US Pilot Labor Thread 7/27-8/3

[Bad-Andy]

Tactic? By USAPA? Well guess what back genius (Your word, not mine) USAPA tried its best behind the scenes to keep the company from taking fuel hostages. Try reading letters 1 and 2 on the website to the pilots for not attending fuel school. So the shot was fired by management first. Maybe its a management tactic and a reaction by the union to protect its members. Did that happen to cross your mind? Like all anti USAPA posters you like to sling whatever you can and hope something sticks. Sorry soon to be ex brethren, your conclusion is way off base here. Finally posting your opinion on being in a "bad place" is just fuel (pun intended) for management to take advantage of the pilots again. Sorry for you, the gagers are finally out of power. It's about time we have leaders with a backbone. Maybe you should check into that and get one for yourself.

Nobody has ever claimed USAPA is the salvation of us all. No union will ever achieve that distinction. You're right about one thing though, if ALPA stayed on the property you wouldn't see 58 year old F/O's......you would see 65 year old F/O retirees!! And that's assuming the replaced brain trust could deal with the current situation better than USAPA. My opinion is they wouldn't have a clue and would run to Herndon for guidance. Which wouldn't be any better than what is happening now. If you want to pay money to see me applying for a new job, I'll be glad to collect now. My backup plan is up and running. Like most of the other F/O's that I know. No thanks to ALPA for forcing us to that. You have your opinion on the USAPA leaders and I have mine. It would seem we will disagree until you retire, quit or medical out. Either way I thank the pilots for finally getting rid of ALPA.

Well, I did read the letters on the website. And I also took the time to listen to both sides before I took a stand on the issue. Not only that, I took the time to talk to a USAPA safety guy (face-to-face, not on some internet board where anyone can claim to be anything they want) and looked at the entire issue. Maybe you should heed your own advice. Read both letters and then without emotion, read the company's side of it. Is either one 100% accurate? Probably not. But the truth is somewhere in between. The fact still remains that these guys were not singled out for isolated incidents, but rather for repeated incidents. They were outside the norm. The company has the right to question those that are operating outside the standard set by their own peer group. It would be no different than if the company called someone in to ask them why 17-48% of the time they refused to use a flex takeoff, when the average is only 5% of our takeoffs (company-wide) are full-power. Again, that is a Captain's discretion. Would we be having the same screaming defense of Captain's Authority then? How about if a couple of individuals where consistently 2-3 minutes late off the gate (over the span of 6 months)? Would it be okay to call them in? Why not? They are exercising Captain's authority (being slow and methodical).

My point is we are given a standard by which we are to operate at the airline. The vast majority of the time, we (the pilots) operate within that standard. Are there times when we need to operate beyond it? Of course, that's where true Captain's authority comes in. And, according to the data the company gave that is, on average, 2% of the time. Nothing was said to anyone that was close to that average. And yet, we are all up-in-arms that the company is trying to take away "Captain's Authority" by "punishing" 8 individuals (that by the numbers were waaaaaaaay outside the norm). And yet, the company has said repeatedly that it was a non-jeopardy event. We allow the company to schedule other non-jeopardy training events that are mandatory (opportunity for training days, etc) for select groups of pilots. Why is this one suddenly such a dramatic issue???

One other thing, do not mistake my disdain for the leadership of USAPA (and it is based on three more issues, not just the fuel issue) for a pining for the days of ALPA. Not even close. My opinions of the historical USAir ALPA guys (with the exception of the safety guys who were the best in the industry) is equally low. Do I think it would be different if they were in charge? Yes, simply because I think the ALPA guys would have reasonably looked at the data the company had and then agreed to talk to the 8 individuals themselves (either via ProStans or the Training committee). It would not have escalated this far. Do I think we'd be any better off under ALPA (in terms of contract, single list, furloughs, etc)? Again, probably not. In case you haven't noticed, the industry sucks right now, the entire economy is on the brink, we need a strong leader in the White House to stabilize things, and we have no good choices to put in there.

That's the problem with so many of the East guys I talk to (and fly with). For 30 years you guys have had the typical Northeastern, confrontational style relationship with management. They cried wolf every time it was time for contract negotiations (the company will go broke, etc). You've heard it for so long that now that the wolf is really at the door, no one is listening. Look at the numbers. It is serious this time. One of the Legacy carriers needs to die. I would prefer it to be one of the others instead of us. I'm happy to hear that you have a backup plan in place. I hope it works out for you. What I really hope is that you don't need it. I hope none of us needs it. But, I do believe that driving away our customers with untimely ads in major newspapers (about phantom safety concerns) is not the best way to go about securing a new contract or ensuring the long term survival of the airline.

Off my soapbox.........

 

[EastUS]

And the truth shall set you free...Wow.

It's said that a picture' is worth a thousand words.... so, I'll save myself some typing. To any/all west readers who are not so utterly insane as to be cheerleading for the erosion/eventual obliteration of captain's authority...I mean no disrespect...but you've got some really Koolaide-saturated "head cases" out there.

 

[EastUS]

My point is we are given a standard by which we are to operate at the airline. The vast majority of the time, we (the pilots) operate within that standard. Are there times when we need to operate beyond it? Of course, that's where true Captain's authority comes in.
Off my soapbox.........

"And yet, we are all up-in-arms that the company is trying to take away "Captain's Authority" by "punishing" 8 individuals" Yes..and properly so. If this stands unchallenged...what's the next magic trick to come out of the company hat? None can know...but equally...none can reasonably expect anything good. From your earlier postings...you most certainly understand how utterly rancid and even unsafe conditions can become if/when any despotic managment's left to run amok. There's NOTHING set in stone that prohibits any such future conditions arising for any operation anywhere..and we must all come to realize that harsh truth....and take measures opposing any such evolution.

"In case you haven't noticed, the industry sucks right now, the entire economy is on the brink, we need a strong leader in the White House to stabilize things, and we have no good choices to put in there." Fully agreed, but none of that's reason to surrender the cockpit to cubicle managed flgiht.

"But, I do believe that driving away our customers with untimely ads in major newspapers (about phantom safety concerns) is not the best way to go about securing a new contract or ensuring the long term survival of the airline." I'd agree...were it the case that I thought the Union actions have driven away customers. It's true that I can only base conversational "data" from those that showed up to fly though, but any who've spoken of it to me have been fully supportive of the pilot group's advertised stand on the fuel issue.

 

[Bad-Andy]

Sorry, USAPA never said nor implied that. The fact that you tried to "set the tone" with a misrepresentation makes the rest rather hard to believe.


Did anyone clarify what that means. 2% of segments? 2% of flight time? 2% of, what? exactly? and, what does 2% "of the time" mean when compared with total flight hours? An average 1.5 hour domestic leg that most anyone can guess what the weather will be or a seven or more hour leg, during the winter, where the arrival weather is rarely close to forecast. Your ignorance of statistical methodology is, um, frightening, assuming you pilot aircraft.


I have copies of all eight letters. The highest I see is 44%. Can you explain the discrepancy? Hyperbole, disingenuousness?


Let me see here. You (cubicle person?) has separated out the "worst" from a group that you admitted "adds" less fuel than "the average", thereby choosing to make a "disciplinary" lesson to all pilots. The fact that the management mental midgets amongst you cannot present a logical case (comparing shutdown fuel to added fuel, for instance, which might minimize the likelihood that those pilots were correct) is major cause for concern amongst those of us who would like to think Mr. Parker is receiving correct and factual information. (The sheer audacity of the apparent lie, in lieu of actionable evidence, is very troubling to many and, seems troubling to the FAA, so far). The fact that many pilots in operations should resign is well past debate.

BTW, did your management mini-minds bother separating the pilots who requested but were talked out of extra fuel (those who do not know the FARs or are uncertain about how to operate aircraft) from those who stood their ground? Or, is this what this entire issue is about, pilots who stand their ground vs those whiffs that bend with every breath of air? It seems to me you are punishing those who I would want to be in charge of my flight from those who are basically seat occupiers.


No, sir. You face it. The fact that you are willing to support management's apparent desire to have a fleet of "empty suits" occupying the left seat is in direct conflict with a safe operation as well as completely at odds with FARs.

Perhaps you, sir, should consider a different line of work, sooner rather than later.

For all you koolaide drinkers out there, I leave this:

Be happy!

First, I will address the numbers issue. The 48% came out of the mouth of our communications vice-chairman yesterday at the meeting with Doug Parker. It did not come from the company, but rather from the union. (Yes, I was there, quietly sitting in the back in uniform, since I do not have a cubicle). So, explain to me why the number you are quoting (as supposedly having seen the letters yourself) is different than that of the union leadership. That makes me suspect of your information. Or, it scares the heck out of me that our own union can't get the numbers right. So, are you misrepresenting the truth on this board or did our communications vice-chairman misrepresent the truth yesterday? Which was it? To be honest, it does not matter to me -- 44% or 48%. Either way, it is well above the 2% (of departures not hours as you tried to claim) average. Yet you made it an issue. The old saying comes to mind: a man in a glass house should not throw stones...

As for "empty suits" flying aircraft, give me break. I bet I have more time in the left seat of widebodies flying to a lot more challenging destinations than you do. I have had to make a lot more hard decisions than guys doing out and backs to major European cities on the NATs. So give me a break. I don't want an empty suit in the cockpit anymore than you do. However, I also don't want some guy that is not rational in his decision making process.

I don't know why I bother even trying to present another side to this. Your mind is made up, your torch is lit, and you are ready to burn the place down. I should have kept lurking and let you bitter, angry old men continue to rant. My mistake.

 

[767jetz]

I wish you UAL guys the very best successes in properly defending against that abusive litigation.

Sincere thanks. I'll keep you posted.

 

[Bad-Andy]

"And yet, we are all up-in-arms that the company is trying to take away "Captain's Authority" by "punishing" 8 individuals" Yes..and properly so. If this stands unchallenged...what's the next magic trick to come out of the company hat? None can know...but equally...none can reasonably expect anything good. From your earlier postings...you most certainly understand how utterly rancid and even unsafe conditions can become if/when any despotic managment's left to run amok. There's NOTHING set in stone that prohibits any such future conditions arising for any operation anywhere..and we must all come to realize that harsh truth....and take measures opposing any such evolution.

"In case you haven't noticed, the industry sucks right now, the entire economy is on the brink, we need a strong leader in the White House to stabilize things, and we have no good choices to put in there." Fully agreed, but none of that's reason to surrender the cockpit to cubicle managed flgiht.

"But, I do believe that driving away our customers with untimely ads in major newspapers (about phantom safety concerns) is not the best way to go about securing a new contract or ensuring the long term survival of the airline." I'd agree...were it the case that I thought the Union actions have driven away customers. It's true that I can only base conversational "data" from those that showed up to fly though, but any who've spoken of it to me have been fully supportive of the pilot group's advertised stand on the fuel issue.

As Sigmund Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Maybe management is being honest and isn't trying to get their nose under the tent. Perhaps they are honestly trying to figure out how to save money everywhere they can. Maybe we are all reading way too much into it. Maybe not. Only time will tell.

Anyways, I'm going back to lurking and not posting, as all it does is get the old blood pressure up, and never really changes anyone's mind. EastUS, thanks for keeping the discussion civil (and not personal), and again, best of luck to you whatever happens...

 

[EastUS]

I bet I have more time in the left seat of widebodies flying to a lot more challenging destinations than you do. I have had to make a lot more hard decisions than guys doing out and backs to major European cities on the NATs. So give me a break. I don't want an empty suit in the cockpit anymore than you do. However, I also don't want some guy that is not rational in his decision making process.

Well...you've apparently chosen to disregard the cadre of people we have who used to think nothing of dressing up in C5's/C141's/KC135's/KC10's/etc and literally going all over the world, tanker refueling/etc. No matter really...Suffice it to say that experience levels seem not to be the germane issues within the fuel debacle.

"So give me a break. I don't want an empty suit in the cockpit anymore than you do." Fair enough and fully agreed. What's your suggested solution to the current mess? I see no wisdom in at all ignoring the elephant taking a crap on the dinner table here...We may well differ on the tactics thus far employed..but some things must be fought against. My biggest concern is that this whole business is just the opening salvo in a planned attack on how people are "allowed" to fly their planes. You've seen what it's like on the line when managements run amok. I've no wish to see that happen here.

"As Sigmund Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Maybe management is being honest and isn't trying to get their nose under the tent. Perhaps they are honestly trying to figure out how to save money everywhere they can. Maybe we are all reading way too much into it. Maybe not. Only time will tell." Indeed. One can hope...but...etc. My radar went into full alert mode when it became clear that this was to be made a "Training" issue, and the initial BS was that it was to be a "demonstration" and that no one would be under any threat. This proved out immediately to be utterly false, which argues poorly for any benign intentions. We all know that trainings no place for any disciplinary actions..and that anytime one's seated in a simulator..that their ticket's at issue....period. If/when any issue of disciplining pilots arises..the simulator's the least even possibly appropriate place to pursue such in. Such BS opens the door for any/all future scenarios to be "settled" via "We just don't like what you're doing (or have even darker agendas)....let's have a little check ride for fun..set up however we like it...shall we?" I'll properly add that I can't see the fine guys we have in the training department going along with such BS...but nothing says that they couldn't be replaced over time by far less principled people.


"and again, best of luck to you whatever happens... " Likewise to you sir.

 

[EastUS]

Sincere thanks. I'll keep you posted.

Please do. Personal differences are one thing BUT; That kind of crap attacks all within the ranks of our Profession. What's next? = "Health" classes and simulator checks at UAL/anywhere? Seriously...go get 'em on that latest BS over there...and again; my very best wishes for success in that.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

As Sigmund Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Maybe management is being honest and isn't trying to get their nose under the tent. Perhaps they are honestly trying to figure out how to save money everywhere they can. Maybe we are all reading way too much into it. Maybe not. Only time will tell.

Anyways, I'm going back to lurking and not posting, as all it does is get the old blood pressure up, and never really changes anyone's mind. EastUS, thanks for keeping the discussion civil (and not personal), and again, best of luck to you whatever happens...

Thanks, Andy, for the insightful posts. They've all been a much needed breath of fresh air on this board. You are certainly one who "gets it." Unlike most of us other posters who occasionally (continuously?) find ourselves with blinders on - east and west included - you've got your head secured on a swivel. And your eyes are open.

I think its pretty comical to watch antagonists try to steer a topic away from the facts - as was the case with each of your posts. It is almost too funny how these individuals just cannot let it ever leak out that they, for one second, might even consider the fact that they are wrong about something.

And as one who, in the past, routinely arrived at my destination with only 20 minutes of fuel and, at times, no alternates, I really have to laugh at this fuel debacle. Anyone who feels that 100 extra minutes of fuel isn't enough, isn't being "safe" by ordering more fuel over 40% of the time. They're just being fearful of making the tough decision. And the usaps are being even more foolish with the hot air they're blowing about it.

Making the right decision is what Captains get paid for - not for routinely carring their "comfort fuel" around all the time.

By the way - the destination I mentioned earlier: CV-63, the USS Kitty Hawk.

 

[N924PS]

By the way - the destination I mentioned earlier: CV-63, the USS Kitty Hawk.

And I hope you got "OK 3 Wire's" on every trap. But you had an ejection seat (or parachute perhaps if in the Hawkeye or the COD.) in case your fuel planning didn't work out the way you planned it would.

And you didn't have 200-278 pax hoping they weren't going Bingo to an alternate airport, thereby blowing connecting flights and delaying the turnaround flight.

Thanks for your service and sacrifices as a Naval Aviator.

 

[Megasnoop]

East US,

After lurking for a while and watching this drama unfold, I feel the need to finally respond. Why is it you think that because we (the East side) have a couple of international routes, we are the "experts" on international operations? I hate to break it to you, but our international operations here are a joke. You think that running a couple of wide-bodies (19 to be exact) to a few easy destinations in Europe makes us international gurus? Give me a break.

Our operation seems to work pretty well from the routes I fly. Good on-time. Great loads. Great cabin serivce. I hear that a lot on rest break in seat 5-D. But if you really think our Ops are a joke, who's fault is that? The crew's or the company's? We just fly them. But thanks for crawling out from under your rock and comparing us to Evergreen and Kalitta. All your friends out West? YHGTBKM.

So stop with the drama and the lies. You and I both know that this is nothing more than a negotiating tactic by USAPA to try and bully management. Well guess what, genius -- it won't work. We are in a bad place here, unlike anywhere you've been before. By the way, we got the numbers today at the meeting with Doug Parker. They were not brought in for single events as USAPA would have others believe. Company wide, our pilots add extra fuel 2% of the time.

Slow down there, big fella. What lies? It was the company that initiated this, not USAPA. If anyone is using this as a negotiating tactic, look to Jerry Glass. If the entire 330 PHL base adding (not burning) 140,000 gallons extra per year is going to tube us, then we're not going to survive anyway. ADD, not burn. There's a difference. If you look at the slides in the "fuel uplift" training course, the PHL International crews are under the company averages. I wonder how much BELOW the company's 75-minute target for landing fuel we'd be without the Philly 8? And why single out these 8, which included a check airman and two very pro-company CAs that I've flown with? I don't know who the other 5 are, but the company really missed the bad-ones. Sorry, Andy, but your spin is way off.

The international guys are adding fuel LESS than 2% of the time. Over the past 6 months, these 8 added a significant amounts of fuel -- anywhere from 17% of the time (the low guy) to 48% of the time (the high guy). Explain to me why these 8 "senior, experienced, wide-body captains" needed that much more gas than everyone else... Face it, they are renegades, not martyrs, and they should be reigned in (at the least USAPA Pro Stans should have dealt with them...).

Bad-Andy, you are flat wrong. The company's "fleet average arrival fuel" slides in the fuel training course only tracked four months and we don't know what four months. Next, the Corbusier/Yarko letters only addressed the first quarter, three months (QUOTE: "The Flight Operations Department has requested a Captains Added Fuel Report from the Operations Control Center for the first quarter of 2008."). And who was our CBA during the first quarter? No, sir, USAPA inherited this from their lazy, do-nothing predecessor, ALPO.

Pro-Stans getting involved? That would have been a great idea, guy. But PS is a two-way street. It obviously never crossed their minds. The company sent out the letters without even a courtesy call to our union or our training committee. No way the company was going to let Pro-Stans handle this. They were out to make a statement and take hostages. And I can't think of a better way to turn martyrs into renegades. snoop

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

And I hope you got "OK 3 Wire's" on every trap. But you had an ejection seat (or parachute perhaps if in the Hawkeye or the COD.) in case your fuel planning didn't work out the way you planned it would.

And you didn't have 200-278 pax hoping they weren't going Bingo to an alternate airport, thereby blowing connecting flights and delaying the turnaround flight.

Thanks for your service and sacrifices as a Naval Aviator.

I appreciate your kind words - many of my traps were OK3's, but there we also a few "memorable" arrivals, too. And yes, I did have two ways of getting out of my bird - either down the ladder, or up the rails. Never had to use the rails, thank goodness.

And I didn't directly get a couple hundred pax to wherever they were headed with my gray jet, but there were times when hundreds of troops on the ground maybe didn't get killed because myself and my compadres did our jobs effectively. And we wouldn't have been able to do that if we didn't bring our assets home to the boat every time - sometimes with 20 minutes of gas.

But I digress.

The fuel thing has really festered far beyond where it should have gone. The usaps fostered this infection by producing only conjecture and rhetoric. At no time did they ever present any complete, real factual information. They were feasting on peoples' emotions to further whatever agenda they had in this matter. Once the facts were really put out there, it really becomes apparent just how far off base these yahoos are. Spending $100,000.00+ on a USA ad? My goodness! USAPA fell on their sword with this one.

What damage will they do next?

 

[sharktooth]

At no time did they ever present any complete, real factual information.

and, the company did? All I've seen from the company are numbers that make no sense, like a casual whiff of a spreadsheet understood by no one. It is apparent the company has no idea what they are doing.

Good catch snoop that this apparently occurred with ALPO on the property.

 

[Megasnoop]

It would be no different than if the company called someone in to ask them why 17-48% of the time they refused to use a flex takeoff, when the average is only 5% of our takeoffs (company-wide) are full-power. Again, that is a Captain's discretion. Would we be having the same screaming defense of Captain's Authority then? How about if a couple of individuals where consistently 2-3 minutes late off the gate (over the span of 6 months)? Would it be okay to call them in? Why not? They are exercising Captain's authority (being slow and methodical).

Sorry, Bad Andy, but the company CAN'T call a pilot in for refusing to "flex." That's FOQA data and strictly off limits. So is tracking individual SE taxiing, which is against the FOM to do on the 330 anyway. One "hero" tried that out of FRA and ended up blowing out six windows on a ground transportation bus and turning over a baggage cart. They can track fuel burn, delays, bogus MX write-ups, etc. Being high on those is fair game for a counseling session in the CP's office, with your union Rep in tow. But these guys weren't called in for excessive burns, high block times or for pushing late. They were called in for an attitude adjustment on their flight planning. And what can you possibly teach in the SIM that will help you in fuel planning? Ground School, maybe, but in the SIM? Most of us "get" what this was all about. You and your West buddies (remember the ones flying for Kalitta?) don't.

Do I think it would be different if they were in charge? Yes, simply because I think the ALPA guys would have reasonably looked at the data the company had and then agreed to talk to the 8 individuals themselves (either via ProStans or the Training committee). It would not have escalated this far. Do I think we'd be any better off under ALPA (in terms of contract, single list, furloughs, etc)? Again, probably not. In case you haven't noticed, the industry sucks right now, the entire economy is on the brink, we need a strong leader in the White House to stabilize things, and we have no good choices to put in there.

Wake up, Bad. The company NEVER GAVE USAPA A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE DATA! They just sent out the letters. It escalated BECAUSE the company shot first, then didn't even ask questions. And what does who is in the White House have to do with 8 pilots getting slapped around by the company? Bad, you are wondering bad, man.

That's the problem with so many of the East guys I talk to (and fly with). For 30 years you guys have had the typical Northeastern, confrontational style relationship with management. They cried wolf every time it was time for contract negotiations (the company will go broke, etc). But, I do believe that driving away our customers with untimely ads in major newspapers (about phantom safety concerns) is not the best way to go about securing a new contract or ensuring the long term survival of the airline.

Bad, you are so GAGer. For the past 30 years ALPA has been representing us. If you call their representation confrontational, so be it. If ALPA cried wolf, who am I to say otherwise? But you shifted gears. Who cried wolf, ALPA or the company? You're not making any sense here. Losing customers? Not based on the current PBTs or the company's own latest forecast for the fall. ALPA ran ads about safety with CAL in their 1983 strike. Same ads about EAL in 1989. Then the IAM ran ads about NWA being unsafe because AMFA went on strike in 2006. But ALPA told the NWA pilots to cross the picket line and fly "unsafe" airplanes, maintained by non-union contract scabs. The common thing in all three strikes is that the planes flew full.

You keep saying it's all about the contract. Like you and your West buddies, your forgetting the company started this. USAPA tried to put a stop to it behind the scenes. The company didn't think we'd run the ad. They called our bluff. Maybe they'll think it through a little better next time.

Your right on one thing, this could have all been handled through Pro Stan or our Training Committee. The company chose to handle it differently.

Off my soapbox.........

Thank the Lord for small favors. snoop

 

[dariencc]

East US,
Why is it you think that because we (the East side) have a couple of international routes, we are the "experts" on international operations?

What makes "us" (the Captains flying PHL T/A) experts on the topic at hand is the fact that they are flying these routes every week. The controversy involves preflight planning on the US Airways T/A operation, does it not? Those Captains have an insight and currency on the issues involved that you and your fellow Westies do not have. No amount of posturing can change that simple fact.

Give me a break. I can name a half a dozen guys on the West-side with a significant amount of REAL international, heavy time (guys from Southern, Evergreen, ATA, Kalitta etc). The guys that did that kind of flying are the real experts on international flying.

What makes you think we give a **** about some friend of yours who used to work for the dregs of the industry. Your role call of flea bag outfits, Evergreen, Kalitta and ATA are entry level positions, the kind that plenty of mainline pilots are thankful to have in their rear view mirror. Pilot pushing and cutting corners are SOP at those places. We are not impressed by them and don't intend to copy them.

Try doing a Hong Kong-Dubai leg with a 23.30 Local departure, maxed out on payload (so min fuel), with dust storms at destination, all the while fighting with dispatch to give you more fuel, even if it means leaving revenue behind. Oh, did I mention all of that is while arguing with the chief pilot that the MEL is illegal and you want it fixed. Ever been in that situation? I have.

You may as well sign your real name since you are obviously attention starved. Are we supposed to be awestruck by your sad experiences working at some crappy freight carrier? Good grief.

When have you ever been denied extra fuel? When has anyone you have flown with been denied fuel? Never.

Maybe you could stop the dissembling for a moment and discuss the actual issue. No one has said they are being denied fuel on request. Are you with me so far? The issue is the company's use of the Training Department as an instrument of intimidation (but you already knew that). This is unprecedented and intolerable. If the airline wants to discuss the performance of anyone on the property, the base Chief Pilot is the appropriate person to handle it. Training has always been and should remain outside the political/disciplinary realm. Try talking to some of the Check Airmen. They see this for what it is.

So stop with the drama and the lies. You and I both know that this is nothing more than a negotiating tactic by USAPA to try and bully management. Well guess what, genius -- it won't work.

You're too generous. You are the genius.

We are in a bad place here, unlike anywhere you've been before.

Worse than anywhere I've been before? Geez, I had no idea. Better get my mind right, and pronto. Thank for the tough love.

I can't wait to see a bunch of 58 year old career F/O's (that everyone knows burned their own airline to the ground out of spite) trying to find jobs. That will be a sight worth paying money to see...

Sorry to rain on your parade, but they're not going anywhere anytime soon. You on the other hand.......

Anyways, best of luck, as I'm out of here soon anyways...

And I guess that will be a sight for our 58 year old F/Os to see. Oh, well, Kalitta's hiring.