It's certainly hard to avoid the impression that the FAA is gunning for AA when they gave Southwest several months to patch up their problem, in stark contrast to last years MD80 groundings.
American and the FAA
- Thread starter 1AA
- Start date
- Status
Add to your supposed "knowledge" of AMR operations that those groundings were voluntary - the company acted first.
If you're going to post here looking for celebrity due to your non-AMR and pro company status please, at least, get it correct.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
If the FAA were really gunning for AA, they'd be levying millions in fines like they just announced for UA and US... See http://planebuzz.com for the story and commentary.
I think the number against AA is between 10 and 20 million. I don't think that includes the MD80 fiasco, I think AA has more against them than any other carrier. Not surprising, all of our maint. is in the US and gets more attention. The FAA's surveillance at oversees Maint. facilities are a joke, so they get all their quotas filled in the US.
I dont think that anyone is saying that they arent, its the employer you have to watch.
Recently the company starting writing up mechanics for doing their job. In one case a mechanic was assigned to check the logbook on a through trip, while he waited for the passengers to deplane he did a quick walk around, which up until recently they were expected to do so there wouldnt be any last minute gate calls, and he found a hydraulic leak. He fixed the leak but the plane went out 20 minutes late. The Supervisor cited some new maintenance program that nobody ever heard of and put a performance advisory in his file basically saying he should not have looked at the plane. The message is clear, do not look at an airplane unless you are assigned to look at it. This flies in the face of everything we were taught since A&P school. If I recall a mechanic at LGA got in hot water several years ago, when USAIR flipped an ice covered Fokker into the bay because he said he noticed ice on the wing but he didnt say anything because he wasnt assigned to that aircraft. So we are damned by the company if we do and damned by the FAA (and God) if we dont.
I remember the days when a mechanic would get an "atta boy" for doing a little extra and fixing a problem, even if they lost a trip. Better to lose a trip than dispatch and aircraft in an unairworty condition. Seems to me the new policy is to gamble that the flight crew will miss things and they can make their departure times. Two sets of eyes are always better, at least thats how I would feel if I was a passenger.
So I'll take that response as an affirmation that a unionized workforce is essential to safety.
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 912
WSJ reports that FAA investigation into unsafe AA MD-80s continues. This part is ominous:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59G1GR20091017
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59G1GR20091017
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Yes it is true. The problem is the FAA has already been notified and to date they do not seem to want to get involved with internal policies.
Funny thing is...if the FAA really "had in it" for AA, they could have a field day with this one.
Maybe congressmen and senators need to be made aware of this, who knows.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
No, it seems to be more of an affirmation that having the union doesn't seem to make a difference. Since anyone, union or not, can file a whistleblower retaliation complaint, what other value is the TWU providing in this example?...
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 912
I think the only thing that would get AA's attention on this one is if a lawyer or newscrew showed up at their door.
The difference is in a non-union shop they wouldn't document anything, they would just fire the guy. He would then have to prove that they fired him for finding defects. With a union and a "just cause clause" in the contract, the company has to prove he did something wrong.
From what I heard the FAAs position, (like I've said before most come from management), is that if they worded it in such a way as he was being written up for reporting a defect he knew about THAT would be a violation, however if they write him up for looking it isnt.
The thing is that nobody has ever been written up for looking unless they find something that results in a delay. If they find something and they fix it without a delay thats OK. So if you are walking past a plane and you notice a wing tip light out and you can change it with no delay thats ok but if you are walking by and you see a hydraulic leak just keep walking and forget what you saw if you want to stay out of trouble, technically that would put you in violation, so the best thing would be to put blinders on and dont even look towards any plane that you are not assigned to look at. Let the crew worry about it when they lose a system at 35,000ft somewhere over the Mid atlantic I guess.
- Status
