"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
Over 7000 Posts Served

"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007
"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata
Sunday, August 10, 2008

How much do you think the airlines think your life is worth?
Before this is all over, I may very well end up ain "any job, no matter what they ask" mode. But for now, one thing I don't want is a job where I have to do a lot of traveling. Because I really hate to travel. Oh, I'd like to see Greece before I die, and do one of those Mediterranean cruises where you don't have to shlep suitcases from hotel to hotel. And I've been to Jamaica 19 times with Mr. Brilliant in our 25 years together. But I hate traveling. I hate the packing, the logistics, the airports, the cramped seating and inadequate ventilation. I hate sitting in airports. I hate sitting on the tarmac. I hate flight attendants who decide it's my job to spend my trip taking care of half-blind elderly women who are so terrified of flying they are praying to Jesus out loud for 4-1/2 hours. I hate turbulence. And you know what I really hate? I hate circling around Newark for an hour and then having the pilot say that we don't have enough fuel to circle any more so we're going to Pittsburgh -- only to find a half hour later that somehow we've miraculously gotten clearance to land at Newark after all.

That happened to us on ou return flight from Jamaica last year, and now I think I know what that was all about -- we were on one of those planes flying with virtually no extra fuel for a contingency. This is increasingly common as airlines try to save money:

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.

There has been 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.

[snip]

Labor unions at two major airlines — American Airlines and US Airways — have filed complaints with the 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.


When you think about the kind of delays that happen at airports these days, whether due to weather, or increased air traffic, or mechanical problems, the idea that pilots are being pressured to carry only the bare minimum of fuel is downright terrifying. If your flights are in and out of a major hub like Newark, where it's a miracle there aren't more mishaps than there are, and where circling for an hour can be a routine occurrence, the idea of, say, six or seven flights reaching that critical mass of low fuel at the same time, is downright terrifying.

But this is yet another example of what happens when regulatory agencies decide that their mission is not to oversee, but to protect the industries they're charged with overseeing. This is why we have E coli in the meat, and salmonella in the jalapenos and drugs fast-tracked to the market without adequate safety studies. This is another example of what happens when you decide to make government so small you can drown it in a bathtub -- except where surveillance of Americans and sovereignty over women's bodies is concerned.

I don't think most airline pilots and flight attendants really want to play a kind of jet fuel Russian Roulette every time they go to work. And most passengers don't either.

(h/t)

Labels: ,

Posted by Jill | 10:01 PM
6 comments
Bookmark and Share
6 Comments:
Blogger D. said...
I wish I had something intelligent to say about this, but I'm too busy SCREAMING.
8/10/08 10:56 PM  
Blogger D. said...
Thanks, by the way.
8/10/08 10:57 PM  
Blogger Bob said...
Some travellers enjoy challenges - backpacking around India or driving across America in a junky car. Travelling must be best if you're rich & can buy your way out of any predicament.
8/10/08 11:56 PM  
Blogger mejokomo said...
Well, I know what they think my time is worth ($0) so I can extrapolate from there.
8/11/08 11:50 AM  
Blogger The Sailor said...
I'm a private pilot and FAA certified mechanic.

There are minimums of fuel required by the FAA, but under Bush's biz-friendly approach they have not been altered to reflect the current deteriorating conditions of reality and no company pays more than a fine even if caught busting them. It's now considered 'the cost of doing business.'

This is not a political statement, it's just the truth. (See mining deaths, FAA, EPA, etc, etc, etc.)

The pilot, by law, is responsible for the safety of every flight, even if he has to break the law to complete it safely. (Since the pilot is the first one to the scene of the accident this kinda makes sense, but it's also a Catch-22.)

I'm not sure why dispatchers have entered into this equation, except for the fact that they do the original calculations and the company has more leverage on them.

For the last 4 years I have refused to fly on commercial aviation. It's demeaning, it's inconvenient, it's not as safe as it used to be. And, if you're traveling regionally it only saves a few hours at most. (e.g. From the mid-west to southern FL takes about 16-24 hours door-to-door drive time. Flying takes; between driving to the airport, checking in, going thru 'security', waiting on the plane, actual flight time, waiting to land, getting the rental car, driving to the hotel ... takes about 12 hours door-to-door.)

The financial difference is a little harder to compute do to all the variables, the ease of mind is priceless.
8/11/08 6:02 PM  
Anonymous ShortWoman said...
Aaaaaand yet I don't see any flights cancelled because the pilots refuse to fly on low-fuel flights. Airline pilots aren't as replacable as, say, barristas or illegal immigrant produce pickers.

Something is wrong with this picture!
8/11/08 9:34 PM  
Post a Comment
<< Home