Rush to Comply

Ok, before I begin I must admit that JFK is not common ground for me…I pass through every now and then, more often as a last minute divert from LGA or EWR than a planned destination. I possess a mental short list of airports that I avoid for one reason or another and JFK makes the list for a number of reasons. I was flying a “turn” this day…one leg out, one leg back, home at night. Not a bad deal if, like me, you savor the company of your wife and kids and are lucky and or wise enough to live where you are based. Our arrival, landing and taxi-in were unusually routine for New York. Beautiful winter day. No delays. Landed 31R. Short and simple taxi clearance to an open gate…arrived about 20 minutes early. Uneventful…just the way I like it. Getting the heck outa Dodge wouldn’t be so easy.

The 100+ knot headwind that yielded our early arrival would be a thorn in our side on the way home, so we made every effort to get underway on-time if not a little early. In spite of what the Captain may tell you when running late, it’s quite difficult to make up any measurable time en-route. That extra speed at altitude on a flight like this would cost the company at least another 1000lbs of fuel and would result in about 5 minutes saved…not a great return on investment. The best way to hedge our bet against the headwind was to get off the gate early and hope for a short taxi.

I can’t speak for the ramp crew, but for whatever reason they didn’t start paying any visible attention to us until about 20 minutes before departure. This would not suffice for our fully loaded flight home. We would leave the gate a little late. Strike one.

We finally requested push clearance about 10 minutes past departure, but the flight at the next gate beat us to the punch. We would have to wait for him to push, start and taxi out from behind us before we could move. Strike two…and here comes the fun part.

With pencil in hand, I requested taxi clearance from ever-patient JFK ground (yes, I’m being facetious). We got off to a good start with a clearance to taxi via Tengo and Alpha. “Follow the jet ahead to runway 22R” he told us. Great. Follow him…we can do that. We were turning onto Alpha when we got our first amendment. “Hold short Victor” he said, “I have a runway change for you. Standby.” So we pulled up and held short of taxiway Victor, hoping for something simple. Our new instructions were to taxi to runway 31L via Bravo. I read this back before looking at my chart and realizing that we could go left or right on Bravo and reach runway 31L. In hind sight, turning left seems more logical, but I still didn’t know for sure and needed clarification. But this is JFK ground and getting a word in is often more difficult than it sounds. So we sat there, not know which way to turn, until we were in someone’s way, got noticed by ground control and were finally asked what we were doing. Questions like “what are you doing,” “where are you going,“ and “say your altitude” are not favorites of any flight crew as they usually infer an error on your part. To add to my discomfort, the tone in the controller’s voice was not one of a nurturing parent, but one of a weathered schoolmarm. We were indignantly instructed to turn left and contact clearance for a re-route. Strike three.

We received a new full-route clearance comprised of numerous navigational points and airways with which I was not familiar. Jet this, victor that, intersections and VORs…it wasn’t pretty. I’m sure my read-back sounded something like a student pilot's first attempt at an IFR clearance, but I muddled through it with a bit of assistance and managed to get it all down on paper. Getting the new route into the FMS wasn’t any easier. Each fix and airway along our route had to be verified on a map before being entered in to the FMS. Just locating an unfamiliar fix in this part of the country is a chore. An airway map of the northeast looks a little like a plate of spaghetti. Everything is compressed and jumbled together, so finding unfamiliar points is a time consuming task...and the pressure of the clock was beginning to have its toll as we approached the departure runway. We pulled out of line to give ourselves some extra time, verified the new route and successfully entered it into the FMS. We then contacted dispatch to verify legal compliance and viability of our new clearance and left New York on our way home. Crawled into bed a little late that night.

Time seems to compress when you are feeling rushed, but the key to a safe flight is not allowing yourself to be pushed into what is know as a “rush to comply.” Pilots are proud beings...and an inability to comply with a clearance in what is perceived as a timely manner is an attack on that pride. We must resist the temptation to rush. There has never been an accident or incident that was not made up of many links in a chain. Allowing yourself to be rushed may be the quickest ways to add links to your flights chain of events. Breaking any one link could very possibly prevent a tragedy. On a good day, only checklists are completed between the gate and the runway. On this day, we had much more to do, but we took each step as it came and completed it in a safe and timely manner.

Forgive me while I paraphrase…A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all. Not sure who said it, but I like it.

Read More

Cat III approach

Just prior to a late night departure for a short, 30 minute flight to our scheduled layover, the weather at our destination was good but not great. It's usually the visibility, not the ceiling, that is the limiting factor with respect to legally beginning an approach. At our destination that night, the visibility was 2 1/2 statue miles and forecasted to stay that way. It was my leg and I, the first officer and a guy who doesn't like to give up a landing for any reason, am not allowed to land the airplane if the visibility is less than a mile. I've never been crazy about this rule, but its intent is to put the aircraft in the hands of the most experienced pilot while flying in the most challenging conditions.

Our flight that night progressed normally, climbing through a thin, stratiform cloud layer that streamed through the landing lights like soft white ribbon revealing a beautiful star filled sky and full moon above. The air was stable and smooth...I could hear the flight attendants beginning their duties as we retracted the last of the flaps and slats. In less than 10 minutes we were cruising at 23,000 ft, completing cruise checklist items, planning our descent and retrieving destination weather. The automated weather system reported visibility of 2 1/2 miles, conditions that were confirmed by the approach controller at first contact. Ten miles later and a mere 20 miles to the airport, the conditions began to change. 20 miles may seem like a lot, but we were still clipping along at 250 kts and would quickly gobble up 20 miles.

With 20 miles to touchdown, we were informed that the visibility on runway 17R, our intended runway, had just fallen to one mile and the visibility on runway 17L was now at 1/2. We had some quick decisions to make. We were set up for an approach to runway 17R. If the weather remained unchanged we could safely and legally continue and I could execute the approach and land, but the lowest visibility to legally fly the approach was 3/4 of a mile. Runway 17L on the other hand, was equipped with a special approach that would allow us to land with a visibility of 600 RVR. (Runway Visual Range). Since the visibility was so different on two runways in such close proximity, we decided to change to runway 17L and fly what is known as a CAT III, autoland approach. This approach is flown all the way through touchdown and to a complete stop on the runway by the autopilot and takes special consideration and planning. Given our distance to the runway, we elected to go-around and give ourselves some extra time to set up the approach.

By the time the controller vectored us around for the approach to runway 17L, the weather on both runways was reported to be 1/4 and falling. Of course, since the vis was below one mile, I had to relinquish control of the jet and my precious landing to the Captain. As we continued the approach and intercepted the glide slope, we each began our required call outs and completed the landing checklist. At 500 ft, I reported "on speed, sink 700" and noticed that the cloud tops were still glowing in the moonlight in my peripheral vision. My call outs continued at 300 ft. as I heard the tower controller announce 17L visibility at 600 RVR..."300" "200"...still above the cloud tops..."100"...finally in the clouds...at 50 feet I reported "minimums" just as the Captain stated "landing" and the autopilot continued the approach as the aircraft announced "50" "40" "30" "20" "10" followed by the best autoland I've ever witnessed. Very nice.

We crawled to the gate that night. The visibility was so poor that we couldn't see the terminal from the center line on the ramp. The ground crew had to walk out to the aircraft to guide us onto the lead in line. It's been a strange winter this year. Low visibility approaches like this one are rare in the U.S. In the last 10 years I have only flown 6 approaches that required an autopilot flown approach and landing. 3 of those were in February 2010.

Read More

First Post

I have been encouraged by friends and followers on twitter (www.twitter.com/AAFO4Ever) and YouTube (www.youtube.com/contrail777) to start a blog...so here it goes. My posts may wander a bit at first until I find my voice in this forum, but will always center on my thoughts and experiences as a pilot for a major US airline. Thanks for reading along.

Read More

Baltia moves closer to launch

A few months ago I wrote about start-up Baltia Air Lines, which seeks to initially connect New York with St. Petersburg, Russia. It seems like they're moving closer to getting off the ground, now that they've registered and taken delivery of their first aircraft, a Boeing 747-200. The airplane, which was delivered in 1975 to TAP Air Portugal and has subsequently flown for Pakistan International Airlines, is to be registered N705BL. Baltia paid $475,000 for it (and it came without engines, apparently), but the airline has announced that it has started overhauling the plane, "preparing [it] for upgrades to conform to the company's business model, and for maintenance."

I haven't been able to find out much more about Baltia's progress, although apparently the Wall Street Journal is getting interested, which could add a bit more credibility to the start-up operation, not to mention some more facts about the subject. (If you do have any updates on Baltia, please do let me know.)

Read More

A British Airways-Iberia merger: what does it change?

The fact that Iberia and British Airways are planning to merge isn't news by now. The deal's going to mean that the combined airlines become the third-largest airline group (behind Air France-KLM and Lufthansa), and there's the usual talk of synergies and cost savings, etc. We are laying the foundations of what will be one of the most important airlines in the world, a real global airline, said Iberia CEO Antonio Vázquez. I believe that, thanks to this transaction, which is the most important in the European airline industry in recent years, we are more prepared than ever to face future challenges. Meanwhile, British Airways CEO Willie Walsh has said that the merger will create a strong European airline well able to compete in the 21st century. Both airlines will retain their brands and heritage while achieving significant synergies as a combined force.

Sound familiar? Check out what the CEOs of Northwest and Delta had to say back in 2008. And I'm sure it's been said many times before. But besides giving graphic artists the chance to create some hybrid BA-Iberia tails, what does the deal really do? What do these types of mergers do nowadays, anyway? Sure, the deal will help both airlines stave off the other two big airline groups in Europe, but will it effectively deal with BA's oft-publicized woes? Or, as one comment on the BBC's website asked:

Will the cost of jet fuel be any cheaper if they merge? Will the service be better? Will things go back to the golden days of air travel when you could take just about all the luggage you wanted for free, and the onboard meals where for free as well as the soft drinks? Will there be more legroom in economy class? Will we be treated slightly better than cattle? Will they ban cell phone chatter and lap top tickering on planes - finally, thankfully? Will there be Peace and Quiet? No? Why merge?

Granted, no one's expecting the glory days of air travel to come back; nor does the merger have much to do with cell phone use or legroom, of course. But it did make me think about how airline CEOs sometimes talk about mergers as silver bullets - even if they don't really change much, as the BA-Iberia linkup will probably do.

Read More

Editorial: Glenn's gotta go at United

There has been a lot of stuff out there written about United Airlines, and most of it isn't positive. We're all familiar with the United Breaks Guitars video (the second of three is out on YouTube, by the way), and the infamous "Untied" complaint website has been a thorn in the airline's side for many years now. I was on the website of United's Association of Flight Attendants the other day when I came across an account of how AFA members picketed the airline's 2008 shareholder meeting. I figured that it would be another story about angry union protesters, but then the last part of the article caught my attention:

The worst part of the meeting was when Los Angeles Customer of the year, James Anderson, stepped up to the microphone and respectfully addressed [United CEO Glenn] Tilton as a shareholder and a loyal customer who spent $100,000 at United just last year. Employees clapped and cheered for Mr. Anderson. He explained to Tilton that he felt caught in the middle of all of this and expressed concern about the discord at the meeting and the state of employee morale at the airline. He questioned whether he should continue to buy tickets on United Airlines. Tilton shrugged his shoulders and told him it was his prerogative if he wanted to take his business elsewhere but that it was going on at every airline in the industry - so where would he go? There was a shocked silence from the room and Mr. Anderson seemed bewildered at having been so easily dismissed. He paused before quietly stating, "What I’m trying to say is that I’m concerned about this. You talked about aircraft enhancements in your presentation – and they’re great – but they don’t put smiles on the faces of your employees.”

I haven't been able to independently verify the above story, and an email I wrote to the AFA requesting further details remains unanswered. But if the story is true (and I have no reason thus far to believe otherwise), then Tilton should be ashamed of spouting that kind of crap. First of all, it's not going on at every airline in the industry. And secondly, what kind of CEO, airline or otherwise, tells one of his best customers to go ahead and shove it? Maybe if you're Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair. But O'Leary can do so because his airline's fares are so low that people will always come back, regardless of service. If the price is right, service doesn't really matter. But United's no Ryanair, and the airline can't afford to alienate key customers (let alone the rest of us).

That's the attitude that Glenn Tilton conveys - we don't really care about you. And you know what? Chances are that attitude is going to trickle down to the rest of the employees. And while I know that there are thousands of United employees that take pride in their work and do their best, I've also experienced a lot of less-than-stellar service on United. And you can't really blame them too much, either. I'd probably be pretty cranky, too, if my pay and benefits were slashed while Tilton & Co. raked in the dough. A great article over at Forbes, entitled "United Airlines Shows You How Not to Run Your Business," has this to say regarding employee morale:

United's workers... have had their wages, pensions and benefits cut even as the chief executive officer has been paid nearly $20 million dollars over the last five years (despite United's stock dropping 43% during his tenure)... All employees share the pain equally. If there are big cutbacks anywhere, senior management should take substantial pay reductions and limits on its privileges, such as fewer business class flights and trips on private jets. The troops look to senior management for direction. If those troops see the top brass caring for itself at the expense of others, the spirit of the entire organization erodes.

And there you have it. It's no secret, Glenn - perhaps you should look across the Pacific at another airline that's in trouble. JAL has been bleeding red ink as of late (posting a $1 billion Q2 loss). But their CEO takes the city bus to work and gives himself just $90,000 a year in salary (less than the pilots make), as CNN reports:

United's long-running financial troubles show no sign of abating. Tilton's strategy has been to try to polish up the airline enough to sell it off or merge it. Delta was always seen as the likely choice, but it opted for Northwest. And Continental figured that it would be better to just "remain good friends" with United (as evidenced by the new alliance between the two airlines) rather than a full merger. Nobody wants United, and that throws a wrench in Tilton's plans. United's fleet of planes is starting to get a little long in the tooth, and despite the airline's recent talk about shopping around for a big airplane order, it's clear that the airline would have a difficult time obtaining financing. As is pointed out in this Chicago Business article, United has billions in debt, and Tilton's already burned most of the furniture already. There's not much left.

Which means, quite simply, that it's time for Glenn Tilton (and probably a lot of the rest of UAL management) to go. I don't want to play armchair CEO, but it's clear that whatever's going on in Chicago needs to change, and change soon. Times are tough, sure, and everyone's hurting. But United has consistently been a loser in many categories - financial performance, customer service, etc. Firing Tilton wouldn't fix all of these problems overnight, but it would be the first major step on United's much-needed road to strength and stability.

Edit 8/26 7pm: I managed to get in touch with Sara Nelson at the United AFA, who provided me with the following: We do not have a video clip of the meeting. However, Mr. Anderson, himself wrote about his experience on FlyerTalk. And, he appeared again at this year's Shareholder meeting. I personally witnessed both meetings and his interaction with Glenn Tilton. This year Chicago Tribune reporter Julie Johnsson wanted to meet the man Tilton had dismissed and hurried to greet him once the meeting was over.

Read More

Baltia Air Lines, the 20 year old startup

A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a press release that said that a New York-based startup, Baltia Air Lines, had signed a letter of intent to purchase a Boeing 747. Who the heck is Baltia? I did a little research (mostly in the form of 10-Q filings with the SEC) and turned up some basic history about the airline.

Baltia was founded on August 24, 1989 (that's right - a startup airline older than I am) with the goal of connecting New York-JFK to the then-Soviet Union. In June 1991, the carrier received permission from the DOT to start flying between New York and St. Petersburg (then Leningrad). They also were to fly between JFK and Riga, Lativa, and from there serve Kiev, Minsk, and Tbilisi, Georgia. That same month, Baltia expressed interest in grabbing two Boeing 767s to fly to Riga and St. Petersburg, as well as some 737-200s to use on connecting flights to the three other destinations from Riga. That was all in 1991 - and then the news articles about Baltia stopped, until just recently. It was as though Baltia just dropped off the radar for the better part of the last twenty years.

So now for the obvious question - why, twenty years later, are they still in the startup process? What's taken them so long? In a nutshell: lots of financial problems. Let's take a look at the timeline (which has some holes in it, but should be helpful nonetheless):

• 1991: The airline's "financing efforts were destroyed" as a result of the August 1991 attempted coup d'état in the USSR, according to an SEC filing. "Subsequently the route authorities terminated for dormancy."
• 1995: Baltia reapplies for the JFK-St. Petersburg route.
• 1996: DOT reissues JFK-St. Petersburg route authority to Baltia, "based upon reexamination of the Company's operating plan and fitness as a US air carrier." By then, the airline had apparently dropped plans for Riga and instead focused on serving St. Petersburg with a single Boeing 747.
  
• 1998: Baltia makes a $100,000 down payment on a Boeing 747-200 owned by Cathay Pacific.
  
• 1999: Baltia finally "had all the variables" needed for flight operations in place, except for enough working capital. The airline was supposed to raise the cash through an IPO, but that failed, and the DOT revoked its route authority, telling it once again to come back when it had the money.
• October 2007: Baltia files once again for non-stop service between JFK and St. Petersburg. The third time must really be the charm, because it's granted by the DOT.
  
• December 2008: DOT declares Baltia "fit, willing and able" to fly.
• Currently: Baltia is "conducting the FAA Air Carrier Certification process under Part 121. Upon completion of the Air Carrier Certification, Baltia intends to commence scheduled non-stop service from its Base of Operations at Terminal 4, JFK... to Pulkovo II Int'l Airport of St. Petersburg."

I called up Barry Clare, Baltia's VP of Finance, to ask him about his carrier's long, long history. Why has it taken so long, and why will this latest attempt be the one that works? Clare said that the airline had many setbacks raising capital in the 1990s, and part of that had to do with the fact that the airline wanted to launch with several airplanes. The latest attempt, Clare notes, will see Baltia starting out with only one airplane, a Boeing 747 purchased from an American carrier (since the deal is still in the works, he could not divulge which model or from which airline it was purchased).

"It was always a lack of capital, not a lack of know-how... it's been a bunch of fiascos with Wall Street professionals who make promises and never delivered," he said. "This time around, we went out and raised the capital that we felt was necessary to launch, even before we submitted our application to the DOT in 2007. We raised $2.7 million... it looks like this time around, Baltia Air Lines will fly." Clare expects that the first flight will take off before the end of the year, and that the airline is seeking to codeshare with a "major American airline" to provide some feed into JFK.

Baltia's planes will be configured in a four-class layout: Voyager Class (coach), Super Voyager (what Clare calls a "step up from regular coach), business, and first. "Service aboard the plane will be second to none," says Clare, noting that there will only be 296 seats on the main deck of the 747.

The airline plans to gradually ramp up its schedule. Baltia is only planning on flying one round trip between JFK and St. Petersburg for the first month; the second month will see three round trips per week, to be increased to five trips by the third month. After the first four months, the airline plans to take delivery of a second 747 and start service to Moscow and start with the same schedule frequency, to be followed by Minsk, Kiev, and so on. "Within a two year period, we'll have five aircraft in the air servicing the Baltic region, generating close to $500 million in revenue."

As for finances, Clare claims that one 747 will generate $40 million in profit off of $100 million in revenue annually, even with a 64% load factor. Voyager tickets will be between $800 and $1,200; Super Voyager seats will be around $2,000 apiece. Business class seats will go in the range of $4,000 to $5,000, while first class seats will set you back a slick $16,000. "First class has only twelve seats," explains Clare. "It's sort of a gimmick because we want to show that we have that kind of service available. Even though service will be superior throughout the entire aircraft, first class service will really be far superior. The entire upper deck... will be dedicated as a first class lounge, with a bar and gourmet chefs, live entertainment, strictly for the first class passengers... If the [first class] seats get filled, great; if not, it's there to show that Baltia Air Lines has that kind of service." The airline is hiring "stewards" from "fine restaurants, not flight attendants who work for other airlines that have bad habits. The experience will be incredible... like the grand old ocean liners."

But I've got a feeling that this isn't the best time to be starting up a premium-travel carrier. Remember that whole slew of premium transatlantic carriers a couple years back? Silverjet, eos, MaxJet? They're all gone, and BA's OpenSkies is on life support. Baltia may not be business-class only, like those airlines, but it's clear that they're going after the upscale traveler here. Premium travel has taken a huge hit, and it's not likely to bounce back anytime soon. And while the airline understandably touts its non-stop New York to Eastern Europe service, is it going to be able to compete with the likes of Lufthansa and Air France, which offer frequent connecting flights to the same destinations that Baltia will serve? It's trying to be a niche carrier, but I'm not sure that that niche is big enough, even for a small carrier like Baltia.

(Oh, and you'd think that an upscale airline would choose a better name for its frequent flyer program than Freeloaders, but that's what Baltia's done. Not kidding.)

Read More