Doug Parker on US Airways

The heavy handed tactics originate with certain east pilots, not with Isom or Management.


What would you do if you were the COO with irrefutable evidence streaming across your desk since May 1st and millions of dollars were being lost to illegal work slowdowns?

You got off on the wrong track right away. The first shot was from the company with the fuel school. I know a few of the attendees, and I feel very confident their carrying extra fuel had NOTHING to do with the SLI. Even if it had been,the willingness to use the training department as a weapon was STUPID. Just like today, there were other methods to deal with what was happening. I was told by someone that knows they took the stance that if they cut off some senior captains heads, everyone else would fall in line. How did that work out? Not too well, but it hasn't slowed them down.

If I were running the place I would have never authorized the fuel school and I would have taken steps beforehand to make it unnecessary. I would have taken a completely different approach to merging these groups.
 
Perhaps, but what we have even more of is pilots finding endless ways to try and excuse and deny facts. Doesn't it seem peculiar that there are no traditional USAPA supporters on this board who are willing to admit that they have engaged in a work slowdown or that they know of any of their peers being involved in them either? Instead they look at the company's information regarding a statistical shift in key operational metrics which all began on May 1st and then begin to offer a litany of excuses that could never account for the kind of performance deteriorations that have been reported, analyzed and independently verified. Is there not a single east pilot who would come on here and say that they are in full support of USAPA's DOH objective, but that they neither condone nor support any any illegal actions that constitute a violation of the status quo? Instead we see people turning a blind eye to the facts and then expect us to do the same just because they say so.

I have said that I thought that there PROBABLY were SOME pilots that thought it would be a good idea to participate in a slow down. What I have disagreed with is the company's claims of how widespread it is, and the damages of it. I don't believe it was that widespread and that they threw some of CLT's screwed up operation onto the pilots.

You know how you guys say change at USAPA has to come from the east? Well change in the pilot/management relationship has to come from management and I think they have screwed it up at every turn.
 
I have said that I thought that there PROBABLY were SOME pilots that thought it would be a good idea to participate in a slow down. What I have disagreed with is the company's claims of how widespread it is, and the damages of it. I don't believe it was that widespread and that they threw some of CLT's screwed up operation onto the pilots.

You know how you guys say change at USAPA has to come from the east? Well change in the pilot/management relationship has to come from management and I think they have screwed it up at every turn.
Management presented statistical data which was adjusted for normal operating factors leaving just pilot action as the cause. Well, at least that's what they presented in a federal court, under the threat of perjury, in support of their request for an injunction. From your statement above, you seem to be weighing in on this based on a belief rather than facts. Can you refute Management's data analysis with your own source of data or is this just what your gut is telling you?

You have brought up motivation in the past related to Wells being in the top 517 and thus has no dog in the hunt on DOH. I provided some logical motivations for those in that category by way of explanation. So using that same line of reasoning based on motivation, what would Management gain by making up stories about pilots requesting additional fuel and slowing down operations if it wan't actually happening? Bonuses are based on performance not excuses and spending millions to go to court over a trumped up charge that doesn't change operations if they win or lose (since it's not happening in great numbers according to you) certainly would not help their bonus opportunities. So, what is the likely motivation if we exclude operations and financial incentives for creating trumped up charges?

What you call heavy handed is what I would classify as being entirely reasonable for fiduciaries in a publicly traded company. They have a duty to protect the interests of the shareholders against efforts by some employees to bring economic hardship to the company. Investors who have a legitimate right to expect Management not sit by and let the company be damaged by illegal conduct or orchestrated attempts at financial sabotage. Being a pacifist and a doormat are not exactly a highly sought after traits when the BOD is looking to hire an executive to manage 28,000 unionized employees.
 
I have said that I thought that there PROBABLY were SOME pilots that thought it would be a good idea to participate in a slow down. What I have disagreed with is the company's claims of how widespread it is, and the damages of it. I don't believe it was that widespread and that they threw some of CLT's screwed up operation onto the pilots.

You know how you guys say change at USAPA has to come from the east? Well change in the pilot/management relationship has to come from management and I think they have screwed it up at every turn.
Ah yes, another eastie blaming someone else. Typical.

Hair Pi, look at your history. You guys have been f'ing up and battling every single management team that has tried to run US Airways. Your attempts at outsmarting them have been met with a pensions loss and LOA93. You guys do it to yourselves. It's in your blood.
 
Management presented statistical data which was adjusted for normal operating factors leaving just pilot action as the cause. Well, at least that's what they presented in a federal court, under the threat of perjury, in support of their request for an injunction. From your statement above, you seem to be weighing in on this based on a belief rather than facts. Can you refute Management's data analysis with your own source of data or is this just what your gut is telling you?

You have brought up motivation in the past related to Wells being in the top 517 and thus has no dog in the hunt on DOH. I provided some logical motivations for those in that category by way of explanation. So using that same line of reasoning based on motivation, what would Management gain by making up stories about pilots requesting additional fuel and slowing down operations if it wan't actually happening? Bonuses are based on performance not excuses and spending millions to go to court over a trumped up charge that doesn't change operations if they win or lose (since it's not happening in great numbers according to you) certainly would not help their bonus opportunities. So, what is the likely motivation if we exclude operations and financial incentives for creating trumped up charges?

What you call heavy handed is what I would classify as being entirely reasonable for fiduciaries in a publicly traded company. They have a duty to protect the interests of the shareholders against efforts by some employees to bring economic hardship to the company. Investors who have a legitimate right to expect Management not sit by and let the company be damaged by illegal conduct or orchestrated attempts at financial sabotage. Being a pacifist and a doormat are not exactly a highly sought after traits when the BOD is looking to hire an executive to manage 28,000 unionized employees.

Of course I don't have the data they do. I don't have access to it, so I can't see it, or manipulate it. Oh, no company would ever do that, right? What I have is my experience with this ordeal. How I was wrongly accused and how the company's accusations impacted me. Do you have those?

As for the fuel school, I have never said that the people called didn't ask for extra fuel, it's pretty much a given that they did. The difference in opinion is why the did and how the company decided to handle it. I know a couple of the guys and talked to them. Do you?

IMHO the motivation on the company's part is to FORCE the operation into better shape, thus increasing bonuses. I think other methods would be more successful, but we will never know unless this management group is replaced.

I lay this at the company's feet, you lay it at the east pilot's. Shocker.
 
Of course I don't have the data they do. I don't have access to it, so I can't see it, or manipulate it. Oh, no company would ever do that, right? What I have is my experience with this ordeal. How I was wrongly accused and how the company's accusations impacted me. Do you have those?

As for the fuel school, I have never said that the people called didn't ask for extra fuel, it's pretty much a given that they did. The difference is opinion is why the did and how the company decided to handle it. I know a couple of the guys and talked to them. Do you?

I lay this at the company's feet, you lay it at the east pilot's. Shocker.
Who wrongly accused you PI and what was the impact to you? I honestly don't know what you are referring to unless you think charge of wrongdoing was made against all east pilots.

Nope, I haven't ever met one of the fuel school six unless they failed to introduce themselves to me as being a fuel schooler. Here you have a classic he said / she said issue and you clearly have chosen to believe the pilots rather than management. Management said that they asked these six pilots to come to a training session so that Management could understand the basis for their anomalous requests. If these pilots had good, sound and reasonable ways of calculating fuel needs that Management didn't have, then Management was willing to review internal procedures and have all AC carry extra fuel on the same missions. If there was no valid reason for the extra fuel, then Management believed they should be trained on proper procedures so as to not cost the company the unnecessary expense. So what was the outcome of all this? Did these pilots continue to carry additonal fuel after the school session? Did management adopt their new and better way of calculating fuel requirements? Or, did these pilots return to the general population approach of for determining fuel needs and then have USAPA go cry wolf on their behalf via an ill advised USA TODAY ad?
 
Who wrongly accused you PI and what was the impact to you? I honestly don't know what you are referring to unless you think charge of wrongdoing was made against all east pilots.

Nope, I haven't ever met one of the fuel school six unless they failed to introduce themselves to me as being a fuel schooler. Here you have a classic he said / she said issue and you clearly have chosen to believe the pilots rather than management. Management said that they asked these six pilots to come to a training session so that Management could understand the basis for their anomalous requests. If these pilots had good, sound and reasonable ways of calculating fuel needs that Management didn't have, then Management was willing to review internal procedures and have all AC carry extra fuel on the same missions. If there was no valid reason for the extra fuel, then Management believed they should be training on proper procedures so as to not cost the company the unnecessary expense. So what was the outcome of all this? Did these pilots continue to carry additonal fuel after the school session? Did management adopt their new and better way of calculating fuel requirements? Or, did these pilots return to the general population approach of for determining fuel needs and then have USAPA go cry wolf on their behalf via an ill advised USA TODAY ad?

It was several personal experiences and I will not go into here. In every instance the accusers were WRONG.

Everything you said about the fuel school the company had the right to do. I have never said they didn't. What I've said is that the training dept. should have NEVER been used for the that purpose. It wasn't necessary, and it damaged how we feel about the dept and training. The other effect it had was for me to put on more fuel than I used to. Before that I rarely increased my fuel load. After talking to one of the school attendees and having an independent account of what happened, I figured that dispatch was under the same pressure as the pilots and had to be more careful. Do you think that was what management was shooting for?

They rule by intimidation. I don't believe that is the best recipe for success and I have worked for a company that had much better success than this outfit has had, and they didn't operate this way.
 
Of course I don't have the data they do. I don't have access to it, so I can't see it, or manipulate it. Oh, no company would ever do that, right? What I have is my experience with this ordeal. How I was wrongly accused and how the company's accusations impacted me. Do you have those?

As for the fuel school, I have never said that the people called didn't ask for extra fuel, it's pretty much a given that they did. The difference in opinion is why the did and how the company decided to handle it. I know a couple of the guys and talked to them. Do you?

IMHO the motivation on the company's part is to FORCE the operation into better shape, thus increasing bonuses. I think other methods would be more successful, but we will never know unless this management group is replaced.

I lay this at the company's feet, you lay it at the east pilot's. Shocker.

Republic/Northwest was utopia, and they had a twenty year fence. :unsure:
 
The heavy handed tactics originate with certain east pilots, not with Isom or Management. Their motivation is rather transparent: ...


There you go again finding witches at every corner. Now you have divined that the SLI acrimony has morphed into dictating fuel requirements across the Atlantic. Be careful about doing that divination thing when you are alleging that you have stumbled upon witches.

P.S. It is way too obvious that the SLI acrimony has morphed into.. gasp.. accusations against fellow pilots.
 
There you go again finding witches at every corner. Now you have divined that the SLI acrimony has morphed into dictating fuel requirements across the Atlantic. Be careful about doing that divination thing when you are alleging that you have stumbled upon witches.

P.S. It is way too obvious that the SLI acrimony has morphed into.. gasp.. accusations against fellow pilots.
Ya, like the eastie that took a vid of frost coming off a spoiler on takeoff in MCO and then turning in said vid to the CPs office. Is that what you're talking about?
 
Ya, like the eastie that took a vid of frost coming off a spoiler on takeoff in MCO and then turning in said vid to the CPs office. Is that what you're talking about?


Only a snitch worries that they need a video camera to ensure their otherwise professional observation is duly acknowledged. Don't forget, you are supposed to argue that every Easthole would use frost in MCO as an excuse to cripple the airline and deny anyone of an on time bonus. Gee. Can't you keep up with your mob?
 
Only a snitch worries that they need a video camera to ensure their otherwise professional observation is duly acknowledged. Don't forget, you are supposed to argue that every Easthole would use frost in MCO as an excuse to cripple the airline and deny anyone of an on time bonus. Gee. Can't you keep up with your mob?
Deep breath boo boo. You're starting to go a bit mental.
 
You could have had fences too but your NC didn't want any. They didn't want east pilots fenced out of PHX.

Uh, do we not have a fence now? Otherwise what would drive licensed professionals to grovel at Doug's feet begging him to remove the fence, and that on crew news video?
 
Back
Top