No AVtrip at Signature after 1/1/2012 !

[glasspilot]

Any reason you can't take the gloves off, do your work and then put new ones on? Is there some latex shortage I'm unaware of?

 

[NoJoy]

Looks like Signature is now giving out cash (check) instead of the Bonds. The program they emailed everyone looks to be better now. Now if All the Signatures would do this-even better.

 

[imacdog]

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?

All of what you said could be applied to airline frequent flyer miles and hotel status points with all the benefits they entail. You want to give those up while you're at it?

 

[glasspilot]

No, I don't. I guess I vew the Atlantic program differently as it entices me to waste the companies money. If there is a dollar differance then I have to spend an extra $100 of the companies money to pocket $5.

Hotel and airline rewards program's do not have this delema. At least not so directly...I suppose I do pine for Hilton properties and I suppose the rewards program is part of that. Mostly, I think, I just like Hilton properties. But no matter how much I beg for an HGI it's still not up to me and I don't directly benifit financially either way.


Plus, no matter how many nights I stay at any hotel I'll never be able to over gross an airplane as a result. The day I realised I'd just compromised a balanced field in ASE so the Captain could pocket a few bucks I decided the program (and Captain) blow. If he'd have asked I'd have given him my half, or paid him directly to not, ya know, put our lives at risk.


I do know that that is an example of the extreme, but I'm sure that was not the only time in history it's happened. I'll bet many a plane has also landed on fumes because the pilot min fueled going into a place with an Atlantic. Obviously the pilots are to blame when that happens but I think the rewards program is partly to blame for providing the incentive.

That's why I brought up the question of paying pilots based on amount lifted. I can easily see a cargo company tying revenue to lift and wanting to then tie pilot compensation to that lift. But that incentive structure would surely result in way over gross takeoffs and I'd imagine unions would not support that.

 

[imacdog]

Ah, so you fly with a pilot who made a crappy decision and decide it must be Atlantic's fault. How very Liberal of you. However, the unethical financial kickback argument you made does indeed apply even in situations that do not directly relate to flying the aircraft. Either it's what you believe or it's not; applying the principle to certain situations and not others simply due to personal experience does not make for a good argument.

 

[clydefastly]

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 T-bone.
It's not fair to damn the entire program because a minority of pilots don't make professional/ethical decisions. You are going to have "that guy" in every organization that will do something that makes everyone question the validity of a common practice. Instead of punishing everyone for the bad decisions of a few, use the powers of peer pressure to let that bad apple know that their behavior is unacceptable. If it is a safety concern, YOU have the responsibility of raising it to the next level. So if you flew with a guy that was doing this, and you just let it slide, you are just a guilty. If you didn't know till after the plane was fueled or after take off, you should still address this issue at an appropriate time. I don't know if you did, if so good for you, if not, you are enabling a bad practice. These aren't fighting words, just a serious discussion about the severity of our responsibility in hard situations.

 

[glasspilot]

Ah, so you fly with a pilot who made a crappy decision and decide it must be Atlantic's fault. How very Liberal of you. However, the unethical financial kickback argument you made does indeed apply even in situations that do not directly relate to flying the aircraft. Either it's what you believe or it's not; applying the principle to certain situations and not others simply due to personal experience does not make for a good argument.

Here's my post again. I bolded the part you must have missed as my response.


"No, I don't. I guess I vew the Atlantic program differently as it entices me to waste the companies money. If there is a dollar differance then I have to spend an extra $100 of the companies money to pocket $5.

Hotel and airline rewards program's do not have this delema. At least not so directly...I suppose I do pine for Hilton properties and I suppose the rewards program is part of that. Mostly, I think, I just like Hilton properties. But no matter how much I beg for an HGI it's still not up to me and I don't directly benifit financially either way.


Plus, no matter how many nights I stay at any hotel I'll never be able to over gross an airplane as a result. The day I realised I'd just compromised a balanced field in ASE so the Captain could pocket a few bucks I decided the program (and Captain) blow. If he'd have asked I'd have given him my half, or paid him directly to not, ya know, put our lives at risk.


I do know that that is an example of the extreme, but I'm sure that was not the only time in history it's happened. I'll bet many a plane has also landed on fumes because the pilot min fueled going into a place with an Atlantic. Obviously the pilots are to blame when that happens but I think the rewards program is partly to blame for providing the incentive.

That's why I brought up the question of paying pilots based on amount lifted. I can easily see a cargo company tying revenue to lift and wanting to then tie pilot compensation to that lift. But that incentive structure would surely result in way over gross takeoffs and I'd imagine unions would not support that."



Also, I'm not parsing principles. Atlantic rewards me financially for wasting company money. The others don't. That IS a good argument.

 

[clydefastly]

Also, I'm not parsing principles. Atlantic rewards me financially for wasting company money. The others don't. That IS a good argument.

You are not wasting company money if you need the fuel. And as far as I know most of the the other fuel rewards programs do award a value based on 100 gallon increments, the same as Atlantic.

 

[imacdog]

Free airline travel and hotel stays are not items of value to you? I'm not sure why you felt the need to post (again) your little rant, which does put blame on the Atlantic rewards program, does it not? Or do I need to post your rant so all can see it for the third time, maybe using another color to highlight this?

Aw hell, I might as well since you don't understand me anyway. Here it is:

Obviously the pilots are to blame when that happens but I think the rewards program is partly to blame for providing the incentive.

 

[glasspilot]

You're making yourself look bad. You should stop.