Whiners

[S5Dispatch]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/

 

[dispatchguy]

I commented to the blog; I couldve said more, but I think what I said says enough...

 

[BigFellor]

The CA's have the final say on it. We (at PSA) put on the fuel we deem necessary for the city pairs and goings on for the day (flow, weather, going to La Garbage, etc ...). I've come to find most capains like to see a certain number in their "FOD" column, and as long as its close to their number, I let it go. If you want more, call and ask. As long as I am not booting paying customers unnecessarily,I have no problem with it.

 

[propsarebest]

Some pilots are gas weenies... there is NEVER enough for them.

They all think that we are trying to kill them.

 

[shooter]

Hmmmm. I don't really know why this report was even written. I would like to know what these guys are blocking in with. If they are going into known areas of ATC delays or weather deviations that burn into the 45 min res., or 30 min + 10% for international for known problems then the flights were planned wrong. If they were burned into for unforeseen delays then that proves why the FAA deems it necessary for every flight plan we work up so whats the big deal? Fuel is not a new problem, it just seems bigger now that the costs have skyrocketed.

Do you guys think these flights are really being planned with less than what the fights require to safely operate? I seriously doubt any Dispatcher would intentionally risk their livelihood as well as the safety of every life on board the aircraft to save a few bucks due to fuel costs. And these pilots should know that. Something stinks about these complaints. Maybe it is as simple as these guys think they need to land with their reserves. Bottom line for me is if they want more fuel just ask because they do have the final say. I just ask they don't take it personal because I plan a certain load they do not like.

 

[propsarebest]

Where I work, the pile-its can go up to 10,000 lbs more than RLSF before they gotta call us. That's about ~20 minutes of flying in the 747. Most of the time the crews take the RLSF because there is no more available weight.

 

[RJAA]

This is all wrong. The very fundamental issue is that this country continues to deny money into better air transportation infrastructure so the airlines continue to spend more and more money for their inadequacy. The airlines are not in any shape to support the shortcomings of the 1960's technology for several years now since 9/11. Where and when is it going to stop? Second, conducting a flight with min fuel and safety are rarely related. What's not safe is that flights are being allowed to continue to a situation where they are running out of options. If fuel on board is not adequate enough to continue to the destination, we simply divert at that point. We will just be running a safe but crappy operation all day without any contingency fuel being added. Simple as that. So I see this as a decision making and training issue on both sides the pilot in command and the dispatcher. It mentions that a dispatcher questioning the fuel load prior to departure is somewhat of an annoyance, but sure hope the dispatcher would question the fuel remaining if a flight encounters a delay into a major airport and discuss options. Because I can already think of a few accidents where flights ran out of fuel because their focus on board was elsewhere. It's the whole point of operational control and sharing the joint responsibility. The level of safety is actually increased because of the dispatchers. It mentions none of that. Labeling the dispatchers as some sort of "Fuel Nazis" Go figure.