schernov wrote:

Is bag check at the gate and getting them back inside a jetway a thing outside of US? Aka valet check on small regional planes? I have not seen it

Avgeek21 wrote:

Are those block hours or duty hours? Block hours of 90+ would be insane tbh. Especially without those above mentioned protections.

767Forever wrote:

In Europe, the departure boards are ordered chronologically, while in US, departure boards are ordered alphabetically. I much prefer the US system.

In Europe, planes often times will taxi into the runway and start takeoff roll without stopping. In US I don’t ever remember this happening

usflyer msp wrote:

B727skyguy wrote:

santi319 wrote:

I agree with everything you said, but all US airlines’ staff above wing work directly with the airline. And almost all are unionized, except new entrants Breeze, Avelo, etc. and Delta.

Seven years ago, Frontier (F9) outsourced all of their ground handling functions, including their home base of DEN. They outsourced all of their res functions as well.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayint ... /21903721/

NW outsourced all except 40 of its largest stations in the mid-2000s.

To me, the way US carriers outsource is strange.
Normally, when carriers use third party handling it is to lower costs by leveraging staff across several contracts. In the US, carriers will outsource but then those outsourced employees will only work one contract so it is essentially the same as insourced employees just with lower pay and no union. Sometimes the outsourced workers are unionized so I don't see the savings there and sometimes the mainline ground staff are non-union (like DL) so I don't see the savings there either.

• In the US kangaroo belts are forbidden. Reasoning behind is that in case of a crash an adult passenger will fold double, crushing the infant. As I understand it the regulator deems it safer that the infant can move away from the adult, which would be impeded by a kangaroo belt.
• In the EU kangaroo belts are mandatory. The reason for it is to keep the infant safely in place during turbulence, hard landings, etc.

SteelChair wrote:

By operational control I mean certificated aircraft dispatchers with joint responsibility. There have been many incidents where a certificated dispatcher might have been helpful in preventing an accident or incident. BA 268 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 come to mind.

[...]

Over many decades, shared responsibility through positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. [...]

Tinek wrote:

Reservations/call centers: This isn't true for all European airlines, but at a glance, BA, SK, KL (all of which I'd consider pretty large EU carriers) don't operate 24 hour call centers, while all the US airlines (even NK!) do, by default. I'm a little surprised that with a global operation across time zones, the EU carriers can get away without having res agents available 24/7. I've definitely had my fair share of phone calls morning time in Europe trying to rebook a delayed/canceled flight with an agent from a US airline who's working in the US at 2 am his/her time.

Again, not fully true. Yes, some airlines do have their 'local' call centre open only during specific hours, but generally there is always at least one open. Just a matter of organisation. When your local, let's say, Swedish Call Centre is closed, you may call the US one, or the Japanese one and go with english. Easy.

bennett123 wrote:

Pontiac wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

I was holding a small, light jacket in my lap while sitting in the exit row on BA and was told very sternly that it must go up or I need to wear it...

I was on a IB flight 2 days ago LIS to MAD; the spiel for us exit rows was more detailed than a US flight but nothing about banning items under the seat?

Were you in an exit row?.

767Forever wrote:

In Europe, planes often times will taxi into the runway and start takeoff roll without stopping. In US I don’t ever remember this happening

rbavfan wrote:

767Forever wrote:

In Europe, the departure boards are ordered chronologically, while in US, departure boards are ordered alphabetically. I much prefer the US system.

In Europe, planes often times will taxi into the runway and start takeoff roll without stopping. In US I don’t ever remember this happening

I had 6 WN flights do rolling T-O last month on my flights. Yes they do that on quite a few flights. Depends on time of day & number of arrival/departures going on. It probably does not happen much at JFK, ATL, MIA, ORD, DFW, LAX, SFO and a few others due to traffic loads all day.

santi319 wrote:

Iluvtofly wrote:

Overall I feel that Euro standards are way higher than US ones. The most obvious being the amount of hours US F/A's are allowed to fly in a month.
I read of some US based crew flying 160 hours a month. That would never ever be allowed in most countries due to health and safety concerns. No wonder
US flight crew fall asleep in their jumpseats. Do US crew really fly with only carry on when doing a multi-day layover? And many many US carriers use contract staff
for their *above wing* operations. Where do you get the idea that they don't ?

I agree with everything you said, but all US airlines’ staff above wing work directly with the airline. And almost all are unionized, except new entrants Breeze, Avelo, etc. and Delta.

Jamake1 wrote:

questions wrote:

Iluvtofly wrote:

I read of some US based crew flying 160 hours a month.

Is this true? What is generally min and max?

This is absolutely true. At my airline there are some F/A's who fly a west coast turn from their east coast base 6 x week (think NYC-LAX-NYC or NYC-SFO-NYC several days in a row). They average 225 hrs per month. Unlike the EU, the FAA has no limits on how many hours a F/A can fly per month (one does have to have 24 hrs free of duty in a 7-day period, but the rest can occur on a layover of at least 24 hours). I believe in the EU, F/A's can only fly a maximum of 900 flight hours per year. There are also EU limits as to how many times a F/A can work a long haul polar route during the year. This is due to the possible effects of radiation exposure. No such regulation exits in the U.S. So U.S. F/A's have the potential to maximize earnings and can earn up to $200,000+ per year, but to the detriment of one's health, life balance, and well-being.

As to your other question; F/A flying schedules at my airline are typically built between 70 & 80 hours per month. From there we can pick up trips from other F/A's or from "open flying" which are un-crewed trips. My body is a good compass and let's me know when I'm out of balance, so for me, 90-100 hours per month of flying is a good benchmark in terms of flying maximum.

Heinkel wrote:

Many laws, rules and regulations are different in Europe compared with the USA.

What is perfectly legal, if not mandatory, in the USA, can be the fastest way to jail in Europe. And vice versa.

Examples: Drinking a beer in the public is perfectly legal in Germany from the age of 16. At the age if 14, if accompanied by a parent. Beer is food. So Lufthansa serves beer to 16 year olds. Don't try that in the USA.

On the other hand, bearing a loaded gun in public is perfectly legal in several states of the USA. Don't try that in Europe.

Or overrun-brakes on trailers. Mandatory in Europe, fobidden in the USA. Electric trailer brakes - Mandatory in the USA, forbidden in Europe.

The laws and regulations in one region are not worse or better than in the other region, they are just different. So when in the USA, do what the Americans do and when in Europe, do what the Europeans do.

And many operating practices follow just the local laws and regulations.

YIMBY wrote:

In US, fasten seatbelt light is set on during half of the flight, but no one cares if you go to toilet except while landing.

In Europe, it is set only during takeoff, landing and turbulence, and is controlled very strictly.

JRadier wrote:

[*]

SteelChair wrote:

By operational control I mean certificated aircraft dispatchers with joint responsibility. There have been many incidents where a certificated dispatcher might have been helpful in preventing an accident or incident. BA 268 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 come to mind.

[...]

Over many decades, shared responsibility through positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. [...]

I'm not completely understanding your case. We both very much agree with the value of dispatchers following a flight. This is clearly shown in your Africa example, no question about it. There is significant value in an extra pair of eyes, and all EU operators I have worked with have this in place.

However, you state (last sentence of quote) that positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. I interpret this that you mean that the joint responsibility being the main driver for this difference. I have difficulty understanding why this is. The two cases you state (BA & Hapag-Lloyd) were both in touch with the dispatchers according to wiki. That means that the joint responsibility would have made a significant difference, which you also claim in the last sentence in my quote. I see no substantiation for that. What makes you say that the joint responsibility is shown to be a big driver in safety vs a 'regular' flight dispatcher?

TravelsUK wrote:

I really enjoy these type of discussions!

European cabin crew seem to stop talking, sit on their hands or place them flat on the legs and take note of what is going on around them during take off, for US crews it seems take off is a great opportunity to play a game on your phone, have a good chat with a colleague or in one case (I couldn't believe my eyes!) put your feet up on the bulkhead and get out the puzzle book!

Off subject slightly, I have never understood why in the US you can have 4+ lanes of traffic yet only one kerb to drop off? I had to fight for my life getting dropped off at PHL recently as the the only option left to me was to get out in the 3rd lane furthest form the kerb. European airports tend to be far more organised, such a LHR T5 two lanes on the ramp to the terminal that then become six lanes with 4 kerb areas for drop off and 2 central lanes for through traffic, a lot more sensible and user friendly IMHO

JonathanRP wrote:

TravelsUK wrote:

I really enjoy these type of discussions!

European cabin crew seem to stop talking, sit on their hands or place them flat on the legs and take note of what is going on around them during take off, for US crews it seems take off is a great opportunity to play a game on your phone, have a good chat with a colleague or in one case (I couldn't believe my eyes!) put your feet up on the bulkhead and get out the puzzle book!

Off subject slightly, I have never understood why in the US you can have 4+ lanes of traffic yet only one kerb to drop off? I had to fight for my life getting dropped off at PHL recently as the the only option left to me was to get out in the 3rd lane furthest form the kerb. European airports tend to be far more organised, such a LHR T5 two lanes on the ramp to the terminal that then become six lanes with 4 kerb areas for drop off and 2 central lanes for through traffic, a lot more sensible and user friendly IMHO

I'm crew for a large British airline and we call that the "silent review" where at the critical moments of flight we must disengage from any conversations with Passengers or crew (unless an emergency) - this is when we're about to enter the runway for departure, and when the landing gear comes down for landing. During this time, we are supposed to check our doors (make sure they're definitely in the armed/automatic mode), remind ourselves/be thinking about emergency commands, check the floor is clear for an evacuation and be thinking about our brace positions, we adopt a 'semi-braced' position, so in the event of the captain calling "Brace brace" or there's a sudden emergency, we are already half way there, saving valuable moments in a sudden impact situation.

YIMBY wrote:

In US, fasten seatbelt light is set on during half of the flight, but no one cares if you go to toilet except while landing.

In Europe, it is set only during takeoff, landing and turbulence, and is controlled very strictly.

EMB170 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

In US, fasten seatbelt light is set on during half of the flight, but no one cares if you go to toilet except while landing.

In Europe, it is set only during takeoff, landing and turbulence, and is controlled very strictly.

This! It's been my experience, whether long-haul or short, that US airlines will generally keep the seatbelt sign switched on until AT LEAST cruising altitude, if they even switch it off at all. Sometimes it's never switched off, even if the flight is 100% smooth, like on a recent KOA-LAX trip. EU airlines, on the other hand, switch it off almost immediately once the aircraft passes through FL100...and then will leave it off as long as possible (as it is pretty strictly enforced if it does come on again).

Also, (at least until recently), I've noticed that, during the safety briefings, US airlines didn't talk about asking cabin crew to help with a lost cell phone in the seat, while foreign airlines have done this for many, many years.

Breathe wrote:

"European" is a bit generic to compare with the USA (a nation state). I imagine that there are differences with operating practices in Belarus compared to Switzerland say.

Heinkel wrote:

Breathe wrote:

"European" is a bit generic to compare with the USA (a nation state). I imagine that there are differences with operating practices in Belarus compared to Switzerland say.

You are absolutely right but from what I've learned here, there are also huge differences between the laws and regulations in different US states.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

Breathe wrote:

"European" is a bit generic to compare with the USA (a nation state). I imagine that there are differences with operating practices in Belarus compared to Switzerland say.

You are absolutely right but from what I've learned here, there are also huge differences between the laws and regulations in different US states.

Passenger air service is Federally regulated in the U.S. Other than some crew labor laws there is no state regulation - and hasn't been since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Iluvtofly wrote:

Overall I feel that Euro standards are way higher than US ones. The most obvious being the amount of hours US F/A's are allowed to fly in a month.
I read of some US based crew flying 160 hours a month. That would never ever be allowed in most countries due to health and safety concerns. No wonder
US flight crew fall asleep in their jumpseats. Do US crew really fly with only carry on when doing a multi-day layover? And many many US carriers use contract staff
for their *above wing* operations. Where do you get the idea that they don't ?

Max Q wrote:

One thing that is extremely obnoxious and intrusive when traveling through US airports are the endless, loud and repetitive inane PA announcements


Other countries airports seem like an oasis of calm by contrast

gwrudolph wrote:

Iluvtofly wrote:

Overall I feel that Euro standards are way higher than US ones. The most obvious being the amount of hours US F/A's are allowed to fly in a month.
I read of some US based crew flying 160 hours a month. That would never ever be allowed in most countries due to health and safety concerns. No wonder
US flight crew fall asleep in their jumpseats. Do US crew really fly with only carry on when doing a multi-day layover? And many many US carriers use contract staff
for their *above wing* operations. Where do you get the idea that they don't ?

US flight crews fall asleep in their jump seats? I have never, ever seen a crew member sleep in a jump seat. I think doing so would violate most airline policies if not FAA rules

bennett123 wrote:

On the other issue, bit worrying if US passengers are trying to retrieve phones, which could be s fire hazard.

eta unknown wrote:

I guarantee you the UA crew upon arrival in SYD will be waiting at the baggage carousel for their luggage like everybody else (although these will be the first bags down the chute). And when you depart the check-in staff will be outsourced (sometimes they wear the airline's uniform, but usually not- it's the airline's decision).
As for reservations call centers, yes most European airlines have these operating 24/7.

Pontiac wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

On the other issue, bit worrying if US passengers are trying to retrieve phones, which could be s fire hazard.

One of the items on my flight checklist as a passenger is a compact LED flashlight; handy to find stuff dropped and may really be handy in an emergency.

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

JRadier wrote:

[*]

SteelChair wrote:

By operational control I mean certificated aircraft dispatchers with joint responsibility. There have been many incidents where a certificated dispatcher might have been helpful in preventing an accident or incident. BA 268 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 come to mind.

[...]

Over many decades, shared responsibility through positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. [...]

I'm not completely understanding your case. We both very much agree with the value of dispatchers following a flight. This is clearly shown in your Africa example, no question about it. There is significant value in an extra pair of eyes, and all EU operators I have worked with have this in place.

However, you state (last sentence of quote) that positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. I interpret this that you mean that the joint responsibility being the main driver for this difference. I have difficulty understanding why this is. The two cases you state (BA & Hapag-Lloyd) were both in touch with the dispatchers according to wiki. That means that the joint responsibility would have made a significant difference, which you also claim in the last sentence in my quote. I see no substantiation for that. What makes you say that the joint responsibility is shown to be a big driver in safety vs a 'regular' flight dispatcher?

The best example would be Air France 447. No SIGMETs were sent to the flight. Other airlines deviated around the same weather. No SIGMETs were sent because the pilots did not request it and dispatchers in France do not have a regulatory responsibility to send updated weather in flight. It is only sent by pilot request. When they did get to the area of thunderstorms, the pilots flying had no plan of action and fell apart. Further, nobody with any legal or operational reponsibility received the ECAM ACARS messages sent by the aircraft. If that had been a DAL/AAL/UAL flight, those ECAM ACARS messages would have sent major alarm bells across multiple departments and someone from dispatch would have contacted the crew asking what was going on. Same could be said of the flight monitoring as it took Air France over 2 hours from time it was overdue to start trying to find its own plane. Most airlines with active flight monitoring the dispatcher has a legal responsibility after 30 minutes overdue to start the process of verifying the status of the flight and activitating search and rescue if needed.

inaforeignsky wrote:

I'm a pilot for a major European airline, but have previously flown for a couple of US regionals, a Caribbean airline and another based in Europe.

The US is definitely the exception to the rule globally in terms of how things are done. Some, such as ATC having full WX radar coverage and giving Precip warnings etc are superb, others not so much.

I would say that aviation in Europe is much more measured and considered. In the US it was always a case of rushing between flights, rushing to get airborne, ATC speaking at 1000 miles an hour and giving questionable clearances. In Europe I find that pace and clarity of the operation are much more important. The word I would use for European operations (my experience is with Western European Airlines) is 'rigor'. In the US the operation was always just about good enough, in Europe it is much more about a continued high standard. This does mean that sometimes the European operation can be a little more myopic and redundant.

Having worked in the US for 10 years I didn't even realise just how exhausted, stressed and unhealthy I was. Crew food was non-existent and if provided, extremely unhealthy. Uniform standards were poor, as was general presentation, but that is endemic of what is essentially a mass transit system in the US versus a more refined operation in Europe.

That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to put my family on any US airline, and frequently do, although the lack of extension seat belts for infants totally boggles my mind having had our first child a few years ago.

• An airline having its own ground staff managing flights, or everything outsourced on the ground, where the first airline employee you talk to is on board? Good luck in case of IRROPs if the ground staff just direct you to call the airline's reservations dept.
• EU airlines are finally catching up to the US carriers on having on-board wifi for short haul, which the US airlines have had for years.
• Seatback IFE is commonplace in the US, with DL and B6 featuring PTVs across the board (AA and UA are more of a mixed bag, but getting there, and even WN offers live TV to your device), while it's basically non-existent for flights within Europe.
• IT for US airlines is lightyears ahead of EU airlines. For example, US airlines give you push notifications for boarding (DL even notifies you when your specific zone is boarding), and many of them have live checked bag tracking, package delivery style, whereas the EU airlines only barely execute this, if at all.
• AS and DL guarantee your checked bag will get to the belt within 20 minutes - I haven't seen anything remotely resembling that in the EU.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

schernov wrote:

Is bag check at the gate and getting them back inside a jetway a thing outside of US? Aka valet check on small regional planes? I have not seen it

It’s a “thing” on US regionals, but no where else that I’ve seen. You can gate check your bag in the US for free, but it’ll be at your destination baggage claim. The first because there’s no overhead storage; the second to encourage checking large bags to free up the overheads.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In the US, remote parking is unheard of for passenger flights. In the rest of the world, it common. I hate getting off the plane via stairs, dash into the bus, ride to the terminal, then find your gate, only to get another bus ride.

I mostly check my bags and never had one damaged; probably half dozen times they didn’t make a connection. I travel with a small carry-on with two days, always worked after I learned my lesson the hard way.

rbavfan wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

schernov wrote:

Is bag check at the gate and getting them back inside a jetway a thing outside of US? Aka valet check on small regional planes? I have not seen it

It’s a “thing” on US regionals, but no where else that I’ve seen. You can gate check your bag in the US for free, but it’ll be at your destination baggage claim. The first because there’s no overhead storage; the second to encourage checking large bags to free up the overheads.

You can gate check a bog free on WN, but others not always. If they charge fees for baggage they are likely to do the same for gate check.

SteelChair wrote:

To me, operating practices means something very literal: the operation of the airplanes in revenue service.

No system of joint operational control exists in most of Europe. By operational control I mean certificated aircraft dispatchers with joint responsibility. (As an aside, authority cannot be shared, you either have it or you don't. The Captain/PIC always retains final authority. One often sees the words responsibility and authority used interchangeably in this context and that is incorrect.) There have been many incidents where a certificated dispatcher might have been helpful in preventing an accident or incident. BA 268 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 come to mind.

Over many decades, shared responsibility through positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. It is true that many European airlines have someone on the ground performing dispatch-like functions, but they lack regulatory responsibility for their actions. The US FAA Aircraft (not Flight) Dispatcher Certificate and the enumerated responsibilities lend credence to the role. A very brief summation: 1) in the absence of an emergency, the PIC and Dispatcher must agree on the course of action, and 2) no one in the airline operations center can make a dispatcher do something he/she doesn't want to do. The dispatcher is a voice for the crew in the operations center. Many, many questionable ideas and suggestions are headed off by dispatchers. Dispatchers provide another layer of safety in the "swiss cheese" model of safety management.

Some airlines have found that voluntarily introducing a system of positive operational control enhances safety. In the wake of an accident at one European airline, a blue ribbon safety panel found that a lack of a system of operational control was a risk, a gap. As a result, that airline voluntarily chose to introduce a system of operational control, giving folks on the ground true responsibility, and authority for certain actions, for the first time. I believe that another European airline has also introduced such a system. I don't know that any other carriers have done so. The gap manifests itself in many ways, but one has to be educated in the nuances of the business to see them. Negative fuel at ETP on ETOPS flights due to corporate fuel mandates is one example. Another is when you see flights on the North Atlantic tracks (without dispatchers) operating at FL 370 and 390 reporting moderate to severe turbulence while the flight with dispatchers were planned at 310 or 330 (more expensive) and reporting smooth and light. And this example is when meteorological models exist showing the forecast turbulence. The turbulence forecasts were just never looked at by anyone on the ground in the planning phase who was empowered to make decisions based upon them. Decisions in this context meaning more fuel burn/more cost. And pilots can sometimes be "led" in such a way to accept the plan as it exists, even if they did see the turbulence forecast prior to departure. Uploading fuel that late in the game might mean bumping payload or incurring a fueling delay, and keep in mind, "its just a forecast......lets go with the plan." Airline bean counters programming computers to compute fuel requirements either without human intervention or with humans who aren't really well trained and have no true authority is a bad combination in my opinion.

Pilots operating flights without dispatchers are on their own. I had a pilot tell me one time that he flew all night to Africa, sometimes in areas of no radar separation and very limited ATC, and no one was watching his destination weather or alternate weather. No one not on the flight deck was monitoring fuel consumption. He wished for a "second set of eyes," to back up the flight crew. When initially exposed to the idea, some pilots don't like it. It is a big change for some military pilots, some of the tactical/fighter guys in particular seem to see it as a challenge to their authority. But after operating for awhile, they come to see the value. I've never met one who, after operating that way for awhile, didn't ultimately believe that having dispatchers was a better way to operate. Its just one more layer of safety, and in many cases also adds efficiency.

I've often wondered if you asked an airline passenger flying along in the middle of the night at 7 miles a minute and FL350, and getting bumped around by turbulence, if it made them feel safer knowing that a second set of eyes on the ground were watching their flight what they would say. And conversely, what they would say if they knew that no one on the ground with any real regulatory responsibilities was watching their flight. And no, ATC does not and cannot fulfill these requirements, and they don't want to. They don't want to watch alternate weather and compute minima taking into account MELs and NOTAMs. The government doesn't want that responsibility, it rests with the operators. ATC have enough on their plate already in fulfilling their own duties.

Finally, I believe that the Chinese and some of the Middle Eastern carriers (Emirates) have adopted the model of the three legged stool of safety: Pilots, Dispatcher, Controllers.

Heinkel wrote:

Breathe wrote:

"European" is a bit generic to compare with the USA (a nation state). I imagine that there are differences with operating practices in Belarus compared to Switzerland say.

You are absolutely right but from what I've learned here, there are also huge differences between the laws and regulations in different US states.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

Breathe wrote:

"European" is a bit generic to compare with the USA (a nation state). I imagine that there are differences with operating practices in Belarus compared to Switzerland say.

You are absolutely right but from what I've learned here, there are also huge differences between the laws and regulations in different US states.

Passenger air service is Federally regulated in the U.S. Other than some crew labor laws there is no state regulation - and hasn't been since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

schernov wrote:

Most US based airlines allow seat changes even after check in up to the point where gate agent takes control. Most nonUS airlines do not allow seat changes after checking in. It is most likely system related...

767Forever wrote:

In Europe, the departure boards are ordered chronologically, while in US, departure boards are ordered alphabetically. I much prefer the US system.

In Europe, planes often times will taxi into the runway and start takeoff roll without stopping. In US I don’t ever remember this happening

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In the US, remote parking is unheard of for passenger flights. In the rest of the world, it common. I hate getting off the plane via stairs, dash into the bus, ride to the terminal, then find your gate, only to get another bus ride.

I mostly check my bags and never had one damaged; probably half dozen times they didn’t make a connection. I travel with a small carry-on with two days, always worked after I learned my lesson the hard way.

schernov wrote:

Yes. Busses suck. Although sometimes there is an advantage as bus drops you off at the right connection point and avoids a long walk. But still. Busses suck.

inaforeignsky wrote:

I would say that aviation in Europe is much more measured and considered. In the US it was always a case of rushing between flights, rushing to get airborne, ATC speaking at 1000 miles an hour and giving questionable clearances. In Europe I find that pace and clarity of the operation are much more important. The word I would use for European operations (my experience is with Western European Airlines) is 'rigor'. In the US the operation was always just about good enough, in Europe it is much more about a continued high standard. This does mean that sometimes the European operation can be a little more myopic and redundant.

Having worked in the US for 10 years I didn't even realise just how exhausted, stressed and unhealthy I was. Crew food was non-existent and if provided, extremely unhealthy. Uniform standards were poor, as was general presentation, but that is endemic of what is essentially a mass transit system in the US versus a more refined operation in Europe.

StarAC17 wrote:

What I see in Europe and have seen in Australia is that planes will take off down the runway especially if the load is light or the plane is smaller. I have seen this at LIS, MUC, ADL and MEL. At MEL it was a UA 744 taking off about a 3rd of the way down runway 34. It was only going to SYD and was empty of pax and obviously fuel. I have never seen this in North America no matter how small the plane is.

rbavfan wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In the US, remote parking is unheard of for passenger flights. In the rest of the world, it common. I hate getting off the plane via stairs, dash into the bus, ride to the terminal, then find your gate, only to get another bus ride.

I mostly check my bags and never had one damaged; probably half dozen times they didn’t make a connection. I travel with a small carry-on with two days, always worked after I learned my lesson the hard way.

Seems you have never flown into LAX with it's very remote (On west end of airport) remote pads.

stratosphere wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

To me, operating practices means something very literal: the operation of the airplanes in revenue service.

No system of joint operational control exists in most of Europe. By operational control I mean certificated aircraft dispatchers with joint responsibility. (As an aside, authority cannot be shared, you either have it or you don't. The Captain/PIC always retains final authority. One often sees the words responsibility and authority used interchangeably in this context and that is incorrect.) There have been many incidents where a certificated dispatcher might have been helpful in preventing an accident or incident. BA 268 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 come to mind.

Over many decades, shared responsibility through positive operational control has been shown to be the safest operational model. It is true that many European airlines have someone on the ground performing dispatch-like functions, but they lack regulatory responsibility for their actions. The US FAA Aircraft (not Flight) Dispatcher Certificate and the enumerated responsibilities lend credence to the role. A very brief summation: 1) in the absence of an emergency, the PIC and Dispatcher must agree on the course of action, and 2) no one in the airline operations center can make a dispatcher do something he/she doesn't want to do. The dispatcher is a voice for the crew in the operations center. Many, many questionable ideas and suggestions are headed off by dispatchers. Dispatchers provide another layer of safety in the "swiss cheese" model of safety management.

Some airlines have found that voluntarily introducing a system of positive operational control enhances safety. In the wake of an accident at one European airline, a blue ribbon safety panel found that a lack of a system of operational control was a risk, a gap. As a result, that airline voluntarily chose to introduce a system of operational control, giving folks on the ground true responsibility, and authority for certain actions, for the first time. I believe that another European airline has also introduced such a system. I don't know that any other carriers have done so. The gap manifests itself in many ways, but one has to be educated in the nuances of the business to see them. Negative fuel at ETP on ETOPS flights due to corporate fuel mandates is one example. Another is when you see flights on the North Atlantic tracks (without dispatchers) operating at FL 370 and 390 reporting moderate to severe turbulence while the flight with dispatchers were planned at 310 or 330 (more expensive) and reporting smooth and light. And this example is when meteorological models exist showing the forecast turbulence. The turbulence forecasts were just never looked at by anyone on the ground in the planning phase who was empowered to make decisions based upon them. Decisions in this context meaning more fuel burn/more cost. And pilots can sometimes be "led" in such a way to accept the plan as it exists, even if they did see the turbulence forecast prior to departure. Uploading fuel that late in the game might mean bumping payload or incurring a fueling delay, and keep in mind, "its just a forecast......lets go with the plan." Airline bean counters programming computers to compute fuel requirements either without human intervention or with humans who aren't really well trained and have no true authority is a bad combination in my opinion.

Pilots operating flights without dispatchers are on their own. I had a pilot tell me one time that he flew all night to Africa, sometimes in areas of no radar separation and very limited ATC, and no one was watching his destination weather or alternate weather. No one not on the flight deck was monitoring fuel consumption. He wished for a "second set of eyes," to back up the flight crew. When initially exposed to the idea, some pilots don't like it. It is a big change for some military pilots, some of the tactical/fighter guys in particular seem to see it as a challenge to their authority. But after operating for awhile, they come to see the value. I've never met one who, after operating that way for awhile, didn't ultimately believe that having dispatchers was a better way to operate. Its just one more layer of safety, and in many cases also adds efficiency.

I've often wondered if you asked an airline passenger flying along in the middle of the night at 7 miles a minute and FL350, and getting bumped around by turbulence, if it made them feel safer knowing that a second set of eyes on the ground were watching their flight what they would say. And conversely, what they would say if they knew that no one on the ground with any real regulatory responsibilities was watching their flight. And no, ATC does not and cannot fulfill these requirements, and they don't want to. They don't want to watch alternate weather and compute minima taking into account MELs and NOTAMs. The government doesn't want that responsibility, it rests with the operators. ATC have enough on their plate already in fulfilling their own duties.

Finally, I believe that the Chinese and some of the Middle Eastern carriers (Emirates) have adopted the model of the three legged stool of safety: Pilots, Dispatcher, Controllers.