Wasaya Union Professionalism vs Wasaya Layoffs

witness keystone · Post by **witness keystone** » Sat May 02, 2009 5:44 am

Doc;
Contingency fuel (granny gas) has been, and is a must with all northern operations,
and our management must put a measure in all dispatch weight calculations;
I followed the Wasaya layoff forum ? that the 748 has the horsepower to carry the extra !! ;
Give me a break readers !! What is ALPA position for fuel and northern operations ?

Thank you Widow who brought the following to our attention;
KEE208 would have been praised by this management style.

Friday, Aug. 08, 2008
Airlines Force Pilots to Fly Uncomfortably Low on Fuel
By AP/JOAN LOWY

(WASHINGTON) — Pilots are complaining that their airline bosses, desperate to cut costs, are forcing them to fly uncomfortably low on fuel. Safety for passengers and crews could be compromised, they say. The situation got bad enough three years ago, even before the latest surge in fuel prices, that NASA sent a safety alert to federal aviation officials.

No action.

Since then, pilots, flight dispatchers and others have continued to sound off with their own warnings, yet the Federal Aviation Administration says there is no reason to order airlines to back off their effort to keep fuel loads to a minimum. "We can't dabble in the business policies or the personnel policies of an airline," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr. He said there was no indication safety regulations were being violated.

The September 2005 safety alert was issued by NASA's confidential Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows air crews to report safety problems without fear their names will be disclosed. "What we found was that because they carried less fuel on the airplane, they were getting into situations where they had to tell air traffic control, 'I need to get on the ground,'" said Linda Connell, director of the NASA reporting system.

With fuel prices now their biggest cost, airlines are aggressively enforcing new policies designed to reduce consumption.

In March, for example, an airline pilot told NASA he landed his regional jet with less fuel than required by FAA regulations. "Looking back," he said, "I would have liked more gas yesterday." He also complained that his airline was "ranking" captains according to who landed with the least amount.

A month earlier, a Boeing 747 captain reported running low on fuel after meeting strong headwinds crossing the Atlantic en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. He said he wanted to stop to add fuel but continued on to Kennedy after consulting his airline's operations manager, who told him there was adequate fuel aboard the jet.

When the plane arrived at Kennedy, the captain said it had so little fuel that had there been any delay in landing, "I would have had to declare a fuel emergency" — a term that tells air traffic controllers a plane needs immediate priority to land. The last major U.S. air crash attributed to low fuel was on Jan. 25, 1990, when an Avianca Boeing 707 ran out while waiting to land at Kennedy. Seventy-three of 158 aboard were killed.

FAA regulations require airliners to take off with enough fuel to reach their destination or an alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of flight. The regulations also say it's up to dispatchers and pilots to decide the size of fuel loads, with pilots making the final call.

Spare fuel beyond the minimum required by FAA is often added to airliners to allow for weather or airport delays. That adds weight, which burns more fuel and increases a plane's operating cost. A Washington-to-Los Angeles flight by an Airbus 320 with 150 passengers burns about 29,500 pounds, or 4,300 gallons, of fuel. That costs about $14,600. Adding an additional 1,500 pounds, about 219 gallons, would cost about $750 more.

Complaints about airlines scrimping on fuel aren't limited to those submitted to the NASA system. Labor unions at two major airlines — American Airlines and US Airways — have filed complaints with FAA, saying the airlines are pressuring members not to request spare fuel for flights.

American notified dispatchers on July 7 that their records on fuel approved for flights would be monitored, and dispatchers not abiding by company guidelines could ultimately be fired. American said its fuel costs this year were expected to increase to $10 billion, a 52 percent over 2007. "The additional cost of carrying unnecessary fuel adversely affects American's financial success," the airline told dispatchers in a letter. Union officials responded that "it appears safety has become a second thought" for the company.

At US Airways, the pilots' union took out an ad in USA Today on July 16 charging that eight senior captains had been singled out by the company for requesting extra fuel and had been required to attend training sessions. The union said the training order was a message to other pilots not to request extra fuel.

American and US Airways blame the complaints on heated labor negotiations — both are in contract talks with the complaining unions. "It's not a safety issue; it's a contract issue," said John Hotard, a spokesman for American. US Airways said in a statement to its employees that the eight captains had been adding fuel "well in excess of the norm."

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency has conducted several analyses of airline fuel practices but found no instances of the minimum being violated or pilots' fuel requests being denied. "We didn't see any proposed changes we thought needed to be made," Brown said.

Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin Scovel recommended in April that the FAA take a nationwide look at airline fuel practices. Five months later, the agency is still developing a survey to send to its inspectors at each airline and has no schedule for sending it out.

Scovel also said the number of pilots reporting low fuel on approach to Newark Liberty International Airport tripled from 2005 to 2007. More than half were Continental Airlines flights, the dominant carrier at Newark.

He suggested the airline was pressuring pilots "to either not stop for fuel when needed or to carry insufficient amounts of fuel." His letter cited two bulletins from Continental's management urging pilots and flight crews to cut back on fuel, including one that noted "adding fuel indiscriminately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding." But Scovel's review of 20 Newark-bound flights — out of 151 reporting low fuel on approach in 2007 — found none with less than 45-minutes worth of spare fuel.

Former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall said the situation merits an industrywide investigation by Scovel. "It's a safety-of-flight issue and it needs to be treated as such," said Hall, now a transportation safety consultant. "If dispatchers and pilots are saying the airlines are pressuring them, and it's having a chilling effect on the decisions they make every day in regard to the fuel loads, and it looks it's like eroding the authority of the pilot in command, then that issue needs the attention of the government regulators who are there to oversee the system."

———

Associated Press Writer David Koenig in Dallas contributed to this report.

Find this article at:

http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 45,00.html

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Sat May 02, 2009 5:59 am

Witness Keystone; Thank you; I figured this would have come up sooner than this.

This Savings Management Style ($M$) needs to be addressed in all current 705, and 704 Quality Assurance Programs. KEE208 was, and now you say is again free of TC SMS requirements.

I am too old to know much about how Unions function within Northern Operations.
What other northern operations unionized, and how was the contigency (granny gas) weight given priority ?

witness keystone · Post by **witness keystone** » Sat May 02, 2009 7:35 am

The obvious in Ontario were Bearskin Airlines, Austin (Air Ontario),

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat May 02, 2009 7:43 am

And this has exactly what to do with lay offs at Wasaya?

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Sat May 02, 2009 7:52 am

The Wasaya Pilots Union is going to create the same layoffs Bearskin, and Austin were forced to concede with. I remember back then.

I know what 2009 Qualty Assurance programs can do outside aviation, and support behind a Wasaya QA will make much better working conditions than any Union will orcould provide.

The Saving Management Style ($M$) is a poor call to increase profit. Yesterday both BE1900 and PC12 were flying point to point at 3,500 ASL. Wake up readers, this is pilots rebelling against management. The fuel comsumption figures would be off the chart.

A working Quality Assurance Program will make the company a better profit, and make your jobs personalling more rewarding and secure from layoff.

I old enough to have woked with many unions, and QAP is an employee answer, not ALPA.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:01 am

If you have pilots flying low level just to burn more fuel, you have some pretty major problems. The "company" has the equipment to monitor flight paths and altitude. The low level flights could easily be interpreted as "theft" from the "company" and could easily result in the firing of the crews involved. I've seen just that happen. Find another way to protest. You will become unemployed by using that technique!

That, and it's just ignorant. I'd fire your ass for that myself.

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:04 am

edited

Strega · Post by **Strega** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:39 am

Doc wrote:If you have pilots flying low level just to burn more fuel, you have some pretty major problems. The "company" has the equipment to monitor flight paths and altitude. The low level flights could easily be interpreted as "theft" from the "company" and could easily result in the firing of the crews involved. I've seen just that happen. Find another way to protest. You will become unemployed by using that technique!

That, and it's just ignorant. I'd fire your ass for that myself.

Doc,

Low level (3500AGL) could be interpreted as theft, and when and if those pilots protesting by flying low level were sacked for "Theft". Im certain those pilots could sue for wrongful dismissal, and most likely win.

The root cause of all this BS is the scary fact that most pilots/managers in this industry (especially at the 703-704 level) have no concept whatsoever of professionalism, integrity, honor, etc..... and this is just what you get because of it. I have met roughnecks that exhibit more of the above traits then pilots.

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:48 am

Let us return the forum to avoiding Wasaya Layoffs due to Pilot Unionization

not Pilot Dismissal for Theft

Low level (3500AGL) could be interpreted as theft, and when and if those pilots protesting by flying low level were sacked for "Theft". Im certain those pilots could sue for wrongful dismissal, and most likely win.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:55 am

Low level (3500AGL) could be interpreted as theft, and when and if those pilots protesting by flying low level were sacked for "Theft". Im certain those pilots could sue for wrongful dismissal, and most likely win.

What would they use as a defense for flying a turbine airplane so low, fuel conservation?

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Sat May 02, 2009 9:06 am

Cat Driver ;

I think witness keystone was trying to say is "granny gas safety" is incompatible with pilot unionization. The theft issue is derailing this forum.

I am saying a pilot union and northern routes are incompatable for longevity of future employment, and the posiblity of company profit.
I am saying the realistic option to avoid layoffs in employee support of a Quality Assurance Program to increase what profit may be available.

Where are you WK ?

Strega · Post by **Strega** » Sat May 02, 2009 9:15 am

What would they use as a defense for flying a turbine airplane so low, fuel conservation?

Im certain they could say it was an operational requirment due to icing, turbulence, traffic, felt like it, thought it was the safest,, I know its pretty lame, but still, I dont think they could be sacked and have it stick for lying "low" (3500' is not low by the way)

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat May 02, 2009 9:19 am

Oh, Wasaya wouldn't use the word "theft" in a dismissal. They're lawyers aren't that stupid.

Hey Cat, nice not to have to deal with jerk off operations any more, isn't it@!!@

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 02, 2009 9:28 am

I am saying a pilot union and northern routes are incompatable for longevity of future employment, and the posiblity of company profit.

I must have missed the northern routes and profitability training subject with regard to fuel requirements during my time in aviation.

What is the connection between a union and fuel / payload management?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 02, 2009 9:33 am

Hey Cat, nice not to have to deal with jerk off operations any more, isn't it@!!@

Yes, but we still have to deal with the amazing ability pilots have to defend stupidity.

I'm off to the airport to work on finishing the float change over on the Husky so I can fly something that does not require me to have to deal with the dumb ed down world of commercial aviation.

ilovelamp · Post by **ilovelamp** » Sat May 02, 2009 10:47 am

Cat Driver wrote:I'm off to the airport to work on finishing the float change over on the Husky so I can fly something that does not require me to have to deal with the dumb ed down world of commercial aviation.

Dont worry Cat, Us commercial pilots will be out in the skies, So you will have to deal with the dumbed down world of commercial aviation one way or another.

Rudy · Post by **Rudy** » Sat May 02, 2009 12:22 pm

SKYPILOT1956 wrote:Yesterday both BE1900 and PC12 were flying point to point at 3,500 ASL.

If it truly was an act of sabotage due to a grievance with the company then that would be quite an unprofessional, and childish course of action. I'm shocked.
From what point to what point? Some of those reserves are 10 minutes apart so 3500 may make some sense with low-middle level cloud present.

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:19 pm

I don't know the story, but having to argue with an FO over flight levels, ie: 10k, vs 230 well sometimes lower is better.

thecaptain · Post by **thecaptain** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:35 pm

SKYPILOT1956 wrote: Yesterday both BE1900 and PC12 were flying point to point at 3,500 ASL. Wake up readers, this is pilots rebelling against management.

LOL - This isn't rebelling, this is what we do on short legs. Altitudes get based off of distances and other obvious factors such as weather en-route, smooth air, etc. It's a general rule and by no means a hard rule we HAVE to follow. What altitude would you have us climb to for short trip?? We aren't so stupid us big bad wasaya boogy men that if we wanted to rebel, this is all we could come up with.

As for the rest of this speculation on layoffs and the economy.. Dropping some PC12s have been on the agenda for quite some time now. Ever tried stuffing 9 people and all there stuff they want with them into a PC12?? It just doesn't work and creates a lot of issues for paying passengers regardless of the fare they are paying. 1900s on the other hand can better handle this and at the end of the day, if someone gets from A to B with their stuff they are happy. The PC12 has however, made a very good name for itself in regards to charters. A charter is more predictable in its nature to a degree and one can plan around that making the pilatus a good candidate for the work. We don't need 13 PC12s for charters. Plain and simple. Wasaya is trying to make a better name and reputation for itself. There may be a ton of hiccups along the way, pissed off pilots and the like but don't fool yourself into thinking all this company wants to do is ruin itself and kill all its pilots. Don't take me for a fool either, I know some "down south" are resistant to these changes, but the company is more than management, it's the people who work there too. The people I work with are trying to make changes for the better and so that's why I can make the statement that Wasaya is trying to make a better name for itself. Find me one company that has had no issues what-so-ever from start-up to present and I'll rethink the topic for ya. I find it sad how this company gets such a beating on this forum. We aren't a perfect company, we all make mistakes and we learn from them. Maybe some folks have different views on it, but I don't know one pilot in this company who wakes up and gets excited about breaking laws or busting minimums. How about those of you so intent on making people believe Wasaya is Satan resurrected instead support your fellow pilots and realize Wasaya is just another company going through transition and growing pains. This industry has never been "pretty." Many comments on here can and are taking personally. If your beef is with management, spell that out, because plenty of what has been said here.. well you may as well just call us all stupid.

That's my two cents and enough said.

SmokinJoe · Post by **SmokinJoe** » Sun May 03, 2009 12:40 am

Just to add on the flying at 3500ft point, did it ever occour to you that some of the pilots doing that on their 10 min leg might be pulling the power back to acheive a reasonable fuel burn? If not than it may be news to you that that is what most of us do, we're at least going to try and keep a reasonable fuel burn wether we're at 3500ft or 10000ft.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun May 03, 2009 7:03 am

thecaptain.....good post.

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:29 am

How is a unionized pilot workforce not compatable with Northern flying?

Are you saying that the only way to make money in the North is with shitty working conditions? I know very little about Northern flying and Wassaya for that matter but this being a general comment, why is it that shitty pay and working conditions so often gets rationalized with the only way to do business. This shouldn't be the norm and comments like the one in the previous post only reinforce the notion that paying highly trained and professional pilots shit wages and forcing ridiculous working conditions is the only way to do business. It is not and should never be.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:36 am

This shouldn't be the norm and comments like the one in the previous post only reinforce the notion that paying highly trained and professional pilots shit wages and forcing ridiculous working conditions is the only way to do business.

Highly trained and professional pilots wouldn't work for such operators.

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:50 am

Touche Cat, Touche.

However it's not always that easy to make the coice between the EI line and the flight line. Personally I'm all for working at a company and trying to make a difference from within and try to improve things for the future.

flyinthebug · Post by **flyinthebug** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:51 am

thecaptain wrote:
SKYPILOT1956 wrote: Yesterday both BE1900 and PC12 were flying point to point at 3,500 ASL. Wake up readers, this is pilots rebelling against management.
LOL - This isn't rebelling, this is what we do on short legs. Altitudes get based off of distances and other obvious factors such as weather en-route, smooth air, etc. It's a general rule and by no means a hard rule we HAVE to follow. What altitude would you have us climb to for short trip?? We aren't so stupid us big bad wasaya boogy men that if we wanted to rebel, this is all we could come up with.

As for the rest of this speculation on layoffs and the economy.. Dropping some PC12s have been on the agenda for quite some time now. Ever tried stuffing 9 people and all there stuff they want with them into a PC12?? It just doesn't work and creates a lot of issues for paying passengers regardless of the fare they are paying. 1900s on the other hand can better handle this and at the end of the day, if someone gets from A to B with their stuff they are happy. The PC12 has however, made a very good name for itself in regards to charters. A charter is more predictable in its nature to a degree and one can plan around that making the pilatus a good candidate for the work. We don't need 13 PC12s for charters. Plain and simple. Wasaya is trying to make a better name and reputation for itself. There may be a ton of hiccups along the way, pissed off pilots and the like but don't fool yourself into thinking all this company wants to do is ruin itself and kill all its pilots. Don't take me for a fool either, I know some "down south" are resistant to these changes, but the company is more than management, it's the people who work there too. The people I work with are trying to make changes for the better and so that's why I can make the statement that Wasaya is trying to make a better name for itself. Find me one company that has had no issues what-so-ever from start-up to present and I'll rethink the topic for ya. I find it sad how this company gets such a beating on this forum. We aren't a perfect company, we all make mistakes and we learn from them. Maybe some folks have different views on it, but I don't know one pilot in this company who wakes up and gets excited about breaking laws or busting minimums. How about those of you so intent on making people believe Wasaya is Satan resurrected instead support your fellow pilots and realize Wasaya is just another company going through transition and growing pains. This industry has never been "pretty." Many comments on here can and are taking personally. If your beef is with management, spell that out, because plenty of what has been said here.. well you may as well just call us all stupid.

That's my two cents and enough said.

Good post thecaptain. I was on this same board 7 years ago, defending my company and its practices. It is good to hear that Wasaya is trying to change it ways. I worked for them twice.. Once back in 1996 when they were still a smaller charter company out of YQT rolling over their B200`s in favour of B1900s.. and then again in 06 in YRL. They have some very good drivers there and I wish you all nothing but the best.

Fly safe.