ASA taking over Freedom flying

[andyd]

ASA is cheaper because our completion factor and on-time performance is better than Mesa's. Also, we are actively pushing fuel conservation initiatives like Project-APU (which saves a ton of fuel, by the way). If we can keep ahead of the competition in these ways, we will get a lot of their flying.

Project APU could very well mean the difference of turning a profit this year or being in the Red along with everyone else. What's your policy on SE Taxi? Flying out of LGA the last couple of months I've seen WAAYYY too many RJ's in the conga line of 30 airplanes with BOTH engines running AND the APU door open. What a waist of $$, this isn't an observation of DCI carriers....it's everyone. The most surprising is Air Whiskey...buring up USAir's profits...and they OWN 19% of USAir, you think they'd have an incentive NOT to waist fuel? Here at mainline we usually wait to crank #2 until we're 2 or 3 for t/o, unless it's first flight of the day then a bit earlier. When I was at 9E there was the prevailing attitude of "screw it it's NWA $$, crank it up!". I would imagine (and no I haven't heard anything, just me thinking outloud) that with the economy tanking, fuel through the roof and the pronounced LACK of mergers that the DCI flying contracts are going to be tweaked (especially Skywest's)....and DAL will no longer be buying your fuel. Standby to have all the DCI flying be put up for re-bid and a new request for proposal sent out.

This is NOT a flaimbait, just trying to get some thoughtful response (yes i realize this is FI).

 

[79%N1]

You waste fuel. I never waist it.

 

[Medeco]

Project APU could very well mean the difference of turning a profit this year or being in the Red along with everyone else. What's your policy on SE Taxi? Flying out of LGA the last couple of months I've seen WAAYYY too many RJ's in the conga line of 30 airplanes with BOTH engines running AND the APU door open. What a waist of $$, this isn't an observation of DCI carriers....it's everyone. The most surprising is Air Whiskey...buring up USAir's profits...and they OWN 19% of USAir, you think they'd have an incentive NOT to waist fuel? Here at mainline we usually wait to crank #2 until we're 2 or 3 for t/o, unless it's first flight of the day then a bit earlier. When I was at 9E there was the prevailing attitude of "screw it it's NWA $$, crank it up!". I would imagine (and no I haven't heard anything, just me thinking outloud) that with the economy tanking, fuel through the roof and the pronounced LACK of mergers that the DCI flying contracts are going to be tweaked (especially Skywest's)....and DAL will no longer be buying your fuel. Standby to have all the DCI flying be put up for re-bid and a new request for proposal sent out.

This is NOT a flaimbait, just trying to get some thoughtful response (yes i realize this is FI).

What grounds would DAL have to go to Skywest and say we will no longer take fuel as a pass through cost?

Skywest Inc. has aout 12yrs left on this contract. Fuel was an issue at the time of signing.

Medeco

 

[Hovernut]

ASA getting MCO flying just doesn't make sense. You have an installed group of Comair MCO commuters who've operated the base successfully for the previous two iterations we were based there. Over/Underwing is accomplished by Comair, too. DL would get a pool of happy pilots who positive-space commute by car and the operation would yet again run like a champ.

I am glad, however, to see the ERJs go and ASA will be a much more welcome sight to my commute!

 

[Roger Dat]

Project APU could very well mean the difference of turning a profit this year or being in the Red along with everyone else. What's your policy on SE Taxi? Flying out of LGA the last couple of months I've seen WAAYYY too many RJ's in the conga line of 30 airplanes with BOTH engines running AND the APU door open. What a waist of $$, this isn't an observation of DCI carriers....it's everyone. The most surprising is Air Whiskey...buring up USAir's profits...and they OWN 19% of USAir, you think they'd have an incentive NOT to waist fuel? Here at mainline we usually wait to crank #2 until we're 2 or 3 for t/o, unless it's first flight of the day then a bit earlier. When I was at 9E there was the prevailing attitude of "screw it it's NWA $$, crank it up!". I would imagine (and no I haven't heard anything, just me thinking outloud) that with the economy tanking, fuel through the roof and the pronounced LACK of mergers that the DCI flying contracts are going to be tweaked (especially Skywest's)....and DAL will no longer be buying your fuel. Standby to have all the DCI flying be put up for re-bid and a new request for proposal sent out.

This is NOT a flaimbait, just trying to get some thoughtful response (yes i realize this is FI).

I don't really believe that. While yes Delta does purchase our fuel for us, it is surely worked in to the contract. The fact that Delta is buying all the fuel for DCI, it enables them to get it at a cheaper cost. I benefits everyone. So as far as Delta making us pay for our own fuel, I think not.

 

[andyd]

What grounds would DAL have to go to Skywest and say we will no longer take fuel as a pass through cost?

Skywest Inc. has aout 12yrs left on this contract. Fuel was an issue at the time of signing.

Medeco

I don't know but I would imagine that somewhere deep in the fine print of the contract is a provision for re-negotiation of the provisions of the contract should certain "triggers" happen, such as a national recession, runaway fuel costs, so many quarters of posting a loss on certain routes/equipment, ect. All contracts can be broken or re-worked....just depends on how to go about it or what legal wrangling needs to be done. But rest assured one thing, DAL will not continue to post losses while the DCI carriers post profits on those losses...something will give somewhere.

But back to my original question...why do I see a rediculous amount of RJ's in long taxi lines with BOTH engines running AND the apu door open???

 

[McNugent]

Some guys still have the attitude of sticking it to the man, and not caring about how much they burn. The guy I've been flying with this whole month wouldn't let me shut the APU down on the ground once, and made me start it up on decent at 10,000 ft. If ground power was available at outstations, he would specifically tell them not to hook it up. And this is even when it's nice outside. (comfortable for the passengers)

Some people have it engrained in them to be forever pissed off and think that anything to save money and move forward with our company is a management ploy to line their own pockets for money. While the later of that may be true, sometimes what's good for the company is good for us. People need to move on, realize there's nothing we are fighting against the company for now, and do the right thing.

 

[buscap]

As far as running the APU on the 50, I lean toward passenger comfort. If I have 50 pax, I'm gonna run the APU no matter what the temp is. It's a matter of air circulation. Not just temperature.

If they had jurisdiction, OSHA would not allow the CRJ 50 to operate without the APU running on the ground, based on confined space entry requirements.

Now if it's not too hot, maybe 60f or less, and I've only got 30 pax, then we can talk about not running the APU.

As far as single engine taxi, I've always done it. Except for the last three months of contract negotiations.

But hey, the company made this bed. Between crappy lines, five years of contract, schedueling screwing up our lives, and everything else that makes a pilot go BANG...I can understand why some guys are stiki'n it to the man.

Yeah they may not have a nose when their done, but I can certainly understand their motivation.

 

[McNugent]

Yeah but stiki'n it to the man may very well be stiki'n it to yourself these days.

 

[crjskipper]

mcnu - if your captain tells you to do something that is against the poh, point it out, if he tells you again to do it refuse, third time make him do it.

if the apu is started at 10,000 and catches fire or smokes up the cabin (as i had the 50 do years ago) how will you explain you were deviating from procedure.

 

[shamrock]

mcnu - if your captain tells you to do something that is against the poh, point it out, if he tells you again to do it refuse, third time make him do it.

if the apu is started at 10,000 and catches fire or smokes up the cabin (as i had the 50 do years ago) how will you explain you were deviating from procedure.

Where does the OM say that the APU isn't to be started at 10000? Starting the APU at 10 or leaving the APU running on the ground isn't against the OM. It might not be necessary or the wisest choice but it's the Captain's call and the FO trying to "make him do it" is not the answer.

 

[McNugent]

mcnu - if your captain tells you to do something that is against the poh, point it out, if he tells you again to do it refuse, third time make him do it.

if the apu is started at 10,000 and catches fire or smokes up the cabin (as i had the 50 do years ago) how will you explain you were deviating from procedure.

Well I don't think it's technically wrong to start it at the gate, leave it running for taxi, and start it again on the decent at 10. Everything on the Project APU Bulletin says "Unless conditions warrant." That leaves it pretty open ended to interpretation.

I'm all about saving money and gas, and will be as diplomatic as possible to argue my case. But in the end I'm not the captain and unless what he says specifically goes against company policy, or isn't safe I'll just bite my tongue and do it his way.

ASA has just done such a good job of screwing over the pilots in the past, that a culture has been created among the pilot group to just write off any new ideas or cost saving initiatives from management, even if they are actually good ones that will help us in the long run.

 

[shamrock]

Did you show all those other kids your ipod and hairdo? ;-)

The girls loved my bowl cut and the guys were impressed with the brand new Atari 2600 I got for Christmas. Does that count?

 

[crjskipper]

from the 200 poh, decent and approach-

9. APU and BLEEDS ....................................... Set
• Normal operations do not require the APU to be started.
• If available, the APU must be started if an approach is being conducted in icing conditions.

no longer a temperature published, ergo, no flexibility​

 

[USCtrojan]

The girls loved my bowl cut and the guys were impressed with the brand new Atari 2600 I got for Christmas. Does that count?

You bet it does! That's pretty sweet! I thought it was a Commodore 64?

Hey, at least your not banging goats catching nasty diseases in the schools like JDResquire. Then crying to the mediators because he gets his ass ripped. But hey, that's for another place. Shamrock, you da man! Or kid in this manner!

Trojan

 

[CRJ puppy]

Air Whisky's ops call for two engine taxi. To reduce cost of engine shut-down/rebuilds due to coking inside the number two engines (from SE taxi)... (now of course this procedure was created b4 $110/barrell oil, perhaps it will change?)...fyi

 

[IronCityBlue]

Air Whisky's ops call for two engine taxi. To reduce cost of engine shut-down/rebuilds due to coking inside the number two engines (from SE taxi)... (now of course this procedure was created b4 $110/barrell oil, perhaps it will change?)...fyi

That makes no sense whatsoever. So if you have a 3 hour stop and go taxi, you have to run them both to "save" the engine? Sounds someone who has no idea what they are talking about got the chance to write a policy. Gees.

 

[zawillif]

Well I don't think it's technically wrong to start it at the gate, leave it running for taxi, and start it again on the decent at 10. Everything on the Project APU Bulletin says "Unless conditions warrant." That leaves it pretty open ended to interpretation.

I'm all about saving money and gas, and will be as diplomatic as possible to argue my case. But in the end I'm not the captain and unless what he says specifically goes against company policy, or isn't safe I'll just bite my tongue and do it his way.

ASA has just done such a good job of screwing over the pilots in the past, that a culture has been created among the pilot group to just write off any new ideas or cost saving initiatives from management, even if they are actually good ones that will help us in the long run.

Amen, Nuge. Some of the crustys need to realize we are in a different time now, and a different contract. The way I look at it, every time I go D-0 and every cent of fuel I save adds a little to my bonus check. Show me the money!

 

[TOOL CRIB]

The way I see it, the APU burns 120 lbs/hr. Jet fuel weighs 6 lbs/gallon. 1 gallon = a bit over $3/gallon. Therefore the APU is burning about $1 per minute or about $60/hr. I know that's a lot more than most of us get paid. Each CRJ engine burns what, about 300-350 pph at idle? So with both running in addition to the APU, you're burning $7/minute. That's $420/hr.

 

[601Pilot]

The way I see it, the APU burns 120 lbs/hr. Jet fuel weighs 6 lbs/gallon. 1 gallon = a bit over $3/gallon. Therefore the APU is burning about $1 per minute or about $60/hr. I know that's a lot more than most of us get paid. Each CRJ engine burns what, about 300-350 pph at idle? So with both running in addition to the APU, you're burning $7/minute. That's $420/hr.

As has been noted on here, fuel is a pass thru cost for ASA. Therefore it doesn't affect our profit/profit margin or you bonus check. I almost never S/E taxi or shut-down the APU. Now if SH gets the boot later this year and we get rid of these crappy 4-day trips, then we can talk.