US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

If it's legal in the company's eyes, it flies...or else. You will see.

Driver <_<

This episode of Between a Rock and a Hard Place has been brought to you by the incompetence and narcissism of one President Cleary and his unhappy band of followers. If a first you don't succeed, fail and go down in flames is the USAPA motto.

 

[Pi brat]

Always the victims. Never the perpetrator. Never the victor.

Actions have consequences and USAPA using safety as a fallacious front for a illegal work action caused the injunction. Judge Conrad isn't ordering anyone to fly an unsafe aircraft; his order demands that USAPA cease and desist from its illegal conduct. if you can't figure out the difference you need to turn in your wings and find something to do that you can comprehend a little more clearly without endangering lives.

Hey CG,Let's run this one out, shall we? Let's look at inflight entertainment systems. Would you say that they were flight critical, or non-flight critical. What I'm asking is, if you had a problem with a IFE before heading to Europe, would you consider that a "minor issue" and just go ahead?

 

[Keroseneuser]

Always the victims. Never the perpetrator. Never the victor.

Actions have consequences and USAPA using safety as a fallacious front for a illegal work action caused the injunction. Judge Conrad isn't ordering anyone to fly an unsafe aircraft; his order demands that USAPA cease and desist from its illegal conduct. if you can't figure out the difference you need to turn in your wings and find something to do that you can comprehend a little more clearly without endangering lives.

The list of 5 items I posted all came about this past summer.

Of the 5 some were signed off by the company as "legal" to fly per the injunction definition wording.

As a pilot, which ones do you think they are and would you want to be the guy stuck with a "legal" airplane and told to fly it or else?

 

[BLT]

If it's legal in the company's eyes, it flies...or else. You will see.

Driver <_<

Who is to blame for that? Thanks USAPA! USAPA is getting pilots fired, and now we all have our heads on the chopping block. East and West. All for a strategy that could never work without the support of all the pilots. USAPA is the worst pilots union that has and ever will exist. This injunction is not a win for any pilot. It is a loss for all. Just sad that it could have been avoided if there were any intelligence at work within USAPA. They are so blinded by the east vs. west mentality that they cannot for the life of them see the big picture. This is a tragedy for all pilots. Not just east and west but within the entire industry. Our low wages and now this injunction affects all pilots. USAPA has prevailed only in delay, and has damaged the careers of all the pilots in this industry. USAPA in its current form and mentality will never get a contract, will never improve the life of US Airways pilots, and really serves no purpose other than to maintain the status quo eternally. USAPA is the best thing that ever happened to the management of US Airways.

 

[Pi brat]

Who is to blame for that? Thanks USAPA!

Unlike you, who lays it at your fellow pilots feet, I would put it on the company.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Hey Jim,

I know it's supper time and we will have to wait for Momma to release you to the computer to answer this and my other question, but I might as well put it in the queue. The judge wrote this:

"While there is no prohibition against writing up any and all maintenance
items, including very minor items (e.g., broken passenger light, a non-essential placard), pilots
ordinarily exercise their authority and discretion to not write up deferrable minor items when it
could produce a delay or cancellation of a flight."

Would you agree with the judge? The reason I ask is because I have been searching the regs, my FOM and A/C handbook and I don't see that "discretion". I see a very defined system of when and how I am to write up "discrepancies". As a matter of fact, I guess USAPA didn't do a very good job of educating the judge about our CML, and NEF, where things like a "broken passenger light" are supposed to be entered without a mechanic sign off. I guess we couldn't expect the company to educate the judge in it's own procedures, right?

If pilots usually do it, does that make it right? If it is not right, does the company have a responsibility to try and get it's pilots to do it right?

Big blundering government bureaucracies is the culprit. The right hand can't even see the left hand so you get conflicting federal regulations. The FAA has it's rules and the NMB/RLA has it's rules. USAPA violated the latter because following the former would mean canceling nearly every flight every day at every airline. The FAA fails because they are more interested in CYA than in working with flight crews and carriers to build realistic policies. The RLA fails because government has no constitutional authority to get in-between the employer-employee relationship, but it does so anyway. So that leaves judge Conrad the unenviable choice of dealing with a clear violation of the RLA and giving the Company injunctive relief from USAPAs illegal actions without endangering passengers and planes. Of course neither Conrad nor Parker nor anyone else want to risk safety, but the Company has the right to operate and not have illegal slowdowns damage their operations. USAPA is 100 percent to blame. No ifs ands or buts.

 

[Pi brat]

Big blundering government bureaucracies is the culprit. The right hand can't even see the left hand so you get conflicting federal regulations. The FAA has it's rules and the NMB/RLA has it's rules. USAPA violated the latter because following the former would mean canceling nearly every flight every day at every airline. The FAA fails because they are more interested in CYA than in working with flight crews and carriers to build realistic policies. The RLA fails because government has no constitutional authority to get in-between the employer-employee relationship, but it does so anyway. So that leaves judge Conrad the unenviable choice of dealing with a clear violation of the RLA and giving the Company injunctive relief from USAPAs illegal actions without endangering passengers and planes. Of course neither Conrad nor Parker nor anyone else want to risk safety, but the Company has the right to operate and not have illegal slowdowns damage their operations. USAPA is 100 percent to blame. No ifs ands or buts.

Damn! CG, you had me several lines in, until you got the the "Of course neither Conrad nor Parker nor anyone else want to risk safety, but the Company has the right to operate and not have illegal slowdowns damage their operations". I really don't think Parker has a clue. He wants to make money, period. Of course most sane people don't want to kill people, but many discount the risks it they have never faced them. IMHO, he knew which way to go years ago, he just chose money.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Hey CG,Let's run this one out, shall we? Let's look at inflight entertainment systems. Would you say that they were flight critical, or non-flight critical. What I'm asking is, if you had a problem with a IFE before heading to Europe, would you consider that a "minor issue" and just go ahead?

What did you do before USAPA came along and started their illegal job action? Do that now and I wouldn't expect any problems, unless you are a pilot already identified as being a participant in the work slowdown. If that's the case the termination you receive tomorrow was set in stone before the injunction came out. The blood on the hands doesn't wash of very easily.USAPA may have spared Well's job with an expensive USA Today ad, but they probably won't be doing that again.

 

[Move2CLT]

Damn! CG, you had me several lines in, until you got the the "Of course neither Conrad nor Parker nor anyone else want to risk safety, but the Company has the right to operate and not have illegal slowdowns damage their operations". I really don't think Parker has a clue. He wants to make money, period. Of course most sane people don't want to kill people, but many discount the risks it they have never faced them. IMHO, he knew which way to go years ago, he just chose money.

Parker doesn't have a clue? This coming from an enjoined east guy.

Wow.

 

[Pi brat]

What did you do before USAPA came along and started their illegal job action? Do that now and I wouldn't expect any problems, unless you are a pilot already identified as being a participant in the work slowdown. If that's the case the termination you receive tomorrow was set in stone before the injunction came out. The blood on the hands doesn't wash of very easily.USAPA may have spared Well's job with an expensive USA Today ad, but they probably won't be doing that again.

I operated an extremely safe, efficient, customer friendly operation, despite pressure from a numbers oriented management team.

Now that we have that out of the way, can you answer the question?

 

[Pi brat]

Parker doesn't have a clue? This coming from an enjoined east guy.

Wow.

Are you a MIGS?

 

[Move2CLT]

Sure am. And a Cleary supporter. And your biggest fan.

 

[Pi brat]

Sure am. And a Cleary supporter. And your biggest fan.

Then you too are enjoined! Welcome to the club, I'm sure it's a first for you.

My wife said to tell you she doubted the "biggest fan" comment.

You are now dismissed.

 

[Pi brat]

dupe

 

[Move2CLT]

For me it makes no difference. I don't make false write-ups like you and Wells do. Mine are legit. I don't intentionally ground airplanes at out stations or taxi at a crawl.

The west was not the target of the injunction - the east meaning people like you and Wells, was the target.

Hate the game Pi, not the playa.

You're dismissed as well.