Qatar Airways Threatens Pilots For Taxiing With Two Engines

I've been a First Officer in Qatar until June2020 when the company terminated me because I was part of a whatsapp group, a group where we managed roster exchanges and some destination info in order to help each other, well, it seems absurd to believe but unfortunately true.
Before being illegally terminated I was always complying with the RETI procedure (reduced engine taxi in), for about 80% of the flights except when we didn't have the requirements, it was and still is a standard practice and it actually works, what doesn't work is the management that threatens his pilots continuosly with all kinds of letters and inviting people to the office to shout at them for whatever reason.

This is perhaps one of the most idiotic things I've heard in aviation!
(Threatening your pilots with termination, because they don't feel safe taxiing on one engine.)
Single engine taxi never works as it is advertised. Yes, you may save a few pounds of fuel, taxing on a smooth, flat and dry taxiway in a remote part of the airport. But often you burn away all those savings out of the tailpipe, waiting for a gate, the jetway driver or the ground power hookup!
Not to mention, the much higher powers required to move the aircraft, sometimes inches at a time in a congested airport. Blowing objects and people behind, or vacuuming the sand covered taxiways of the Middle East aerodrome into your engine intake. Then there are those times when a short taxi after landing requires at least a two minute cool down. Plus the distractions from safely operating your aircraft.
I think it is time to send that stupid Chief Pilot back riding a camel and writing SOP's for it!
Captain Ross Aimer
UAL ret.
CEO, Aero Consulting Experts,
Los Angeles

Stands to be said that having an SOP and training for one does not make a SETI procedure obligatory. In addition to all the good reasons already stated, there are also some airports that forbid SET in/out & published in their AIPs (what if the only running engine fails during taxi or runway backtrack!). Some of the extraneous factors are related to OEM attitudes as well. One of the big-two is not quite supportive of fuel efficiencies such as SETI, Thrust Reversers etc. Getting an SOP signed off by them is a daunting task for an airline whereas the competitor has published “Green” Supplemental procedures as part of the Fcom. And then there are the Software vendors who churn out reports ad-nauseum in retrospect at the month end without factoring all the underlying causes why SETI did not work (runway slope, taxi speeds, sharp turns, wet rwy, hot day etc.). This 'reporting culture' inbuilt in the software and the capture of Pilot data, usually from an FDM program invariably leads to the malaise of finding cause with the Pilot rather than the external factors from Weather or ATM such as taxi congestion, stops/starts and crossing live runways that could well be the case.
In my view, a large part of this malaise is caused by reactive commercial softwares 'overselling' fuel savings. And worse, that it is achieved through a post-flight reactive Reporting process (what/why happened). What is needed instead is Predictive Analytics (what will happen) that would identify opportunity with a high level of probability and quantify it. Followed by Prescriptive Analytics (how to make it happen) - which is what QR is trying to achieve here. They are yet a way to go!!
Our company – fliteX - is well on the path to this future state recognizing that ALL taxis are NOT opportunities. We would much rather PREDICT 100% of the opportunities and in turn push these insights to the Pilot BEFORE the opportunities arise with 3 simple insights…
1. Do I have a SETI savings on this flight?
2. If so, how many minutes to cool-down time?
3. What are the predicted savings?
This approach is guaranteed to generate a 100% compliance with 100% pilot buy-in.

Having some experience in aviation management I see the same happening over and over again where management has a very different agenda than what the PR boys and girls spin out and make you believe and have long discussions about.
We pilots, we approach this from the technical/professional point of view and walk right into the trap.
The issue is not whether 1 eng taxi is helping to save fuel or not. We are in a complete and utter aviation crisis today where the sheer survival of airlines is the number one concern for any management out there. This is simple crisis management.
You see different airlines tackle it differently. A lot of airlines use their unions to lean back on governments to secure ridiculous government bailouts. Those airlines without unions to pressure on governments need to be more creative or brutal in their approach. Qatar has clearly chosen the path of trying to stand out from the herd by portraying itself as the eco friendly, reliable airline, not affected by COVID like other weaker airlines.
So when it is time to lay off pilots you justify your actions by making sure word starts spreading about how irresponsible some of your pilots are in not following procedures and the detrimental effect it has on your quest for being so environmentally aware, not to mention implying that not following procedure by definition means you are an unsafe pilot. My humble opinion being here that when you reach 95% single engine taxi-in (in the current conditions and Doha environment) you have a safety issue on your hands by the simple fact that, as many colleagues explained very well, it's not a simple yes or no question. Even the constructors will tell you that. Single engine taxi in is not a SOP for normal flight. it is a conditional SOP, meaning that you can apply the procedure if, and only if, the conditions are suitable. That is what the constructor's lawyers will tell you when you face them in court after having an incident or accident involving single engine taxi. When you force pilots to answer this complex issues with a simple you follow procedure X or Y 95% of the time, you will create a safety issue.

The bottom line is not what you write in your article.
The bottom line is that Qatar needs to fire pilots.
And you are, blissfully unaware, but gladly and willfully doing the dirty work for them by broadcasting and spinning this story in such a way that at the end of the day the public can only see the poor airline being the good guys for sacking pilots that don't follow procedures.
Qatar can keep its reputation of being eco friendly and safety driven and as a strong player that is not affected by this global crisis like all the other weaker airlines. It is only concerned about your and the planet's safety and wellbeing and firing those pilots was needed to keep it that way.

This topic is part of what I do for a living; I help airlines achieve fuel & operational efficiency.

Many good and factual comments have been made in this stream of comments already, even by my FE mentor, retired Air Canada captain and all-round great guy Marcel Martineau.

Single (or Reduced-) Engine taxiing (SET) is one of many ways to lower fuel waste on a flight when applied appropriately. SET comes at a cost as well though, and all relevant factors should be thoroughly investigated before deciding on company-specific SOPs for these initiatives.

Different aircraft types handle SET differently and a host of operational and non-operational factors will influence if SET is achievable for a particular flight or not. I will not bother you with the details, previous comments mention a few already.

Aircraft produce a lot of data, and best-in-class airlines will harvest that data and put it to good use throughout the airline. Not to punish individuals (just culture!) but to get a grip on data, learn from the analysis and use it coach the organisation.
With bespoke software tools it can then be determined if conditions were in place to allow for SET within set SOPs or not, and so help determine how many flights of the total should represent 100% application of the initiative.
Combined with flight crew feedback one can then look for trends in cases where SET (or any other FE initiative) was not or partially applied when in fact it was expected, and either re-assess SOPs and/or work towards removing a particular barrier to success.
Airlines not using such tools should not be in business today.

I've managed FE programs in this way for various airlines, one of them a large non-union, Middle-Eastern airline and we never fired anyone. We did have a few conversations of course, worked to understand issues and found solutions as a team.

An authoritarian senior manager reacting in this way will not benefit the fuel efficiency program, or any change program for that matter. We've seen this before: such threatening messages tend to have an adverse effect in that some flight crew will take this the wrong way and possibly hurt the efficiency program in other, difficult to prove ways- simply because they can. They feel misunderstood, they stop caring and even become obstinate and the airline will have lost their support (and pay for it).

On a personal note, this is quite a contrast with the forward-thinking spirit I encountered in this airline in 2007 during our IATA FEGA visits . These are difficult times for sure, but such action may end up costing the airline more than it had anticipated.

Now for some perspective:
Taxiing activities account for 2-3% of an airline's fuel budget; roughly 2/3 of this for taxi-out and the remaining 1/3 for taxi-in. So let's say that 1% of the airline's fuel budget is involved in the SETI initiative.
Let's further say that this initiative can be applied in 60%-70% of all arriving flights (due to restrictions, etc.), making this 60%-70% the 100% target. Finally, per SETI event up to a 40% fuel burn saving can be had, but in practice this number is not often reached (again, many factors). Let's say an average of 25%.

We then end up with savings potential of 0.16% of the airline's fuel budget which, for this airline at roughly 4M tons (US$ 1.4B) annually during normal (non-COVID) operations, still amounts to roughly 7,000 tons (US$ 2.5M) of fuel waste saved annually.
That, and avoiding some 22,100 tons of CO2 and other emissions on airport premises, which is a worthwhile target any day of the week.

I was a B777 captain at Qatar Airways for 5 years.

QR has excellent IT capabilities and they track everything. All modern airplanes have the capability to transmit every conceivable parameter back to the company in real time, and QR has systems in place to receive and analyze this data at a level much higher than most carriers.

At QR we were told not to SE taxi if the pavement was wet or slippery, but the company has no way of knowing that conditions.
We did not SE taxi until after all runways were crossed.
You have to wait until the recommended engine cool down time is achieved.
On the B777, with even a slight uphill slope SE taxi could require excessive power and therefore hazardous.
The weight of the airplane combined with slope or sharp turns can make SE taxi unwise. The company limited us to 40% power on the ground, so there were many situations where you might need more than that to SE taxi.
We filled out a journey log after each flight and one of the requirements was to report whether we did SE taxi, and if we didn’t, why we chose not to. QR prioritizes safety, and they certainly didn’t want us to SE taxi if it was unwise to do so. If I had a good reason not to SE taxi they never questioned it.

We would periodically get these letters, saying that x percentage of flights did not shut down an engine as soon as they could have, and I often wondered how they could possibly know what “as soon as they could have” really was as the office had no way of knowing the current conditions.

One of the reasons I left Qatar was the company culture of fear, threats and intimidation you see evidenced in this letter. It’s not a fun place to work. Everyone is living in fear for their jobs. Employees are NOT a valued part of the team, no matter what QR may say.

There is a very good reason why this is not occurring but as we say lies damn lies and statistics. Given that taxi times have now dropped to an average 6 minutes and the engine cool down time for the airbus Rolls Royce engines require a cool down time of 5 minutes shutting down an engine as you come on to stand serves no purpose. But then the paper pushers in the office don’t look at the whole picture just how many flights don’t shut don their engine for single engine taxi. If you look at how many had the opportunity and how many did then the 95% rate is achieved.

I was a pilot for an airline in the 90s that had management looking for ways to save money on operational costs. We used single engine taxi procedures whenever it was possible based on aircraft weight and airport weather conditions. They also had pilots not using certain lights that weren’t mandatory on the outside of the aircraft to save bulbs, like the tail logo lights. They even went as far as having us not use reversers on landing and use more brakes, because they said it was cheaper to replace brakes than mechanical parts for the reverser system. I won’t get into the idea of changing a pilots mindset on a critical moment when reversers would have made a difference, that change in mindset can cost periods of time that may be crucial in a bad situation. The company I worked for, like other airlines, leased the engines, so time was costly, it wasn’t just about fuel consumption.

High speed taxiing over lengthy distances will require the pilot to control the plane more if on one engine. Might be a pain. Might be a safety issue.

Upon touching down, pilots want to get to the gate asap. It's another step they just are not use to, but new procedures come up all the time so its not difficult to follow this.

MOST airlines, especially big ones monitor every flight, can look at the engine performance and all things taking place second by second. AA, UA, DL, BA, LH etc all have a massive ops floor where all they do is monitor aircraft. Makes one wonder about the missing MH flight. They say the second by second monitoring is a package they did not purchase. Boeing says its automatically built in.

Single engine taxi has been standard procedure for a long time at most airlines. However, heavy airplanes require a LOT of thrust from the one running engine to get moving, and sometimes that amount of jet blast in a tight area like the ramp, or a taxiway line with other airplanes behind you, just isn’t safe not courteous.

If the pavement is contaminated by ice or snow, the asymmetric thrust can make directional control difficult, if not impossible. Most US-based airlines that I’m familiar with actually forbids single engine taxi in ice and snow.

Also, making a right turn in the direction of the running engine is more difficult. The asymmetric thrust is trying to turn the airplane AWAY from the running engine. So if you’re turning away from the running engine, the asymmetric thrust actually helps you. If you’re turning INTO the running engine, it can be hard to keep it rolling. I’ve had aircraft I’m taxiing come to a complete stop if I didn’t have enough forward momentum and I was turning in the direction of the running engine. Adding power on that engine just exacerbates the problem, because the thrust is fighting against the turn you’re commanding with the deflection of the nose wheel.

At its bottom line, single engine taxi is all about economics. And while I understand that economics are important, this heavy-handed approach over an issue that isn’t safety-related seems a little over the top. Yes, I’ve seen fellow pilots “counseled” about their compliance with single engine taxi. But it would be a hard pill to swallow to see pilots threatened with firing when single engine taxi doesn’t increase safety and sometimes will actually degrade safety.

That’s probably the difference in culture between US-based airlines (and their strong union protection) and foreign carriers that seem more likely to fire pilots for spurious reasons.

Those are lame excuses, if the company is falling apart let the shareholders know there's a bad management in the company and stop witch hunting the pilots because the issue of switching of an engine that has been running of 2ooomiles at ones do more harm to the whole machine than losing the a few litters of fuel, i don't understand how Qatar a country rich in fuel can complain about it to an extent of going short cut which i believe they won't save anything at all but only to encounter a tragedy later when those engines break down at the mid-air, thank for this information that now i will avoid those airlines now.... Doomed Company

As caparipinepe said this "notice" to Crew is the outcome of incompetence of the manager who deliver it. Lack of situation awareness (by a Chief Flight Operations Officer) during strategic operations especially during these days in unusual situation put managers out of time and out of operational situation. They loose their common sense, they don't even realize they are deeply offending their Pilots.
High stress situations shouldn't give right to these people to loose their respect for their employees that are working very hard in stressful situation and for less salary...much less!!!
As some others colleague correctly wrote, there are numbers of a very good reasons to decide not to perform a reduced engine taxi while there are NO REASONS to be offensive, rude and threatening.

Pilot here. Let me sit down and answer your questions :)

In my airline, single engine (or "reduced engine") taxi is certainly encouraged. We will do it whenever we can, but there are many, many reasons NOT to do it as well.

What it boils down to is that jet engines are not really designed to be used on the ground. If you look at a car, the power from the engine is used to create torque on the axles, which are connected to the wheels, which have direct ground contact. Instead what a jet engine does is that it sucks in as much air as possible at the front, heats it up by mixing in boatloads of burning fuel, and then dumps everything out the back with a lot of force. This works great when you're flying high up in the air, but on the ground it's very impractical. These engines have lag, are difficult to control precisely, and the hot and powerful exhaust air can wreak havoc on anything that is behind them. So there could be a lot of reasons not to switch off an engine on the way to the gate, for instance if you are expecting to need that trust to handle upslopes on the taxiways or the aprons, or to go over soft spots in the asphalt, or to make very tight turns. Or if you're arriving at an airport or a particular apron for the first time, and you're not completely sure it will be a smooth ride all the way simply because you've never been there before, you can imagine that it's better to be safe than sorry. Because if you get stuck anywhere it will take a lot of time (and thus a lot of extra fuel) to restart an engine. And you could be blocking the way for any aircraft behind you, so that's even more engines running unnecessarily.

Specifically for Doha (Qatar Airways' home base), where temperatures are extremely high, maybe the taxiways are not that great (hot asphalt tends to get soft, plus the airport is built on artificial land which can literally sink down). On top of that they have a fleet comprising of a lot of really heavy airplanes, for which the conditions really need to be optimal to consider reduced engine taxi.

I think 95% compliance is an unrealistic target. Especially now when many of their lighter airplanes are grounded whilst their heavies (mainly the A350 and B777) are doing most of the work that is left during this pandemic.

As for determining their compliance rate, they can probably get these statistics from the engines themselves (from telemetry data).

"Should this make us question what other procedures aren’t being followed?" - this statement hurts me right in the feels, as does the wording of the email that my fellow pilots in Qatar apparently received. I'm sure these guys are professionals, and the fact that their company has had NO fatal incidents or accidents since it was founded 26 years ago (at least that's what a quick Google search tells me) is a great testament to that. I think calling them "offenders" and threatening them with dismissal, especially when so many people have already lost their jobs, and those who are still flying are at extreme risk of getting sick, is very short sighted.