US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

... This is why Pilot authority must remain sacrosanct.

And this is why it is so reprehensible and appalling that USAPA has allowed safety and captain's authority to dilute in favor of conducting illegal work actions. Professionals should never let there be a mix between genuine concern for the safety of human lives and the desire to create negotiating leverage. Anyone who dreamed up this vile campaign or has partaken in any form of illegal union activity should be disgusted by their own conduct.

This is why it is wrong to scream "fire" in the middle of a movie theater when there isn't one. First off, people may be injured in the stampede to clear the facility. Second, the second, third, and tenth time someone screams fire without there actually being one means that if a real fire ever breaks out, people will likely ignore the warning and be put in genuine peril.

So long as USAPA continues this illegal and contemptible campaign, Management must act to restore order and operational reliability to the system for the sake of customers and the solvency of the company. If left unchecked because pilot in command authority should never be questioned, then Management risks losing 32,000 jobs and all shareholder value because certain pilots have engaged in an abuse of that power for their own narcissism. I condemn USAPA and their supported in the strongest possible way for putting people's lives and livelihoods at risk because they cannot accept the result of binding arbitration, which is what this all boils down to.

 

[Keroseneuser]

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.

The A/C had issues, several ecam problems and the captain asked maint guys if they wanted to hold boarding. Maint guys said yes since they would need to depower and repower aircraft, several resets etc. Capt. relayed this to the gate agent and told gate agent to hold boarding. 3 mins later the supervisor showed up at cabin door with entire line of pax behind him and made the statement and demanded that the pax be boarded. Never mind that the a/c was completly powered down at that point not even ground power hooked up. There was also something to the effect of "you have no authority, when the a/c is at the gate i own it" said by the gate supervisor. At this point the mechanic stepped in and said that they could not board the a/c. The supervisor didnt leave, he stood there with pax in tow for another 15 mins till the mechs determined that the a/c was not going anywhere and an a/c swap was in the works.

This is the environment that the east crews are dealing with at present. I think a lot of the differences we have seen in this thread on the subject is a result of the west not being subjected to the same treatment. It is obvious by the posts from several of the west guys over the past few pages that they would have the same issues east guys do if they saw the same treatment.

In this case, the supervisor was making threats about calling cp's etc etc until the mechanic stepped in. The Captain offered to let him use his phone since he had the cp on speeddial. I am confident that had the mech. not stepped in this would have grown into a Capt. Wells like incident. After seeing this occur in person and hearing about it from other guys on other occasions, I doubt ANY version of the Wells story if it comes from mgmt. SOP at the moment for dealing with east crews is beat them with a stick first, and if they still get back up....beat them again.

 

[Move2CLT]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Did you get put into the position of having to refuse an aircraft when you were a Captain?

 

[BoeingBoy]

This is the environment that the east crews are dealing with at present.

As I said above, nothing new. I had an agent board an aircraft in my absence back in the 90's after telling them not to and why (IAM in negotiations and daily check was going to take a lot longer than normal - the only indication of mechanic action when I told the agent was a toolbox sitting under the plane). I came back, found the passengers boarding, and asked the agent why only to learn that the ramp tower guy "in charge" of my flight had ordered the plane boarded. So I called him and was told point blank that my job was to fly the airplane and nothing else. So I told him that when the plane was on the runway ready for takeoff to call me and I'd come out to fly it, hung up, and immediately called the CP. When I stopped by the CP's office after the trip, I was informed that the ramp tower guy was relieved of duty immediately and wouldn't be working there any more.

If there's a problem, you have the senior VP of flight ops phone number and the FAR's - use them if necessary to resolve the problem since that's what they're there for.

Jim

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

And this is why it is so reprehensible and appalling that USAPA has allowed safety and captain's authority to dilute in favor of conducting illegal work actions. Professionals should never let there be a mix between genuine concern for the safety of human lives and the desire to create negotiating leverage. Anyone who dreamed up this vile campaign or has partaken in any form of illegal union activity should be disgusted by their own conduct.

This is why it is wrong to scream "fire" in the middle of a movie theater when there isn't one. First off, people may be injured in the stampede to clear the facility. Second, the second, third, and tenth time someone screams fire without there actually being one means that if a real fire ever breaks out, people will likely ignore the warning and be put in genuine peril.

So long as USAPA continues this illegal and contemptible campaign, Management must act to restore order and operational reliability to the system for the sake of customers and the solvency of the company. If left unchecked because pilot in command authority should never be questioned, then Management risks losing 32,000 jobs and all shareholder value because certain pilots have engaged in an abuse of that power for their own narcissism. I condemn USAPA and their supported in the strongest possible way for putting people's lives and livelihoods at risk because they cannot accept the result of binding arbitration, which is what this all boils down to.

Guess the hearing is over, USAPA GUILTY? Operational realiability? Peoples lives and livelyhood? How about screaming "SHARK" next time you go swimming! Unless you haven't noticed, Your companies debt to equity ratio is a house of cards, USAPA couldn't put a dent in the trash can this manngmnt "TEAM TEMPE" has created! MM! http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/19/1-star-stocks-poised-to-plunge-us-airways/

 

[SparrowHawk]

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

One of my old bosses once said that in order to do your job you can't be afraid to lose your job. What has me a bit ticked is by instituting a bogus "Safety Campaign" for negotiating a Labor contract damages or runs the risk of damaging the PIC authority. That's bad on so many levels I can't even begin to fathom.

Also to the other point if the CP in a non threatening way is questioning your judgement it should be a learning point for both. Being questioned comes with any job. Bullying shouldn't

 

[Res Judicata]

The A/C had issues, several ecam problems and the captain asked maint guys if they wanted to hold boarding. Maint guys said yes since they would need to depower and repower aircraft, several resets etc. Capt. relayed this to the gate agent and told gate agent to hold boarding. 3 mins later the supervisor showed up at cabin door with entire line of pax behind him and made the statement and demanded that the pax be boarded. Never mind that the a/c was completly powered down at that point not even ground power hooked up. There was also something to the effect of "you have no authority, when the a/c is at the gate i own it" said by the gate supervisor. At this point the mechanic stepped in and said that they could not board the a/c. The supervisor didnt leave, he stood there with pax in tow for another 15 mins till the mechs determined that the a/c was not going anywhere and an a/c swap was in the works.

This is the environment that the east crews are dealing with at present. I think a lot of the differences we have seen in this thread on the subject is a result of the west not being subjected to the same treatment. It is obvious by the posts from several of the west guys over the past few pages that they would have the same issues east guys do if they saw the same treatment.

In this case, the supervisor was making threats about calling cp's etc etc until the mechanic stepped in. The Captain offered to let him use his phone since he had the cp on speeddial. I am confident that had the mech. not stepped in this would have grown into a Capt. Wells like incident. After seeing this occur in person and hearing about it from other guys on other occasions, I doubt ANY version of the Wells story if it comes from mgmt. SOP at the moment for dealing with east crews is beat them with a stick first, and if they still get back up....beat them again.

I don't believe a single word of this story.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

While I agree with everything you say, SH, it's not something that's happened since May 1.

Since when has "escorting pilots off airplanes" happened before May 1? Nay, escorting the captain all the way to baggage claim and escorting the flight attendants from the gate to the inernational crew room, both cases through public areas. The flight attendants are pissed. Still.

The company will have to buy them off. When asked by the FAs, one thug said, "Shut the eff up". The other thug said "We don't want you to pollute the oncoming crew with your maintenance fantasies".

Had I been there, a phone call to PHL security or 911 and statements that a flight crew being held hostage/kidnapped would have been in order. Perhaps a request for SWAT intervention might have been next. Then, a call to the local paper.

This kind of thing happened before 1 May of this year?

 

[Black Swan]

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

What did you think of the Wells flight?

 

[Keroseneuser]

I don't believe a single word of this story.

<Shakes head> To biased and angry to see what is right in front of your face. Believe what you want. If the company wins this injunction, which is a good chance, I figure you will get to see it up close and personal since the injunction will apply to all the pilots east and west and the company will have free reign to do what they like.

I have said my peace and devoted much more off time to this company than I swore I ever would again. In the end it is a job, if it goes away ala Eastern then I will find another.

You folks have a good day.

 

[CallawayGolf]

SOP at the moment for dealing with east crews is beat them with a stick first, and if they still get back up....beat them again.

Assuming this is a correct analogy, why do you suppose the east pilots would be singled out? Is there any root-cause issues created by east pilots that Management is responding to? Is there a reason why the word of an east pilot would be trusted less than the word of a west pilot, a mechanic, or a gate agent? Is there a root-cause issue that applies only to east pilots and no other work groups?

All answers lead back to USAPA who encourage pilots to violate the status quo, call for the termination of US executives, deny understanding the results of binding arbitration and their DFR responsibilities, sue their own constituents with RICO charges, reopen all sections of the contract for no reason other than to cause a delay, and take out USA Today ads impugning Management for a problem that they caused in the first place (taking on unnecessary fuel during a fuel crisis and sending a USAPA insider A330 captain out as a sacrificial lamb to intentionally create a publicity stunt to use as negotiating leverage). Why is it so hard to understand that if USAPA demonstrated that they could be trusted and that they were interested in working with Management to complete the JCBA and to ensure the long-term success and profitability of US Airways, that working conditions and relations with management would be cooperative rather than adversarial?

I once worked at a company that gave it's supervisors stop watches to time how long production operators took on their bathroom breaks. Do you suppose Management was just looking for new ways to oppress their workforce or do you suppose that the workers were intentionally taking long breaks because they thought they could get away with it if they said they needed to use the bathroom? The root cause was that there were rampant abuses with bathroom breaks and Management needed to respond to those abuses with more extreme measures. Once the culture changed and workers no longer abused their liberties, the stop watched went away. You want to blame Management for responding to a legitimate threat to the business rather than admit that the root cause lies with USAPA, in this case.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One of my old bosses once said that in order to do your job you can't be afraid to lose your job.

That is true on several fronts SH.

Jim

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

I don't believe a single word of this story.

There are thousands who believe the world is flat. Nobody cares what you believe.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What did you think of the Wells flight?

I wasn't there so don't have anything concrete to base an opinion on. I think I'm right in saying that I haven't expressed an opinion either way on that specific incident.

Jim

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Assuming this is a correct analogy, why do you suppose the east pilots would be singled out? Is there any root-cause issues created by east pilots that Management is responding to? Is there a reason why the word of an east pilot would be trusted less than the word of a west pilot, a mechanic, or a gate agent? Is there a root-cause issue that applies only to east pilots and no other work groups?

All answers lead back to USAPA who encourage pilots to violate the status quo, call for the termination of US executives, deny understanding the results of binding arbitration and their DFR responsibilities, sue their own constituents with RICO charges, reopen all sections of the contract for no reason other than to cause a delay, and take out USA Today ads impugning Management for a problem that they caused in the first place (taking on unnecessary fuel during a fuel crisis and sending a USAPA insider A330 captain out as a sacrificial lamb to intentionally create a publicity stunt to use as negotiating leverage). Why is it so hard to understand that if USAPA demonstrated that they could be trusted and that they were interested in working with Management to complete the JCBA and to ensure the long-term success and profitability of US Airways, that working conditions and relations with management would be cooperative rather than adversarial?

I once worked at a company that gave it's supervisors stop watches to time how long production operators took on their bathroom breaks. Do you suppose Management was just looking for new ways to oppress their workforce or do you suppose that the workers were intentionally taking long breaks because they thought they could get away with it if they said they needed to use the bathroom? The root cause was that there were rampant abuses with bathroom breaks and Management needed to respond to those abuses with more extreme measures. Once the culture changed and workers no longer abused their liberties, the stop watched went away. You want to blame Management for responding to a legitimate threat to the business rather than admit that the root cause lies with USAPA, in this case.

USAPA ENCOURAGED NOTHING, THE DATA BREACH IN WHICH OUR (IDENTITIES)TELEPHONE NUMBERS WERE GIVEN TO AOL AND USED AGAINST USAPA! simple! FRAMED!