Is US Airways "Intimidating" Its Pilots?

(MoneyWatch)  This week, I saw a news release come across the wire entitled, "US Airways Pilots Allege That Management, Ignoring Past Safety Practices, Resorts To Pilot Intimidation in an Effort to Reduce Fuel Cost." Now, I'm not going to lie. When I see sensational headlines like these, I usually roll my eyes and move on, but this one caught my attention enough to get me to do a little more research.

According to the release, US Airways has decided to "initiate what the pilots consider discipline in the form of unapproved 'training.'" This training is allegedly being targeted at the most senior pilots at the company, and it's meant to educate them on loading aircraft up with less fuel to save money. According to the pilots, "'training' includes simulator instruction which, if not successfully completed, could subject the pilot to a loss of his/her license."

That's a serious allegation. If US Airways is forcing their pilots to put less fuel onboard than that with which they're comfortable, this could lead to accidents. Of course, I know there are two sides to every story, so I went to US Airways to hear what they had to say.

Spokesman Phil Gee tells me, "They are being given some extra PAID training which will not result in any action taken to their license. It's not like typical recurrent training in that regard. It's not pass/fail." I wrote back to clarify whether the airline would actually mandate lower fuel levels be used or not, and Phil answered that no, this was just an attempt to give training so that pilots would feel comfortable using less fuel, but the pilot retains the ultimate decision.

So what do I make of this? It sounds like there are some pilots who consistently put more fuel onboard than they need to have, and that's not surprising. This could just be the way they were trained long ago, or it could be for an extra sense of safety and security. I suppose it could be done out of spite toward the airline, but I'd like to think that the pilots aren't that dumb. From US Airways' perspective, the less fuel they use, the better. Now, they know that an accident could very likely be their death knell, so they don't want to use an unsafe amount of fuel either.

But where do you draw that line? I have to think that the two groups could end up meeting in between. Maybe some pilots are adding more fuel than they need because of their comfort levels. And maybe recurrent training on this issue is a good idea, because it could help pilots become comfortable with a lower level of fuel. But I'd imagine that management is probably being a bit overly aggressive and the pilots are being a bit overly conservative. The right place is likely somewhere in between.

So I don't have any problems with the premise here at all . . . unless it does become a threat of some sort. If the pilots don't feel they can adequately fill their planes without feeling repercussions, then we have a big problem. I'd just like to hope that isn't the case. Training is fine, and both sides need to work together here instead of being standoffish. Safety issues need to transcend politics.