Narrative:

I was scheduled to operate 3 flights with a total scheduled block of 8:00. After being delayed and over blocking the first leg of my day; I was scheduled to be within 6 minutes under the 9:00 max block time allowed under far 117 prior to beginning a last leg turn. Moments before our departure; in order to prevent a possible illegality and flight cancellation; and rather than using an alternative crew to operate the flight; crew scheduling (cs) and dispatch unilaterally reran our return flight plan for the out and back that 'reduced' our scheduled block time from 2:07 to 1:55. This is a reduction of approximately 10% in our scheduled block time and required a cost index of 100 for the flight. In order to achieve this reduction; and create an apparent legal scheduling situation; the return flight plan involved climb speeds of 319 knots; cruise of .80 mach; and descent speed of 340 knots. This plan was for flight through an area of known and reported moderate chop; along with several areas of convective activity. These speeds were well outside the operating limitations for turbulent airspeeds for the aircraft as well as safe operating speeds for our flight attendants to be providing service to the passengers. It also was beyond any reasonable or comfortable operating speed for our passengers. We were told to 'fly fast'. The entire purpose of creating this flight plan was to make us 'legal' to depart rather than use a different crew to conduct the operation in a safe manner. I queried crew scheduling prior to departing on the first leg and was told by an obviously irritated and annoyed crew scheduler that their actions were perfectly legal and reasonable. After departure the return leg; we encountered occasional moderate chop along with some light turbulence along the route of flight. The same conditions were previously encountered outbound on the previous leg and were known to dispatch. The conditions returning required the seat belt sign to be on for approximately half of the flight time.our return block time was 2:00 and included a significant short cut from our arrival; and a high speed descent to the final approach fix. With these extraordinary efforts; my block time for the day was 8:54; just short of the maximum legal flight time allowed with a duty day of 11:35.the creation of an extraordinarily fast flight time was done solely in an effort to make it 'legal' for us to depart the last station in the hopes of not having a crew time out. There was no consideration given to the safe operation of the flight or the human factors of a crew operating to the maximum flight time.there was no legitimate operational need to create a flight plan to operate the aircraft at excessive speeds for the conditions; risk the safe movement of flight attendants and passengers in the aircraft; or increase the operational stresses on the flight crew other than for the convenience of the company. Crew scheduling and dispatch never consulted with the flight crew prior to taking any of their actions and were defensive and irritated when the issue was raised. There is no focus; or concern about the safe operation of our flights; unnecessary stress is being placed on our crews; and retribution and punitive actions (disciplinary hearings and 'refuse to fly' notations) are being taken against those who do not immediately comply with the orders being issued even when the company is notified of safety concerns by the flight crew. There is a terrible environment; no common agreement on actions; complete lack of communication; and an unwillingness to even remotely consider the impact of crew scheduling and dispatch decisions on the flight crews. Safety is not only not our 'first priority'; it is simply not even being considered. The only thing that appears to matter is pushing the flight crews to the maximum and reducing costs.this company has to begin to care about safety. Better planning. This company should not be pushing their crews to the maximums and then bending operational parameters in order to make them 'legal.' legal is not the same as safe!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A319 pilot reported his company increased the out and back flight speed to Mach .80; disregarding turbulence; to reduce his day's flight time below nine hours on a day originally scheduled less than eight hours.

Narrative: I was scheduled to operate 3 flights with a total scheduled block of 8:00. After being delayed and over blocking the first leg of my day; I was scheduled to be within 6 minutes under the 9:00 max block time allowed under FAR 117 PRIOR to beginning a last leg turn. Moments before our departure; in order to prevent a possible illegality and flight cancellation; and rather than using an alternative crew to operate the flight; Crew Scheduling (CS) and Dispatch unilaterally reran our return flight plan for the out and back that 'reduced' our scheduled block time from 2:07 to 1:55. This is a reduction of approximately 10% in our scheduled block time and required a cost index of 100 for the flight. In order to achieve this reduction; and create an apparent legal scheduling situation; the return flight plan involved climb speeds of 319 knots; cruise of .80 Mach; and descent speed of 340 knots. This plan was for flight through an area of known and reported moderate chop; along with several areas of convective activity. These speeds were well outside the operating limitations for turbulent airspeeds for the aircraft as well as safe operating speeds for our flight attendants to be providing service to the passengers. It also was beyond any reasonable or comfortable operating speed for our passengers. We were told to 'fly fast'. The entire purpose of creating this flight plan was to make us 'legal' to depart rather than use a different crew to conduct the operation in a safe manner. I queried Crew Scheduling prior to departing on the first leg and was told by an obviously irritated and annoyed Crew Scheduler that their actions were perfectly legal and reasonable. After departure the return leg; we encountered occasional moderate chop along with some light turbulence along the route of flight. The same conditions were previously encountered outbound on the previous leg and were known to Dispatch. The conditions returning required the seat belt sign to be on for approximately half of the flight time.Our return block time was 2:00 and included a significant short cut from our arrival; and a high speed descent to the final approach fix. With these extraordinary efforts; my block time for the day was 8:54; just short of the MAXIMUM legal flight time allowed with a duty day of 11:35.The creation of an extraordinarily fast flight time was done solely in an effort to make it 'legal' for us to depart the last station in the hopes of not having a crew time out. There was no consideration given to the safe operation of the flight or the human factors of a crew operating to the maximum flight time.There was no legitimate operational need to create a flight plan to operate the aircraft at excessive speeds for the conditions; risk the safe movement of flight attendants and passengers in the aircraft; or increase the operational stresses on the flight crew other than for the convenience of the Company. Crew Scheduling and Dispatch never consulted with the flight crew prior to taking any of their actions and were defensive and irritated when the issue was raised. There is no focus; or concern about the safe operation of our flights; unnecessary stress is being placed on our crews; and retribution and punitive actions (disciplinary hearings and 'refuse to fly' notations) are being taken against those who do not immediately comply with the orders being issued even when the Company is notified of safety concerns by the flight crew. There is a terrible environment; no common agreement on actions; complete lack of communication; and an unwillingness to even remotely consider the impact of Crew Scheduling and Dispatch decisions on the flight crews. Safety is not only NOT our 'first priority'; it is simply not even being considered. The only thing that appears to matter is pushing the flight crews to the maximum and reducing costs.This Company has to begin to care about safety. Better planning. This Company should not be pushing their crews to the maximums and then bending operational parameters in order to make them 'legal.' Legal is not the same as safe!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.