No AVtrip at Signature after 1/1/2012 !

[say again]

I buy what's needed, where it's needed. I don't base my fuel load on the type of rewards offered. Just an added perk.

 

[rajflyboy]

Unlike corporate, fractional jets go where the owners want, or where the mother ship dictates. Starting up and repositioning to another FBO for cheaper fuel, only to go back is more costly than higher fuel prices. I believe XO Jet has a presence at Atlantic TEB, like NJA uses First-most of the time.

Say What?

Thats BS

 

[Pervis]

Say What?

Thats BS

My point is we don't go shopping for cheap fuel when we set up for a trip. Our owners/customers sometimes prefer a "non-NJA prefered" FBO, such as Atlantic in TEB. We have no say in where we buy our fuel, although we do have the ability to change the quantity-with reasonable justification.

I regretted the phrase "Unlike corporate" after I reread my post. My assumption is corporate guys have more flexibility in where they purchase their fuel, unless the boss has a particular preference. Frac pilots don't.

 

[clydefastly]

The fact that you are buying fuel at Atlantic in TEB makes me suspect. A quick search of CAA or UVair you will significant savings going to JET or Meridian. Atlantic TEB has consistantly had the highest prices. (unless you want hanger space in the winter, then the high prices might be worth it.)

I have zero problem with ramp fees as a practice. We go to SFO and we get charged $800. Yes it sucks and is expensive but is still cheaper than taking the minimum with their crazy fuel price.

The FBO has overhead and you are using their ramp. Do not like it? Go to Oakland or fly SWA. Corporate jets are expensive.

Like I said before, I don't choose what FBO we got to, the company does. My company has some kind of deal with Atlantic for fuel pricing, as do many other companies with several FBO's. Also I believe that if an FBO (Signature) is the only place on an airport SFO, BOS, BWI, and they have extremely high prices, they are gouging their customers with high ramp fee's and min fuel purchases. I know companies have overhead, but a monopoly is a different thing, and it's bad business. JMHO

 

[glasspilot]

I buy what's needed, where it's needed. I don't base my fuel load on the type of rewards offered. Just an added perk.

I'd bet that's not true and it's certainly not true for most. The rewards even influence me and I don't participate.

Case in point, if I put in a fuel order for 190 gallons that would sort of make me a prick for screwing my FO out of an award. So if I wanted 190 I'd order 200 for the extra reward. See how that's influencing my behavior?

If you needed 500 gallons but knew 550 would top you off and double your rewards wouldn't you do it?

Anybody arguing with me here is in denial or unable to follow simple logic.

 

[Pervis]

Like I said before, I don't choose what FBO we got to, the company does. My company has some kind of deal with Atlantic for fuel pricing, as do many other companies with several FBO's. Also I believe that if an FBO (Signature) is the only place on an airport SFO, BOS, BWI, and they have extremely high prices, they are gouging their customers with high ramp fee's and min fuel purchases. I know companies have overhead, but a monopoly is a different thing, and it's bad business. JMHO

Take consolation in the fact that $hitfinger continues to destroy his current company and is losing market share. MIA is just one example.

 

[clydefastly]

It's not. But the program is designed to influence behavior. Are there times the fuel is cheaper at the Atlantic and you would have tankard anyway? Sure. I have tankard out of Atlantic before for that reason...and remember, I don't do the ABs, I give them ALL to the FO.

But Atlantic has realized that they can do better. They can get the "on the fence" pilot to up the order with their .05 / gal (really .03 or so if you account for lost or unused rewards) kick back program.

If every fuel order came from some government office of fuel planning and all pilot decisions were removed from the equation do you think the Atlantic Buck program would remain? Of course not. They may try to give their kick backs to the government employee, but pilots would be out and that's a fact.

So you see, it's clearly a kick back program designed to influence pilot behavior and the "unethical claim" is certainly defendable. I was not suggesting pilots routinely fly unsafe and out of limits as a result, my point was that it's the extreme and it DOES happen and it a direct result of Atlantics program. I I were in charge of the universe I'd shut it down. But I'm not so enjoy your kick back.


btw, what would some of you union pilots think of a pay structure for pilots that paid for gross weight lifted and didn't respect limits of the plane? Ie, if you take off over gross you're paid more? Would the union guys be behind that?

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree before this thread turns into a political bash fest. I personally don't think we need big brother approving our fuel orders, that seems really extreme to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not sure about your union comment, I'm not union, but I would guess that a union wouldn't back a plan that jeopardizes safety. JMHO

 

[CA1900]

Case in point, if I put in a fuel order for 190 gallons that would dot of make me a prick for screwing my FO out of an award.

No, keeping the single reward for yourself instead of giving it to your FO would make you a prick! :laugh:

 

[G100driver]

Like I said before, I don't choose what FBO we got to, the company does. My company has some kind of deal with Atlantic for fuel pricing, as do many other companies with several FBO's. Also I believe that if an FBO (Signature) is the only place on an airport SFO, BOS, BWI, and they have extremely high prices, they are gouging their customers with high ramp fee's and min fuel purchases. I know companies have overhead, but a monopoly is a different thing, and it's bad business. JMHO

I hear you. I realize that this is in the fractional section. I am a part 91 guy and I am responsible for chosing the FBO. I use Atlantic when they have the best price.

As for the FBO's you mentioned I would be willing to bet that the port authorities are putting the screws to Signature as well.

 

[clydefastly]

I hear you. I realize that this is in the fractional section. I am a part 91 guy and I am responsible for chosing the FBO. I use Atlantic when they have the best price.

As for the FBO's you mentioned I would be willing to bet that the port authorities are putting the screws to Signature as well.

thats probably true. I know mass port want all private aircraft to go to bed instead of bos.

 

[glasspilot]

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree before this thread turns into a political bash fest. I personally don't think we need big brother approving our fuel orders, that seems really extreme to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not sure about your union comment, I'm not union, but I would guess that a union wouldn't back a plan that jeopardizes safety. JMHO

When I said:

"If every fuel order came from some government office of fuel planning and all pilot decisions were removed from the equation do you think the Atlantic Buck program would remain? Of course not. They may try to give their kick backs to the government employee, but pilots would be out and that's a fact. "


I was in NO WAY advocating that that is what should happen or how it should be. I'm NOT suggesting the government do anything. I was making the point that if pilots had ZERO say in the fuel load then there wouldn't be an Atlantic Buck program. Read the words again. It's really obvious that's what I was saying.

It was a good point and I can't see how you thought I was suggesting a real program for the government to take over fuel planning.

 

[clydefastly]

When I said:

"If every fuel order came from some government office of fuel planning and all pilot decisions were removed from the equation do you think the Atlantic Buck program would remain? Of course not. They may try to give their kick backs to the government employee, but pilots would be out and that's a fact. "


I was in NO WAY advocating that that is what should happen or how it should be. I'm NOT suggesting the government do anything. I was making the point that if pilots had ZERO say in the fuel load then there wouldn't be an Atlantic Buck program. Read the words again. It's really obvious that's what I was saying.

It was a good point and I can't see how you thought I was suggesting a real program for the government to take over fuel planning.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I read it fast and thought thats what you would want. my bad

 

[clydefastly]

Another thought on this topic is that if fuel rewards were that unethical, that most bigger compaies (NJ, flex, flops, xo) would have put the kabosh on them and they would have gone away already.

Also, if they promoted irresponsible fuel planning and possible accidents from over fueling that the FAA would have stepped in by now.

Does anyone know of any accidents that were directly related to over fueling due to fuel rewards? Serious question.
or
Has anyone had a co-worker be reprimanded or fired for abusing fuel rewards?

 

[Hogprint]

Another thought on this topic is that if fuel rewards were that unethical, that most bigger compaies (NJ, flex, flops, xo) would have put the kabosh on them and they would have gone away already.

Also, if they promoted irresponsible fuel planning and possible accidents from over fueling that the FAA would have stepped in by now.

Does anyone know of any accidents that were directly related to over fueling due to fuel rewards? Serious question.
or
Has anyone had a co-worker be reprimanded or fired for abusing fuel rewards?

Most of the folks I fly with (including myself) never "plan" on tankering at Atlantic or Signature. If you happen to top off there and get a lot of ABucks then great if not oh-well. I'm sure it goes on though.

I did have one guy that was trying to game the system and by that I mean he wasn't just taking an extra 50 gallons but planning on taking less the leg before so we could take hundreds more at Atlantic. Needless to say I wasn't comfortable with that.

 

[glasspilot]

Another thought on this topic is that if fuel rewards were that unethical, that most bigger compaies (NJ, flex, flops, xo) would have put the kabosh on them and they would have gone away already.

Also, if they promoted irresponsible fuel planning and possible accidents from over fueling that the FAA would have stepped in by now.

Does anyone know of any accidents that were directly related to over fueling due to fuel rewards? Serious question.
or
Has anyone had a co-worker be reprimanded or fired for abusing fuel rewards?

Can't say I know of an accident directly related to an awards program.

I can't believe you're measure of ethics is if a company allows it or the FAA bans it. Ive got news for you, many companies do NOT allow it. The big fractionals have massive pilot forces (compared to a charter outfit) and have to worry about employee relations. If they tried to ban the rewards program their pilots would go nuts. Just look at the pilots here! You guys can't even admit its a kick back or that it influences fuelling decisions! That's like not admitting water is wet or there's any in the ocean.

 

[say again]

I'd bet that's not true and it's certainly not true for most. The rewards even influence me and I don't participate.

Ok, for 10 gallons yes. If another FBO has cheaper fuel then Atlantic, well, I don't let the AB persuade me to go there. I guess that is what I was trying to say. As for the rewards, the 5 pilots that fly the aircraft combine them and share the rewards. Works out much better since it's tough for one single person to cash in.

 

[t-bone]

If you're talking about the guy that tanks up on Atlantic Bucks and then is overweight for takeoff or landing, or who has to fly at a ridiculously low altitude to burn enough fuel to make landing weight, then yes you are correct in using the term unethical. But that term should be applied to the unprofessional, weak-minded pilot who allowed their fueling decision to be influenced by an outside factor, not the program itself.

If my taking an extra 10 gallons results in my coworker getting an extra buck, you can bet I'm going to take that extra 70 lbs, unless it pushes me over a limit or the fuel is more expensive than at our next destination. I don't operate so close to the limits, when given a choice, and I usually prefer to have a little extra fuel on board anyway. I don't know of any accidents that resulted from over fueling, but I do know of situations that were made worse by a lack of fuel and therefore a lack of time to fully assess the situation. I benefit from flying an airplane with phenomenal landing performance, so a few extra gallons does nothing but lower my stress levels. Taking an extra 500 gallons would certainly be excessive and borderline unethical if there wasn't any other reason than Atlantic bucks. It seems your line between a professional pilot and an unethical pilot is a pretty fine one, and doesn't leave much room for contingencies/delays that your flight plan didn't account for.

Just make your decision, stick to it, and if the FBO wants to give you a few bucks, a couple of steaks or whatever, AFTER the fact, then just be thankful and enjoy. It's pretty easy to make those decisions without outside influence if you try.

 

[say again]

If you're talking about the guy that tanks up on Atlantic Bucks and then is overweight for takeoff or landing, or who has to fly at a ridiculously low altitude to burn enough fuel to make landing weight, then yes you are correct in using the term unethical. But that term should be applied to the unprofessional, weak-minded pilot who allowed their fueling decision to be influenced by an outside factor, not the program itself.

If my taking an extra 10 gallons results in my coworker getting an extra buck, you can bet I'm going to take that extra 70 lbs, unless it pushes me over a limit or the fuel is more expensive than at our next destination. I don't operate so close to the limits, when given a choice, and I usually prefer to have a little extra fuel on board anyway. I don't know of any accidents that resulted from over fueling, but I do know of situations that were made worse by a lack of fuel and therefore a lack of time to fully assess the situation. I benefit from flying an airplane with phenomenal landing performance, so a few extra gallons does nothing but lower my stress levels. Taking an extra 500 gallons would certainly be excessive and borderline unethical if there wasn't any other reason than Atlantic bucks. It seems your line between a professional pilot and an unethical pilot is a pretty fine one, and doesn't leave much room for contingencies/delays that your flight plan didn't account for.

Just make your decision, stick to it, and if the FBO wants to give you a few bucks, a couple of steaks or whatever, AFTER the fact, then just be thankful and enjoy. It's pretty easy to make those decisions without outside influence if you try.

Exactly, well said!! :beer:

 

[rettofly]

If you're talking about the guy that tanks up on Atlantic Bucks and then is overweight for takeoff or landing, or who has to fly at a ridiculously low altitude to burn enough fuel to make landing weight, then yes you are correct in using the term unethical. But that term should be applied to the unprofessional, weak-minded pilot who allowed their fueling decision to be influenced by an outside factor, not the program itself.

If my taking an extra 10 gallons results in my coworker getting an extra buck, you can bet I'm going to take that extra 70 lbs, unless it pushes me over a limit or the fuel is more expensive than at our next destination. I don't operate so close to the limits, when given a choice, and I usually prefer to have a little extra fuel on board anyway. I don't know of any accidents that resulted from over fueling, but I do know of situations that were made worse by a lack of fuel and therefore a lack of time to fully assess the situation. I benefit from flying an airplane with phenomenal landing performance, so a few extra gallons does nothing but lower my stress levels. Taking an extra 500 gallons would certainly be excessive and borderline unethical if there wasn't any other reason than Atlantic bucks. It seems your line between a professional pilot and an unethical pilot is a pretty fine one, and doesn't leave much room for contingencies/delays that your flight plan didn't account for.

Just make your decision, stick to it, and if the FBO wants to give you a few bucks, a couple of steaks or whatever, AFTER the fact, then just be thankful and enjoy. It's pretty easy to make those decisions without outside influence if you try.

Well said! Ethical behavior is simple: Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, even if no one is watching.

 

[acaTerry]

What kind of program are they going to replace it with? Maybe it will be as good as Atlantic?

...at least Signature will change your lav in the 550/560 airframes. Atlantic won't touch it. I'd rather be able to wipe the tables and windows, vacuum, pick up the trash, get ATIS, clearance and do the FMS instead of sitting around waiting around 20 minutes for the lav to come back so I can take off the rubber gloves. It kills my turn time for that. Everything is on hold until I reinstall the lav. And then the owners see my touching their meals...lovely service at Atlantic