What does everyone think of the Airlines Cutting Amount of Fuel On Planes due to?

Question

rising costs? It's bad enough and yet understandable that airlines are taking away Pillows, Entertainment Systems, extra snacks to all snacks, and other comfort items. But I just watched the news a little while ago, and there was an interview with a U.S Airways Capt:, that is stating the not just his airline but others as well are cutting back on the Minimum Amount of Fuel they are allowed to carry for flights. Now of course there are different laws for different aircraft, length of trips, weather, wind, ect. And the F.A.A has it's minimum requirements and of course the Capt of each flight has the final say. But these airlines for the sake of the $ are cutting and forcing Capt's: to cut back to dangerous levels that they are disagreeing with in order to save money. There are Capt: pilots being reprimanded for refusing to cut back on fuel when they're knowledge and experience tell them not too.

So what does everyone think of this?

Answer 1

It would be a criminal offence on part of the airlines to cut back on fuel at the cost of jeopardising the safety of the aircraft and the passengers. The pilots have all the rights to stand up and demand the correct fuel quantities. After all, the captains carry full responsibility for safe operation of the flight. Minimum reserves must never be  compromised upon.

Answer 2

A previous answer:  "Airlines are doing it out of greed" -- if, by "greed",  you mean 'trying not to lose $Billions of investors dollars, and putting thousands of people out of work, and stranding hundreds of thousands of people far from home", then maybe so.

Here's the deal -- if you have an employee (a "pilot" in this case) making bad decisions (loading more fuel than needed), one thing you can do about it is fire him.  An alternative is to teach him how to do it right.

Airlines learned a long time ago that there is no economic benefit to be gained from compromising safety.  You can't make money by destroying your assets and killing your customers & employees.

Answer 3

Nobody's taking off with less than adequate fuel. The pilots are in "contract negotiation mode." That's just a euphemism for: "fly as inefficiently as you can and waste the company's money."

These guys just weren't as discreet as they could have been. They were tracked and caught. It's the same story everywhere when new contracts are being negotiated. For anybody actually in the industry, this isn't the first time that it's happened, nor will it be the last. The only difference here is that they went public with what normally is dealt with behind closed doors. It's really a non-event.

---

I didn't say that the pilots for all the airlines are in contract negotiations, just USair. Go beyond the soundbites and follow up. As a pilot for another airline, I've seen this kind of stuff before. They just played the "safety card"  publicly and unjustifiably, as safety really isn't being compromised.  When the truth does come out, the USair pilots will be the bigger industry laughingstocks than they are now. Just ask any United, Delta, Northwest, or American pilot.

Answer 4

The airlines are not doing anything to compromise safety.  Dispatchers calculate the minimum fuel required for the trip, and that includes a buffer.  The pilots can usually verify it because they probably have done the route before and know about how much fuel they need.  They then throw on another 30 minutes - 1 hour (sometimes more if going into a really busy airport, like Newark or Chicago) to make us pilots feel warm and fuzzy inside.  There are some pilots who get really nervous and complain when they don't have an extra 4 hours of fuel on board.  That's just wasteful.  Pilot's know when the fuel is getting low and can fly slower or in a more fuel efficient manner to compensate.  

One unfortunate thing is that most airline pilots (not all, but most from my experience) do not fly in a fuel efficient manner.  They fly at red line the whole way, whereas slowing down so that you get in 5-10 minutes later saves a lot of gas.   Some are just oblivious to the amount of fuel they use, others have a s***w-the-airline mentality, while others just refuse because their pay doesn't go up if they save gas.

Answer 5

Airlines are doing it out of greed; they are more worried about money than safety.

Airlines only do as much as the law requires them to do.  The captain of an aircraft has the final authority to decide how much extra fuel to load, and many captains load a little bit more than is legally required just to be on the safe side.  Airlines don't care about safety, though, so they pressure captains to take only the minimum fuel required by law, thus compromising safety and infringing on the captain's authority. The airlines save money, and passengers are put in jeopardy.  It's something to consider the next time you choose an airline for your travel.

Answer 6

You need to get the facts straight. The pilots involved are not claiming that required fuel minimums were violated.  These minimums include a substantial safety margin. They are not even saying that they were denied the extra fuel they requested.

      These 8 pilots are being required to take check rides, basically a flight with one of the airlines senior pilots, to make sure they are following all regulations and operating polices.  They are claiming that this is because of their request to carry extra fuel. Maybe it is, but there are any number of reasons they could be required to take a check ride.  

      A check ride involves your performance being judged by another pilot, and another pilot is not likely to complain about a little extra fuel margin unless you are going completely over the top with the amount.

Answer 7

I know it is cost cutting, but I do not think about it, because I do not do any thing where I can not carry, and that leave air ports and air planes out.

Answer 8

Everything in aviation has safety  margins. The airlines are just eating into some of their own safety margins. Now that said the Airlines can not cut back to less then the FAA minimum fuel load for IFR flight. So the safety margin that they are eating into are the airlines safety limits. That is their prerogative. Do I like it? No But unless the FAA changes the rules it is perfectly legal. Then again every one could pay more for a ticket and then the airlines would not have to do this but I don't see this happening.

Answer 9

Yes, I agree.. this is a "buzz word" statement that is used to get attention... in the media etc.. and see how well it worked?

Bottom line... the Captain is responsible for the safe outcome of the flight. Period.  No captain is going to throw away his career over some silly *** negotiation. They are not carrying less fuel than is needed... what they have done in the past... is say you are flying a trip from Chicago to Detroit, and the fuel costs more in Detroit, and your load is not heavy, then dispatch may decide to "tanker" fuel on your plane so you don't have to buy fuel, or buy less fuel in Detroit.

In a case such as this, the Captain has it within his bounds to refuse the extra fuel. It just costs the company more money... and then he can brag at the union meeting how he "stuck it to management" It can get very ugly, and is WAY worse than I care to discuss.. or the average reader would believe... but when contract talks start, and money is on the table, it is not a nice place to be. I have benefitted from it, and I have suffered from it... it's bad for all involved just as with a war, no one really wins.