Passengers Refusing to Board Flight To Munich?

Well as much as you are obsessively on this board with about a 90% bitching about operations I don't want to hear any more of your whining about our company delays, mechanicals etc.. Truth is these guys signed a contract and are whining about it so like a child are acting out.

Obviously as you stated you have no technical sense of what was going on...so with that said you might want to move on to another topic.....Somehow I don't think you can :shock:

Actually, it is you who is the mentally depraved. er, deprived.

The squeaky wheel warns you of impending failure. To sweep that knowledge under a carpet is so inexperienced, incompetent and naive like I would expect from a way too numerous wet-behind the ears HP person.

The east pilots are only too happy to runout LOA 93 in order to save sanity for the airline industry. To deny anyone the opportunity to toss any wish on a table just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to negotiations.

I hope you like it when the east pilots vote out ALPA and staple your buddies to the bottom of a list. That would be the ultimate hammer. Enjoy it tadpole.
 
Brown, I hear ya! Honestly if I'm hanging out for 6, 8 10 hours for an international flight to leave, you can bet your everloving assets every person on that flight will have a full set of instructions on how to file a formal complaint with the DOT. The will have the Customer Relations Number, Dougweiser and Scooters e-mail address and any other place I can think of for them to write.

In fact I'd probably fire up my laptop and have them file the DOT complaints right then and there and show them the US website where and how to write. We don't need a Passenger Bill of Rights, we need passengers with Big Iron Balls.

Those workers are NOT to blame. The blame starts at the top and that's where the anger and stress needs to be directed towards.

The Customers and Employees keeping the heat on will either get these guys to running an airline or out the door and I have no preference as to which it is. We need to be on them like stink on manure, white on rice, etc, etc ,etc, we can't let the B*stards breathe.
Agree 100% that being said flying these planes isn't a bad gig especially intl, trust me there are thousands of guys at commuters that would love to have the flights to Munich in a wide-body instead of flying RJ"s out of Ithica. I agree with your posts most if not all of the time, however your statement of the company negotiating with the pilots is a done deal, they signed there contract and just like a football player, baseball etc should abide by it.
 
The three pilots were preparing to work that flight, and those issues were discussed among themselves and the dispatcher, not the guy changing the start valve.

The dispatcher accepted the MEL but the captain didn't.
Apparantly your statement on the 3 pilots discussing this with dispatch is not all that accurate.
Now...back to your desk job!
 
Why would a capt refuse an airplane for a start valve
being on placard when the engine start valves are disabled
in the air.

Engine start valves are not disabled in the air. Depending on altitude and airspeed, a windmilling start is not always an option when restarting an engine once airborne, and a starter assist may be required.
 
Barry,

What planet are you on?

What is employee stink finger?

Citing distance, you apparently have ruled out employer stink finger?

When one is given a hammer by management, then asked to screw something together, it does get rather messy.
Isn't stink finger 3rd base??
 
The dispatcher accepted the MEL but the captain didn't.
Apparantly your statement on the 3 pilots discussing this with dispatch is not all that accurate.
Now...back to your desk job!


This is typical of posters who know nothing of the process.

The aircraft had an MEL. The Captain would have discussed this with the pilots during their extensive pre-flight planning. Additionally, the Captain would have discussed with dispatch any MELs in additon to a number of other issues such as weather, ride reports, fuel planning, alternates, etc.

We have no way of knowing if the dispatcher agreed, but the Captain's decision would have been final. In my experience, most often the dispatchers are on the same wave length as the pilots. The decision would have been made in that way, pilots and dispatcher, not pilots and maintenance.

Most of the posters such as yourself have such a poor understanding of the engine start system that you could not possibly understand why the Captain made a very rational decision. :down:

Desk job? Hah! :lol:
 
This is typical of posters who know nothing of the process.

The aircraft had an MEL. The Captain would have discussed this with the pilots during their extensive pre-flight planning. Additionally, the Captain would have discussed with dispatch any MELs in additon to a number of other issues such as weather, ride reports, fuel planning, alternates, etc.

We have no way of knowing if the dispatcher agreed, but the Captain's decision would have been final. In my experience, most often the dispatchers are on the same wave length as the pilots. The decision would have been made in that way, pilots and dispatcher, not pilots and maintenance.

Most of the posters such as yourself have such a poor understanding of the engine start system that you could not possibly understand why the Captain made a very rational decision. :down:

Desk job? Hah! :lol:
This is a typical post from someone who thinks they know it all.
I understand the engine start system...having gone to Boeing factory school in Seattle and GE school in Ohio...of course you being the expert will dispute this claim , but frankly your opinions don't mean anything.

Did you read the posts carefully? The mechanic says the MEL was applied....which means the mechanic called MOC, MOC discussed with dispatch and then dispatch applied it. The Captain then refused it and the MEL was cleared....hope you don't read your checklists as poorly as you did the posts in this topic.
You do understand that maintenance puts the MEL on right?

Typical know it all. I will not waste time responding to your posts...have at it if you want the last word. Good bye.
 
Why would a capt refuse an airplane for a start valve
being on placard when the engine start valves are disabled
in the air.

Um, other than windmilling start, how would one restart an engine?

Assume losing 50% of certified thrust, the only way to get sufficient airspeed to get in the relight window would be to lose altitude, a lot of altitude, you are out of the tracks and likely, with any weather fronts, in the storms. Even then, the books assumes "perfect" conditions to affect a relight within the book parameters.
 
The dispatcher accepted the MEL but the captain didn't.
Apparantly your statement on the 3 pilots discussing this with dispatch is not all that accurate.
Now...back to your desk job!

Apparently you do not understand the process.

Any decision must include concurrence of both the dispatcher and the pilot. One cannot concur without the concurrence of the other. It is right there in black and white, in the Flight Operations Manual, and the MEL manual, not to mention FAA regulations.

You may have sat in on a conference call, and the dispatcher may have said it was OK with him but until the PIC agrees, there is nothing there. (It ain't the dispatchers tutu at night, FL350 and three hours from the nearest place to land.) They can (and, sometimes, do) say anything.

It is like me talking with dispatch about a single runway Carib. destination. They say, no alternate required, all you get is 45 min. reserve (and some). I say, I need an alt. because if some light aircraft has a problem and blocks the runway, 45 minutes of fuel will not get me to the closest alternate runway. The dispatchers are "legal" but, I am correct. I go only with a declared alternate, not just because I am a donkey, but because a friend of mine needlessly died over that very issue, making my donkeyoid insistence even stronger.
 
The mechanic says the MEL was applied....which means the mechanic called MOC, MOC discussed with dispatch and then dispatch applied it. ........You do understand that maintenance puts the MEL on right?

Don't know who you work for, but in my experience at this company, MOC does not consult with the dispatcher prior to issuing an mel. They just do it, and the dispatcher is then notified, more than consulted. Many times we have mels applied, and the dispatcher doesn't even know it, until we (the capt usually) call them, and tell them we need an amended release.
 
Oh, my dear. This is happening almost on a daily basis. We have MTC isssues with the A330 every day. They need to be pulled off the line and and get the white glove treatment.

I flew on one between CLT and FRA earlier this summer (N277AY was the registration number). While the aircraft seemed to fly just fine the cabin definitely needed an upgrade and I thought the overhead compartments were about the fall on top of us the way they shook on takeoff both from CLT and FRA.
 
This is a typical post from someone who thinks they know it all.
I understand the engine start system...having gone to Boeing factory school in Seattle and GE school in Ohio...of course you being the expert will dispute this claim , but frankly your opinions don't mean anything.

Did you read the posts carefully? The mechanic says the MEL was applied....which means the mechanic called MOC, MOC discussed with dispatch and then dispatch applied it. The Captain then refused it and the MEL was cleared....hope you don't read your checklists as poorly as you did the posts in this topic.
You do understand that maintenance puts the MEL on right?

Typical know it all. I will not waste time responding to your posts...have at it if you want the last word. Good bye.
Nice :up: :up: :up:
 
Back
Top