US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Keroseneuser]

Let me get this straight. In the 6 years since the merger, the east has drove one off the pavement, collapsed a gear and killed Billy Mays, had numerous ground collisions, shot an airplane, and of course put one in the Hudson, while the West has had a "lucky streak" of zero accidents? Prior to that the West had a 20+ year "lucky streak" of zero (0) fatal accidents.

Yep, and mgmt. amazing enough is disiplining the guys that are trying to keep the safety standard high.

BTW that "it cannot happen to me" attitude you show I have seen before, circa 1988, right before many bad things happened.

 

[luvn737s]

Had you been an east pilot you most likely would have been called in for a disiplinary fact finding meeting.

I witnessed the same scenario you just described in LGA on a deadhead, the supervisor showed up at the door to the a/c with the passengers in tow and instead of talking with the captain his first words were, "These passengers ARE boarding now and you have zero to say about it"

Fine. The gate can put people on or take people off. Do they also have a parking brake release lever in the jetway so the tug can haul you all the way down to the giant rubber band stretched across 36C, pull you back and launch you into the air against your will and then say, "NOW you're the G-D captain!!"?

 

[luvn737s]

I am sad to say that on the East side at least "Are you refusing to fly" is not a trigger to "Can the captain be satisfied". Over here it is and has been for some time a direct threat of disipline action or job termination. Mgmt. has made that very very clear to us.

Can you give the number of terminations tied directly to refusing unairworthy airplanes? +/- 100 will do.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Fine. The gate can put people on or take people off. Do they also have a parking brake release lever in the jetway so the tug can haul you all the way down to the giant rubber band stretched across 36C, pull you back and launch you into the air against your will and then say, "NOW you're the G-D captain!!"?

Careful, you are starting to sound like one of those Easties.

Judging from your posts I think were you flying on the east side and dealing with the mgmt intimidation crap you would feel exactly as I do. Obviously you see an issue with a non flight supervisor ordering you around on a flight issue of which they know nothing about. We have several cases of pilots that are facing termination for acting exactly as you a west captain would in the same situation. That is what I mean by treating the east different than the west.

 

[luvn737s]

I was actually being facetious. Sorry


No, actually I am fine with letting the company try out whatever they want (APU-ON, APU-OFF, close 15 early, close 10 early, etc.) and let the true effects of their experiments be proven out, as long as its safe for everyone involved. Doing my own thing out of rebellion only makes their idea seem better than it may really be.

 

[Keroseneuser]

No, actually I am fine with letting the company try out whatever they want (APU-ON, APU-OFF, close 15 early, close 10 early, etc.) and let the true effects of their experiments be proven out, as long as its safe for everyone involved. Doing my own thing out of rebellion only makes their idea seem better than it may really be.

Then you and I have very much in common. What we don't seem to have in common is the way our joint mgmt. staff treats us.

I have no problem with whatever stuff like that they come up with. I do have issues with a/c that has a double overtemp on every toga take off, one that runs with a single AC source for 3 days, one that repeatedly has "resets" done when it is 100% certian the item will fail again in the next flight.

I dare you to tell me that seeing that crap almost daily would not piss you off as a Captain.

 

[Claxon]

Why is it OK for the Captain to say "I'm not taking this airplane" and smugly storm off to Starbucks, but even asking the question "Are you refusing to fly the airplane?" is interpreted as pilot pushing? They are opposite sides of the very same coin.

I had an east mechanic spring the "Are you refusing the aircraft" thing on me when he wanted me to take an airplane with an open write-up to the next station to be complied with (the MEL was actually a pretty simple one) and I said simply "YES". He said my CP wanted to talk with me, so I called my CP, who said "Why would I want to talk to you? You know what you're doing. You're going to get it fixed or MEL'd, right?" I agreed and we both thought the mechanic was a little ballsy to try that, but the MEL was applied and off we went.

The "Are you refusing to fly the airplane" is simply a trigger, just like the flows, that should occur at a point where everything that can be done to dispatch the airplane has been done and now the issue has to be "Can the captain be satisfied that the airplane conforms to it's type design and is safe for flight?" If the captain's concerns are clouded in a temper tantrum to the point where it's unclear whether anything would satisfy him/her, then you need to see if another captain would have the same level of concern , removing the emotion from it. If the next pilot or two's concerns are clouded in the desire to take an opportunity to participate in a union safety campaign, that complicates things even further and gets further away from the question of whether the aircraft conforms to its type design and is a condition for safe flight.

Every write-up can't be a referendum on the legitimacy of the MEL. Yes there are typo's and on a very outside chance there may be a conflict between two MEL's that went undiscovered, but in the main, the MEL is a very reliable tool that should be used when applicable and the captain should have confidence that the operation can be conducted safely under it.

The real pushing comes from those who want to intimidate pilots with secret Pink Panty lists and "if you not with us, you're against us " perverted logic. What kind of professional accuses management with intimidation, but does what he knows is wrong to avoid peer intimidation?

You make no sense you western idiot. Does it not concern your pea sized cranium that you were coerced by a mechanic into calling your chief pilot.And you did it, because you have no balls to deal with it right there. That mechanic ran you right into a corner, and you let him. You have no right to be sitting in the left seat with this behavior and you letting some idiot make you call anyone. You should have told him to call your c/p himself and explain his actions and told him you weren't moving the jet till it was fixed. Franke Air really does live to this day. Let's hope the judge slams this injunction where it belongs, right in Parkers' rectum, and then the normal people who run your airline can go back doing their jobs.

 

[Claxon]

Let me get this straight. In the 6 years since the merger, the east has drove one off the pavement, collapsed a gear and killed Billy Mays, had numerous ground collisions, shot an airplane, and of course put one in the Hudson, while the West has had a "lucky streak" of zero accidents? Prior to that the West had a 20+ year "lucky streak" of zero (0) fatal accidents.

And, you do not understand why mgmt treats the West pilots different from the east pilots?

Well junior, maybe it is because as the largest operator of A320 series aircraft in the world, mgmt is treating the pilot group that has vastly more experience in that type (i.e. the West pilots), a little differently from the less experienced group that screws up on a regular basis (i.e. the east pilots).

I believe mgmt treats both groups the same. If and when the West pillots ever take out a full page USA Today ad that is a complete lie, and puts the company in a bad light, as a means to force an issue that is contrary to all the contractual obligations between the pilot group and the company, then we damage or destroy a half dozen airplanes, you will see the West pilots being scrutinized more closely by mgmt.

You forgot one other area where you have more experience, scabbing.

 

[luvthe9]

Had you been an east pilot you most likely would have been called in for a disiplinary fact finding meeting.

I witnessed the same scenario you just described in LGA on a deadhead, the supervisor showed up at the door to the a/c with the passengers in tow and instead of talking with the captain his first words were, "These passengers ARE boarding now and you have zero to say about it"

Welcome to the beginning of the end of Eastern Airlines........

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim you have no idea what you are tallking about... This MGMT team is worse than the non skeds or commuteres I used to work for in regard to their fear and intimidation, snooping, weasling... You are not here so I don't thinkn your words mean much .

Despite how much you and others would like to banish those who upset your fantasies, to paraphrase a line from SparrowHawk I was here before you and will probably be here after you're gone. Or I could shorten that to "Live with it."

Jim

 

[nic4us]

You forgot one other area where you have more experience, scabbing.

Great comeback,,

You are correct, the West had more experience with scabs than the east until east voted in that scab union. Now, not so much.

 

[nic4us]

Fine. The gate can put people on or take people off. Do they also have a parking brake release lever in the jetway so the tug can haul you all the way down to the giant rubber band stretched across 36C, pull you back and launch you into the air against your will and then say, "NOW you're the G-D captain!!"?

Actually luvn, the gate cannot put people on or take people off at their discretion.

The agent comes to the airplane and "asks" if it is okay to board for a reason. The crew determines if it is okay to board, end of story.

In Kerosene's story, the supervisor made a decision and it was not theirs to make. Kerosene said the captain was not even asked, so I am assuming the F/A told the gate not to board. Completely different from my story, but I would also assume that if the captain were present s/he would get involved rather quickly. As a captain, if I had told the gate not to board for a legitimate reason that I determined it would be unsafe to board and a supervisor tried to pull rank on me and showed up in the jetway with passengers and said "they were boarding and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it", I would order the F/As off the airplane. If the F/As wanted to go with the agent and board against my will, find a new captain.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Why is it OK for the Captain to say "I'm not taking this airplane" and smugly storm off to Starbucks, but even asking the question "Are you refusing to fly the airplane?" is interpreted as pilot pushing? They are opposite sides of the very same coin.

Because it's your ass at the pointy end of a potential lawn dart NOT the chief pilot. If I felt strongly enough to refuse the aircraft I'd tell the Chief Pilot, "If you think it's safe, you fly it". IMO the PIC's authority must have a wide latitude in regards to safty issues of any kind.

I had an east mechanic spring the "Are you refusing the aircraft" thing on me when he wanted me to take an airplane with an open write-up to the next station to be complied with (the MEL was actually a pretty simple one) and I said simply "YES". He said my CP wanted to talk with me, so I called my CP, who said "Why would I want to talk to you? You know what you're doing. You're going to get it fixed or MEL'd, right?" I agreed and we both thought the mechanic was a little ballsy to try that, but the MEL was applied and off we went.

You exercised the appropriate level of concern for the safety of yourself and everyone on that flight. So what frankly that the Mechanic was a horses ass? Bottom line is procedures and protocols were followed. My point was/is that the local "expert" aka Pilot in Command must have the final say. For that reason that authority must not be abused or denigrated for personal gain. It's to damn important. Unlike my job you only get to be wrong once and if you're wrong, people die. Or a strong potential exists.

The "Are you refusing to fly the airplane" is simply a trigger, just like the flows, that should occur at a point where everything that can be done to dispatch the airplane has been done and now the issue has to be "Can the captain be satisfied that the airplane conforms to it's type design and is safe for flight?" If the captain's concerns are clouded in a temper tantrum to the point where it's unclear whether anything would satisfy him/her, then you need to see if another captain would have the same level of concern , removing the emotion from it. If the next pilot or two's concerns are clouded in the desire to take an opportunity to participate in a union safety campaign, that complicates things even further and gets further away from the question of whether the aircraft conforms to its type design and is a condition for safe flight.

Well we can't say for sure if the Captain you're alluding to had a "Temper Tantrum" or for what reason. For all any of us know this could have been her third or 4th trip where there were the type of issue that were on board and this was the last straw. Or the tantrum could have been a result of CP bullying. Apparently in this case another crew also refused the Aircraft.

Every write-up can't be a referendum on the legitimacy of the MEL. Yes there are typo's and on a very outside chance there may be a conflict between two MEL's that went undiscovered, but in the main, the MEL is a very reliable tool that should be used when applicable and the captain should have confidence that the operation can be conducted safely under it.

No it can't However sometimes the need for expediency replaces the judgement of management of any enterprise. The danger exists when people start to say "Oh it's no big deal, let's take it, everything will be fine" and truth is that's usually correct, however in aviation you usually only get to be wrong a few times or maybe only once.

The real pushing comes from those who want to intimidate pilots with "if you not with us, you're against us " perverted logic. What kind of professional accuses management with intimidation, but does what he knows is wrong to avoid peer intimidation?

Because that's the truth. In most of life they're no neutrals. even when a person doesn't say so, they've picked a side. One of the most famous union organizing songs is aptly titled "Which Side Are You One" by Florence Reece.

In closing, as someone who ran large complex Printing Presses safety is no joke. To this very day I wear NO jewelery, no long sleeve shirts when I work on anything. I'm also one of the only people I know that worked in that industry for ten years that can still count to ten without taking off a shoe. Safety is or should be part of any airlines culture. Suppose that incident you alluded to turned out differently? Suppose she had taken the plane and developed problems in the north Atlantic? No Miracle on the Hudson in the middle of the ocean. This is why Pilot authority must remain sacrosanct.

 

[Res Judicata]

Because it's your ass at the pointy end of a potential lawn dart NOT the chief pilot. If I felt strongly enough to refuse the aircraft I'd tell the Chief Pilot, "If you think it's safe, you fly it". IMO the PIC's authority must have a wide latitude in regards to safty issues of any kind.

SH, that is PRECISELY how it works. If anybody attempts to tell you otherwise they are either A.) Flat out lying to you or B.) Omitting some very important details...aka "lies by omission".

 

[BoeingBoy]

Because it's your ass at the pointy end of a potential lawn dart NOT the chief pilot....

While I agree with everything you say, SH, it's not something that's happened since May 1. If pilots, and captains in particular, haven't had their authority questioned occasionally over the years they've been working for a different airline than I did. The solution is to not allow oneself to be intimated. If the problem is real and someone is trying to intimidate the captain, every agent, dispatcher, scheduler, mechanic, and even CP has a supervisor. The FOM has the phone numbers of those in the pilot's chain of command up to the senior VP of flight ops if necessary.

Refusing to accept an airplane is no big deal - if anyone feels threatened by that question maybe they shouldn't be a captain. The answer is simple, as long as you're sure you're doing the right thing for the right reason - "I'm refusing to take this airplane in this condition. I'll gladly take another plane or this one after it's fixed. If you'd like to discuss it further, I'll gladly stop by your office at my earliest convenience." At that point, realize that the CP has the authority to remove any pilot from any flight - time off with pay if you've done nothing wrong. The question of whether the CP should remove a pilot from a flight then becomes a problem for the CP's supervisors to sort out - i.e., it's the CP's problem.

Jim