jsled

mostly just threw them out there. BUT. If you agree that it costs 100 lbs of gas to carry an extra 1000 lbs of gas, and everybody threw on 1000 lbs for the wife and kids, that's 100 lbs per flight x 3000 flights per day x 365 days per year: 109.5M lbs of gas. Divide by 6.7 lbs per gallon. 16.3M gallons. x $3 per gallon is $49M. Just a wag.

$9000 (average) per divert seems reasonable to me (fuel, misconnects, overtime). 1300 diverts last year x $9000 is $11.7M.

syd111

Thanks jsled.

SpecialTracking

49, 11.7, 9000, 1000, 365, 6.7, omaha...can't sweat the figures on the nutritional (sugars and carbs) food they feed us.

Dave Fitzgerald

I submit to you that it is not us (pilots) carrying the gas. With the advent of Sabre, I carry 2-3000 lbs more gas than I used to under Unimatic. It used to be easy for dispatchers to adjust the fuel under Unimatic, now many dispatchers don't even look at the FP and whine when you do want to change it. It's more work! "Oh...I'll have to generate a new release." Ok, you do that.

UAL is doing it to themselves. Once again, welcome back to the IT company with wings. It's not us. When management gets serious about running an airline and not wasting money every time I turn around, I'll get serious about helping the company.....or whatever. (I think I'm pretty safe for a while.)

syd111

Have not seen this with the dispatchers I have worked with at all. Don't get me wrong I am not saying it doesn't happen but when I ask for a new fuel load fp release or whatever it never seems to be much of a big deal.

gettinbumped

TOTALLY agree, and by "we" I meant United... not the pilots. The message to management at the standards meeting was loud and clear that the "policy plan" of 60 min REMF (assuming no ALT/CF) would be much easier to achieve if it started out from dispatch as a policy FP rather than expecting pilots to call and ask to lower the fuel. We were told that they too would be attending the OET class, which should help. All in all, I personally think that Sabre is a much better product than what we used to have. But this is one area where it is weak... having to run a whole new plan to add gas. I believe we were told there is a fix coming for that, but I could have been spacing out.

Finally, in no way shape or form do I advocate saving gas for management. Don't care a lick about them. There are many reasons I advocate being efficient; environmental, less powerful Middle Eastern nations, professional pride, profit sharing, leaving a more viable airline for those coming behind, wasting a finite resource, establishing a baseline of how we CAN run an airline so that in the future if we need to show how much we can effect efficiency we can and our value is more noticeable (wink wink C2017), proving to the bean counters the A320 IS efficient and should be kept around (already working and instead of a 2015 retirement the fleet is now looking at 2028), helping the bean counters see the mainline fleet can be efficient enough to warrant used narrow bodies instead of RJ's. None of those reasons involve me caring about helping Jeff look good. That's just collateral damage

Blockoutblockin

Also, apparently it's okay for a dispatcher to pad, but if you want to pad, then you are not seeing the big picture,

Also, apparently certain dispatchers/dispatcher are monitoring the fuel habits of commuters and reporting this to FODMs/Chief Pilots,

Also, don't expect LAX to grow if not shrink as it is a "fragmented" market,

Shrek

2028 is a good number if you believe what came out of the standards meeting that just took place.

Greg Bockelman

There ARE no LUAL 73's. Unless CAL bought some when we retired them 10 or so years ago.

pilot64golfer

There are over 40 737s flying now that were purchased for LUAL to replace LUAL 757s. But nothing that existed pre-merger.