OKLATEX

Personally, I agree with both of these points.

Frankly, before everyone looses their minds, maybe we should wait to see what the flight plans and fuel loads look like on July 2nd.

Busdrivr

Uh, dodging thunderstorms, getting vectored off course, wondering what happened to my tailwind. Shall I go on?

pipe

It'd be great if we ever left MEM on time so that I knew what forecast period I was dealing with at destination. Weather (visibility in particular), tends to change pretty rapidly around sunrise during certain times of the year.


Additionally, arriving an hour late at a major East coast city in the morning makes a huge difference in the length of vectors, sequence, how early descents are, etc. Many times we consider the release before we know just how late we're gonna finally leave MEM.


Pipe

PurpleToolBox

Your post is very insightful. I laugh at "the world on time" slogan on our aircraft because we are usually late leaving Memphis. And you are very correct, for those going to the east coast, big airport or small, even if ARTCC gave you direct, you are usually given an early descent and a routing which isn't on the FPR.



Then when we come back to Memphis, it seems nobody is managing the flow so too many airplanes seem to hit the arrivals all at once. If Memphis goes down to two runways, then everything is screwed up because they launched all of the airplanes thinking there would be two runways. GOC doesn't speed up and slow down airborne aircraft as appropriate, or ground delay those still sitting at the airport. This is everyday ops at a passenger carrier.

cougar

Don’t be in that situation. Using emergency fuel, plus fuel to do one go around should be the minimum fuel for consideration to be landing with at destination. That assumes no WX, multiple runways etc. Typically the fuel to alternate would be added the minimum fuel as well. This value is the base value to enter in FMS Reserve fuel.
In the quoted situation, the Insufficient Fuel message would have displayed in preflight. This would indicate more fuel is probably required. Inflight, with proper fuel reserves set in FMC, an insufficient Fuel message (no fuel leak) indicates it is likely time to consider diverting.

HillandDale

I’m aware of the parameters that maintenance is supposed to observe to utilize the air conditioning cart which is actually labeled “avionics cooling cart” or something close to that. I take that as a passive aggressive statement of priority of machine over man. The company could have labeled it “air conditioning cart.”
I’ve been in the left seat for awhile and, like most pilots I know, my priorities are safety, legal fitness, then reliability. Pilots do things to enhance safety on a daily basis which sometimes means adding fuel, asking for a different alternate, asking for a more realistic divert altitude so the fuel burn is more accurate, directing the dg agent to make adjustments to the haz- the list could go on and on. Essentially, we’re risk managers. Anything that introduces more risk to the operation has to be dealt with effectively. In my opinion, a physically uncomfortable fellow crew member will have a more difficult time focusing on his/her job duties thus decreasing our margin of safety. I’m the captain and our FOM directs that I manage the cockpit(team formation) in a way that mitigates threats to flight safety, so I start the APU. I don’t start it when the temp is comfortable. When the FO enters the cockpit, I look for any signs of discomfort or I’ll specifically ask if he/she is comfortable. If he/she says “I’m fine” and I’m not convinced, I start the APU. At the folder, when I discover the APU is deferred and knowing full well that the AC cart is supposed to be hooked up, I make a courtesy call to MOCC reminding them the APU is deferred and would they please have a mechanic be sure it’s hooked up and running. I also state, if it’s blazing hot in the cockpit, we have no choice (in the name of flight safety) but to delay preflighting the AC until the air is flowing again. I make it a point to thank them for doing this for me too.
Having said all this, my attitude is not to heck with the company. I want to be a good steward of company resources; we all benefit from that but safety is my top priority which costs money.
Although I saw the emoticon at the end of the above comments, I may be taking it the wrong way but the author seems to be consumed with his own well-developed bitterness towards the captains he/she talked about. Bitterness, to that degree, concerns me and has to be distracting, right? Surely, I would have been annoyed too as the author describes those situations but I also would not fly with those captains ever again- life is too short to fly with tools. On the other hand, the words that were chosen for the post like “starting the effin’ APU, and “some of you guys” and the capitalized text for emphasis projects a combative, divisive and degrading manner to bring to the cockpit. I’m sure the author would not want to be regarded as a tool by his/her peers.
Upgrading to the left seat is a good way to set the tone for every flight until retirement. Give it some thought.

Adlerdriver

Okay - so I have my unsolicited psychoanalysis for the day.

Not my attitude either. For all the safety and common sense reasons you mention above, I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to work in a reasonably comfortable environment. More importantly, I don't feel a request for that needs to be justified each time it's made or should be met with regular resistance. Being good steward's of company resources is a worthwhile endeavor. However, I doubt anyone working in GOC, Flight ops, Global Travel, HR, etc. is expected to spend the first hour of their work day sweating through their clothes (or bundled up in a parka) in order to be a good steward. I also doubt they have to explain to someone why that would be a problem.

Yes, you're taking it the wrong way.
I'm not bitter, therefore, not distracted. I conduct myself professionally at work. Perhaps blowing off some steam in an anonymous-ish forum helps. What is distracting is when a simply APU request is unnecessarily turned into a point of contention between two crew members. Maybe someone reading this who lacks your viewpoint and has been flying with their favorite Captain since the 1990s might gain some perspective.

Not flying with someone isn't always an option, nor do I think this issue is worthy of such extremes. Do we really need to keep of list of APU nazis and add that to our bidding criteria? Ah, to have such seniority and scheduling control to pick and choose Captains so carefully. Or, are you really suggesting someone walk off a trip because of this? Cranking the APU when someone respectfully asks seems like a far easier solution.

Didn't "bring it to the cockpit". I brought it here to APC. Big difference.

As if everyone has that choice to deal with this issue.

OKLATEX

If you would like, sure.

Not trying to judge, second guess what you are asking. We are on the same team here.

I guess we were just 'raised' differently when it comes to airline ops and fuel. I was taught to think about Fuel as soon as we push off the gate. So, when you mention looking at Fuel over Little Rock, at the start of a STAR going into Memphis, that is way late to me.

You mentioned valid variables. Slowing down to save fuel is always an option and make GOC/ATC work for you. Divert when you've had enough.

PAX airlines have been doing this stuff since 9/11, if not a little before. It is a different mindset from the way we've done it here. I'm all for adding fuel when we need it. I'm all for saving fuel when we can. Doesn't mean we have to change the way we do things. Just perhaps the way we think.

Albief15

Anyone besides me think the "fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel be careful on go arounds fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel 9/18 training is industry standard fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel" chatter might be slightly off focus?

I'm just a pilot here. But...reading the VP missive a few weeks back, I would expect the FCIFs and other comms points of emphasis to be a bit different. Do a search and see how much comm is dedicated to fuel savings. Compare that to any other subject. Lots to consider...but APU usage wouldn't be in my top 5.

Maybe its so obvious that we work hard to keep our jets 100% under our control at all times that it doesn't need to be restated, and once was enough. We are professionals, after all. But we do talk a lot about gas. What is really the priority?

I think watching the flight 80 video now and then is a good practice. It hurts. It sucks. And it reminds me to pay attention to what matters.

And yeah...I plan to request a practice sim sometime this fall before my winter checkride. This is serious business. We get it right 99.99 of the time. But it has to be 100%. I will try to be a good steward of our resources, and fly like a stockholder (which I am). But from block out to block in, I have other priorities I don't hear getting mentioned very much. Am I missing something? Maybe it is SO obvious it doesn't need to be hammered, and I"m just oblivious idiot....it has happened before...

NoHaz

I agree..seems to be a bit of overkill on the fuel push. The other problem is each of the efforts sets up a new baseline, a new zero to test. 6 months from now will be be re-looking at min fuels if management can find a new/lower industry standard.

I also noticed some verbiage in one of the comms (its via every avenue so i forgot which one) that said the dispatchers would comply with the fuel policy guidelines and the flight crew was recommended to comply. Seems like dispatchers hands will be tied and unable to add even if they foresee a longer taxi delay (jfk mornings), or a filed altitude that might not be granted or any situation where they would want to add more cushion. I once added fuel via Acars and received a "thanks, I agree" reply