US Pilots Labor Discussion

[luvn737s]

What you suggest Luvn is dispatch by edict. I am not alone, and that will never happen on my watch.

"You take it" Luvn, I just hope my family is not on board when you do. FAIL.

I don't wish any harm to you. I just want you to be separated from employment with USAirways voluntarily or otherwise if you want to participate in illegal work actions masquerading as something as crucial as safety.

Operate within the parameters set forth in the FOM (which will require that you know what they are) and SOP's. Then, when that out of the ordinary issue arises, it gets your attention. If you spin like a top over every tiny item, or resort to making up your own SOP just so you can let the world know you're a captain, then you risk compromising safety by missing that out-of-the-ordinary thing that just might bite you.

I explained this stuff to primary students some 30 years ago. I shouldn't have to explain it to would-be professional airline pilots.

 

[luvn737s]

There was a time the company wanted to apply for permission to fly an A320 with NO FLT Directors, NO auto pilots and NO autothrust. You OK with that too? You should really give up this position of yours. It is indefensible.

Driver <_<

There was a time when USAPA thought it was unsafe to use the call sign Cactus. How do you defend that?

Are you going to freak out and collapse into the fetal position over a call sign? How about insufficient Sani-Coms? Toilet paper in the lav in non-standard overhand configuration?

What the east is trying to pull is nothing new. And every time it's tried it makes targets out of those dumb enough to think they're 10 feet tall and bulletproof. But Tempe is a different kind of sheriff. They fire you and you don't come back. Pretty spiteful that way.

 

[Beancounter]

You have to remember who the AWA pilots are. AWA was the ONLY airline in the country that would hire them. Plus, they are really showing their inexperience now.

Not really very surprising at all, considering who they are...

Boeing Driver

Hmmmmm. That must be why there were 2 current US Airways pilots, 2 fighter pilots, 2 corporate, 5 121 captains, and a 121 chief pilot in my new hire AWA class. 🙄

 

[luvn737s]

Had an agent once tell my FO that the fluid dripping off the bottom of the engine nacelle was just some fuel from the drain mast.....WRONG: oil line was disconnected from the engine with engine oil all over the inside of the nacelle and dripping off the bottom of the nacelle. At least the contract maintenance was able to properly repair the oil line after a three hour delay. That agent sure was smart, LMAO. Yeah my FO understood completely what the agent was saying LMAO!!!!!!

"MY F/O", eh? Did you let him try on your great big watch? What a trip!

I think you should thank the agent for being so observant. Even if they are wrong, at least they spoke up about something that wasn't right AND wasn't their job.

Copping an attitude with them just ensures that they won't bother looking next time.

And you guys like to pretend to care about safety? 😛

 

[luvn737s]

Hmmmmm. That must be why there were 2 current US Airways pilots, 2 fighter pilots, 2 corporate, 5 121 captains, and a 121 chief pilot in my new hire AWA class. 🙄

Oh, you're mistaken. Screw Driver here thinks he's smarter than ALL the US mechanics. He has already made his opinion of west pilots known.

 

[Phoenix]

Prove that you know more than the manufacturer who developed the Master MEL.

Your premise is that the manufacturer can foresee and document all possible scenarios of dynamic operational environments (which they adamantly deny) and further that the manufacturer can guarantee mitigation of safety risks associated with each and every MEL (and all possible combinations thereof) regardless of the dynamic circumstances. That is a ridiculous premise.

Read your copy of the book the company gave you... "Certain changes to the manufacturer's recommendations in operating technique and procedures have been made. These differences have been found by US Airways as a result of experience to be in consonance with and in the best interest of safety..." And read on... "This manual does not and could not cover every contingency."

Any pilot worth his salt knows that an MEL is a limitation, a minimum limitation... not a statement of safety in all circumstances. In the same manner that the Max Takeoff weight is a limitation established by the manufacture, yet it does not guarantee that it is always safe to takeoff at that max weight, so also an MEL is a minimum limitation for flight but does not automatically guarantee it is safe to do so.

I find it comical that pilots reading a message board, separated by both time and space from the planes in question, have knee-jerk reactions to side with the company about all MELs, (and do so confidently while probably sipping adult beverages Admit you are imbibing, you need the excuse . )

 

[Res Judicata]

You have to remember the west pilot group is a very weak , when the agents say jump, they say how high!! east pilots won't stand for that. 😀

OH yeah. East Pilots have such a proud history of not taking any Sh*t. Do you realize that your group 2 captains make a hell of a lot less than most other FIRST OFFICER's!?

When attempting to be a big East coast, thuggish, tough guy unionist, it would help your credibility if you weren't the lowest paid, laughing stock of the industry.

When management ask's EAST pilots for a pay cut they shout "HOW MUCH!!!!''

You guys live in a time warp. You're so F'ed in the heads it's a waste of time to explain modern airline economics to you. While you're still trying to raise F.E. pay, your airlines have already moved to China to recruit pilots. You easties are literally decades behind reality.

 

[luvn737s]

Your premise is that the manufacturer can foresee and document all possible scenarios of dynamic operational environments (which they adamantly deny) and further that the manufacturer can guarantee mitigation of safety risks associated with each and every MEL (and all possible combinations thereof) regardless of the dynamic circumstances. That is a ridiculous premise.

What in the world are you talking about?

The manufacturer develops a Master Minimum Equipment List which acts like a temporary STC to their aircraft for operation with inoperative equipment. They send it to the FAA who distributes it to operators of the aircraft who modify it as necessary to suit their specific needs, then submit it to the FAA for approval in their operation.

Now you know what a MEL is.


The premise is that barring any of the unforeseen contingencies, that if the MEL allows for operation with inoperative equipment, that operation should be conducted. Those unforeseen contingencies just don't happen to come flooding in as soon as the yellow lanyards go flooding out.

Perhaps that's the first time you've ever looked in the MEL?

Are you endorsing that no pilot should maintenance ferry an aircraft on a ferry permit? Sounds mighty scary!

I find it funny that the supposedly experienced east coast air farce is having an aneurysm over their inability to porperly use an MEL, which is quite clear-cut. I hate to tell you how to screw up your job, but you'd make more sense if you criticized any attempt to countermand true judgement calls like deicing (interpretation of intensity, for instance) or fuel requirements (of course since you won't find any, that may be another dead-end for you).

The boogey-man factory must be running 3 shifts down there in Charlotte. West, Morrell, Wake, Silver, ALPA, now just a fuzzy non-distinct creature called "management" who is causing all of you to do unsafe things to yourselves. Too bad they never serve their intended purpose.

 

[767one]

What in the world are you talking about?

The manufacturer develops a Master Minimum Equipment List which acts like a temporary STC to their aircraft for operation with inoperative equipment. They send it to the FAA who distributes it to operators of the aircraft who modify it as necessary to suit their specific needs, then submit it to the FAA for approval in their operation.

Now you know what a MEL is.


The premise is that barring any of the unforeseen contingencies, that if the MEL allows for operation with inoperative equipment, that operation should be conducted. Those unforeseen contingencies just don't happen to come flooding in as soon as the yellow lanyards go flooding out.

Perhaps that's the first time you've ever looked in the MEL?

Are you endorsing that no pilot should maintenance ferry an aircraft on a ferry permit? Sounds mighty scary!

I find it funny that the supposedly experienced east coast air farce is having an aneurysm over their inability to porperly use an MEL, which is quite clear-cut. I hate to tell you how to screw up your job, but you'd make more sense if you criticized any attempt to countermand true judgement calls like deicing (interpretation of intensity, for instance) or fuel requirements (of course since you won't find any, that may be another dead-end for you).

The boogey-man factory must be running 3 shifts down there in Charlotte. West, Morrell, Wake, Silver, ALPA, now just a fuzzy non-distinct creature called "management" who is causing all of you to do unsafe things to yourselves. Too bad they never serve their intended purpose.

Sounds like you are management's dream come true. I guess there is no mel or any number of mel's you would not operate with. By the way have you ever found an mel on an aircraft that was not in compliance? Once you have had them try to get you to accept an illegal mel a couple of times you should become a bit leary of accepting an mel on an item than can and should be fixed particularly at a maintenance station.


Bob

 

[767one]

Why not?

Put on extra gas, run the engines for cooling. Or go back to the gate get the people into the cool terminal and wait for it to open. What's the problem?

I guess you forget we see 100 days all the time.

How about DCA record high temp. APU inop, one pack on mel, and NO external air available, aircraft heat soaked (cockpit 115f, cabin105f). Sound like something you would like to do?


Bob

 

[Piedmont1984]

Since some of you are touting the multiple layers of our nearly infallible corporate maintenance infrastructure ......Couple of weeks ago we arrived at the aircraft for a morning originating flight at an out station. The aircraft had two MEL's. One was for the air conditioning system - the hot air trim was inop and the hot air p/b switch was in the off position and placarded inop. The MEL listed several criteria in order to continue operation with this discrepancy. One of the criteria was that the aircraft must have two operating air conditioning packs or controllers. Simple enough.

Problem was this - the other MEL was for air conditioning pack # 1 inop. I called MTC and brought this to their attention. Ooops!

Five hours later, after the flight was cancelled and a new a/c controller arrived from PHL and was installed by contract maintenance, the F/O and I ferried an empty aircraft to CLT.

 

[No Land Green]

"MY F/O", eh? Did you let him try on your great big watch? What a trip!

I think you should thank the agent for being so observant. Even if they are wrong, at least they spoke up about something that wasn't right AND wasn't their job.

Copping an attitude with them just ensures that they won't bother looking next time.

And you guys like to pretend to care about safety? 😛

Oh I forgot to tell you in my first post that my FO found the leak. The agent decided to go down to the ramp after my FO reported the leak to me and then tried to tell both of us that it was fuel dripping out of the drain mast.........The agent was a FOOL.........No "attitude copped" with the agent. Just doing what we are paid to do and NOT what others want us to OVERLOOK just to get that coveted on time departure.....Lanyard or NO lanyard.

There is NO "pretend" ing "to care about safety" with me or the people I fly with.

Sorry your aspirations of being the LCC ALPA MEC Chairman or that coveted ALPA National job didn't pan out for you.....LMAO!!!!

 

[No Land Green]

Sounds like you are management's dream come true.


Bob

I don't know about that Bob watching his behavior towards Parker on the PHX May Crew News Video. But then again, yes because he displays NO unity with the East. Yeah, I guess you are right, LOL!!!!

 

[700UW]

Last time I checked an Agent doesnt have his/her A&P License nor training on the airplane to diagnos and fix the problem, tell them to worry about their job and its functions and leave the troubleshooting to the mechanics.

 

[767jetz]

Just want to chime in on this MEL thing. Yes an airplane is legal to fly if an item is deferred as per the MEL as long as certain conditions and restrictions listed in the MEL are satisfied. But pilots do retain a certain amount of leeway on the safe conduct of the flight.

A recent example... We had an airplane with the auto-tilt function on the weather radar INOP, the Radio Altimeter INOP, and Predictive Wind Shear function of the Enhanced GPWS system INOP. MEL said it was legal for dispatch. Among other things, without the Radio Altimeter there are no auto callouts for height above TDZ, requiring the PNF to call out 50, 30, 10 on the Pressure Altimeter (pretty useless), and our SOP for wind shear recovery requires the PNF to call out RA height and trend. (ie: "500 - decending; 400 decending; 300 - level; 350- climbing; etc.)

We were dispatched from ORD to DEN with thunderstorms in DEN. SO to review, mountainous terrain, wind shear advisories, and thunderstorms. We refused the plane. Not on MEL legality, but our opinion that the safety margins on this particular flight were too far compromised. MEL's do not always take factors like field conditions, or weather into consideration.

That being said, this very judgement that we are trusted to make CAN be abused, and CAN be used (illegally) as a negotiating tool. I don't think anyone is fooled by USAPA's attempt to make safety a leverage tactic. Of course they will point to the legitimate examples, while conveniently ignoring or glossing over the many other instances that are far from cut and dry.