US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Pi brat]

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.

I would say quite a bit of leeway, but thanks for agreeing.

 

[No Land Green]

I don't have to back it up. I started with "I don't THINK anyone is fooled." It's an opinion. Your company seems to have the same opinion as per their communication to the employees. Facts SEEM to be emerging that the FULL story has not been given by USAPA. AGAIN... IMO.

You are correct, "opinion" from someone who does not work at LCC. Brilliant!!!!!

 

[nic4us]

I tried to think of way to say this, but I'm going back to my first answer: This is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen written on here! The MEL cannot be written to cover every situation and that is why it is up to the CAPTAIN to decide if it is safe to operate the aircraft after balancing equipment and operating conditions. From the FOM and Mr Morrell's letter on safety:

'"If the captain is dissatisfied with any aspect of the aircraft's
airworthiness and/or maintenance status, or if he is not sure the operation can
be safely executed, then the operation will stop until he is completely satisfied."

If that captain did not feel the MEL was safe FOR THAT OPERATION, it was her duty to not accept that aircraft.

Now, with that off my chest I will say that when it comes to safety, it is up to every pilot and every manager to put other issues aside and not let them affect the safe operation of the aircraft. I do not believe in using safety as a job action, period. But notice that I said both. Even if there are some pilots using safety as a weapon, it is a dangerous practice for US management to ASSUME someone is doing it. It would be like a captain ignoring a F/A that calls reporting smoke in the cabin because he complained about catering during the captain's briefing.

I have refused three airplanes in my career that had completely legal MELs on them. Legal doesn't always equal safe, or smart.

Exactly why the yellow lanyards and usapa's using safety as a negotiating tool is entirely misplaced.

We have numerous accounts now, in this thread, of gate agents questioning pilot's decisions. (i.e. loose fasteners on the tail, hydraulic leak in engine nacelle, for starters) We have an entire thread questioning one pilots decision, and a USA today ad airing usapa's dirty laundry.

usapa has cried wolf too many times, and now when a crew is faced with a pack of wolves who is there to back them up?

I think the company might just be trying to side with you on this one with their new lanyard/uniform policy.

Every official communication from the company has been...Safety is job #1, however, the underlying tone is, cut the bullcrap so we can back you up in performing job #1.


Also, I think the blanket statement by luvn "if it is in the MEL you take it" may not have been exactly what luvn was saying. I would have said.....if it is properly MELed you CAN take it. It is up to you to make the call, just as if you had a fully functioning aircraft, but had to make a call for more fuel, or adding an alternate, or changing the route, or etc..etc..etc..

 

[Piedmont1984]

Although it seems pretty obvious and should have never had the two conficting MELs issued...Good catch.

I will look at the MEL today, I think I may know what happened here. Was the second pack defered at the outstation by contract mx, or did a crew fly it with the two MELs to the outstation?

Just can't remember for sure nic. Trying to remember if both stickers on the FDML were blue - or one blue and one white (contract maintenance or crew affixed).

 

[767jetz]

You are correct, "opinion" from someone who does not work at LCC. Brilliant!!!!!

Yes of course... the old "you don't work here so what do you know... liar liar pants on fire... & I know you are but what am I" argument from you. Nothing new, huh?

Last I checked, other airlines have MEL's, and pilot unions, and labor strife, and have experience with work to rule, and using safety as a negotiating tool. Leave it to you to think you are the master of the universe and must live in your cesspool to know what #### smells like.

 

[No Land Green]

Yes of course... the old "you don't work here so what do you know... liar liar pants on fire... & I know you are but what am I" argument from you. Nothing new, huh?

Last I checked, other airlines have MEL's, and pilot unions, and labor strife, and have experience with work to rule, and using safety as a negotiating tool. Leave it to you to think you are the master of the universe and must live in your cesspool to know what #### smells like.

And you just love this "cesspool", OBSESSED with it, just can't stay away, can you? LMAO

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

I can't figure out how to quote two different posts in one response, but I personally think Pi's post in 19275 and nic's response in 19278 should cover the fly bys. Both guys nailed it, and when read together, it tells the story.

 

[luvn737s]

Also, I think the blanket statement by luvn "if it is in the MEL you take it" may not have been exactly what luvn was saying. I would have said.....if it is properly MELed you CAN take it. It is up to you to make the call, just as if you had a fully functioning aircraft, but had to make a call for more fuel, or adding an alternate, or changing the route, or etc..etc..etc..

No, Pi-hole cut out what he wanted, even though he has read the other 3 posts that claify my position. I understand how ashamed he is of his beloved Cleary and is dealing with the betrayal of trust. He'll be okay.

So again, yes there are very rare times when an MEL is improperly written or for whatever reason the aircraft cannot be operated due to MEL conflicts. But Pi and his associates take that as a green light to undermine the operation and try to make Parker cower and cave to their DOH demands through bogus write-ups or unfounded "safety" concerns.

The story coming out about the 330 captain paints a picture of someone who knows so little about their airplane that their qualification to command it is as questionable as their judgement in complaining about it on the PA.

Attrition, Cleary style.

 

[luvn737s]

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

when did US start flying 767's into DCA?

Are you fooling folks into thinking you're "Bob"?

 

[700UW]

Remember the 767/757 is the same type rating.

 

[Pi brat]

So again, yes there are very rare times when an MEL is improperly written or for whatever reason the aircraft cannot be operated due to MEL conflicts. But Pi and his associates take that as a green light to undermine the operation and try to make Parker cower and cave to their DOH demands through bogus write-ups or unfounded "safety" concerns.

pi hole. Almost as classy as the Sully comment. It shows your desperation.

You could not be more wrong. I'm not talking about an improperly written MEL or combinations of MELs. I'm talking about MELs that are properly written, but in the situation they were applied, they reduced the safety margin to an unacceptable margin. That's what we are talking about here, margins. We could stay at home an be perfectly safe, but we wouldn't go anywhere. We have to balance the issues at hand, and make sure we have an adequate margin. That is the responsibility of the PIC, after he/she has used all the resources to come to that decision.

I have not and I never will use a bogus safety issue to bring pressure on ANY issue, and you are a flat out liar for saying that about me.

 

[luvthe9]

when did US start flying 767's into DCA?

Are you fooling folks into thinking you're "Bob"?

Did he say it was a 767 in DCA?

 

[luvthe9]

Your hysteria has driven you to such a habit of rejecting anything and everything an East pilot does, thinking that surely there is some grand conspiracy afoot. I am nearly persuaded that if the East pilots ratified a Soutwest contract containing the Nic, you would simply spew out hatred and venom rejecting "their move" as another conspiracy to harm the West.

He is pretty pissed. After all, he helped us get ALPA tanked here. You should be thanking him!

 

[Pi brat]

Exactly why the yellow lanyards and usapa's using safety as a negotiating tool is entirely misplaced.

We have numerous accounts now, in this thread, of gate agents questioning pilot's decisions. (i.e. loose fasteners on the tail, hydraulic leak in engine nacelle, for starters) We have an entire thread questioning one pilots decision, and a USA today ad airing usapa's dirty laundry.

usapa has cried wolf too many times, and now when a crew is faced with a pack of wolves who is there to back them up?

I think the company might just be trying to side with you on this one with their new lanyard/uniform policy.

Every official communication from the company has been...Safety is job #1, however, the underlying tone is, cut the bullcrap so we can back you up in performing job #1.


Also, I think the blanket statement by luvn "if it is in the MEL you take it" may not have been exactly what luvn was saying. I would have said.....if it is properly MELed you CAN take it. It is up to you to make the call, just as if you had a fully functioning aircraft, but had to make a call for more fuel, or adding an alternate, or changing the route, or etc..etc..etc..

I mostly agree with your post nic. I would say "if" the lanyards are being used as a tool for a job action. If you remember the safety culture concerns have been going on for a while, ever since the company decided to use the training dept. as discipline. What I think has happened is that a group of pilots have decided to piggy back on that concern and use it for leverage. I say I think, because I really don't know. I have no idea where the lanyards came from. No one has ever offered me one. But as I said before, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the company doesn't take safety as seriously as it should, WE HAVE TO! It's our duty. Not pretend safety. Not a slow down for safety, I don't agree with that, but real safety.

I really believe that the company believes that safety is job one, but unfortunately they have fallen in the trap of ignoring the people that in the pointy end of the jet, and making the assumption that everything we say or do has to do with a contract.

 

[Pi brat]

when did US start flying 767's into DCA?

Are you fooling folks into thinking you're "Bob"?

Your range of thinking is really narrow, isn't it? Did Bob ever say that was on a 767?

Have you ever flown a Fokker? If not, we could have a long conversation on legal AC MELs that you would have to be a complete idiot to accept, again under certain conditions.

Hopefully you will get a little more education before you check out.