US Pilot Labor Thread 7/27-8/3

[EastUS]

Fact is, you aren't any different than many other Americans who served

When did I ever say that I was? I'm completely fine with being no "different" in that regard. Countless others have sacrificed even their very lives, or suffered crippling wounds...and I don't begin to pretend myself the least bit of any "hero" (the aforementioned ARE the Heroes) nor think that I did other than my basic Duty. What tha' heck is your point?

Prechillil: "Since you believe patriotism is measured years of active service" Hardly..It's my impression that you were the one arguing for such an idiotic notion. Many young people are in harms' way over there..and barely out of high school in the bargain. Again: What tha' heck is your point?

Nevermind...it's obvious = I'm an "eastie",your position is ="and we hate you guys".. I won't ever accede to your "Ho Ho Ho!..St Nic is coming to town!"..and thusly; cannot possibly be even the least semblance of a valid human being. I'm touched 😉

dariencc: "If no less an authority than prechilled has labeled you a slacker, that is good enough for me." You're of course, quite correct to embrace that opinion sir...BUT...AHA!...I'll have the full consolation of Prechillil's "East, you are the undisputed heavy weight champion of drama- the king- number one." One must properly assume that an actual "crown" of some sort comes with that title..and that's gotta' be worth something on ebay 😉

"Pennsylvania Army National Guard, Greensburg, PA. God bless them....may they rest in peace." Amen. I meant no disrespect by ommitting the unit involved.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

You're welcome.

Your sense of self worth is beyond tiresome. Now you think you're some kind of psychologist. I guess that fits. Oh well. BTW. If in fact you are or were in the service, thank you also. But as I suspect, if just another wannabe, the thanks are withdrawn.

 

[Bad-Andy]

"Just curious what was the reason if not the stated reason from the official source?" Why don't you ask the people involved? Oh..I forgot..you're "Too Good" to become a participating member.since there's nothing in it for you to do so. In that case? = Remain hopelessly ignorant and utterly irrelevant.

As for your "8 knuckleheads that are running around wasting gas" having any validity whatsoever?...All must immediately, and very charitably assume that:

1) You're an extremely experienced transatlantic captain who fully understands the environment and all related contingencies.
2) You're fully an expert on oceanic fuel planning based on your obvious experience from #1 above.
3) You've personal access to said "8 kuckleheads" collective flight and fuel plans and have made a full and proper analysis of the same.
4) Based upon your unquestionable personal expertise, and far superior knowledge base than that held by the "8 knuckleheads" who merely fly the atlantic routinely, and have done so for years...you've simply pointed out that they then "must" be "running around wasting gas"...........

Our only other reasonable option would be to assume that you're postings are indicative of an emotionally driven, extremely confused, ignorant and easilly manipulated tool that tap dances about in some Koolaide driven frenzy at management's slightest whim or utterance...or for reasons of your own bizarre little agendas....and that summary would constitute the very kindest possible notions herein.

As for your: "Would it be the ill conceived idea to go to the feds and use safety as a political weapon?" How do you conclude the referral of an attack on captain's authority, as properly and legally defined by the FAA, to that very same agency to be "ill conceived"? Who would you call?..The local High School Principal? If a corporate entity is striving to eradicate or encroach upon any portion of the laws established by the FAA...shouldn't that agency properly be made aware of the actions? How you can jump to this being supposedly "a political weapon" shows, to me at least, an utter disrespect for the proper governance of flight. I may sometimes disagree with "the Feds"...but the agency IS the legal barrier between disatrous chaos, entirely unsafe conditions......and all who fly. Would you be fine should the time ever come when ANY company could one day say: "That's all the fuel you're allowed for this flight"? Frankly..that you seem so cavalier about intrusions into the cockpit related to fuel planning's simply amazing to me, and gives me to think that you're entirely in the wrong business.

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. 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. 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. It's not something I would ever choose to go back to. Of course you have not, because this airline does not operate that way. When have you ever been denied extra fuel? When has anyone you have flown with been denied fuel? Never. 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.

As for USAPA being the "salvation" of us all, you're killing me. These idiots don't have a clue. I argued that they were just inexperienced and needed some time to get going (when talking to my West friends). I was wrong. They really are stupid. Not dumb, not just foolish, but lacking in mental facilities. You talk about the West having their heads in the sand, but give me a break. These guys running USAPA don't have a clue. 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...

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

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. 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...).

 

[EastUS]

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. It's not something I would ever choose to go back to. Of course you have not, because this airline does not operate that way. When have you ever been denied extra fuel?

I've no doubt that there are knowledgeable and qualified, long haul guys out west...I just don't see them posting here, arguing against any defense for infringment on fuel authority.

"..all the while fighting with dispatch to give you more fuel,.... 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. It's not something I would ever choose to go back to." Understood..and that's exactly the point at issue. What comes next after fuel "re-education"? Any guesses?...I don't even want to ever find out.

"Of course you have not, because this airline does not operate that way. When have you ever been denied extra fuel?" Never..and I'd like to keep it that way.

"Anyways, best of luck, as I'm out of here soon anyways..." I hope that's by choice..and not due to the #%*$&-ing furloughs. In any case sir = The Best to you as well.

 

[Bad-Andy]

"Anyways, best of luck, as I'm out of here soon anyways..." I hope that's by choice..and not due to the #%*$&-ing furloughs. In any case sir = The Best to you as well.

No, not by choice. But, everything happens for a reason...

 

[EastUS]

No, not by choice. But, everything happens for a reason...

Indeed sir...and said reason and purpose is generally not ours to know. I hope for far better things ahead for you. In any case: "This place" certainly looked better in the past anyway, as you know.

Take Care/The Best

 

[UtterlyUdder]

(Quoted post deleted by moderator.)

I'm afraid that moderator action makes your post irrelevant. But, thanks for quoting it. We had missed it when originally posted.

 

[dariencc]

As for USAPA being the "salvation" of us all, you're killing me. These idiots don't have a clue. I argued that they were just inexperienced and needed some time to get going (when talking to my West friends). I was wrong. They really are stupid. Not dumb, not just foolish, but lacking in mental facilities. You talk about the West having their heads in the sand, but give me a break. These guys running USAPA don't have a clue.

Yeah, well, you know what opinions and ***holes have in common. Everybody's got one. As for me, I'm delighted with the USAPA leadership, but I doubt I can convince someone who pines for the days of such mental giants as Pollock, Snyder and DeAngelo.

I'll leave you with this little bit of history, Bad-Andy, from the days of the old Alpa forum. As you mind's eye processes the pure, gloriously illiterate musing of this glowing gift to the world of human intellect, please be aware that you are sampling the "thoughts" of the man who the Pollock brain trust felt completely comfortable placing at the head of our Pension Committee during our debacles of years past. Read that again. This is the man who these sharpies allowed to run our pension affairs during the years that management had a bullseye painted on our fund. USAPA lacks "mental facilities," you say?

Enjoy:



The piedmont pilots did indeed strike over the 3rd man on the 737

even though the DC-9 was flying at several other AIR LINES

with a 2 man crew. it was 1969 about the time the first man landed

on the moon.The piedmont pilots settled with the 3rd man on board

with the same total crew cost I think.

latter I thank it was Hawaiian flew the 737 with a 2 man crew and

the piedmont pilots singed a contract with the company for a

2 man crew.It's interesting that I was told that National at the

time did not sign the contract as they always had.

the old DC-3 guy's I flew with from piedmont told me this story.

Some of our guy's are 2nd generation here so if this is not the way it

went down feel free to correct me.And by the way I still miss

flying with some of these guy's

 

[AAA73Pilot]

............. 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.

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.

As for USAPA being the "salvation" of us all, you're killing me. These idiots don't have a clue. I argued that they were just inexperienced and needed some time to get going (when talking to my West friends). I was wrong. They really are stupid. Not dumb, not just foolish, but lacking in mental facilities. You talk about the West having their heads in the sand, but give me a break. These guys running USAPA don't have a clue. 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...

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.

 

[Leonidas]

Looks like somebody gets it.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...ed-pilots_N.htm


"And two pilot factions at US Airways are at odds with one another and management. The rub: Pilots for the old, financially crippled US Airways (LCC) claim they've made bigger sacrifices than their counterparts at the former America West and ought to be treated better in the next contract. America West took over the old US Airways three years ago and kept its name"

 

[prechilill]

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. 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...).

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

 

[767jetz]

It seems like the entire focus of this labor thread for the past couple of weeks has focussed on this fuel issue and the selective behavior modification course for certain pilots.

Is anything else going on that would be of interest? Any updates on USAPA's contract negotiations, or progress by the West wrt to the Nicolau award? If not it seems like this fuel issue has distracted everyone away from other important matters, to the company's benefit.

Over at UA we are now dealing with a baseless lawsuit by the company against ALPA for alleged sick time abuse. This goes even farther than challenging captains authority. They are attacking every pilot's legally mandated responsibility to monitor their health and determine if they are fit to safely operate an aircraft.

Probably just a misguided attempt to use a scare tactic to distract pilots and disrupt their resolve. Seems like every management team operates from the same play book.

 

[ussnark]

They were not brought in for single events as USAPA would have others believe.

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.

Company wide, our pilots add extra fuel 2% of the time.

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.

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).

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

Explain to me why these 8 "senior, experienced, wide-body captains" needed that much more gas than everyone else...

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.

Face it, they are renegades, not martyrs, and they should be reigned in (at the least USAPA Pro Stans should have dealt with them...).

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!

 

[EastUS]

Probably just a misguided attempt to use a scare tactic to distract pilots and disrupt their resolve. Seems like every management team operates from the same play book.

Indeed. That much...one can always count on. We certainly "Live in interesting times" within the industry, and we can all expect even more of the same type crap. You are fortunate that you don't have a small, insane little cabal within your pilot group that's eagerly cheerleading for your management's triumph over there...as is the case with your great "friends", the west contingent hereabouts. 🙄 I wish you UAL guys the very best successes in properly defending against that abusive litigation.

 

[EastUS]

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.

Very aptly summed up sir. This BS must reasonably be recognized for what it is = the "camel's nose entering the tent" as regards "remotely controlled", distanced cubicle thinking, seeking to micro-manage actual flight operations...and it must be fought against...period. It's the air crew's responsibilty in the final anlysis, (there aren't any managment signatures on flight release acceptance, nor any managerial tails strapped into the seats) and the authority to properly discharge that legally defined responsibilty must not be undermined.....period.