A Washington-to-Los Angeles flight by an Airbus 320 with 150 passengers burns about 29,500 pounds, or 4,300 gallons, of fuel at about $14,600. An additional 1,500 pounds, about 219 gallons, would cost about $750 more. It is costly.
Airlines are forcing pilots to fly low on fuel. Pilots and crews feel their safety is being compromised. Flying low on fuel results in emergency landings. (Is that what is behind all of these emergency landings we are seeing now?) This is because airlines have new policies designed to reduce fuel consumption. Airline labor unions are protesting safety measures by the airlines to fly lean.
FAA regulations require airliners to take off with enough fuel to reach their destination plus 45 minutes of flight.
The US Airways pilots' union took out an ad in USA Today 16 publicizing that that eight senior captains had been singled out by the company for requesting extra fuel and had been required to attend training sessions.
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. Is the airline pressuring pilots "to either not stop for fuel when needed or to carry insufficient amounts of fuel?" Bulletins from Continental's management urge pilots and flight crews to cut back on fuel, pointing out that "adding fuel indiscriminately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding."
I guess a pension isn't particularly useful if your death in an emergency landing eliminates the pension question entirely.
In this wrestling match between airlines and pilots, the question is if government regulators are going to support the pilot's need for safety or the Airline's need to cut costs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment