There's lot of buzz in the industry about customer satisfaction these days. The extreme cases are things like Kevin Smith being pulled off a Southwest flight for being too fat. I've never seen Mr. Kevin Smith in person, so I can't really say one way or another. I'm not a fan of his movies, but I don't think I'd have kicked him off the plane. I just don't see his movies.
However, I began to take more note of people around airports when they are unhappy. Every time I go to work, I ride on a plane. All day when I am at work, I am around airplanes and those that are riding on them. Every time I go home, I ride on an airplane. Things go pretty well most of the time. But, the design of the air transport system itself is not very robust. There are an incredible amount of variables, and most of them are interdependent. What does this mean? It means that if one part of the system falls apart, then a lot of other things are affected. Think Jenga, near the end of the game. This is especially true with all the harsh winter weather systems the US has been experiencing the last few months.
Most people tend to take these things in stride. They understand that shit happens and getting to your destination safely is more important that getting there on time. If you rush things with "on time" being more important than safety you might end up in a fireball on the ground. You'll be on time, but you'll be on fire. Or dead. Or both. Well, I guess there's no reason to worry about that meeting you were going to. Or anything else for that matter. Hell, you're dead! You won't even have to help clean this mess up!
What I've had a hard time understanding is those few people that, when in this situation of delays and cancellations, really blow a gasket. Now, I'm not saying that you are totally out of line for such a gasket blowing, I am just wondering where you meet a guy with a name like "gasket." Aaaaaanyways...
There are indeed some people that just fly off the handle when something goes less than perfect with their air travel plans. It's just not practical to have these expectations and then build the rest of your personal schedule around that. However, I think this flaw in passenger perceptions is one created and fueled by the advertisement industry. Every time you get on a flight you're told about "on time this" and "on time that..." Over and over. Every commercial you see on TV is never one that shows a long line at security. It never shows a newly GED'd TSA person rifling through your underwear because they felt like it. It never shows a delay. Never shows an aircraft swap. Everything is all wonderful and great in the advertising world. Who in the hell are these people that make this shit up and what are they on???
It would be a far better idea to be honest in advertising. Think about it! "Hey, welcome to PilotStig Airways. In the last 5 years, we've run about 10mins late on most of our flights. However, we haven't crashed a single damn plane! Thanks for joining us!" Let's compare that to XYZ Airline... "Ladies and Gentleman, welcome aboard XYZ Flight 1234 with service to New York LaGuardia. It's our pleasure having you on board and we hope you enjoy your flight. We are expecting an on time departure. Please think of us again when booking your next air travel experience. Here at XYZ, the most on time airline, we value your safety and comfort. Thank you for choosing to fly with us. Last year, we only crashed 2 aircraft. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight to LaGuardia."
Which company would you chose based on those two cabin announcements?
The fact is, flights get delayed and/or canceled for a lot of reasons. Weather is a common one. Mechanical problems are another. But think about it... you're buying a ticket on an airplane. You are trying to get from A to B. That's it. Transportation. That is the product that you are purchasing. Maybe it works as expected and maybe there are some let downs. Not too different then many other products you buy. Let's say, you don't like the product the airlines have to offer and you want another one. The automobile has been a phenomenal invention. It's staggering to think how much of an impact the automobile has had on the human race. How many people out there drive to work? Or drive to the store? Raise your hands. I thought so.
Driving has its issues as well. Lets say you're trying to get from Dallas to New York City. That drive will take a loooooong damn time. If you had bought an airline ticket, you will get there in one day, and spend a day there, then come home then next. 3 days. If you drive, you will be looking at at 2 days each way... 4 days in transit to spend the same 1 day in NYC. That's 5 days total for this trip, versus 3.
Airline travel is very cheap for long distances. Don't buy that? Lets just run through an example. DFW to JFK. Google Maps shows that drive taking 25 hours, covering 1,588 miles. Let's assume you drive a car that gets 24MPG. Why did I chose that number? Because I always value the word of 1980s football players when choosing what car to purchase for my family, that's why! Howie Long keeps running his pie-hole about how great the Chevy Traverse is, while cashing a very large check from GM for doing so. So, for travel time, we're now looking at 4 days of driving with 2 nights hotel stay in, say Knoxville, TN. (roughly 1/2 way) Lets look at some costs:
Gas:
1,588 miles / 24MPG = 66.16 gal @ $2.66/gal = $176.03(one way)
Hotel:
2 nights @ $100/night = $200.00
Food:
Oooooh, lets go on Rachel Ray's $40 a day for 4 days travel = $160
Oil:
You're driving 3176 miles round trip, time for an oil change! $38
What are we looking at here? $750.06 Not to mention 25 hours of your life that you will spend in a car, and never get back.
Let's say we need to do this trip next week. Prices for some airlines with taxes included are:
American: $372
Delta: $388
US Air: $389
Continental: $394
I think people default to the "I'll just drive" argument because they feel that is an option that will put them more in control. They are behind the wheel. They can go when they want, stop when they want, so on and so forth... And that's a fair point. Doesn't get you there any faster, but that sense of being in control of your own destiny does have some value to it. When you are one little part of the airline travel experience, you are one of several million passengers traveling. Not everyone can be treated like royalty.
Let's consider a different angle. When was the last time you took a long road trip? Did you hit any traffic? Did that slow you down? Did you ever miss an exit? Did you ever get lost? Have you ever had a flat tire? Did that delay your arrival time? Did you ever pull over to a gas stop and look around for something to eat, but never find anything all that good. If you did find something good to eat, did you ever stand in line for a long time trying to pay for it? Ever had shitty coffee at a gas station? One this is for sure. The bathrooms are a LOT bigger than in airplanes.
My point is, all modes of travel for long distances have their short falls. They all have their costs as well. Airlines are a steal when you are flying a distance such as the scenario we ran through here. Even with checked bag fees. You are paying very little for the service of air transportation, so keep your expectations low and take lots of deep breaths. Getting there at all is indeed more important that making damn sure the flight isn't running a single minute late.
Keep in mind also that your ticket price is paying for the multi million dollar CEO salaries. Not to mention all those bonuses, too. Also keep in mind that whats left of your ticket price after the CEOs take their cut is what pays for the aircraft, Jet A, maintenance personnel and the flight attendant and pilot salaries.
And people act shocked that a regional first officer makes less than $20,000 their first year? Please...
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Middle seat discount
I had a commute flight aboard an Airbus A319 recently. When I got my boarding pass, I saw my seat. 19E. The 19 didn't bother me. It was the E that made me feel as if I ate some bad fish. I'd be occupying the dreaded middle seat and the flight was quite full. What's more... this flight was going to be over 2 hours in duration. *sigh*
I was one of the last ones to get on, yet somehow I was able to nickel and dime enough space here and there to get my rollaboard and flight case stowed in separate locations throughout the cabin. Not ideal, but it works. I actually think it's an acquired skill. There should be a small course offered by airlines to help passengers learn, at a minimum, the basics of this skill. Even an online course would suffice. Have you ever seen a person by themselves, sitting in their seat with nothing at their feet or in their laps, yet over their heads is a HUGE DOWN JACKET taking up 2 or 3 rows worth of overhead space? These are the people that should be required to take this course prior to being allowed to purchase a ticket. If they won't take the course, they can't purchase a ticket.
When I got back to my row, I noticed that the man in the window seat was already there, but the isle seat, 19D was still open. Now, I'm not a religious or spiritual man, however, as I settled into my middle seat and fished out my seatbelt, I was hoping and praying that the person slated for 19D would be a no-show.
The wait was torture. The minutes became hours. The seat remained open. A few sparse passengers were still trickling into the cabin. They all kept taking seats before getting back to row 19. I dearly wanted to hear, "Ladies and gentleman, the forward boarding door has been closed..." I wanted to hear this more than I wanted to take my next breath. I just kept pretending to hear the closing and latching sounds of the boarding door, over and over. I didn't realize it, but my eyes were closed I was concentrating so hard.
*FLUMP!* My eyes snap open to the sound of a carry-on bag being plopped down in the seat next to me. I look to my left... He made it. Oh joy...
There was no overhead space left, so the flight attendants had to gate check his bag. As he settled in, he tried to make pleasant small talk about how he barely made the flight... I did my best to remain professional and cordial as visions of him being hit by an electric cart as he ran through the terminal filled my head.
I had actually forgotten just how shitty it can be to spend a multi-hour flight in the middle seat, between to other fully grown men. "Uncomfortable" doesn't really sum it up. Sure it's not comfortable, but there isn't even enough room to do anything to take your mind off the discomfort. I tried to work on a crossword, but it wasn't long before I maxed out on my knowledge, getting about 10 of the clues. Defeated, I stuck the crossword in the seat back pocket.
As we took to the air with 4 man-knees touching, I tried to drift off to sleep. I got a few head bobs. I tried to turn my head one way or another. Just didn't work well. Somehow, I managed to actually get a few bits of sleep and I survived the flight. My back was actually a little sore when I got off the plane. My neck was stiff, too. This is when I had an idea.
No airline is going to change the standard cabin seating layout. Just won't happen. When profit is your number one concern, you aren't going to put less seats in an aircraft. You're not going to spend money paying maintenance personnel to take the seats out either. I propose instead, on the premise of customer service, if you fly in a middle seat, with a person on either side of you, 50% of your ticket price should be refunded. There is just no reason that your experience should cost full price. However, if you knew you were getting 1/2 of your ticket price back, you'd feel like you were getting something back for your discomfort.
I think it's worth a shot.
I was one of the last ones to get on, yet somehow I was able to nickel and dime enough space here and there to get my rollaboard and flight case stowed in separate locations throughout the cabin. Not ideal, but it works. I actually think it's an acquired skill. There should be a small course offered by airlines to help passengers learn, at a minimum, the basics of this skill. Even an online course would suffice. Have you ever seen a person by themselves, sitting in their seat with nothing at their feet or in their laps, yet over their heads is a HUGE DOWN JACKET taking up 2 or 3 rows worth of overhead space? These are the people that should be required to take this course prior to being allowed to purchase a ticket. If they won't take the course, they can't purchase a ticket.
When I got back to my row, I noticed that the man in the window seat was already there, but the isle seat, 19D was still open. Now, I'm not a religious or spiritual man, however, as I settled into my middle seat and fished out my seatbelt, I was hoping and praying that the person slated for 19D would be a no-show.
The wait was torture. The minutes became hours. The seat remained open. A few sparse passengers were still trickling into the cabin. They all kept taking seats before getting back to row 19. I dearly wanted to hear, "Ladies and gentleman, the forward boarding door has been closed..." I wanted to hear this more than I wanted to take my next breath. I just kept pretending to hear the closing and latching sounds of the boarding door, over and over. I didn't realize it, but my eyes were closed I was concentrating so hard.
*FLUMP!* My eyes snap open to the sound of a carry-on bag being plopped down in the seat next to me. I look to my left... He made it. Oh joy...
There was no overhead space left, so the flight attendants had to gate check his bag. As he settled in, he tried to make pleasant small talk about how he barely made the flight... I did my best to remain professional and cordial as visions of him being hit by an electric cart as he ran through the terminal filled my head.
I had actually forgotten just how shitty it can be to spend a multi-hour flight in the middle seat, between to other fully grown men. "Uncomfortable" doesn't really sum it up. Sure it's not comfortable, but there isn't even enough room to do anything to take your mind off the discomfort. I tried to work on a crossword, but it wasn't long before I maxed out on my knowledge, getting about 10 of the clues. Defeated, I stuck the crossword in the seat back pocket.
As we took to the air with 4 man-knees touching, I tried to drift off to sleep. I got a few head bobs. I tried to turn my head one way or another. Just didn't work well. Somehow, I managed to actually get a few bits of sleep and I survived the flight. My back was actually a little sore when I got off the plane. My neck was stiff, too. This is when I had an idea.
No airline is going to change the standard cabin seating layout. Just won't happen. When profit is your number one concern, you aren't going to put less seats in an aircraft. You're not going to spend money paying maintenance personnel to take the seats out either. I propose instead, on the premise of customer service, if you fly in a middle seat, with a person on either side of you, 50% of your ticket price should be refunded. There is just no reason that your experience should cost full price. However, if you knew you were getting 1/2 of your ticket price back, you'd feel like you were getting something back for your discomfort.
I think it's worth a shot.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Replacing pilots with computers?
One of the notions that has been tossed around for a long time now is the idea of replacing pilots all together with computers. I know the airlines would LOVE this since computers don't need rest, paychecks, retirement, or health insurance. Ahem... Skywest... Sure, you have to buy it and maintain it, but I'm sure they can find someone to build the computers for less than they pay flight crews.
The primary reason talked about with this idea is safety. Now, I'm all for safety and it is generally believed that half of all airplane crashes are due to pilot error. OK, fair point. So, the idea is that if you replace the pilots, you will then reduce the number of aircraft accidents by half. Sounds great! After all, even a single aircraft crash is too many. I think we'd all love to find a way to halve the number of airplane crashes.
However, replacing the pilots will NOT halve the number of crashes. You might be indeed removing pilot error, however, there's something HUGE that is being ignored with this idea. Everyday, countless auto-pilot errors are caught and handled by real live pilots who fly airplanes for a living. I couldn't tell you how many times when everything is going along fine, then the computer decides to do something retarded. It's the pilot's job to catch that error and fix it, or even take over and manually fly the aircraft should there be a threat to safety. This happens a lot more than you might expect.
Is it scary? No, not really. That is our job. We see these computers day in and day out. It's our job to take over from the auto pilot when it doesn't do what we are wanting it to do. I would imagine that most pilots reading this who fly "glass" cockpit aircraft are saying, "Yeah, I can never turn my back on that damn thing!"
For the record, "Automation" is a word that is very much misunderstood in a flightdeck sense. I'm currently working on a post called "What is an auto-pilot, anyways?" The short of it is, the computer doesn't just take over and do everything while the pilots work on their laptops. Auto-pilots do serve as a great work reduction tool, but they are not what most people think they are. Think about it this way: Cruise control is a nice feature in your car, right? However, when you turn on, do you just hop in the back seat and take a nap while the car drives itself to your destination?
The day I will support a fully autonomous airliner carrying passengers is when the inaugural flight is filled exclusively with airline CEOs, Vice Presidents, and Chief Pilots. That's what I call a win win. If the technology is truly up for the job, they should have no problem getting on the plane themselves to demonstrate their trust in it. And, if it's not up the job, well, the industry will be better off.
The primary reason talked about with this idea is safety. Now, I'm all for safety and it is generally believed that half of all airplane crashes are due to pilot error. OK, fair point. So, the idea is that if you replace the pilots, you will then reduce the number of aircraft accidents by half. Sounds great! After all, even a single aircraft crash is too many. I think we'd all love to find a way to halve the number of airplane crashes.
However, replacing the pilots will NOT halve the number of crashes. You might be indeed removing pilot error, however, there's something HUGE that is being ignored with this idea. Everyday, countless auto-pilot errors are caught and handled by real live pilots who fly airplanes for a living. I couldn't tell you how many times when everything is going along fine, then the computer decides to do something retarded. It's the pilot's job to catch that error and fix it, or even take over and manually fly the aircraft should there be a threat to safety. This happens a lot more than you might expect.
Is it scary? No, not really. That is our job. We see these computers day in and day out. It's our job to take over from the auto pilot when it doesn't do what we are wanting it to do. I would imagine that most pilots reading this who fly "glass" cockpit aircraft are saying, "Yeah, I can never turn my back on that damn thing!"
For the record, "Automation" is a word that is very much misunderstood in a flightdeck sense. I'm currently working on a post called "What is an auto-pilot, anyways?" The short of it is, the computer doesn't just take over and do everything while the pilots work on their laptops. Auto-pilots do serve as a great work reduction tool, but they are not what most people think they are. Think about it this way: Cruise control is a nice feature in your car, right? However, when you turn on, do you just hop in the back seat and take a nap while the car drives itself to your destination?
The day I will support a fully autonomous airliner carrying passengers is when the inaugural flight is filled exclusively with airline CEOs, Vice Presidents, and Chief Pilots. That's what I call a win win. If the technology is truly up for the job, they should have no problem getting on the plane themselves to demonstrate their trust in it. And, if it's not up the job, well, the industry will be better off.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Accountable but not Paid
Imagine, for a moment that you're at the airport. You were going to be taking a late night flight home to visit your folks. However, tonight, you now find yourself standing next to a podium at a gate. Everyone is looking at you. The gate agent is handing you a pile a papers and opening the door for you to walk down to the aircraft. You have no idea what is going on. As you reach out to take the papers, you notice stripes on your sleeve. You are the pilot. See all those people around the gate? They were your fellow passengers. You are now their Captain. They are now your passengers. You are now in charge of the safe operation of an aircraft transporting all those people to their destination. As you walk the door to the jetway, you catch a glimpse of your reflection in the glass and your heart sinks. "They made me wear the damn hat, too."
You get down to the aircraft early to start the long list of preflight items. Something isn't as it's supposed to be. You now have a maintenance issue. The delay begins. The gate agent is pissed because she wants to board the passengers. Why is she pissed? Because if the flight goes out late, and she can't put down that someone else caused it to be late, she gets chewed out by her boss. So, when maintenance finally calls operations and tells them the fix will take a while and not to board passengers, the gate agent calms down. This is classic. It just shows that they don't actually give a flying crap if the flight actually goes out on time or not. They are ONLY focused on not having any fingers pointed at them for it. Since this is officially a maintenance delay now, they are no longer under threat of discipline from their superiors and they become pleasant again.
Now comes something everyone hates. And aircraft change. Since it will take some time to get your original aircraft fixed and there is another aircraft open, operations has decided you will take that one instead. OK, no problem.
You gather all your things and walk down to the new gate. It all starts over again. All the paperwork you had is now useless. All the preflight checks you did before, are all to be started again on the new aircraft. You step aboard the new aircraft and what do you find? Maintenance is already here! Yes, the plane came in with it's own issues and they are trying to get that plane fixed for you to take. You get the feeling that it's going to be, "one of those days."
Rampies begin to unload the passenger bags from the first aircraft and then reload them on the new aircraft. They hate doing the same work twice. I don't really blame them. It's cold outside and I wouldn't like it either.
Now, while your Flight Attendants are now going through all their preflight checks again, making sure the emergency items are there, and getting the cabin cleaned up and straightened up, your first officer is walking around the outside of the aircraft. Your crew is trying to get the flight going to get the passengers where they are going.
Then, a rampy comes up to the flight deck asking if you have the bag count form from the other aircraft. You explain to them, "No, we are not allowed to keep any of the old paperwork." Why is this? Well, with the delay some people choose not to take the flight or try to get listed on other flights on other carriers. Their bags will be pulled off. Also, since the flight is going out later now, there might be some people that will now making the flight from a late inbound connection. Those bags will be added. Either way, both scenarios are very real and that means the bag count will not necessarily be exactly the same for the new aircraft.
Then, all the passengers start boarding. The gate agent hands you a HUGE pile of papers that you and the first officer are now trying to sort through. The flight plan, weight and balance information, performance data, must all be reentered into the aircraft computers. Then, a different rampy comes up to the flight deck with a question. "Do you guys have the bag count from before?" You have more than a few things to do, and you're annoyed that you are being re-asked the same question from just a few minutes ago. After all, they should KNOW that you can't keep any of the old paperwork. You get the feeling they just didn't do their job and recount the bags. However, you maintain a professional attitude and restate once again that you do not have the bag count from before as you are not allowed to keep anything from the old aircraft.
You continue to work and get everything set for flight. Passengers are all aboard now, you get a new fueling slip, you get additional weather information from the gate agent and you start on the long checklists to verify everything is ready and set up for the flight. This is now when the THIRD rampy comes up to the flight deck and says words you just can't believe. "Do you guys have the bag count from before?" NO, damnit! We don't keep anything! We aren't allowed to keep anything!! Do your god damn job!! In the time you keep talking with each other, and repeatedly asking us if we have the old one, you could have just recounted all the damn bags and been done anyways!
No, I didn't actually say that. But, I can't describe how much I wanted to.
Added: THIS could be what happens if the ground crew and the flight crew don't resolve differences in paperwork concerning bags/cargo.
You take a few deep breaths and continue. The flight attendants inform you that all the galley carts are still on the old plane and have not been transferred to this aircraft. So, you call operations. They inform you that the catering people who had placed all the necessary carts on the first aircraft have now gone home for the night. So, we say, "It's only four gates away. Can't you get a couple of operations folks to wheel them through the terminal and get them on here so we can go?" The answer you are then given is, "Uhhh... yeah... I guess we could do that..." Wow. You're not only the person with the most to do, but you appear to be one of the only people without an Inter-Rectal Cranial condition, or IRCC.
Then, while in the middle of getting all of the paperwork sorted, you catch something. Remember how maintenance was already on board when you got to this new aircraft? Well, they were not able to "fix" the issue, but it wasn't something critical to safety or anything, so the system is just disconnected and then "deferred." This is by no means abnormal, so no big deal. However, this deferral needs to be reflected in the new paperwork. (Depending on the system being deferred, there can be operational and performance considerations that need to be accounted for.) You double check the new paperwork. Nope. It's not there. So, you have to scrap all that new paperwork now and tell the gate agent you need new paperwork. You start to think, "Will this ever end??"
As pilots we are responsible for safe operation of an aircraft. We are responsible for the safe transportation of all the passengers wanting to take this flight. The most annoying part is that we are responsible for everyone else's work as well. It doesn't matter how much of a crap storm is going on with all the other things going on, if other people screw up their job and we don't catch it, it's our fault. When things are running late, everyone is push push push push on the crew, trying to get the flight out. However, it's IMPERATIVE in times like this for the crew to not get rushed, not get emotional and just slow down to make sure they don't miss anything. This is the job I signed up for, so this isn't a revelation.
However, this particular evening, something else dawned on me. During this whole circus, everyone was on the clock, but the flight crew. Hmmmm...... Those who are ultimately responsible for everyone else's job, are the only ones not being paid. The rampies were on the clock, even though they didn't want to redo the bag count. The gate agent trying to push and get us out (which is really at odds with us being able to slow down and catch everyone else's errors) was on the clock as well. The operations people who decided on having us swap aircraft were on the clock. The fuelers were on the clock. Everyone else involved in the whole effort was on the clock. Yet, until the door was closed and the parking brake was released for pushback, the flight crew (including the flight attendants!) were not being paid!!
Doesn't sound quite right, does it?
You get down to the aircraft early to start the long list of preflight items. Something isn't as it's supposed to be. You now have a maintenance issue. The delay begins. The gate agent is pissed because she wants to board the passengers. Why is she pissed? Because if the flight goes out late, and she can't put down that someone else caused it to be late, she gets chewed out by her boss. So, when maintenance finally calls operations and tells them the fix will take a while and not to board passengers, the gate agent calms down. This is classic. It just shows that they don't actually give a flying crap if the flight actually goes out on time or not. They are ONLY focused on not having any fingers pointed at them for it. Since this is officially a maintenance delay now, they are no longer under threat of discipline from their superiors and they become pleasant again.
Now comes something everyone hates. And aircraft change. Since it will take some time to get your original aircraft fixed and there is another aircraft open, operations has decided you will take that one instead. OK, no problem.
You gather all your things and walk down to the new gate. It all starts over again. All the paperwork you had is now useless. All the preflight checks you did before, are all to be started again on the new aircraft. You step aboard the new aircraft and what do you find? Maintenance is already here! Yes, the plane came in with it's own issues and they are trying to get that plane fixed for you to take. You get the feeling that it's going to be, "one of those days."
Rampies begin to unload the passenger bags from the first aircraft and then reload them on the new aircraft. They hate doing the same work twice. I don't really blame them. It's cold outside and I wouldn't like it either.
Now, while your Flight Attendants are now going through all their preflight checks again, making sure the emergency items are there, and getting the cabin cleaned up and straightened up, your first officer is walking around the outside of the aircraft. Your crew is trying to get the flight going to get the passengers where they are going.
Then, a rampy comes up to the flight deck asking if you have the bag count form from the other aircraft. You explain to them, "No, we are not allowed to keep any of the old paperwork." Why is this? Well, with the delay some people choose not to take the flight or try to get listed on other flights on other carriers. Their bags will be pulled off. Also, since the flight is going out later now, there might be some people that will now making the flight from a late inbound connection. Those bags will be added. Either way, both scenarios are very real and that means the bag count will not necessarily be exactly the same for the new aircraft.
Then, all the passengers start boarding. The gate agent hands you a HUGE pile of papers that you and the first officer are now trying to sort through. The flight plan, weight and balance information, performance data, must all be reentered into the aircraft computers. Then, a different rampy comes up to the flight deck with a question. "Do you guys have the bag count from before?" You have more than a few things to do, and you're annoyed that you are being re-asked the same question from just a few minutes ago. After all, they should KNOW that you can't keep any of the old paperwork. You get the feeling they just didn't do their job and recount the bags. However, you maintain a professional attitude and restate once again that you do not have the bag count from before as you are not allowed to keep anything from the old aircraft.
You continue to work and get everything set for flight. Passengers are all aboard now, you get a new fueling slip, you get additional weather information from the gate agent and you start on the long checklists to verify everything is ready and set up for the flight. This is now when the THIRD rampy comes up to the flight deck and says words you just can't believe. "Do you guys have the bag count from before?" NO, damnit! We don't keep anything! We aren't allowed to keep anything!! Do your god damn job!! In the time you keep talking with each other, and repeatedly asking us if we have the old one, you could have just recounted all the damn bags and been done anyways!
No, I didn't actually say that. But, I can't describe how much I wanted to.
Added: THIS could be what happens if the ground crew and the flight crew don't resolve differences in paperwork concerning bags/cargo.
You take a few deep breaths and continue. The flight attendants inform you that all the galley carts are still on the old plane and have not been transferred to this aircraft. So, you call operations. They inform you that the catering people who had placed all the necessary carts on the first aircraft have now gone home for the night. So, we say, "It's only four gates away. Can't you get a couple of operations folks to wheel them through the terminal and get them on here so we can go?" The answer you are then given is, "Uhhh... yeah... I guess we could do that..." Wow. You're not only the person with the most to do, but you appear to be one of the only people without an Inter-Rectal Cranial condition, or IRCC.
Then, while in the middle of getting all of the paperwork sorted, you catch something. Remember how maintenance was already on board when you got to this new aircraft? Well, they were not able to "fix" the issue, but it wasn't something critical to safety or anything, so the system is just disconnected and then "deferred." This is by no means abnormal, so no big deal. However, this deferral needs to be reflected in the new paperwork. (Depending on the system being deferred, there can be operational and performance considerations that need to be accounted for.) You double check the new paperwork. Nope. It's not there. So, you have to scrap all that new paperwork now and tell the gate agent you need new paperwork. You start to think, "Will this ever end??"
As pilots we are responsible for safe operation of an aircraft. We are responsible for the safe transportation of all the passengers wanting to take this flight. The most annoying part is that we are responsible for everyone else's work as well. It doesn't matter how much of a crap storm is going on with all the other things going on, if other people screw up their job and we don't catch it, it's our fault. When things are running late, everyone is push push push push on the crew, trying to get the flight out. However, it's IMPERATIVE in times like this for the crew to not get rushed, not get emotional and just slow down to make sure they don't miss anything. This is the job I signed up for, so this isn't a revelation.
However, this particular evening, something else dawned on me. During this whole circus, everyone was on the clock, but the flight crew. Hmmmm...... Those who are ultimately responsible for everyone else's job, are the only ones not being paid. The rampies were on the clock, even though they didn't want to redo the bag count. The gate agent trying to push and get us out (which is really at odds with us being able to slow down and catch everyone else's errors) was on the clock as well. The operations people who decided on having us swap aircraft were on the clock. The fuelers were on the clock. Everyone else involved in the whole effort was on the clock. Yet, until the door was closed and the parking brake was released for pushback, the flight crew (including the flight attendants!) were not being paid!!
Doesn't sound quite right, does it?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Good airport resources
Here's a few great resources for you travelers out there.
http://www.airportterminalmaps.com/
I see countless passengers who haven't a clue on how to get around an airport that they are in. Being a pilot, when I ever fly into a new area, I always take the time to learn the airport layout, services and frequencies. Works well to minimize confusion. I highly suggest passengers do the same. This site gives terminal maps for all major air carrier terminals in the US.
http://www.travelpost.com/airport-wireless-internet.aspx
We indeed live in a wireless society anymore. Most airports have wifi internet access. Some want you to pay, while others provide it for free. Can I keep track of what airport has what? Not a chance. Here's an extremely comprehensive list of all domestic airports and their wifi services.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/waittime.shtm
Isn't it awesome to show up 3 hours early, only to sit at the gate waiting for about 2.5 hours? I'm always a fan of being early rather than late, but here's a good place to see what TSA wait times are at various airports. Of course, this information is being provided by the TSA, so please accompany usage with a grain of salt. (Note: this page on the TSA site is currently under construction.)
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
Here is the place I direct people to in order to stay up to speed with the latest (and greatest) TSA regulations for what is allowed and not allowed through an airport security checkpoint. This site is from the TSA people themselves, so it's as good as we can hope to get for what they will actually allow or not allow. This site even shows what items are allowed in carry on luggage versus checked bags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Stool_Scale
Ever wonder what your poo is trying to tell you? Are you constipated? This simple chart will help you categorize just what kinds of poo's your having! An invaluable resource!
Got any other good resources you'd recommend? Send em in!
http://www.airportterminalmaps.com/
I see countless passengers who haven't a clue on how to get around an airport that they are in. Being a pilot, when I ever fly into a new area, I always take the time to learn the airport layout, services and frequencies. Works well to minimize confusion. I highly suggest passengers do the same. This site gives terminal maps for all major air carrier terminals in the US.
http://www.travelpost.com/airport-wireless-internet.aspx
We indeed live in a wireless society anymore. Most airports have wifi internet access. Some want you to pay, while others provide it for free. Can I keep track of what airport has what? Not a chance. Here's an extremely comprehensive list of all domestic airports and their wifi services.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/waittime.shtm
Isn't it awesome to show up 3 hours early, only to sit at the gate waiting for about 2.5 hours? I'm always a fan of being early rather than late, but here's a good place to see what TSA wait times are at various airports. Of course, this information is being provided by the TSA, so please accompany usage with a grain of salt. (Note: this page on the TSA site is currently under construction.)
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
Here is the place I direct people to in order to stay up to speed with the latest (and greatest) TSA regulations for what is allowed and not allowed through an airport security checkpoint. This site is from the TSA people themselves, so it's as good as we can hope to get for what they will actually allow or not allow. This site even shows what items are allowed in carry on luggage versus checked bags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Stool_Scale
Ever wonder what your poo is trying to tell you? Are you constipated? This simple chart will help you categorize just what kinds of poo's your having! An invaluable resource!
Got any other good resources you'd recommend? Send em in!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
More TSA issues
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583739,00.html
I don't even really know where to begin on this one... The one thing I am very happy about is that this douche nozzle was fired from the TSA for his "joke." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good joke, but this was completely out of line and unprofessional. Just even more proof that the TSA really needs to elevate their hiring and training standards.
I don't even really know where to begin on this one... The one thing I am very happy about is that this douche nozzle was fired from the TSA for his "joke." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good joke, but this was completely out of line and unprofessional. Just even more proof that the TSA really needs to elevate their hiring and training standards.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Perspectives
US Airways Express runs off the end of runway in Charlotte, WV.
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201001190526
Some of you may have seen this in the news, however it didn't get all that much attention. I'm quite shocked by this considering that lately you can't fart on an aircraft without 7 news reporters there to cover the action.
"Roger Fuddlebottom here, at the center of the blast scene! I can't tell if the tandori chicken was to blame or perhaps the beef and cheese enchilada. But, it sure smells like ass! Back to you in the studio!"
"Thank you, Roger, for that epic report. Stay tuned for more details as this flatulation terror story unfolds, here on Browneye Witness News."
So, in case you hadn't heard, there was a regional jet (CRJ200) that aborted a take off down in West Virgina. Based on what was written in the above article, no one was hurt. The article isn't bad, however, it only addressed what the passengers experienced. I suppose, that's what most people are looking for anyways in such stories. If everyone lived and no one was hurt, everything must be OK.
From a pilot's perspective, however, we don't yet know if this crew indeed acted correctly. We can say that they didn't screw the pooch. No passengers were hurt or killed. However, they still may have gotten it wrong.
Allow me to explain...
There are two key questions that come about in this case after, "Is everyone OK?"
1.) At what speed was the abort initiated?
2.) What caused the abort?
The first one might not seem to be very relevant to the average person. However, to a pilot, this is extremely important. Perhaps, even more important than even what caused the abort. Like many times before, it will take some time to get there.
First, there are certain speeds that are calculated for each and every take off in the airline world. These are:
V1: Action speed (recently renamed from "decision speed")
Vr: Rotation speed
and
V2: Take off safety speed
In the interest of full disclosure, these are spoken as, "Vee-won", "Vee-Arr" and "Vee-too." V1 is almost always less than Vr, however V1 and Vr can be equal. V1 can never be greater than Vr. V2 is always greater than both V1 and Vr.
A standard take off goes as follows: Accelerate down the runway, reach V1, then Vr. At Vr, begin to pull back on the yoke and raise the nose off the runway, followed by the main gear and you're on your way. You continue to climb while retracting the gear and flaps, etc. That's the basic idea.
Now, V1 is the key here. If you haven't yet reached this speed and a serious malfunction were to occur, the take off can be safely aborted and the aircraft stopped on the remaining runway. (Note: clearways can legally be used here but that's beyond the scope of this post.) If you have accelerated past V1, the take off roll will be continued and the aircraft will be able to continue accelerating to V2, then rotate and leave the ground with the remaining runway, clearing all obstacles, etc, etc. The big point is that after V1, you might not have enough runway to decelerate the aircraft to a stop should you attempt an abort.
This is why runways seem to be longer than needed. With all engines operating, you will have plenty of runway for take off. BUT, the regulations state that you must have enough runway so that you can still safely take off if you lose an engine after reaching V1. Ever hear of an aircraft being "weight restricted?" This doesn't mean that just the weight of a few more passengers will make the aircraft too heavy to fly. It means that the aircraft, at it's current weight, will not meet the accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distance requirements for the given runway and atmospheric conditions should an engine fail at V1.
Now, as many of you know, the FAA seems to be stuck in the past sometimes. (Don't believe me? Take the ATP written exam and see all the questions that mention the DC-3.) The regulations I'm talking about here are based on the worst case scenario being an engine failure at V1. Back in the days of piston powered airliners, this was something that occurred from time to time. It still does occur today, but with extreme rarity. Under part 121, a departing aircraft must be capable of accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and then safely continue the take off with the remaining runway. This is all calculated based on the specific runway to be used, any upslope or downslope to that runway, runways surface conditions, terrain and obstacles (i.e. trees or cell towers) the current wind, temperature and barometric pressure, as well as the specific weight and balance state of the aircraft. (This is why you are asked to be in your assigned seat for take off and landing.)
All these parameters are calculated via a computer program by an airline dispatcher for each aircraft, every time it goes to take off. Ever wonder why the runways are so damn long in places like Dallas? Hot weather lowers engine performance. How about Denver? Higher altitude, hence lower atmospheric pressure, also lowers engine performance. Longer take off rolls are needed and expected.
The general accepted guidance these days is that if you haven't reached 80 knots yet, an abort will be initiated for pretty much anything. (This is considered a low speed abort.) For speeds above 80 knots but below V1, an abort will be initiated for critical things such as, an engine fire, an engine failure, lost of directional control or serious control malfunction. Once you've accelerated past V1, you will be going flying. If something goes wrong after that, you'll likely be coming right back around for an immediate and emergency landing.
The real bastard is when you're accelerating for take off and you're juuuuust about at V1. Lets say that's when the malfunction occurs. Keep in mind it takes a second or two, to process what the malfunction is and what it means. This brings us to that second question. What caused the abort to be made? If all we had to worry about was an engine failure the stay or go decision would be fairly easy. However, the systems on today's jets are far more complex than the regulations would have you believe. This means more caution and/or warning messages can be thrown in the crews faces.
Nearly all malfunctions, including engine failures, that occur at V1 or after, are best handled by taking the aircraft into the air, and either addressing it in flight (where you won't hit things like trees, buildings and mountains) and/or bringing the aircraft in for an immediate landing. High speed aborts are very dangerous. More people have been hurt/killed during high speed aborts than from crashes that occurred after the plane was airborne.
In fairness, I said "nearly" in the last paragraph because there are some malfunctions that do warrant a high speed abort. The trouble is, this must be a SPLIT SECOND decision made by the crew. The closer you are to V1, the more time critical the crew's reaction. Sound tough? You damn skippy! Some people might say it's better to always abort and stay on the ground. After all, it sounds safer and doesn't conjure up horror movie scenes of airliners falling out of the sky on a dark and stormy night. Let me give you an example of why this, as a general practice, is not a good idea.
We're on the runway and the take off roll is underway. The aircraft accelerates past 80 knots and continues to accelerate, all is normal. Just about at V1, there is a caution or warning indication. Some kind of BEEP or DING is heard and flashing yellow or red lights are seen. Lets say the crew pulls the power back and stamps on the brakes. Doesn't sound too bad, right? Now, let's say that warning was for a brake system malfunction.
To continue the take off would be a complete and total non-event. The aircraft would take off just fine and be fully controllable. Then, the aircraft could be landed back at the departure airport, on the longest runway available, or even landed at another airport with even longer runways. Perhaps after getting into the air and running a checklist or two, the brake system can be brought back on line, at least to some extent, facilitating a normal landing. The point is, there are several options available with this course of action.
Aborting the take off in this case, you are now tasked with trying decelerate an aircraft traveling at 150 MPH or more, on the remaining runway, with a compromised braking system. Since the regulations are really only considering an engine failure, the stopping distance calculations are assuming a fully functioning braking system. In this case, the aircraft will very likely be stopping well beyond that.
To argue both sides of the equation, lets say that after V1, the flight controls freeze. In this case, yes, it is better to abort the take off. You are past V1, however, without directional control of the aircraft, it won't fly very well. You will probably run off the end of the runway trying to get it airborne. But at least you will do it at 40 knots, rather than 140 knots.
I must say, I'm quite pleased that the passengers quoted in the article have an appreciation for the split second decision making that is required by a flight crew in such a scenario. It is true that there were no injuries or deaths. So, it's hard for the media to say this crew was in the wrong. The outcome was a positive one.
However, if the abort was made for something silly, then really, the actions of the crew were incorrect. If the warning was for something non critical, the crew should have continued the take off. By aborting the take off, the aircraft was damaged and the runway was closed until the aircraft could be removed. Worse yet, if during the investigation, the abort was determined to have been initiated
after V1 was reached, it would be very hard for the crew to talk their way out of disciplinary action by the company and the FAA.
So, we don't have enough information yet to tell if this crew really got it right or not. We shall just have to wait and see what other facts emerge. And, just in case you were wondering, I am indeed hoping they got it right.
A pilot's job might seem filled with repetition. However, any one of those 1000s and 1000s of flights could be very different from the others. Flight after flight, month after month, year after year, pilots can't let their guard down. This was brilliantly expressed by Deborah Hersman of the NTSB when she recently said, "You never know on which flight your career will be judged."
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201001190526
Some of you may have seen this in the news, however it didn't get all that much attention. I'm quite shocked by this considering that lately you can't fart on an aircraft without 7 news reporters there to cover the action.
"Roger Fuddlebottom here, at the center of the blast scene! I can't tell if the tandori chicken was to blame or perhaps the beef and cheese enchilada. But, it sure smells like ass! Back to you in the studio!"
"Thank you, Roger, for that epic report. Stay tuned for more details as this flatulation terror story unfolds, here on Browneye Witness News."
So, in case you hadn't heard, there was a regional jet (CRJ200) that aborted a take off down in West Virgina. Based on what was written in the above article, no one was hurt. The article isn't bad, however, it only addressed what the passengers experienced. I suppose, that's what most people are looking for anyways in such stories. If everyone lived and no one was hurt, everything must be OK.
From a pilot's perspective, however, we don't yet know if this crew indeed acted correctly. We can say that they didn't screw the pooch. No passengers were hurt or killed. However, they still may have gotten it wrong.
Allow me to explain...
There are two key questions that come about in this case after, "Is everyone OK?"
1.) At what speed was the abort initiated?
2.) What caused the abort?
The first one might not seem to be very relevant to the average person. However, to a pilot, this is extremely important. Perhaps, even more important than even what caused the abort. Like many times before, it will take some time to get there.
First, there are certain speeds that are calculated for each and every take off in the airline world. These are:
V1: Action speed (recently renamed from "decision speed")
Vr: Rotation speed
and
V2: Take off safety speed
In the interest of full disclosure, these are spoken as, "Vee-won", "Vee-Arr" and "Vee-too." V1 is almost always less than Vr, however V1 and Vr can be equal. V1 can never be greater than Vr. V2 is always greater than both V1 and Vr.
A standard take off goes as follows: Accelerate down the runway, reach V1, then Vr. At Vr, begin to pull back on the yoke and raise the nose off the runway, followed by the main gear and you're on your way. You continue to climb while retracting the gear and flaps, etc. That's the basic idea.
Now, V1 is the key here. If you haven't yet reached this speed and a serious malfunction were to occur, the take off can be safely aborted and the aircraft stopped on the remaining runway. (Note: clearways can legally be used here but that's beyond the scope of this post.) If you have accelerated past V1, the take off roll will be continued and the aircraft will be able to continue accelerating to V2, then rotate and leave the ground with the remaining runway, clearing all obstacles, etc, etc. The big point is that after V1, you might not have enough runway to decelerate the aircraft to a stop should you attempt an abort.
This is why runways seem to be longer than needed. With all engines operating, you will have plenty of runway for take off. BUT, the regulations state that you must have enough runway so that you can still safely take off if you lose an engine after reaching V1. Ever hear of an aircraft being "weight restricted?" This doesn't mean that just the weight of a few more passengers will make the aircraft too heavy to fly. It means that the aircraft, at it's current weight, will not meet the accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distance requirements for the given runway and atmospheric conditions should an engine fail at V1.
Now, as many of you know, the FAA seems to be stuck in the past sometimes. (Don't believe me? Take the ATP written exam and see all the questions that mention the DC-3.) The regulations I'm talking about here are based on the worst case scenario being an engine failure at V1. Back in the days of piston powered airliners, this was something that occurred from time to time. It still does occur today, but with extreme rarity. Under part 121, a departing aircraft must be capable of accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and then safely continue the take off with the remaining runway. This is all calculated based on the specific runway to be used, any upslope or downslope to that runway, runways surface conditions, terrain and obstacles (i.e. trees or cell towers) the current wind, temperature and barometric pressure, as well as the specific weight and balance state of the aircraft. (This is why you are asked to be in your assigned seat for take off and landing.)
All these parameters are calculated via a computer program by an airline dispatcher for each aircraft, every time it goes to take off. Ever wonder why the runways are so damn long in places like Dallas? Hot weather lowers engine performance. How about Denver? Higher altitude, hence lower atmospheric pressure, also lowers engine performance. Longer take off rolls are needed and expected.
The general accepted guidance these days is that if you haven't reached 80 knots yet, an abort will be initiated for pretty much anything. (This is considered a low speed abort.) For speeds above 80 knots but below V1, an abort will be initiated for critical things such as, an engine fire, an engine failure, lost of directional control or serious control malfunction. Once you've accelerated past V1, you will be going flying. If something goes wrong after that, you'll likely be coming right back around for an immediate and emergency landing.
The real bastard is when you're accelerating for take off and you're juuuuust about at V1. Lets say that's when the malfunction occurs. Keep in mind it takes a second or two, to process what the malfunction is and what it means. This brings us to that second question. What caused the abort to be made? If all we had to worry about was an engine failure the stay or go decision would be fairly easy. However, the systems on today's jets are far more complex than the regulations would have you believe. This means more caution and/or warning messages can be thrown in the crews faces.
Nearly all malfunctions, including engine failures, that occur at V1 or after, are best handled by taking the aircraft into the air, and either addressing it in flight (where you won't hit things like trees, buildings and mountains) and/or bringing the aircraft in for an immediate landing. High speed aborts are very dangerous. More people have been hurt/killed during high speed aborts than from crashes that occurred after the plane was airborne.
In fairness, I said "nearly" in the last paragraph because there are some malfunctions that do warrant a high speed abort. The trouble is, this must be a SPLIT SECOND decision made by the crew. The closer you are to V1, the more time critical the crew's reaction. Sound tough? You damn skippy! Some people might say it's better to always abort and stay on the ground. After all, it sounds safer and doesn't conjure up horror movie scenes of airliners falling out of the sky on a dark and stormy night. Let me give you an example of why this, as a general practice, is not a good idea.
We're on the runway and the take off roll is underway. The aircraft accelerates past 80 knots and continues to accelerate, all is normal. Just about at V1, there is a caution or warning indication. Some kind of BEEP or DING is heard and flashing yellow or red lights are seen. Lets say the crew pulls the power back and stamps on the brakes. Doesn't sound too bad, right? Now, let's say that warning was for a brake system malfunction.
To continue the take off would be a complete and total non-event. The aircraft would take off just fine and be fully controllable. Then, the aircraft could be landed back at the departure airport, on the longest runway available, or even landed at another airport with even longer runways. Perhaps after getting into the air and running a checklist or two, the brake system can be brought back on line, at least to some extent, facilitating a normal landing. The point is, there are several options available with this course of action.
Aborting the take off in this case, you are now tasked with trying decelerate an aircraft traveling at 150 MPH or more, on the remaining runway, with a compromised braking system. Since the regulations are really only considering an engine failure, the stopping distance calculations are assuming a fully functioning braking system. In this case, the aircraft will very likely be stopping well beyond that.
To argue both sides of the equation, lets say that after V1, the flight controls freeze. In this case, yes, it is better to abort the take off. You are past V1, however, without directional control of the aircraft, it won't fly very well. You will probably run off the end of the runway trying to get it airborne. But at least you will do it at 40 knots, rather than 140 knots.
I must say, I'm quite pleased that the passengers quoted in the article have an appreciation for the split second decision making that is required by a flight crew in such a scenario. It is true that there were no injuries or deaths. So, it's hard for the media to say this crew was in the wrong. The outcome was a positive one.
However, if the abort was made for something silly, then really, the actions of the crew were incorrect. If the warning was for something non critical, the crew should have continued the take off. By aborting the take off, the aircraft was damaged and the runway was closed until the aircraft could be removed. Worse yet, if during the investigation, the abort was determined to have been initiated
after V1 was reached, it would be very hard for the crew to talk their way out of disciplinary action by the company and the FAA.
So, we don't have enough information yet to tell if this crew really got it right or not. We shall just have to wait and see what other facts emerge. And, just in case you were wondering, I am indeed hoping they got it right.
A pilot's job might seem filled with repetition. However, any one of those 1000s and 1000s of flights could be very different from the others. Flight after flight, month after month, year after year, pilots can't let their guard down. This was brilliantly expressed by Deborah Hersman of the NTSB when she recently said, "You never know on which flight your career will be judged."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)