220 Additional pilot retirements by end of October

[IORFA]

Just thinking out loud, but can AA cancel vacations when they are in situations like this? I realize some/most/all would just call in sick anyway, but just asking.

 

[eolesen]

Eolesen,
In as much as arbitration is guided by prior decisions to the extent that judicial decisions: one would have to read the decision of the arbitrar in AMR v. TWU Kreuze to understand that prior arbitrars have determined any discrepancy brought to light by any Pilot or AMT must be addressed appropriately unless the issues in question can be shown to be without merit.

The question of whether the items brought to light were prioritzed with respect to grounding the aircraft versus delayimg flight for a proper deferral were dealt with by the arbitrars refusal to require back-pay in that case.

The Us Air Pilots Union need only ask the TWU ATD or Atty. Art Luby for the decision in the case.

Maybe, but take a look at the level of performance data detail pulled to support the US Airways injunction: http://crankyflier.com/files/Lee.pdf

 

[Boomer]

Maybe, but take a look at the level of performance data detail pulled to support the US Airways injunction: http://crankyflier.com/files/Lee.pdf

All of the below is completely my opinion:

All that notwithstanding: during the Kreuze case AMR documented the writeups by AA station, by AA fleet and by individual AA AMT during the alleged job-action.

The decision of the Arbitrar was the same: prove the write ups were not evident or defer to the professionals that created the write ups and then hold them accountable for failing to prioritize the treatment of the items between grounding items and deferrable items.

In the case of another airline procedure, I cannot guess where an arbitrar may choose a defining line other than to say I do not believe any Arbitrar will place themselves into the position of saying that any Pilot, Crewmember, Ground Personnel or AMT will be disciplined for bringing light to any aspect of any aircraft they believe was evident.

In fact, the sole thrust of the FAA program on Human Factors and Crew Resource Mangement has been to remove the barriers in levels of command so that those relatively "junior" on the accountability food chain are empowered to challenge and demand answer for any aspect of the flight operation they believe is not in compliance with the regulatory standards required for that operation..

In the end, data collection sets, under examination, usually reveals only the bias of those that collected the data: the Arbitrar will be asked what the penalty should be for airline personnel that bring to light questions over operational issues and whether those issues were germain or not to the legal, not safety of flight, operations for that particular segment given the rules the flight is operated under and not the rules which management wishes to impose.

At AA, under the current status of Arbitrated Decisions related to malicious compliance: the airline has to prove that the reported discrepancies were either not true OR that treatment of the issues reported was not handled appropriately.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Note that the situation at US is in a judge's hands and not an arbitrator. Also, US is claiming that it's pilots were doing more than just making nuisance write-ups to delay/cancel flights. Then review the AA vs APA and UA vs ALPA MEC cases. APA was hit with something like $45 million in damages for violating the terms of the TRO while the UA pilots are still under an injunction 8-10 years after charges were brought against the union.

Jim

 

[Mach85ER]

I'm sure the good Phd failed to notice the historical statiscal correlation between write ups at major maintenance bases and the outlying bases and why things always seemed to only break going into the major bases.

Maybe the were actually doing it right finally, and now Usair wants a TRO.

 

[eolesen]

I'm sure the good Phd failed to notice the historical statiscal correlation between write ups at major maintenance bases and the outlying bases and why things always seemed to only break going into the major bases.

Maybe the were actually doing it right finally, and now Usair wants a TRO.

Mach, how do you explain how only half the airline was broken?... Were the mechanics on one side of the country doing it worse all of the sudden (same union and contract represents all of them) ?? Or maybe the pilots who were still under the West contract just don't know how to write something up in the logbook?

Sorry, but the examples in that filing are textbook examples of how to identify a slow-down, be it a sanctioned or wildcat action.

 

[FWAAA]

Fourth quarter capacity cuts announced today, including reductions of 13% of Saturday flying and smaller cuts every other day of the week (except for Fridays, which will be flat) will presumably help AA weather the difficulties caused by the large number of retiring pilots.

Link to slide deck on Tuesday's presentation in NYC:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDM5OTczfENoaWxkSUQ9NDYxNjIwfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

Page 10 of the .pdf shows the capacity reductions by day of the week.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Maybe the were actually doing it right finally, and now Usair wants a TRO.

Which is what I basically said in one of these threads. If working to book slows down the operation or affects the historical pattern of write-ups, you're proving that either you weren't following the book before or are engaged in an illegal job action now. A lose-lose for the union.

Of course, in the US case there were more things than that according to the company. They claimed that pilots were intentionally waiting to write up items till just prior to departure to cause delays/cancellations, taxiing slower to cause delays, writing up nuisance items in the aircraft logbook (US uses a cabin maintenance log for items like reading lights that aren't in the MEL or necessary for flight but claimed pilots put those in the aircraft log so it had to be signed off), text messages to pilots to "get on board", union messages containing "+16", etc.

Jim

 

[Boomer]

Note that the situation at US is in a judge's hands and not an arbitrator. Also, US is claiming that it's pilots were doing more than just making nuisance write-ups to delay/cancel flights. Then review the AA vs APA and UA vs ALPA MEC cases. APA was hit with something like $45 million in damages for violating the terms of the TRO while the UA pilots are still under an injunction 8-10 years after charges were brought against the union.

Jim

BoeingBoy,

Yes this is Federal Court, not arbitration.

No part, paragraph, graph or subsectional graph, represented by the hyperlink as being the work of a consultant paid by the air carrier to find such abnormalities as were subsequently desrcibed and, dealt with whether or not the PIREPS issued to the logbooks of any section of the US Airways route structure were not, in fact, evident.

All certificated airmen are required, as a principle issuance of the airmens' certificate, to verbatim compliance with the appropriate FAR governing the flight rules for a particular aircrafts' operation.

The particulars of the mechanisms each air carrier is required to follow in reporting and dealing with observed, reported or percieved abnormalities are all equally detailed in both the Flight Operations Manual. or its' equivalnet, and the General Maintenance Manual, GMM, or its' equivalent, for each of the air carriers.

Failure to follow the published guidance is punishable at both the air carrier level and at the Federal level by individual financial fines, temporary and permanent revocation of airmen certification; and, termination of employment.

In the instant case: the union representing the Pilots in question is not under a TRO issued by any Federal Court; thus the quotation of the fine that was levied, but never actually paid, by Pilots at AA during the period in question is window dressing as is your citation of the status-quo for the Pilots at UA.

Still the centerpoint to my earlier reply and my re-citation of that is most on point: the entire thrust of the FAA programs with respect to Human Factors and Cockpit Resource Management is the elimination of barriers between the command structures to the extent that anyone associated with the conduct of air carrier operations is protected and shielded from disciplinary action when they disclose anything they believe, based on their individual level of training and expertise, that would or could evidently affect the legal operation of any scheduled flight operation.

If any Federal Judge wishes to supplant their years sitting in a schoolhouse and on a bench for the man-years of operational expertise exemplified by the eyes, ears and judgement of those most closely engaged with producing that end product: I'll just buy my own bus.

 

[tom barry]

Which is what I basically said in one of these threads. If working to book slows down the operation or affects the historical pattern of write-ups, you're proving that either you weren't following the book before or are engaged in an illegal job action now. A lose-lose for the union.

Of course, in the US case there were more things than that according to the company. They claimed that pilots were intentionally waiting to write up items till just prior to departure to cause delays/cancellations, taxiing slower to cause delays, writing up nuisance items in the aircraft logbook (US uses a cabin maintenance log for items like reading lights that aren't in the MEL or necessary for flight but claimed pilots put those in the aircraft log so it had to be signed off), text messages to pilots to "get on board", union messages containing "+16", etc.

Jim

Just a suggestion, but I'd like to know if the new "going by the book" issue is more prevelant in some base's than others. For Example are there more "write ups" occuring in LAX as opposed to DFW, more in Mia as opposed to BOS etc, etc.

 

[BoeingBoy]

All certificated airmen are required, as a principle issuance of the airmens' certificate, to verbatim compliance with the appropriate FAR governing the flight rules for a particular aircrafts' operation.

I don't think anyone is arguing with that - I'm certainly not. But let's look at an example. You find a mechanical discrepancy on walk-around 30 minutes before departure and write it up. However, you postpone calling maintenance till 3 minutes before departure. You've satisfied the letter of the FAR's and undoubtedly every carriers ops manual. But by purposely not calling maintenance till 3 minutes prior to departure, you've also guaranteed a delay.

Another one. The F/A tells you that he/she's written the reading light for 13C up as inop in the cabin maintenance log. According to the ops manual (FAA approved) you have no reason to write it up - the CML entry serves as notification to maintenance that an item not required for flight is broken. You put it in the aircraft maintenance log anyway, again 3 minutes prior to departure and ensure a delay. Are you guilty of causing a delay with no justification?

Or on taxi out you stop to perform the before takeoff checklist instead of doing it during taxi as usual - the ops manual is mute other than saying the checklist should be done after leaving the gate area. Is that just exercising your PIC authority under the FAR's or a deliberate attempt to cause a delay?

You get a communication from the union safety committee saying, among other things, that "It's time to take back our airline. Be a good union pilot. +16". Is that an innocuous communication or is it urging an illegal job action?

You get a text message saying "Don't be a member of the pink pantie club, get on board. +16". Purely innocuous or a suggestion to engage in an illegal job action?

A box of bag tags is sent with postage from the union's postal meter. On one side is "Get on board" while on the other side is "+16". Innocuous or suggestive of an illegal job action?

To me it boils down to this - if a pilot can stand in front of his chief pilot and explain why his/her actions were proper, that pilot almost certainly has nothing to fear. On the other hand...

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

Eolesen,
In as much as arbitration is guided by prior decisions to the extent that judicial decisions: one would have to read the decision of the arbitrar in AMR v. TWU Kreuze to understand that prior arbitrars have determined any discrepancy brought to light by any Pilot or AMT must be addressed appropriately unless the issues in question can be shown to be without merit.

The question of whether the items brought to light were prioritzed with respect to grounding the aircraft versus delayimg flight for a proper deferral were dealt with by the arbitrars refusal to require back-pay in that case.
The Us Air Pilots Union need only ask the TWU ATD or Atty. Art Luby for the decision in the case.

I believe he was awarded half of the "back pay" much to the fustration of Nick Massi who presented the case along with Art Luby. There was discussion on testifying as to what maintenance items Mr Kreuz addressed, in what order and why, which Kreuz was prepared to answer. He sought to do the higher priority items first but due to staffing and parts, worked lesser items until those could be made available. In other words he could not change a brake by himself but he could change some reading light bulbs until help arrived. Massi pushed for having the testimony put in the record for the slam dunk to get Kreuz made whole. Luby declined, over concerns that it could open up more discussion and that they already had won the case. The Arbitrator used the unchallenged claim by the company that he did not prioritize the items correctly as a basis to knock him for half the back pay. Personally I think that Luby didnt want to embarrass the company and didnt want Kreuz to get off scott free and didnt want to see more workers telling the company to stick their "Career Decision days" up where the sun dont shine which is what Kreuz did. So even though the case was a win, it was also a win for the company because even though he was vindicated he lost several months of pay. He should not have lost a penny. There is still enough of a penalty where many may fold to management pressure to not write stuff up.

More recently we have had management threaten to write guys up for looking at aircraft when they were not assigned to work on an aircraft. Lets say a guy is told to deliver a logbook to an Aircraft, and on the way there he see's something wrong on an aircraft and reports it, management would ask him why he was looking at aircraft when all he was assigned to do was deliver the book. They eventually backed off but the damage has already been done. Guys hear about being brought in for a hearing and even though nothing happened they would rather try and avoid the hassle. Years ago if you noticed something wrong they would not try to fire you they would give you an "atta boy". Its getting to the point where the safest thing you can do to protect yourself is look at your shoes and pretend that there are no aircraft out there unless you are assigned to look at it.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm sure the good Phd failed to notice the historical statiscal correlation between write ups at major maintenance bases and the outlying bases and why things always seemed to only break going into the major bases.

Maybe the were actually doing it right finally, and now Usair wants a TRO.

So Boeing Boy, if we were to go back and look at the history of your write ups over your career would we find that a disproportionate number of discrepancies were reported on the last leg into a station with Maintenance? Or were they reported more evenly over the legs regardless of where the plane landed?

Why are the airlines so confident that they only staff a fraction of the cities they serve with mechanics? Years ago they had two stripers, but not anymore.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Why are the airlines so confident that they only staff a fraction of the cities they serve with mechanics?

Dollars and cents. What percentage of planes have something go wrong that requires maintenance on an average day? Apply that percentage to the number of flights at smaller stations and how many of those planes would require a mechanic on a given day? The answer is "Not enough to justify having 2 full time mechanics on the payroll" at those stations.

Jim

 

[Flying low]

So Boeing Boy, if we were to go back and look at the history of your write ups over your career would we find that a disproportionate number of discrepancies were reported on the last leg into a station with Maintenance? Or were they reported more evenly over the legs regardless of where the plane landed?

Why are the airlines so confident that they only staff a fraction of the cities they serve with mechanics? Years ago they had two stripers, but not anymore.

Dollars and cents. What percentage of planes have something go wrong that requires maintenance on an average day? Apply that percentage to the number of flights at smaller stations and how many of those planes would require a mechanic on a given day? The answer is "Not enough to justify having 2 full time mechanics on the payroll" at those stations.

Jim

Looks like someone either refused or won't answer question #1.