bull was probably only for the 121 supplemental rule requiring an alternate and nothing more.

I'm almost positive the FMC in this aircraft was a non-PIP.... plus it was stated that MX had another database card available with the new airport included but hadn't installed it yet.