Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5265049/

Topic: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sdexplorer00
Posted 2011-09-26 15:28:36 and read 19155 times.

Reuters) - Pilots at United Airlines asked a federal judge on Monday to halt integration with Continental Airlines, saying the company is moving too fast in its bid to merge operations fully.

The United chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sought a stay of Friday's deadline to complete the next phase of training and begin new procedures.

The union said the proposed level and timeline of training necessary for United Continental Holdings Inc (UAL.N) to earn single operating authority from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is inadequate. .......

Full article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...RSS&feedName=innovationNews&rpc=43

Don't understand this move. It seems the pilots and Delta and Northwest had a more forward way of looking things and that the merger would be a benefit for them.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: gigneil
Posted 2011-09-26 15:31:04 and read 19165 times.

This is totally union posturing to put pressure on the airline to give in to their demands.

Its shameful.

NS

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sdexplorer00
Posted 2011-09-26 15:31:14 and read 19159 times.

More information here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United...d-new-apf-1992527133.html?x=0&.v=5

Highlight "Wendy Morse, the head of the pilot union at United and a 777 captain, said pilots watched a computer-based slide show that lasts 54 minutes, and that some pilots have been designated to answer questions from fellow aviators. But pilots have gotten no classroom instruction or other training in the new procedures, she said.

Changes include allowing the autopilot to fly the plane out of a severe wind gust rather than flying the plane manually as United pilots currently do, she said.

"I think United pilots will continue to be pretty uncomfortable allowing the autopilot to get out of a wind shear situation when they're close to the ground and about to hit it," she said.

Other changes include the terms that pilots use to update each other and air traffic controllers on their progress toward landing, and whether the captain or the first officer turns off the landing light after landing.

No single change would be difficult, she said, but "there's a whole plethora of changes in a row, and one on top of another, and that is what's creating the angst. Our guys are not comfortable because of a whole list of those kinds of things," she said."

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: gigneil
Posted 2011-09-26 15:33:31 and read 19131 times.

I've got a very hard time believing that, in a year, a professional pilot can't complete such training.

I'd love to hear from the ATPs on this board.

NS

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyorski
Posted 2011-09-26 15:34:21 and read 19101 times.

Sounds reasonable to request adequate training when procedures change.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: gigneil
Posted 2011-09-26 15:36:16 and read 19080 times.

Sure. What is highly suspect is that the company didn't give it to them, or that nobody complained before now.

NS

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2011-09-26 15:41:25 and read 19015 times.

Quoting sdexplorer00 (Reply 2):
"I think United pilots will continue to be pretty uncomfortable allowing the autopilot to get out of a wind shear situation when they're close to the ground and about to hit it," she said.

I highly doubt this scenario. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. Sounds like hyperbole and trying to shock the court into a delay with something that the wouldn't understand as a non-pilot.

Quoting sdexplorer00 (Reply 2):
No single change would be difficult, she said, but "there's a whole plethora of changes in a row, and one on top of another, and that is what's creating the angst. Our guys are not comfortable because of a whole list of those kinds of things," she said."

Grow up. Study more if you are uncomfortable. It sounds as if all these "little things" are all spelled out, so what are the union spokesholes trying to convey? That UA pilots aren't able to learn new things? What are they paid the most on the plane for then?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tugger
Posted 2011-09-26 15:49:24 and read 18914 times.

Quote:
No single change would be difficult, she said, but "there's a whole plethora of changes in a row, and one on top of another, and that is what's creating the angst. Our guys are not comfortable because of a whole list of those kinds of things," she said.

How do these pilots handle a checkride for a type rating? I mean, my god! All the little changes that are required to be learned and known in order to pass? It's crazy! It's just unfair to expect someone to remember so much in just a few months (or less).

Tugg

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-26 15:56:36 and read 18809 times.

So my understanding, from reading the articles on this subject, is that the United pilots are balking at adopting a number of the current CO procedures as part of their operation because they do not deem them to be safe or adequate. So, in essence, what the UA pilots are saying is that CO pilots operate in an unsafe manner. I'm sure that is going to make the CO pilots feel real good...

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: delta2ual
Posted 2011-09-26 16:05:05 and read 18725 times.

I don't know who to believe. If you ask many NW pilots, DL operates in an unsafe manner (just sayin' what I've heard). Personally, when I flew for DL, I only felt safe on DL. I hated flying anyone else. I know that was silly now.

Back on topic, I think no matter how long the training is-someone would complain it needs to be longer or more thorough.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-26 16:07:24 and read 18694 times.

Quoting delta2ual (Reply 9):
Back on topic, I think no matter how long the training is-someone would complain it needs to be longer or more thorough.

Absolutely right. "We fear change" is the mantra of most any work group.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-26 16:21:54 and read 18566 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
I highly doubt this scenario. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Going from handflying a windshear escape maneuver to letting the autopilot do it is a major technique change, and I'd want some serious training in the simulator before I felt comfortable with it (my company's policy is to handfly those).

The other stuff...eh, who turns off the landing light (and other such stuff) isn't a huge deal. But the problem is that when such things are ingrained into your head (as they are when one has been doing things a certain way for a while), it's not that easy to change on a dime, especially if one is expecting perfection (i.e. the wrong person turning off the landing light a couple of times at first is not acceptable). An hour's slideshow with no classroom training isn't going to cut it if you're looking to substantially change flow patterns IMO.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcdu
Posted 2011-09-26 16:25:43 and read 18527 times.

The complaint is that UA is changing the ENTIRE flight manual for the airplane. With changes in which pilot in the cockpit configures the airplane (F/O or Capt). ie; today at parking the Captain configures all the switches on the overhead panel. On sept 30 the F/O becomes responsible for all the items. The callouts and configurations that are used on approach being changed; ie what we say at a configuration point and when and now to configure the airplane. Changing the titles of the checklist we use. ie; final descent checklist becomes landing checklist. We will be setting different altitudes in the MCP on approach versus what we do today. In many instances the changes are that the F/O does all the duties the Captain used to do and vice versa.

This is not a YEAR to learn. This was rolled out on 8-30-11 with a completion of self training by 9-23. The pilots are expected to read the entire manual to find ALL the changes (also the manual is not organized as our current book is). You don't want your crew trying to find something in a critical phase of flight when they need to call upon a checklist that might keep the airplane in a safe condition. In the past these types of maneuvers were taught by Pilot Instructors in simulators at our training center. Instead we are given two hours of power point slides to train on the new procedures.

These 30 day cycles of changes are difficult to keep up with. After this round there is another scheduled for Nov and Jan. Personally I can keep up but there is a great deal of self teaching and ambiguity to many of the sections that are changing.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2011-09-26 16:46:12 and read 18338 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
Personally I can keep up but there is a great deal of self teaching and ambiguity to many of the sections that are changing.

So... other pilots at UA aren't as capable as you? Or do you object to the need to study on your own? Seriously, this kind of thing happens in every industry.

Sounds as if they are also not making all the changes at once, but in a 3 phase schedule to ease the burden. I really don't sympathize. If your fellow captains and F/Os can't handle the job asked of them, there are plenty of people in the seniority list who can and will take over your spot, and plenty of people ready to be hired on the low end of the totem pole who would gladly learn these procedures.

You have a secure job that pays you well. That's more than most people in America can say. Stop complaining about it.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyorski
Posted 2011-09-26 16:50:11 and read 18307 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
An hour's slideshow with no classroom training isn't going to cut it if you're looking to substantially change flow patterns IMO.

  

This is the crux of the situation.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: GreenArc
Posted 2011-09-26 16:52:27 and read 18283 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):
I've got a very hard time believing that, in a year, a professional pilot can't complete such training.

I'd love to hear from the ATPs on this board.

Training began less than two months ago. Training at CO started even later, because the FAA did not deem their original training program adequate and ordered it enhanced.

There are real safety issues with making major procedural changes, one on top of the other, without the benefit of hands on training in classroom or simulator. This is not how things have ever been done at UA and a merger is no excuse to relax those standards. The fact is, there is a rush to SOC driven by Wall Street and that rush is compromising operational safety. Pilots at UA are facing major changes in procedures later this week. Any pilot deviation from the new standard is subject to FAA enforcement action. As you can imagine, other outcomes are much more serious.

ALPA has repeatedly offered to work with the company to revise and improve the training process and has been repeatedly shut out. The original SOC timeline could probably have been maintained had management accepted the offer of cooperation. ALPA's offer to cooperate was never conditioned on or influenced by the contract negotiations.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: F9Fan
Posted 2011-09-26 17:26:15 and read 18058 times.

Well, I know it sounds petty, but I think the union actually has a point here. In the cockpit, you want to make sure everyone knows who is supposed to do what, so the pilot and first officer don't think the other guy was supposed to do something critical (like say, lower the landing gear on landing) and cause a worse problem.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-26 17:33:28 and read 18004 times.

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 15):
The fact is, there is a rush to SOC driven by Wall Street and that rush is compromising operational safety.

That's an opinion though, not a fact.

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 15):
ALPA has repeatedly offered to work with the company to revise and improve the training process and has been repeatedly shut out.

ALPA at both UA and CO? Or ALPA at UA? Because, it would appear from the news, this is solely a UA MEC driven issue, and not an issue at the CO MEC or at the national level of ALPA.

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 15):
The original SOC timeline could probably have been maintained had management accepted the offer of cooperation.

So then ALPA is slowing down the SOC timeline intentionally because it was either their way or the highway?

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 15):
ALPA's offer to cooperate was never conditioned on or influenced by the contract negotiations.

Not overtly no. But let's face it: this isn't something you see the CO MEC pushing, so one would have to be naive to think that the UA MEC isn't connecting the two.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: 30west
Posted 2011-09-26 18:09:07 and read 17815 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 13):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 13):

So... other pilots at UA aren't as capable as you? Or do you object to the need to study on your own? Seriously, this kind of thing happens in every industry.

Sounds as if they are also not making all the changes at once, but in a 3 phase schedule to ease the burden. I really don't sympathize. If your fellow captains and F/Os can't handle the job asked of them, there are plenty of people in the seniority list who can and will take over your spot, and plenty of people ready to be hired on the low end of the totem pole who would gladly learn these procedures.

You have a secure job that pays you well. That's more than most people in America can say. Stop complaining about it.

You have no idea what your talking about.

I do , I'm attempting the training now. The manual is completely changing on the 767 and 777 fleet, the manuals will change again in 30 more days also. The Feds bought off on the changes since it is all up to one person the POI , who do you think he really works for . The new UAL when merged will only need one not two since CAL has one now. The manuals are full of errors they put out POSBDs to revise the printed errors that were rushed thru. The flows, memory items, callouts, procedures and manual all changed. The normal section went from 84 pages to 192 pages and the original 84 pages were drastically changed. I started the 3 hour total CBT on Sep 20 you have to be ready to go in 10 days and the CBT training simply points out the section changed not what changed. This is grossly negligent especially compared to how we have trained in the past. The pilots on the 747 and Airbus have almost no changes so no big deal for them the rest of us need help.

30west

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: 30west
Posted 2011-09-26 18:11:45 and read 17789 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 17):
Not overtly no. But let's face it: this isn't something you see the CO MEC pushing, so one would have to be naive to think that the UA MEC isn't connecting the two.

The CAL procedures arent changing. Their manual is based on the manufacture manual. The UAL was vastly different.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-26 18:12:33 and read 17773 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 1):
This is totally union posturing to put pressure on the airline to give in to their demands.
Quoting sdexplorer00 (Reply 2):
I've got a very hard time believing that, in a year, a professional pilot can't complete such training.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
Sure. What is highly suspect is that the company didn't give it to them, or that nobody complained before now.

I would sure like to see you retract your callous and uninformed statements. That probably won't happen though. In the future you might want to take a minute to actually learn about a topic before you throw out such barbs. Here are some facts for you if you would like to learn something:

- This is not union posturing. This is about keep ourselves and our passengers safe. The company has not allowed ALPA Subject Matter Experts to have any input on the content or the delivery of the "training".

- We have not had a year. We have had 30 days or so for each module. The first phase was rife with technical problems that caused many pilots to have incomplete training. The company set up a "technical help desk" - in India - to assist pilots with training issues. Do to communications barriers, this help desk was totally ineffective and even signed some pilots off as complete even though they had never actually completed the training!

- We have been complaining about this training since it was first proposed. It just hadn't made it to the media yet. Managements continued refusal to work with the pilot group AT ALL has caused the necessary step of asking for an injunction.

- These are not just simple changes like "who turns on a light bulb". Management is fundamentally changing the way we operate. Changing things like windshear and go-around profiles, how we respond to and execute emergency checklists, how we alert the flight attendants, etc. All of this is being done without 1 minute in a sim to actually practice and apply what we have "learned".

- I could go on with more but that would not be productive. Just like so much of what management has done (pass travel policy, Ipads, IT integration), they ignore the stakeholders and just do whatever they want.

This injunction request is not about the pilots of United trying to hold up the SOC implementation. It is ALL about upholding the level of safety that we require and our customers expect. It is not about the JCBA and it is not because we think that the procedures the CAL pilots use are bad. We just want to be trained in a manner that is effective and that ensures our procedures and practices are as safe as possible. So please, next time take a moment to learn about the subject before you spew your anti-labor venom.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: fxramper
Posted 2011-09-26 18:20:27 and read 17691 times.

There are a lot of hurdles for UA/CO to overcome in the totally merger, but this isn't a priority. I've run into plenty of issues with something being UA instead of CO and been told by a CSA or reservations agent it's messed up because they are having integration problems.

Quoting sdexplorer00 (Thread starter):
Don't understand this move. It seems the pilots and Delta and Northwest had a more forward way of looking things and that the merger would be a benefit for them.

Apples and oranges.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 1):
This is totally union posturing to put pressure on the airline to give in to their demands.

  

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-26 18:20:58 and read 17692 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):
This injunction request is not about the pilots of United trying to hold up the SOC implementation.

Sorry, but it absolutely is. The goals sound fine, but this isn't an issue where filing a lawsuit is an appropriate means of accomplishing the goals. It's not in my interest (economically) to say this, but some problems shouldn't be solved in court.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2011-09-26 18:33:13 and read 17957 times.

Quoting sdexplorer00 (Reply 2):
Changes include allowing the autopilot to fly the plane out of a severe wind gust rather than flying the plane manually as United pilots currently do, she said.

"I think United pilots will continue to be pretty uncomfortable allowing the autopilot to get out of a wind shear situation when they're close to the ground and about to hit it," she said.

This in itself is a fairly minor change and more in-line with boeing procedures. We recently also incorporated this change. All it took was an e-mail from the company and re-wording in the manuals. We are all happy with it. No training required, afterall we all know how to turn on the autopilot and we all know how to monitor autopilot performance. This actually makes it an easier manouvre as it frees up mental capacity to do things like monitor our rate of climb/descent and out radio altitude, if ground contact is an issue. Of course there is also the line in the manual that states that if the autopilot is not performing satisfactorily then we are to disconnect and fly right up to the PLI (Pitch Limit Indicators) (i.e. edge of stick shaker).

Obviously this is not the only change the UA pilots are being faced with and when a whole host of things change it can be tough to learn the new way, especially when the old way might have become deeply ingrained in a pilots mind. One change is easy...lots of changes take time to learn, especially if they are complicated ones.

At Cathay we used to take the manufacturer's operating manuals and tear them apart, taking bits we liked and then rewriting the entire things our way. We always did things very differently to the manufacturer but over the last few years we have been slowly aligning our operations to those of Boeing and Airbus and flying the way the manufacturers meant for their planes to be flown. This has taken years of minor changes here and there. I can't imagine changing all in one go though!

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-26 18:43:28 and read 17824 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 24):
Sorry, but it absolutely is. The goals sound fine, but this isn't an issue where filing a lawsuit is an appropriate means of accomplishing the goals. It's not in my interest (economically) to say this, but some problems shouldn't be solved in court.

When one party completely ignores the points of another party to the detriment of everyone's safety it leaves very few avenues open other than the legal one. We have brought this up with the FAA, but they move at glacial speed. We, obviously, have brought it up with UA management, but they have ignored all of our requests and inputs. Pilots are not getting trained but are being expected to perform items and procedures as if they had been trained. So it is about safety and is NOT about unreasonably delaying the SOC. Your statements, like those of so many others on this thread, do nothing to disprove this.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-09-26 18:47:40 and read 18052 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 12):
Personally I can keep up but there is a great deal of self teaching and ambiguity to many of the sections that are changing.

Funny how we ignore the comments of an actual pilot, what does ambiguity mean, does it have something to do with the other pilot - 30West - who posted about errors in the manual and that the index only points to the section of the manual thats changed and not the actual pages?
The last few threads on AF447 went all in on proper pilot training to handle high altitude stalls, one would have thought that the experienced pilots would have already known that, guess if we follow this we can see reasons why such things can happen.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 24):
The goals sound fine, but this isn't an issue where filing a lawsuit is an appropriate means of accomplishing the goals. It's not in my interest (economically) to say this, but some problems shouldn't be solved in court.

My question would be how is it to be resolved?
It does not seem as if there was much discussions with the pilots, does the combined company have too many pilots? What are the penalties if the wrong crew member turns off the landing lights twice( an example)? What are considered serious failures to follow procedure and what are considered minor? If a number of pilots are demoted or loose pay due to suspensions or even fired, we will say that the airline is ensuring that their operations are safe, could it be anything else?
If there is no intent to engage how is one to attempt to get involved in the process? Pilot groups at US Airways are still now merged and the merger is going on at full speed and no one really cares what the pilots actually do, at least here the pilots are talking about procedure and not list and where pilots are stapled.

[Edited 2011-09-27 13:15:31 by srbmod]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-26 18:50:04 and read 17948 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 26):
Your statements, like those of so many others on this thread, do nothing to disprove this.

How does this application even come close to meeting the standards for equitable relief? If I represented UA (I don't), I'd seriously consider moving for sanctions - this complaint is at best borderline frivolous and at worse an abuse of the judicial process.

Filing a lawsuit that has no chance of success isn't about safety. I don't know what it's about, but it isn't about safety.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: micstatic
Posted 2011-09-26 18:50:21 and read 17995 times.

I agree that these are serious issues.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 26):
When one party completely ignores the points of another party to the detriment of everyone's safety it leaves very few avenues open other than the legal one. We have brought this up with the FAA, but they move at glacial speed. We, obviously, have brought it up with UA management, but they have ignored all of our requests and inputs. Pilots are not getting trained but are being expected to perform items and procedures as if they had been trained. So it is about safety and is NOT about unreasonably delaying the SOC. Your statements, like those of so many others on this thread, do nothing to disprove this.

While I certainly appreciate all the input the pilots have added to this topic, I do have a question. Corporate pilots transfer from various make and models to drastically different types quite often. To me going from say a G-IV to a Lear 60 must be much tougher than procedure changes on the same aircraft? Am I wrong?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: gigneil
Posted 2011-09-26 18:55:34 and read 17992 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):

I would sure like to see you retract your callous and uninformed statements. That probably won't happen though.

I'd be happy to. I'm a rational human being, and I did in fact ask for re-education in a post you didn't bother to quote.

I have heard many comments from insiders that support this being, primarily, a union action. However, if there are pilots here that do feel that the changes are too great to handle I respect that position.

I find it very difficult to comprehend that nobody in management, not even the chief pilot, hears these objections.

NS

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flightopsguy
Posted 2011-09-26 18:55:46 and read 17965 times.

Quoting 30west (Reply 19):
The Feds bought off on the changes since it is all up to one person the POI

Not quite the case. The changes to procedures and manuals during a merger for SOC are written by a joint team of members of each work group from both of the legacy carriers, then go through a CSAT safety review, then are submitted to a team of FAA inspectors (the JTT) who either approve them or send pieces back disapproved for rework.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2011-09-26 18:57:36 and read 17962 times.

Quoting micstatic (Reply 29):
While I certainly appreciate all the input the pilots have added to this topic, I do have a question. Corporate pilots transfer from various make and models to drastically different types quite often. To me going from say a G-IV to a Lear 60 must be much tougher than procedure changes on the same aircraft? Am I wrong?

Of course, but when you change aircraft types, you get training, sit exams, fly the simulator, get training experience in the real aircraft etc... You don't just turn up to work one day, get given a manual and then are expected to fly it!

It appears this is the issue here...that these pilots are expected to completely change the way they are doing things without any training. I do not know enough details about this deal to comment on whether its right or wrong, just saying its different to the case of changing an aircraft type as a corporate (or any) pilot.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: AAR90
Posted 2011-09-26 19:06:38 and read 17901 times.

For you non-professional pilots, consider the following scenario that played out at AA a few years ago.

AA "re-wrote" its aircraft operating manuals to be "more in line with" the manufacturer (Boeing). Each fleet was done ONE-AT-A-TIME. Each changeover took 9 MONTHS --to ensure EVERY pilot passed thru the ground school/simulator recurrent training cycle using the "new" procedures/manuals.

For the 738, very little actual procedural changes were made (names, words, etc., but not procedures); however, WHERE everything was located in the manuals was completely different. Much time in the schoolhouse was spent on HOW to find information in the operating manuals! The time spent ensuring EVERYBODY was CHECKED by the company instructors & check airmen was INVALUABLE to the smooth (at least as smooth as change can be) transition to the new "way" of doing things.

The public information to date suggests UA is trying to make a complete overhaul of the "old UA" procedures with NO classroom time, NO instructor time, NO simulator time and most importantly, NO VERIFICATION of successful learning of these new procedures by the company.

Is a public law suit the proper way to slow down the process and possibly get it changed to something that can be verified to actually work? Who knows. The probability is that ALPA as well as many individuals within the company have been trying to date but without success. Will this work? Again, who knows. But perhaps an outside force looking "in" will get management to take a second look at what they are trying to accomplish.... and how. I read nothing in the publicly available reports to indicate UA ALPA wants to slow down the integration of UA/CO, just that they want PROPER training on what is (has been) essentially CO's way of doing things.

AAR90
ex-USN Aviation Safety

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-26 19:08:06 and read 17809 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
Funny how we ignore the comments of an actual pilot

..who, respectfully, has an agenda seeing as how his union is the one pushing the case.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 32):
It appears this is the issue here...that these pilots are expected to completely change the way they are doing things without any training.

But they are getting computer based training. The question is this: does a United pilot need to sit in a simulator to learn how to call for the "landing checklist" instead of the "descent checklist," or to know that at the gate the F/O configures the overhead panel instead of the Captain, among other things? Probably not. But the UA MEC is saying they do, in order to throw up a canard and put the screws to the company on a joint contract agreement.

Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
It does not seem as if there was much discussions with the pilots,

Now does anyone actually believe that? Of course the union is going to say they were never consulted, otherwise where would their case be? Does anyone actually think that a bunch of people just showed up at United one day and said "hey, let's just change everything and not consult the UA MEC?" Of course that's not the case.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
But perhaps an outside force looking "in" will get management to take a second look at what they are trying to accomplish.... and how.

You are presupposing that management is in the wrong.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
I read nothing in the publicly available reports to indicate UA ALPA wants to slow down the integration of UA/CO

Except that the UA MEC is suing to, my emphasis here, to HALT integration!

Question: what did the DL and NW pilots do?



[Edited 2011-09-26 19:11:32]

[Edited 2011-09-26 19:15:58]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: gigneil
Posted 2011-09-26 19:11:00 and read 17774 times.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
The public information to date suggests UA is trying to make a complete overhaul of the "old UA" procedures with NO classroom time, NO instructor time, NO simulator time and most importantly, NO VERIFICATION of successful learning of these new procedures by the company.

Yes but my question is this: is that even legal? Would the FAA or anyone else allow it?

NS

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-26 19:20:33 and read 17600 times.

Oh the irony. The union-hating armchair quartbacks have decided that they have figured out what is REALLY going on here and it's not about safety, just posturing. Why is this ironic? Because these are the same people who are getting on United planes right now blissfully confident in their knowledge that the pilots are just posturing, and no safety issue exists. What you don't know, because you don't want to know, is that this is a serious problem for the B767-B777 fleets. Pilots have been doing things the same way for years, and that routine is a huge safety net. Mess with that routine with ZERO formal training, and it's going to be difficult to adopt and remember. Taxi lights, etc. are not the example to looking at. Engine Fire is. Pilots were given a QRH to go fly with, and in most cases the first time they had ever seen it was on their first leg using it. Ok, you have an engine fire.... Now what. No instruction on how to use the manual, and finding/ reading it for the first time while in an actual emergency is wholly inadequate. In many cases, the computer training was faulting and UAL's Indian support staff was just pencil whipping the results

I know, I know. There are many of you on this forum that think that pilots are all just whiny and manipulative, and could never actually have a legitimate safety concern because management MUST always set things up perfectly. You keep dreaming your big dreams, and I'll continue to ignore your ignorant rants and demand that my company equip me to operate at the highest level of safety so I can deliver your family to you in one piece, EVERY time. Your welcome

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-26 19:29:24 and read 17425 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 36):
Ok, you have an engine fire.... Now what. No instruction on how to use the manual, and finding/ reading it for the first time while in an actual emergency is wholly inadequate.

Aren't engine fires memory items though?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-26 19:30:34 and read 17383 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 28):
How does this application even come close to meeting the standards for equitable relief? If I represented UA (I don't), I'd seriously consider moving for sanctions - this complaint is at best borderline frivolous and at worse an abuse of the judicial process.

How can you say that when you know nothing about the specifics of the case, the actions of the company, or even the actions of the Association? What I have described here only scratches the surface of what has been done. I almost wish you were representing United.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):

Now does anyone actually believe that? Of course the union is going to say they were never consulted, otherwise where would their case be? Does anyone actually think that a bunch of people just showed up at United one day and said "hey, let's just change everything and not consult the UA MEC?" Of course that's not the case.

Actually it is the case. ALPA's SME's were either not allowed input, had their input ignored, or had modules they designed removed from the training curriculum. Your assertion is both inaccurate in it's content and sensationalist in it's delivery. It in know way reflects the facts in the case.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 30):
I find it very difficult to comprehend that nobody in management, not even the chief pilot, hears these objections.

They have heard the objections. Many, many times. THOUSANDS of FSAPs have been written about this training. All of these have been ignored and continue to be ignored. Hence the need for legal action in order to protect the certificates of the pilots and the safety of the passengers and crew.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: AAR90
Posted 2011-09-26 19:31:23 and read 17360 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
You are presupposing that management is in the wrong.

No, I am presupposing that management has "closed eyes" and is unwilling to view things from a different perspective.... that of a line pilot. Quite common in this industry.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
Except that the UA MEC is suing to, my emphasis here, to HALT integration!

One would need to read the actual lawsuit itself, but I read past the headlines where the text indicates they want to halt the cockpit procedures integration, but only until they get proper training on the new (CO's old) procedures. Nothing says they want to halt the company integration process itself.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 35):
Yes but my question is this: is that even legal? Would the FAA or anyone else allow it?


Yes, all that is required is the FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI) assigned to UA to "sign-off" on the transition plan... whatever that plan is.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcdu
Posted 2011-09-26 19:33:51 and read 17339 times.

Quoting Reply 18):

Funny how some on here still try to validate this as a real safety issue rather than a union tactic.

The kool-aid must be really good at UA MEC...


I would be happy to share the bulletin of changes. You can decide for yourself once you have seen the material. I am not opposed to change, however there were serious errors in the material that is STILL being revised as we speak. The final manual is online as the published draft was just that a draft. There are call outs in the manual that we learned during the computer training that are being revised and the final language is not published and we are 4 days from turn on. You really don't want your pilots using improper call outs. This is a human factors issue and breaks down the layers of safety.

Does it mean a plane will crash if they are implemented on the 30th? Probably not but distraction and unfamiliarity are being added to the mix and that is not good. We are now told to we can fly windshear recovery with the AP engaged. I've never seen it demonstrated in a sim or actually done the maneuver with the AP on.

You can have your opinion and I can have mine. If you look at my previous post I do not often back ALPA. But in this instance I think the process is infringing on safety. If an accident did occur as a result of this safety chain issue, II hope you would reconsider your statement

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2011-09-26 19:41:48 and read 17185 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
What is highly suspect is that the company didn't give it to them, or that nobody complained before now.

IIRC, CO's Principle Operations Inspector did not approve the original version of the phase 1 training. In other words, from what I've heard from sources at each carrier, this process has been a struggle from the beginning. Also, see below...

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 15):
Training began less than two months ago. Training at CO started even later, because the FAA did not deem their original training program adequate and ordered it enhanced.


...

Quoting catiii (Reply 17):
Quoting GreenArc (Reply 15):
The fact is, there is a rush to SOC driven by Wall Street and that rush is compromising operational safety.

That's an opinion though, not a fact.

What other motivations are there? Bonuses, perhaps? Why push so hard if money isn't at stake?

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):
We have not had a year. We have had 30 days or so for each module. The first phase was rife with technical problems that caused many pilots to have incomplete training. The company set up a "technical help desk" - in India - to assist pilots with training issues. Do to communications barriers, this help desk was totally ineffective and even signed some pilots off as complete even though they had never actually completed the training!

And IIRC, several UAL pilots weren't legal to fly. Of course, that hardly matters to some on this board, but each pilot could be fined up to $10,000 per event (flight) for operating illegally (yes, the air carrier can be fined, too).

Quoting gigneil (Reply 30):
I find it very difficult to comprehend that nobody in management, not even the chief pilot, hears these objections.

What makes you think that senior management listens to the chief pilots? From my years at a U.S. legacy, there was plenty of input to the chief pilots, but the concerns of the pilot group seemed to be ignored by higher levels of flight operations management.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-26 19:54:41 and read 16908 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 38):
ALPA's SME's were either not allowed input, had their input ignored, or had modules they designed removed from the training curriculum.

Ok, so which is it then? They were never consulted, or they were consulted, but the company didn't support or agree with their input? Because here you said:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):
Managements continued refusal to work with the pilot group AT ALL has caused the necessary step of asking for an injunction.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 39):
I read past the headlines where the text indicates they want to halt the cockpit procedures integration

Cute. I read past headlines as well, and halting cockpit procedures integration halts SOC, which halts the final integration itself.

[Edited 2011-09-26 20:18:50]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: 30west
Posted 2011-09-26 20:31:28 and read 16352 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
Quoting par13del (Reply 27):
It does not seem as if there was much discussions with the pilots,

Now does anyone actually believe that? Of course the union is going to say they were never consulted, otherwise where would their case be? Does anyone actually think that a bunch of people just showed up at United one day and said "hey, let's just change everything and not consult the UA MEC?" Of course that's not the case.

Once again someone commenting that doesn't know.

My best friend is a SME for ALPA on one of the A/C. There are 4 phases ALPA wasn't contacted for phase 1 at all period,

Phase 2 under duress they agreed to bring in SMEs 6 days prior to it being finished , story boards done, CBT finished, the only change ALPA got was to allow instructors to go to bases for training. It was a waste we thought the instructor would teach class but no they simply run the computer for you to advance to next page and then ask if there are any questions(CBT says a section is changed not what the actual numerous changes in that section are)

The duress that brought in ALPA was when it came out about the outsourced tech support falsifying training records ( showing pilots completed or passed training when computer froze up]. POI said UAL didnt tell him about the problems but he did shut down the overseas support after that.

So please try to learn facts before giving an opinion. Unless you don't really care about the facts.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2011-09-26 20:53:39 and read 16015 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 42):
and halting cockpit procedures integration halts SOC, which halts the final integration itself.

What advantage does halting the "final integration" gain for the UA pilots? As I recall UA/CO has already missed the originally stated dates and it hasn't changed much of anything.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-26 21:02:48 and read 15857 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 37):
Aren't engine fires memory items though?

No, they are not..

[Edited 2011-09-26 21:04:42]

[Edited 2011-09-26 21:10:55]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2011-09-26 21:07:47 and read 15812 times.

I'm pretty surprised at the knee jerk reactions by some of what appear to be non-pilots in this thread. Too many assumptions and not enough open minds.

We had a good example of what AA did with some change overs to their procedures at Reply 33. Compare that to what was described in the UA/CO situation currently underway.

I'd appreciate if someone from DL or NW could chime in on how they managed their pilot procedure integration.

Unless you are someone who is actually undergoing this "training" and have not seen the changes in detail, how can you comment? What is mind boggling is why the roster of changes took so long to get to the pilots and why they wouldn't accept either ALPA's offer or bring in consultants to assist with this training.

It's understandable that someone's procedures would have to change on the 767/777 given both airlines fly these planes. It sounds like someone underestimated the complexity of the rework of procedures.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-26 21:16:30 and read 15665 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 24):
The goals sound fine, but this isn't an issue where filing a lawsuit is an appropriate means of accomplishing the goals. It's not in my interest (economically) to say this, but some problems shouldn't be solved in court.

Other avenues have been tried, and they didn't work.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
Is a public law suit the proper way to slow down the process and possibly get it changed to something that can be verified to actually work? Who knows.

It's certainly not the best way. But if it's the only way, then you've got to do what you've got to do.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
But they are getting computer based training.

Which is probably insufficient for the changes being made.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
The question is this: does a United pilot need to sit in a simulator to learn how to call for the "landing checklist" instead of the "descent checklist," or to know that at the gate the F/O configures the overhead panel instead of the Captain, among other things? Probably not.

Actually, you'd be surprised. If I'm going to be expected to transition to all new flows and checklist usage, then yes, I want some time with at least a cockpit mock-up so I can get used to the sequences and where my hands go when, and preferably one LOFT in the sim.

The alternative is for me to be actually doing the procedures for the first time with passengers onboard. Not that that's unsafe, but you can bet I'll slow down to make sure I get everything right, and on-time performance is going to be compromised.

And as far as windshear on autopilot, I'd want to do it a couple of times in the sim before I got in an airplane to do it.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 35):
Yes but my question is this: is that even legal? Would the FAA or anyone else allow it?

The FAA will allow whatever they can be pressured to allow.

Quoting catiii (Reply 37):
Aren't engine fires memory items though?

From what I know of most airlines, no. The airlines have finally wised up and realized that there are very few things that really and truly necessitate the response time of memory items, and an engine fire isn't one of them.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-26 21:19:47 and read 15668 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 46):
I'm pretty surprised at the knee jerk reactions by some of what appear to be non-pilots in this thread. Too many assumptions and not enough open minds.

Your whole post was spot on. Nicely done. Funny how the four main people spouting all the anti-labor bile in this thread are all lawyers. You would think that those in that profession would be more inclined to listen first and then make judgements. Oh well.....

Quoting catiii (Reply 42):


Ok, so which is it then? They were never consulted, or they were consulted, but the company didn't support or agree with their input? Because here you said:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):
Managements continued refusal to work with the pilot group AT ALL has caused the necessary step of asking for an injunction.

It is exactly what I have been saying. Any input from the Association was either ignored, refused, or deleted. By almost any imagination, that can be construed as not working AT ALL with someone. Do you get it now?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2011-09-26 21:22:07 and read 15598 times.

Here's an interesting story from a Houston reporter:

http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/20...inds-for-unitedcontinental-merger/

IMHO, it's clear that all is not well with the merger.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2011-09-26 21:29:42 and read 15517 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 48):
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 46):
I'm pretty surprised at the knee jerk reactions by some of what appear to be non-pilots in this thread. Too many assumptions and not enough open minds.

Your whole post was spot on. Nicely done. Funny how the four main people spouting all the anti-labor bile in this thread are all lawyers. You would think that those in that profession would be more inclined to listen first and then make judgements. Oh well.....

The ironic thing is I too am a lawyer  

Perhaps its my Dad's lifetime of flying and telling me so many things about procedures, checklists etc that gave me an appreciation of proper training. I have absolutely no doubt that the UA pilots are up to the task but giving them a shot at a simulator run at some of the bigger changes isn't exactly asking for much. This deal is done and there will be a SOC but rushing to paint a plane is one thing; rushing to retrain a ton of pilots in a very short period of time while simultaneously correcting errors in the new manual seems a tad silly.

Again from my living the life through my Dad's eyes, pilots have routine 95% of the time. When it comes to the other 5%, it would be a good idea for your pilots to not only know the new procedures but know where to refer to the proper checklist. Sure the UA pilots could certainly navigate through the issue (even an emergency) but it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity and stress.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: apodino
Posted 2011-09-26 23:36:46 and read 14458 times.

I am also going to defend ALPA on this one. I am not a pilot, but I am a dispatcher and I have been in many jumpseats in my years in the industry. One thing I have noticed is that even on the same type of plane, no two airlines do their procedures the same. Because airplanes are flown with a cockpit of two pilots and they work as a team, it is absolutely vital that both are on the same page. For years UA has been big on CRM (They refer to it as CLR at UA) especially after Albert Haynes pulled his DC10 Miracle in Sioux City, and what UA seems to be doing may be a step away from that.

At my company, before the pilots even get into the simulator they spend time in a mock up practicing flows and checklists. The idea is that you ingrain these things into memory so that they become second nature. When you make major changes to procedures, which is what UA appears to be doing here, what is ingrained into memory is still there, so trying to learn procedures from a home study, rather than practicing it in a mockup or a simulator, is going to lead to problems. Sully wrote in his book about how US actually took out the tabs in their QRH as a cost savings measure, and that he was lucky that he was flying with Scott Skiles that day, because he had just completed the training so he was used to the QRH, where someone who had been flying for a while, may not have been able to reference the QRH that quickly. I believe US put the tabs back in after that incident, but that is an indication of how little things can make a big difference when it comes to safety.

I am also disturbed by the industry trend toward IBT. While this is intended as a cost savings measure, because of its nature and busy pilot schedules, pilots can often just take the IBT, and only take the test by researching the right answers. This isn't learning the material at all. These things should be covered with a more comprehensive classroom based training. As a dispatcher, often times I am given new software with only a one page handout on how to use it, and then expected to use it. This makes me very uncomfortable, because I don't like having to actually learn software while trying to maintain operational control. Likewise, if Pilots are being told to change the way they do things, they should actually get hands on practice before trying to put it into practice. This would be like WN going from the HUD to an Autoland for a CATIII approach, but instead of doing it in the sim, giving them a handout on how to operate the Autoland and be expected to use it.

Bottom line, UA pilots have a right to be upset. I applaud what the pilots are doing, and for anyone to think this is some ALPA labor action makes me very upset.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Nutsaboutplanes
Posted 2011-09-26 23:59:02 and read 14234 times.

I think the pilots should be given some lattitude here. If they were trying to disrupt the actual merger process of UA and CO, that would be a different story. The work that is going on now is the truly difficult and important work of a merger....these are the things that need to be done right and done right the first time.

So many people get caught up in the aspects of a merger that they can see....new paint schemes, airport branding changes, uniform selections, hard product offerings etc etc and they forget about the overwhelming task of aligning policies and procedures at all levels; MX, Inflight, Flt Ops, Ground Ops, Res, SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE, Security, Training and the list goes on and on.

It would appear that the pilots are acting as a circuit breaker in this case and that is what is supposed to happen. I am not the biggest supporter of unions on A. net but what is going on here is pretty clear in my opinion and I support it.   

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2011-09-27 00:02:52 and read 14240 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 37):
Quoting mm320cap (Reply 36):
Ok, you have an engine fire.... Now what. No instruction on how to use the manual, and finding/ reading it for the first time while in an actual emergency is wholly inadequate.

Aren't engine fires memory items though?

On my plane at my airline the first few items on the check list are. The subsequent ones are not memory items. It would be unreasonable to expect a checklist with almost 20 actions to be done all from memory....this in additon to all the other checklists that exist.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sldispatcher
Posted 2011-09-27 03:53:58 and read 13147 times.

Stipulations:
I am not in a union.
I have been self-employed and an employee.
I do think that unions have overstretched their bounds, but they are definitely still needed.

Now, with that in mind....
When you are talking about highly trained professionals, the significant majority of their training should be done by other professionals of the same background. In this instance, pilots should be in charge of pilot training. Not the marketing department, not accounting, and not someone in operations who.....doesn't operate an aircraft on a regular basis.

Would you rather see a physician who was trained by other doctors and works similar to other physicians in your area to maintain "the usual standard of care"? Or perhaps you'd rather have one where the administration is giving them reams of protocols and daring them to deviate from the protocol?

In spite of the techno gadgets, etc. onboard a modern jetliner, I believe that there is still very much an art to flying just as there is an art to the practice of medicine.

As a consumer and frequent flyer, I want nice planes with economy plus and the opportunity to upgrade from time to time. This includes letting me have my 70 or 90 seat jet! I also want to have faith in the competence of the one flying the plane.

Anyone who believes that the current apparent management/union stalemate is 100 percent one side's fault is naive. Corporations in America have gotten themselves into this mess by letting stock price drive every decision. Unions have also gotten themselves into this mess by often asking for too much (as perceived by the general public) and creating inconveniences for customers through work actions, job protections etc.

That being said, let the pilots, who already have an organization in place, be in charge of coming up with appropriate procedures....management should just be a consulting role in this. If anything, this could (maybe it is) be a great opportunity for the pilots of the Continental and United side to sit down and work together...something they are going to be doing for a long time.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: fleabyte
Posted 2011-09-27 05:23:22 and read 12542 times.

It seems that the UA Pilots are frustrated with the merger, and these changes to their flight procedures is salt on an open wound. It is inevitable that CAL will try to consolidate all processes, and that they will use more CAL than UAL process and procedures - This is expected in any merger. The Alpha partner makes the decisions.

This was never a merger of equals.

Sometimes, CAL Management must throw a bone to UAL staff at the expense of CAL old timers....thats biz, maybe they should consider UAL pilot concerns more seriously - the auto pilot procedure change sounds like something that could haunt them if there is a mishap.

I have heard from some CAL persons frustrated with the merger over such things as the flight attendants all becoming part of the UA based union instead of the CAL Union, although that was the result of a vote by employees.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tsully
Posted 2011-09-27 05:44:43 and read 12313 times.

As usual, the non-pilots of a.net come out en masse to armchair quarterback a subject for which they possess no authority or credibility. The I-hate-pilots-because-they-have-a-cool-job-and-get-paid-more-than-me jealousy is palpable. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

This 'discussion' locked in 3, 2, 1...

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-27 06:00:17 and read 12123 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 24):
Sorry, but it absolutely is. The goals sound fine, but this isn't an issue where filing a lawsuit is an appropriate means of accomplishing the goals. It's not in my interest (economically) to say this, but some problems shouldn't be solved in court.

They tried other avenues and the company didn't listen. Honestly, what the heck were they supposed to do? The company didn't listen to them when they tried approaching for a discussion.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 30):
I find it very difficult to comprehend that nobody in management, not even the chief pilot, hears these objections.

Oh I'm sure they hear about it, the point is they choose to ignore said concerns. After all they have a deadline to meet for this integration.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
Much time in the schoolhouse was spent on HOW to find information in the operating manuals! The time spent ensuring EVERYBODY was CHECKED by the company instructors & check airmen was INVALUABLE to the smooth (at least as smooth as change can be) transition to the new "way" of doing things.

Exactly!

You want to know where to find your procedures so that when the cockpit is so full of smoke that you can barely see your hand in front of your face through your oxygen mask you know exactly where to flip in the book and are familiar with the procedure and how to run it.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
Is a public law suit the proper way to slow down the process and possibly get it changed to something that can be verified to actually work? Who knows.

Sometimes its the only way to get people's attention. Management is working feverishly to get the SOC done ASAP so that they keep Wall Street happy. Its no surprise that some corners are being cut.

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
Does anyone actually think that a bunch of people just showed up at United one day and said "hey, let's just change everything and not consult the UA MEC?" Of course that's not the case.

They just chose to ignore the unions input....

Quoting catiii (Reply 34):
You are presupposing that management is in the wrong.

And you are presupposing that the union is in the wrong. Your lack of knowledge is blatantly obvious with gems like this:

Quoting catiii (Reply 37):
Aren't engine fires memory items though?

No! They are only partial memory items for the first couple of steps the rest of the procedure is all found in the QRH. If the cockpit is filled with smoke and you are on oxygen trying to look through the goggles you want to have an idea on where those checklists are and what they say. You don't want to show up to work, with no training, and be handed a new book and be sent on your way.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 36):

Spot on

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 41):
And IIRC, several UAL pilots weren't legal to fly. Of course, that hardly matters to some on this board, but each pilot could be fined up to $10,000 per event (flight) for operating illegally (yes, the air carrier can be fined, too).

The company at least has insurance to cover their charges. Besides if there is an accident because of rushed procedural changes everyone on Anet (not to mention the company) will quickly throw the pilots under the bus.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 35):
Yes but my question is this: is that even legal? Would the FAA or anyone else allow it?

The FAA is charged with Promoting and regulating the industry. Which one do you think wins more often? With the ATA and RAA and all of their money the promotion side wins over the safety side (safety costs money after all).

Take for example the fact that new rest rules have been on the NTSB's (impartial and safety oriented only) most wanted list for over 20 years and they are only now being changed. Though the ATA and RAA are fighting tooth and nail to prevent these changes. It's like cigarette companies saying smoking doesn't kill......yeah ok......

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 54):
Now, with that in mind....
When you are talking about highly trained professionals, the significant majority of their training should be done by other professionals of the same background. In this instance, pilots should be in charge of pilot training. Not the marketing department, not accounting, and not someone in operations who.....doesn't operate an aircraft on a regular basis.

Absolutely. Unfortunately it's almost always the bean counters who make decisions with out consulting anyone else whether it be MX, pilots, FAs, rampers, etc. and often times ends up costing the company more then they'd save.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 44):
What advantage does halting the "final integration" gain for the UA pilots? As I recall UA/CO has already missed the originally stated dates and it hasn't changed much of anything.

None, halting the SOC does nothing to give the pilots leverage in a JCBA US Airways has been with out a JCBA for years after their SOC was complete. The SLI needs to be complete before a new JCBA is negotiated and the SLI is the responsibility of the unions. Heck the company should want the new SLI and JCBA to take a long time. US Airways has the lowest legacy costs in the industry right now precisely because they haven't been able to negotiate a JCBA. They are all stuck under their concessionary contracts.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 06:12:30 and read 12003 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 38):
How can you say that when you know nothing about the specifics of the case, the actions of the company, or even the actions of the Association?

I've read the complaint (I'd invite you to do the same - Eastern District of New York Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-04661-SJ-SMG). It is utterly devoid of any showing that ALPA is entitled to equitable relief. Paragraph 46 comes close, but IMO doesn't get there. If you disagree, I'd invite you to explain why.

Quoting norcal (Reply 57):
They tried other avenues and the company didn't listen

I understand that, and I accept that there are real safety issues here, or at least potential safety issues. But how the heck do they meet the standards for injunctive relief?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-27 06:22:00 and read 11887 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 58):
I understand that, and I accept that there are real safety issues here, or at least potential safety issues. But how the heck do they meet the standards for injunctive relief?

I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but the union's hired legal team apparently think there is enough of a case to attempt this. Or since all other avenues have failed and this is the only avenue left this is a bit of a "swing for the fences." They are at least doing something and bringing attention to the very real safety issues and not rolling over and letting the company get away with actions that could potentially have very real and serious consequences for crew and passengers.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 06:26:02 and read 11821 times.

Quoting norcal (Reply 59):
but the union's hired legal team apparently think there is enough of a case to attempt this.

I deal with meritless lawsuits that "hired legal teams" think have merit all day long. I don't put much stock in your statement. The reality is that Rule 11 (which governs what may be filed in federal court) is a pretty low bar that they've arguably cleared and that the union attorneys are getting paid by the hour. That's probably good enough for them.

Why file suit rather than simply taking the dispute public? I grew up in Chicago and can remember numerous pretty successful "public information campaigns" by UA ALPA over safety and non-safety issues in the mid-90s to early-00s.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tsnamm
Posted 2011-09-27 06:26:50 and read 11796 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 46):
It's understandable that someone's procedures would have to change on the 767/777 given both airlines fly these planes. It sounds like someone underestimated the complexity of the rework of procedures.

They seem to have underestimated a great deal about integration issues in just about every work group...that would be why the timetable isn't being met and no rescheduled dates are being offered.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-27 06:31:54 and read 11763 times.

I saw this on another site that I think sums it up pretty well

There is cooperative culture--on time checks continue to flow. There are pockets of highly competent safety awareness at most levels of ops, but corporately it's essentially "how much will this cost?"

Their response to this lawsuit says it all. "Our training procedures, which are fully approved and closely monitored by the FAA, meet or exceed safety standards, and we are a safe airline." This is the classic "the FAA hasn't shut us down, ergo, we are by definition safe." Sound familiar? It's what Colgan said after the Buffalo accident. It's a lawyer's definition.

The FAA is in the business of preventing the last accident. A safety culture is organic to the organization itself and is focused on preventing the next one.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-27 06:42:51 and read 11630 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 60):

See reply above, for the expected company response

Also, the flying public doesn't have a clue who they are flying on most of the time so I'm not sure how a PR campaign would really help especially considering how quickly this issue needs to be resolved.

Besides those that do care enough to pay somewhat attention, like anet members, often buy what the company says hook line and sinker with out even hearing the other sides arguments. This thread is exhibit A.


Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 60):
I deal with meritless lawsuits that "hired legal teams" think have merit all day long. I don't put much stock in your statement.

It was a hypothesis and as a lawyer I'm sure you know that legal opinions between various lawyer differ. The law isn't always cut and dry.

At the very least the law suit takes the case public AND offers a potential solution even if there is only a slim chance of winning (again I don't know the specifics of the case but I feel if there was absolutely zero chance of winning they wouldn't have filed).

Maybe the lawsuit itself will be enough for the company to change it's practices and start listening to the safety concerns. Wall Street will at least take notice and the company will listen to their concerns. Wall Street wouldn't give a crap about a PR campaign.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 60):
The reality is that Rule 11 (which governs what may be filed in federal court) is a pretty low bar that they've arguably cleared and that the union attorneys are getting paid by the hour. That's probably good enough for them.

I'm almost positive ALPA National has a legal team on retainer and I wouldn't be surprised if UAL/CAL MEC have one on retainer for the merger integration given the amount of legal issues and contract work that'll come up.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 07:03:28 and read 11425 times.

Quoting norcal (Reply 63):
At the very least the law suit takes the case public AND offers a potential solution even if there is only a slim chance of winning

But with a narrow chance of winning, why not just take it public without filing? Lawsuits cost money and have risk - financial, political and legal. To me, that's really the crux of the issue.

Quoting norcal (Reply 63):
I'm almost positive ALPA National has a legal team on retainer and

Fine, they are running down the retainer. Same difference.

Quoting norcal (Reply 63):
See reply above, for the expected company response

Again, I'm quibbling with the method, not whether or not there is actually a safety issue, which I am completely unqualified to address.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcdu
Posted 2011-09-27 07:11:39 and read 11364 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 13):
Sounds as if they are also not making all the changes at once, but in a 3 phase schedule to ease the burden. I really don't sympathize. If your fellow captains and F/Os can't handle the job asked of them, there are plenty of people in the seniority list who can and will take over your spot, and plenty of people ready to be hired on the low end of the totem pole who would gladly learn these procedures.

You have a secure job that pays you well. That's more than most people in America can say. Stop complaining about it.

Disappointed that you would post what you posted. Not sure you have a grasp on the depth of the changes that are being changed. In the past several years we adopted VNAV approaches on the Boeing fleets. These were demo'd in the sim., practiced for several sim cycles of PC/PT's and once everyone was trained (Read over 1 1/2 year) the approaches were okayed for our use. THIS WAS ONE PROCEDURE. Now we are issued an entirely new book and procedures with zero hands on training. We are to learn it via a little over an hour of power point slides. If we opt for an instructor, he only advances the slides in a classroom. The instructors themselves don't know the information because they were not consulted and are learning it at the same pace we are.

Sure corporate workers often experience changing procedures. However, there is a significant difference with the changes versus an office worker. That is the flight deck is traveling a 500MPH and we don't have a chance to pop down to the water cooler and discuss it with the boss. We are expected to demonstrate end level proficiency immediately and without fail or fault. The biggest damage you can do is fall out of your chair in the office....unless you work for UBS  

Heard a stat recently that if we as an industry of pilots did our jobs 99% safely there would be hundreds of crashes a day. We need to make sure you and your ipod in row 34 are safely transported to your destination.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-27 07:53:42 and read 10899 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 64):
But with a narrow chance of winning, why not just take it public without filing?

What would that really do? We've already seen the reaction the public is likely to have: "this is just another labor dispute, why don't the pilots just suck it up and learn how to refer to checklists differently, etc." The airline could put out their "the FAA has approved this, so it's safe" spin, and nothing would ever happen.

At least with the court system there can actually be an enforcement that will stop the changes if the pilots aren't ready for them.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 08:03:10 and read 10787 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 66):
At least with the court system there can actually be an enforcement

My whole point is that there can't be because they can't show an entitlement to equitable relief. On what basis do you disagree?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-27 08:05:19 and read 10770 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 58):
I've read the complaint (I'd invite you to do the same - Eastern District of New York Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-04661-SJ-SMG). It is utterly devoid of any showing that ALPA is entitled to equitable relief. Paragraph 46 comes close, but IMO doesn't get there. If you disagree, I'd invite you to explain why.



I understand that, and I accept that there are real safety issues here, or at least potential safety issues. But how the heck do they meet the standards for injunctive relief?

I'm certainly not a lawyer, so I don't know what is technically required to meet injunctive relief. I would like to think that a judge would see common sense and the safety of our passengers as being worthy of "equitable relief". Perhaps it will be enough, perhaps it won't. Perhaps it will require pilots refusing to fly the airplane until they feel they are adequately trained to complete the flight with the highest level of safety. That's been done in the past few months, and I'm sure the continued practice will end up back in court with the company suggesting an injunction violation. My guess is this is an attempt to head that inevitable event off at the pass.

As far as negotiating this deal in public, that is problematic for two reasons. One, as we are in contract negotiations, and many here accuse ALPA of this being nothing more than a negotiation tactic. We are restricted by the NMB from negotiating in public.... even though the company has violated that restriction with their negotiation website. Two, as you will see evidenced on this board, the public DOESN'T CARE. They want their ticket cheap. They assume we are whiny pilots who want more money, job protections, and better work rules. When you tell them you are taking a stand for their safety, you here cries of prima donna posturing. Read the comments on this board! You will see how effective the negotiating in public tactic is. Besides, we already tried it. Several statements were put out describing the woefully inadequate training being implemented with these wide changing and radical procedures. The company has continued on.

I've given enough of my time to trying to explain this to those that are reading here, so I'm signing off after this post, but a few final thoughts. First, there are obviously several United pilots on this board that have come on here to describe, in great detail, why this is a significant safety issue. Many here continue to challenge and dismiss those posts, as if somehow being an A.netter gives you some miracle insight into how best to operate day to day as an airline pilot. Can you not see the arrogance and stupidity in that? That would be like me getting on an M.D. forum and telling a doctor that his concerns about the latest surgical procedure are unfounded because I watch E.R. religiously. We are living this process. Don't you think our expert opinion would be the right one? It's my butt up there, carrying YOUR butt. (Wait.. that didn't sound right). Can't you see we are (or should be) on the same team!!!

Why is it so easy for some here to automatically assume that this is nothing but union posturing in contract negotiations, but so IMPOSSIBLE for you to believe that management might be trying to cut corners to save $$$ and time??? I promise you folks.... this is ALL about the Benjamin's. The company doesn't want to spend the money, or the time, to give the pilots the training we say we need to safely implement an entirely new set of procedures. If the company had capitulated and said "we will implement these new procedures only after all pilots have received a day of ground school and a day of fixed based simulator training", then you wouldn't be reading this now. But they would rather do it this way and hope nothing happens than spend the money to get all their pilots cycled through training, as has been done before with procedure changes like Non-precision approaches. Now why would they be doing it differently this time, do you think? Because it would interfere with their precious time table for S.O.C implementation. Why does that matter so much? Follow the $$$. Not for the pilots, for management. We frankly don't care. Our contract isn't driven by the S.O.C.

This is a cool forum because we all have access to experts in just about every field of aviation. I'm always amazed at the fact that you can come here and find an inside explanation for pretty much any event that is occurring at any airline at any airport, and in any country. When you get a bunch of expert opinions by people that actually know what they are talking about, you might want to actually just hear what they are saying rather than argue minutia like "But isn't an engine fire a memory item" and be totally wrong.

I'm an average line pilot. I am not part of the negotiating committee. I want a contract just as badly as the next guy, and I'm willing to stand by my brothers and sisters and follow union direction to obtain one because I think we rightfully deserve it. But when it comes to your safety and mine, I don't play stupid games. I'm telling you, this lawsuit is borne from serious concerns for YOUR safety. Cubsrule suggests that this lawsuit is un-winnable, and that we should try taking our concerns public. Well, if it is indeed un-winnable, maybe filing the lawsuit IS taking the concerns public.

[Edited 2011-09-27 08:07:15]

[Edited 2011-09-27 08:10:11]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-27 08:19:54 and read 10603 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 67):
My whole point is that there can't be because they can't show an entitlement to equitable relief.

That's for the court to decide. One thing we do know for sure is that the court of public opinion can't provide equitable relief.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-27 08:29:50 and read 10540 times.

I lied. I'm back because I just found a brilliant letter written by a Safety expert which sums up the problem WAYYY better than I ever could. Names removed because I have not sought permission to repost their words:








So I’m digging into my Phase II “training” fuming over the inadequate resources we’ve been given to do this adequately (again) and I’m thinking, “this is not going to work, 7000 Pilots will be floundering around at the end of the month trying to execute this change”. I put my work on Phase II aside after I complete the first CBT module (getting most questions wrong but “passing” anyway). For the next few days I’m trying to rectify this train wreck in my mind as the deadline approaches.

Recently I picked up Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. I start it and almost immediately I see a familiar theme. The main treatise of the book is what makes some people successful at what they do and why others may not be as successful. The book makes a compelling argument that individuals that attain 10,000 hours of concentrated work on something (music, computer programming, studies in math, science, law, you name it) are more likely to become not only successful in that subject or field but experts. Then it hits me, every Pilot at this Airline is a successful expert at flying. We are all close to or past that 10,000-hour mark. We all see flying as second nature. That is not to say we don’t stress about it when we are faced with challenges on the line and in the building but our expertise gets us through the challenging flight, or training and checking, most times with above average to excellent performance. In this case, we are being told to accept the added risks imposed on pilots, through what we know is inadequate training, because of managements desire to meet an arbitrary deadline. So that tells me something else important, as professional, expert, pilots our input is being largely ignored by both management and the FAA even though your UAL MEC CASC and Training Committee have been battling with management since day one just to have our experts involved in the process. Relying on what may be pilots’ innate abilities to work through crisis situations does not justify unnecessarily creating those situations in the daily line operations. That is what will result with the Single Operating Certificate Integration training we are getting. The Pilots are the experts but somehow our experience has been cast aside for expedience.

So what about the future? Is this a sustainable model for Pilot training? In a word, no. United Continental Holdings management will probably get obscene bonuses if they meet their deadline but the travelling public will be exposed to unnecessary and greater risk. The consequences of this SOC Integration training will be that we will take longer to all get on the same page. There will be cracks that will have to be filled to insure that we climb back up to the highest level of safety that has historically been the number one priority of United Airlines. As each successive inadequate SOC training phase is piled onto the shoulders of the pilots, the burden will be increased on each of us. The level of standardization that is proven to limit risk will be in a shambles because of this rush to SOC. It is not fair to the Pilots who are basically training themselves as best they can with little or no support. No amount of pay for the training will make “training by bulletin” any better. Even if this management acknowledges that their CBT/PMG/bulletin training takes longer than one hour per phase, it does not make the type of training any more effective. The FAA has stated that if we don’t use the SOP’s that United is changing they will come after us. I asked the VP of Corporate Safety and Security, Mike Quiello about the “training” we are getting and what the company’s plan is if they find that we are not absorbing the “training”, he stated that he felt comfortable that if we fall back on our previous procedures it will be safe, as it was safe before. Does anyone else besides me see a problem with this? The head of safety at United Airlines says whatever you do in the aircraft he is comfortable you will be safe but the FAA says they’ll come after you if you don’t follow the new SOP’s?! I can’t emphasize this next point enough, If you need to deviate from SOP during your operations on the line because you were not adequately trained on the new procedures you need to declare an emergency and file an FSAP, an Operations Report, and an ALPA PDR report.

I am including some comments from Captain XXXXX concerning this “training”. As you may remember XXX was a past UAL MEC Central Air Safety Chairman and ALPA National Executive Air Safety Chairman.

“The actual changes being described (in 757/767 phase II) are breathtaking, and I cannot help but wonder how “we,” whoever “we” represents, accepted these changes. We have decades of experience operating these planes safely and efficiently, and I am stunned at how we can throw much of that away as if it never existed. I feel like I am training as new hire at an airline that is using an entirely new way of operating that does not reflect best practice. I sense there will be a lot of heads-down discussion as this activates. Changes that stand out, and bear in mind we are only in Phase 2 . . .

To name but a few . . .
• Recommending leaving autopilot on for wind shear recovery, really? And no sim training for that?
• TCAS responses changed? No sim?
• Green arc gone on end of runway now—how long did it take us to be cycled through TK to get that MCP TDZE procedure activated? All dismissed with a flick of the keyboard? I have to say with a non-precision approach, that was a really nice feature which gave confidence.
• Huge panics over cross-feed management, now acting as if it never happened . . .
• Speed bug setting and flaps procedures changed with no sim training
• T/reverse down to taxi speed now—obviously FOD not been a problem at CAL.
• “Positive climb” is gone—“positive rate” now here—lots of philosophical discussion about that.
• NDB can be flown in VNAV—can I expect to be sent to sim for THAT?

OK—thanks for listening—I am really concerned from so many angles about this. “

Rory has more experience than most anyone does on this property in training and safety related matters. If he has a problem with what is going on, there is a problem!

So what can we do to help insure that the company understands that the “training” we are getting will not cut it? FSAP, FSAP, FSAP, followed by PDR reports on the ALPA website. Be specific about the training issues you are encountering. In the meantime, while we wait for UCH and FAA to come to their senses watch out for each other and rely on your expertise as Pilots. Document all safety issues with FSAP and PDR. Your expertise and your professionalism just may be enough to save this Airline from its management one more time.

Protect your crew, your passengers, and your aircraft. You are the best Pilots in the industry; you should have no doubt of that.

XXXXXXX
C-XX Safety Chairman

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 08:41:11 and read 10406 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
That's for the court to decide.

OK. How will ALPA prove its case and get its injunction? Where's the irreparable harm? Where's the inadequate remedy at law? No one has explained that here.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Sulley
Posted 2011-09-27 08:54:38 and read 10290 times.

I'm trying to grasp the situation here. I agree that UAL pilots should be given all the training that they feel comfortable with before applying the new procedures. That goes without question. However, in reading the above letter, do UAL pilots feel that CAL pilots follow unsafe guidelines for operating their aircraft? Are there any CAL pilots with any insight into this?

I do wish that this hadn't been brought to court though. There are other avenues before to utilize before litigation is required.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcdu
Posted 2011-09-27 08:54:51 and read 10295 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
OK. How will ALPA prove its case and get its injunction? Where's the irreparable harm? Where's the inadequate remedy at law? No one has explained that here.

Unfortunately Cubs you are probably correct in that ALPA will not win this suit. The program is approved by the FAA and it is going to be that benchmark that the company uses in court.

ALPA is trying to change the trajectory on this training and may have at least opened some eyes to what is taking place. I do hope that there are no accidents or incidents as a result of these changes. We really are putting safety above all else second in this instance. I don't want to offer criticism without a solution. So my thoughts would be to do the changes in more phases and broken down by the Flight Manual and the Flight Operations Manual. Perhaps we could change the FOM first. Then we change the Flight Manual. Dumping both at the same time is not easy. Here is the problem I seem to have with the new stuff. With the chapters changed retitled and moved from book to book I will know the answer to a question but it takes me 5 minutes to FIND it in the new book. In the past I would have a question and be able to use an index to find the answer in a book I was familiar with. Now that is no longer an option as the index doesn't work.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 08:58:42 and read 10259 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 75):
I do hope that there are no accidents or incidents as a result of these changes.

If you really believe that, I don't want to fly on your airplane.

Wishing harm on people is appalling, whatever the justification.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: apodino
Posted 2011-09-27 09:08:03 and read 10144 times.

From the Article

Quote:
"Our training procedures, which are fully approved and closely monitored by the FAA, meet or exceed safety standards and we are a safe airline," United spokeswoman Julie King said in a statement.

I seem to remember Colgan executives using that exact same language before the NTSB following that incident. We all know about that.

The bottom line is just because the FAA approves it doesn't mean its always safe. I can name several examples of why thats true. But this cozy relationship between the FAA and the Airlines needs to stop, for everyones safety. The FAA shouldn't be promoting aviation, they should be working to make it safer, period. I don't care if it takes putting Mary Schiavo in charge of the agency to get it done either.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: gigneil
Posted 2011-09-27 09:12:13 and read 10102 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 76):
Wishing harm on people is appalling, whatever the justification.

He said:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 75):
I do hope that there are no accidents or incidents as a result of these changes.

NS

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: micstatic
Posted 2011-09-27 09:19:54 and read 10028 times.

I'm usually quick to knock certain union views, positions, and actions. But this certainly appears to be a very valid issue where I can see the concern. I hope this gets worked out with safety being the foremost concern. I did have one question for you airline drivers. Why do different airlines fly the same plane a different way? I would think one universal manufacturer based method would work the best? I realize it's too late for certain types... Look forward to getting some good feedback.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 09:27:37 and read 9956 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 78):
He said:

Reading comprehension? Apparently, I've failed at that one today. Apologies, Mcdu.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-27 09:33:13 and read 9879 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
OK. How will ALPA prove its case and get its injunction? Where's the irreparable harm? Where's the inadequate remedy at law? No one has explained that here.

There is no irreparable harm until there is irreparable harm. In other words, nothing is wrong until people die or are in danger of dying. Why can't you get that? Aviation safety is not best implemented in retrospect, although the FAA actions could lead you to believe otherwise. Do you really want ALPA to wait and be proved right with a body bag count?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 64):


But with a narrow chance of winning, why not just take it public without filing? Lawsuits cost money and have risk - financial, political and legal. To me, that's really the crux of the issue.

Because we need this to be fixed now! Again, this is not a JCBA or SLI issue. This is a SAFETY issue. Our pilots are not being trained in a manner that enables them to operate in a safe manner. There is a lot of confusion on the line, especially on the 767 and 777 fleets. There have been numerous post saying this yet somehow your anti-labor bias clouds your judgement.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 64):

not whether or not there is actually a safety issue, which I am completely unqualified to address.

Well, at least you got that right.

[Edited 2011-09-27 09:45:24]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: xdlx
Posted 2011-09-27 09:39:08 and read 9814 times.

Quoting micstatic (Reply 79):

This exposes the reality on every Training Department of every airline in the US.
Merger integration into a SOC is no joke, and as someone mentioned before hard to do with two
separate cultures that span several decades each.

I guess this affects 777, 767/757, 737 as these are the common types, 747 & A319/20 folks should not have
to do this. QQQ? Did they adopt the UA Flight Manual for those types? And changed the FM on the common types?
Any clarification on this from those close to the action.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 10:11:31 and read 9550 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
There is no irreparable harm until there is irreparable harm. In other words, nothing is wrong until people die or are in danger of dying.

Right. The trouble is that that doesn't work in court. So, again, how do they succeed with this suit?

Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
Do you really want ALPA to wait and be proved right with a body bag count?

No. I want an effective fix to the problems that you've identified. A lawsuit won't work.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
Aviation safety is not best implemented in retrospect, although the FAA actions could lead you to believe otherwise.

You are conflating the truth with the law. Your statement may well be true, but it isn't what the law says.

The bottom line is this: when a party files a lawsuit, he is stuck with the law as it is (with some fuzziness on the margins). That may be different from what he hopes the law is or what the law ought to be. That's why I said that there are some problems - like this one - that are best solved outside of court.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
Because we need this to be fixed now!

Again, the lawsuit won't do it. Why not do something that actually has some chance of producing results?

Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
There have been numerous post saying this yet somehow your anti-labor bias clouds your judgement.

Huh? I'm not disagreeing that there's a safety issue. Why are you making this personal?

[Edited 2011-09-27 10:11:49]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: IAHFLYR
Posted 2011-09-27 10:21:41 and read 9473 times.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 82):
I guess this affects 777, 767/757, 737 as these are the common types,

The B737 is not a common type, only CO drives them and UA has the Bus fleet, the rest would be common type.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-09-27 10:22:33 and read 9453 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 60):

Why file suit rather than simply taking the dispute public?

Based on public opinion in the USA today, unions are at the bottom of the scale and unless they have a specific accident to point to the public will dismiss their concerns.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):
That's why I said that there are some problems - like this one - that are best solved outside of court.

That may very well and probably is the most likely, in which case, the law may have been used as a means to an end.
Even if they loose the suit, enough information will be provided in court that those who dismiss union complaints may actually have to look at them, in the meantime, the odds are probably good that airline management will be addressing these issues as they discover shortfalls in their procedures and its implementation.

At the end of the day, as long as one side does not have to admit being wrong and the other right noth parties will eventually work together for the common good.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: apodino
Posted 2011-09-27 10:36:41 and read 9321 times.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 82):

I guess this affects 777, 767/757, 737 as these are the common types, 747 & A319/20 folks should not have
to do this. QQQ? Did they adopt the UA Flight Manual for those types? And changed the FM on the common types?
Any clarification on this from those close to the action.

It's not quite that simple. There are aircraft specific procedures, and then there are standard callouts which are common on every airplane. (Calls like V1, Rotate, Postive Rate, 500 to minimums, etc) Having been on a UA jumpseat many times, I can tell you that UA uses wording in their callouts that I don't see at any other airline (and conversely the verbiage in other airlines callouts aren't used at UA.) If they are trying to go to mainly the CO procedures, there are going to be a lot of changes in just the standard, non ac specific callouts. So will the A320 and the 747 guys be affected? Of course they will. But will it be to the extent of the 757/767/777? Probably not.

I can also tell you that I was once in a UA jumpseat going from DEN to LAX on a 763. As most of you probably know, the 757 and 767 crews are qualified on both types. But this particular crew I was flying with happened to be a crew that flew all domestic flights, so most of their flying is on the 757. Although they were qualified on the 763 and got me to LAX safely, there was a lot of minute differences between the 757 and the 767 that the crew was struggling a bit with since they rarely flew the 763, stuff like weights and the fact they were a heavy jet. It may not seem like much, but it adds up.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):

Again, the lawsuit won't do it. Why not do something that actually has some chance of producing results?

A couple of points here. One, the union has also filed multiple grievances on this very issue. One problem is that the Grievance process is not a quick one, which means it will take a while to solve. Two, the Fed's are telling the UA pilots they have to follow these new procedures even though they may not be adequately trained on them. ALPA cannot wait for the Grievance process to play itself out on this for obvious reasons. If the Grievance is valid, then UA themselves is violating the union contract when it comes to training. Although the courts is not the ideal way to correct this, most courts of law (I am not a lawyer here) I would think would agree that in the case of a breach of contract, the party bringing the lawsuit would prevail.

That being said, I don't think the aim of ALPA is to stop the merger, but rather what ALPA is seeking is just an injunction which would allow the pilots ample time to complete the new training properly. If UA management would just give the pilots time and training for these new procedures, ALPA would drop this in a heartbeat. Given the likelihood that there may be a contract violation, I suspect there is a chance ALPA may get an injunction. Of course after the injunction and all the pilots go through the training, ALPA would then drop the lawsuit.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 10:41:50 and read 9291 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 86):
Although the courts is not the ideal way to correct this, most courts of law (I am not a lawyer here) I would think would agree that in the case of a breach of contract, the party bringing the lawsuit would prevail.

That's a legal remedy (to which the union is probably entitled), not an equitable one. ALPA wants an injunction. Generally and with some very narrow exceptions, injunctions are not available for breach of contract.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: LAXtoATL
Posted 2011-09-27 10:49:08 and read 9227 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
Where's the irreparable harm?

Irreparable harm is obvious: If these changes are implemented without adequate training and it results in an accident causing loss of life. That is textbook irreparable harm and I'm no lawyer, if they can convince a judge that there is even a potential for an accident based on inadequate training that would be enough for the judge to grant an injunction preventing UA from moving forward. Considering that to delay the changes wouldn't ground the airline but would allow them to continue to operate under the same procedures they have been for years. So the airline would not experience any irreparable harm by the court granting a temporary stay. So the balance is definitely weighs in favor of the union if the judge is convinced that passenger safety may be compromised by the implementing the changes next week. I haven't read the lawsuit so I don't know what if any damages the union is asking for, but it appears that all the union really is seeking from this lawsuit is to get an injunction to prevent the changes from going into effect next week. I believe there is a decent change this lawsuit will accomplish that, and if it doesn't another benefit of filing the lawsuit is that there is now a record of UA imposing rule changes without adequate training and opposed by its pilots, if UA were to experience any incident the pilots and union have cover and UA would be up the creek without a paddle! Can you imagine the civil liability they would face with pilots on record that the training they received was inadequate???

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: apodino
Posted 2011-09-27 10:57:22 and read 9136 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 87):
That's a legal remedy (to which the union is probably entitled), not an equitable one. ALPA wants an injunction. Generally and with some very narrow exceptions, injunctions are not available for breach of contract.

I have a major issue with this. That would basically mean the court is saying to ALPA "Yes UA violated the contract. Tough (Bleep), deal with it"

If a court is not going to take corrective action on a breach of contract, then that sets a very dangerous message, telling corporations "you can violate contracts, and nothing will happen"

Quoting par13del (Reply 85):
Based on public opinion in the USA today, unions are at the bottom of the scale and unless they have a specific accident to point to the public will dismiss their concerns.

This is the problem that Hoffa and the other unions created when the whole WI thing happened (and even before then). Unions in general lost a lot of respect in the public, and all it did was weaken the unions because now it makes it harder for Unions to raise legitimate issues because it will be perceived by the public as just Union posturing. This is basically the "boy who cried wolf" scenario playing out in real life.

I am just going out on a limb here, but I suspect that if Sully started speaking about whats going on here, people might listen, because Sully is very well respected in the public eye.

UA should be grateful that ALPA didn't take out a full page ad in the USAtoday, the way USAPA did.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcdu
Posted 2011-09-27 11:06:31 and read 9062 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 76):
If you really believe that, I don't want to fly on your airplane.

Wishing harm on people is appalling, whatever the justification.

So I agree with you and hope NOBODY is harmed and you still jab me  .

I saw the apology. No worries. The problem with ALPA is that they have cried Wolfe too often. As a result they lose effectiveness when they really need it as in this situation. They scream as loudly over a hang nail as much as a broken femur.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-27 11:14:10 and read 8984 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
Where's the irreparable harm?

UAL pilots having their certificates placed in jeopardy by being required to adhere to procedures without sufficient training for those procedures. Action on a certificate can have very negative career implications.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):
Why not do something that actually has some chance of producing results?

Going public isn't going to do it. Going through the company has obviously not done it either. If you've got other suggestions, we'd love to hear them.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 72):
I asked the VP of Corporate Safety and Security, Mike Quiello about the “training” we are getting and what the company’s plan is if they find that we are not absorbing the “training”, he stated that he felt comfortable that if we fall back on our previous procedures it will be safe, as it was safe before.

I'm sure they would be safe. But they wouldn't be legal, and the fact that upper management is recommending that sort of thing is NOT good.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 72):
• Recommending leaving autopilot on for wind shear recovery, really? And no sim training for that?
• TCAS responses changed? No sim?
Quoting mm320cap (Reply 72):
NDB can be flown in VNAV—can I expect to be sent to sim for THAT?

These need sim training, IMO.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 72):
• Green arc gone on end of runway now—how long did it take us to be cycled through TK to get that MCP TDZE procedure activated? All dismissed with a flick of the keyboard? I have to say with a non-precision approach, that was a really nice feature which gave confidence.

I had no idea UA did their approaches that way - I wonder whether that's for all approaches or just non-precision ones, and at what point does the MCP get set all the way down? This is something that I would definitely want some avionics training on to see it in practice for myself.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 72):
• Speed bug setting and flaps procedures changed with no sim training

Sim training would be good for that, too. All that's really needed here is some decent classroom time and one LOFT in the sim. That'll take time, sure, but it's not that difficult to coordinate.

Quoting Sulley (Reply 74):
However, in reading the above letter, do UAL pilots feel that CAL pilots follow unsafe guidelines for operating their aircraft?

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Just because someone operates differently from you doesn't mean that are unsafe. There are certain elements of UA's procedures that, on first glance, puzzle me (the MCP TDZE procedure, for one), and if I were expect to change to that overnight, I'd think it was unsafe. Not because the procedure itself is unsafe, but because I didn't feel personally qualified to be doing that procedure. But I could certainly get used to it if I were trained on it and understood the deeper philosophy behind it.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 11:16:43 and read 8954 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 89):
If a court is not going to take corrective action on a breach of contract, then that sets a very dangerous message, telling corporations "you can violate contracts, and nothing will happen"

When did I say that? Courts will correct breach of contract - just not with injunctions (usually).

Quoting mcdu (Reply 90):
The problem with ALPA is that they have cried Wolfe too often. As a result they lose effectiveness when they really need it as in this situation. They scream as loudly over a hang nail as much as a broken femur.

I'm not sure I agree. I can't think of a situation where ALPA claimed something was a safety issue when it wasn't. The trouble is that safety is just one of ALPA's goals - maximizing pay and benefits for its membership is (and should be) another. The root of the problem is, in my estimation, having taken some of the pay and benefits issues public. But why shouldn't ALPA try to rally public support on those? I think most in the public would assert that pilots ought to be paid more at the expense of the companies.

I'm not suggesting a solution, more thinking aloud.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2011-09-27 11:36:30 and read 8757 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):
Why not do something that actually has some chance of producing results?

As I recall, the Railway Labor Act requires that a grievance process and/or arbitration be used if it's included in the contract (which I believe to be the case at UAL).

But those processes are also painfully slow most times and here's an issue that requires immediate action. If not an injunction, then what? What other means of expedited action would fit here?

On a side note, what does it say about UA/CO's management that so little input was sought from the line pilots? I see days - no, years - of surly service ahead. And in a service industry, that's not good.

I'm so glad I retired!

[Edited 2011-09-27 11:38:54]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-09-27 12:22:46 and read 8354 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 46):
I'm pretty surprised at the knee jerk reactions by some of what appear to be non-pilots in this thread. Too many assumptions and not enough open minds.

Perhaps, but to be fair, unions have done plenty of things to create that situation over the years. Here in WA state, we have a Longshoreman's issue right now that has seen union members detain security guards illegally, damage property, and allow their wives and mother's get arrested sitting in front of a train. In the past few days, vandalism on the mainline has been discovered over a long stretch of track that hosts Amtrak trains at 79mph.

Whether they have a valid grievance or not, tactics employed by unions often leaves a bad taste in people's mouthes.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 48):
Funny how the four main people spouting all the anti-labor bile in this thread are all lawyers.

Probably because they've seen it all before.

Quoting tsully (Reply 56):
The I-hate-pilots-because-they-have-a-cool-job-and-get-paid-more-than-me jealousy is palpable.

That's just silly. If it's lawyers calling BS in this thread, I highly doubt they are too concerned about pilot pay.



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):
Quoting tozairport (Reply 81):
There have been numerous post saying this yet somehow your anti-labor bias clouds your judgement.

Huh? I'm not disagreeing that there's a safety issue. Why are you making this personal?

Maybe he'll take some of his own advice:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):
I would sure like to see you retract your callous and uninformed statements.

Hopefully this is something that can be settled quickly. If they need more time to train, then why not allow it? A year from now it'll all be a memory.

-Dave

[Edited 2011-09-27 13:18:31 by srbmod]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-27 13:01:10 and read 8061 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):
Huh? I'm not disagreeing that there's a safety issue. Why are you making this personal?

OK, so you agree that there is a safety issue but you still disagree with the Associations position? Isn't a safety issue important enough to warrant any remedy available to fix the issue. You say it doesn't belong in court and that we should just take it public. Well, by taking UAL to court we are taking it public. We have been trying to work with UAL on this issue for the past 6 months. As Jeff likes to say, it takes two to tango. The problem is that he never took dance lessons! So what would you have the UAL MEC do? We are faced with an immanent safety problem (which you admit) and we have no remedy to fix it other than with legal means. What would you have us do?



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 94):
Maybe he'll take some of his own advice:

Quoting tozairport (Reply 21):
I would sure like to see you retract your callous and uninformed statements.

Callous could be argued I suppose. A lot gets lost in typed messages. But where have my posts been uninformed? I'm not the one union bashing with no shred of proof. Maybe you should re-read the thread.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-27 13:08:16 and read 7999 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 95):
so you agree that there is a safety issue but you still disagree with the Associations position?

Nope, just with their decision to file suit.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 95):
and we have no remedy to fix it other than with legal means.

But there is no legal remedy (at least not one that was requested in the suit). That's the trouble.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 95):
What would you have us do?

I'm not sure I know. But if the purpose of filing suit was to get publicity, why not just get the publicity without paying the lawyers?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-27 13:13:25 and read 7962 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):
That's why I said that there are some problems - like this one - that are best solved outside of court.

The other options have been exhausted. What other choices do they have?

Quoting Mir (Reply 91):
UAL pilots having their certificates placed in jeopardy by being required to adhere to procedures without sufficient training for those procedures. Action on a certificate can have very negative career implications.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 91):
Going public isn't going to do it. Going through the company has obviously not done it either. If you've got other suggestions, we'd love to hear them.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 91):
I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Just because someone operates differently from you doesn't mean that are unsafe.

   Exactly, there are multiple techniques to accomplish the same tasks

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 94):
Perhaps, but to be fair, unions have done plenty of things to create that situation over the years. Here in WA state, we have a Longshoreman's issue right now that has seen union members detain security guards illegally, damage property, and allow their wives and mother's get arrested sitting in front of a train.

Stop comparing ALPA to other unions! We don't do crap like this! The most noise we make are peaceful pickets, stop lumping us in with others.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcg
Posted 2011-09-27 13:50:32 and read 7648 times.

My question is: are the UA pilots objecting to the changes that are being implemented (it sounds to me like CA procedures are being implemented) or the the way the changes are implemented (i.e. the provision of adequate training in the new procedures.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2011-09-27 14:08:31 and read 7525 times.

To be clear, UA pilots are not saying CO is operating their aircraft in an unsafe manner. CO is operating their aircraft "DIFFERENTLY."

As was explained by UA pilots above, when you vary that routine there needs to be a) training b) time to practice some of the more involved operational changes in a sim c) Time to work out any errors/bugs in the changes.

The involved aircraft (757, 767 and 777) are flown by very experienced pilots at UA whose procedures are different from CO. I'm guessing that most of CO's procedures will be "standard" in the combined carrier.

It doesn't mean one airline's ways are better than the other but I'd rather not be sitting in my cushy 777 biz class seat pushing back for my flight from SFO to LHR wondering if my UA pilots are unclear on procedure. Will they get me to LHR safely? Odds are yes but all it takes is for some oddball emergency to crop up that touches on one of the changed procedures to set in motion a chain of events that could cause confusion by one or both pilots on how to react to the problem. That period of hesitation could have dire consequences for the souls aboard.

This goes beyond narrow legal interpretations of "equitable relief" and whether this was the correct "tactic" by ALPA. The more pertinent question is how the soon-to-be combined carrier thought this would be a swell way to handle the procedural change over.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcg
Posted 2011-09-27 14:14:07 and read 7455 times.

Does the contract between ALPA and UA say something like "Company will provide Pilots with adequate training to perform their assigned duties in a safe and efficient manner"? If it does, it would seem to me that would be the basis of a lawsuit.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: tozairport
Posted 2011-09-27 14:51:58 and read 7168 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 92):
I'm not sure I know. But if the purpose of filing suit was to get publicity, why not just get the publicity without paying the lawyers?

Although I don't know the exact nature of the ALPA lawyers employment, I believe that they work only for the association and are compensated as such. I think we would be paying for them anyway.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 95):
To be clear, UA pilots are not saying CO is operating their aircraft in an unsafe manner. CO is operating their aircraft "DIFFERENTLY."

Exactly. The way CAL does things is not unsafe, just different. The training course the company has put together does not adequately address and teach those differences. I don't know how much CAL procedures are changing, but it sure seems like we are adopting much of what CAL does.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Sulley
Posted 2011-09-27 15:07:31 and read 7083 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 97):
Exactly. The way CAL does things is not unsafe, just different. The training course the company has put together does not adequately address and teach those differences. I don't know how much CAL procedures are changing, but it sure seems like we are adopting much of what CAL does.

Ironically, on the ramp, it's 100% opposite -- the UAL way is prevailing. Change for everyone, I suppose.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: splitterz
Posted 2011-09-27 15:26:18 and read 6920 times.

Quoting Sulley (Reply 98):
Quoting tozairport (Reply 97):
Exactly. The way CAL does things is not unsafe, just different. The training course the company has put together does not adequately address and teach those differences. I don't know how much CAL procedures are changing, but it sure seems like we are adopting much of what CAL does.

Ironically, on the ramp, it's 100% opposite -- the UAL way is prevailing. Change for everyone, I suppose.

I'd say it about equal there.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: 30west
Posted 2011-09-27 18:01:17 and read 6685 times.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 97):

Exactly. The way CAL does things is not unsafe, just different. The training course the company has put together does not adequately address and teach those differences. I don't know how much CAL procedures are changing, but it sure seems like we are adopting much of what CAL does

I was told when a change goes up the ladder both POI's have to agree if they don't agree the manufacture manual is then used for that area. It so happens CAL's procedures are basically Boeing and the CAL POI doesn't agree most of the time therefore we end up with the Boeing manual being used, of course many say it's CAL procedures but it's really Boeing.

Also once the merger is done and there is only one POI they want to go back and change it again back to more of the old UAL procedures.

30west

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Max Q
Posted 2011-09-27 18:06:58 and read 6667 times.

There is no reason to rush into this.




We operate our respective Aircraft quite differently but we share the same goal of maximum safety.




If we are going to integrate successfully the training to accomplish this needs to be done very carefully and methodically
and using the best of both companys techniques.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-27 18:45:28 and read 6574 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 85):
UA should be grateful that ALPA didn't take out a full page ad in the USAtoday, the way USAPA did.

So why didn't the MEC do so? And why has ALPA National been so quiet about this? And furthermore, if this is such a safety of flight issue, and the training that is so inadequate was supposed to be completed with those procedures implemented on the 23rd, then why are UA pilots signing for airplanes and flying flights?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 86):
The problem with ALPA is that they have cried Wolfe too often.

Steve Wolf?  
Quoting apodino (Reply 73):
I seem to remember Colgan executives using that exact same language before the NTSB following that incident. We all know about that.

We all know about what? That two pilots, God rest their souls, were unprofessional in their approach to commuting and crew rest?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 71):

Mcdu, while I may not agree with you, I have to commend you on your thoughtfulness in your posts.

Quoting norcal (Reply 55):
None, halting the SOC does nothing to give the pilots leverage in a JCBA

Sure it does. Even with SOC, without a JCBA the carrier won't be able to truly pull out the efficiencies of the merger.

Quoting tsully (Reply 54):
The I-hate-pilots-because-they-have-a-cool-job-and-get-paid-more-than-me jealousy is palpable.

Haha, my job is pretty cool (to me anyway) and I make more than a senior widebody airline captain so that's not a motivation.

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 52):
When you are talking about highly trained professionals, the significant majority of their training should be done by other professionals of the same background. In this instance, pilots should be in charge of pilot training.

And they are...

Quoting tozairport (Reply 46):
Funny how the four main people spouting all the anti-labor bile in this thread are all lawyers. You would think that those in that profession would be more inclined to listen first and then make judgements.

I am. I am also inclined to recognize that the word of one side in such a proceeding isn't gospel, and to look at precedent. There's your side, the other side, and the truth.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-09-27 18:45:38 and read 6571 times.

Quoting norcal (Reply 93):
Stop comparing ALPA to other unions! We don't do crap like this! The most noise we make are peaceful pickets, stop lumping us in with others.

I'm not "comparing" - I'm simply pointing out why people can have a negative opinion of unions and their tactics. It goes for management as well.

Quoting tozairport (Reply 91):
But where have my posts been uninformed?

Hey, I'll let you have the last word.  

-Dave

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-27 20:16:33 and read 6386 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 102):
And furthermore, if this is such a safety of flight issue, and the training that is so inadequate was supposed to be completed with those procedures implemented on the 23rd, then why are UA pilots signing for airplanes and flying flights?

Because their livelihood depends on it.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-27 20:23:03 and read 6364 times.

It's not an objection to the new procedures, necessarily. Having not lived with them yet, it's hard to say whether they are better, worse, or neither yet. It's an objection to the pace and method of implementation- a pace dictated by management creating artificial deadlines to meet their S.O.C. Timeline (which greatly effects their compensation), and an unwillingness to spent the money necessary for adequate and safe training.

The A320, B737 and B747 fleets will all eventually get the same new procedures, but they are not being implemented in this restrictive timeline because they aren't common to both carriers.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-27 20:33:05 and read 6339 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 104):
Because their livelihood depends on it.

Wow...so then that means the UA entire pilot group is knowingly and willingly flying in an unsafe manner in order to protect their paycheck?

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 105):
(which greatly effects their compensation)

That's quite a charge. Do you have any documentation to back up such a loaded charge (beyond "a friend of mine heard in the crew lounge from another pilot...")?

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 105):
an unwillingness to spent the money necessary for adequate and safe training.

For what YOU deem to be "adequate and safe training" because it would appear the FAA, headed by a former ALPA President and airline pilot, has deemed it to be adequate and safe.

[Edited 2011-09-27 20:50:28]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-27 21:33:21 and read 6212 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
Wow...so then that means the UA entire pilot group is knowingly and willingly flying in an unsafe manner in order to protect their paycheck?

It's not unsafe, it's just not as safe as it should be. And as far as protecting the paycheck goes, you really think someone wants to lose their source of income in this economy? Where the hell are they going to replace it?

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
For what YOU deem to be "adequate and safe training" because it would appear the FAA, headed by a former ALPA President and airline pilot, has deemed it to be adequate and safe.

I'll trust the pilots who are actually having to deal with this stuff over the FAA, who has other agendas.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-27 21:47:09 and read 6189 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
It's not unsafe, it's just not as safe as it should be.


So if it is not unsafe, meaning it is safe, then why the lawsuit?

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
And as far as protecting the paycheck goes, you really think someone wants to lose their source of income in this economy?


Well...isn't that what the union is there for? To protect them? But I guess that the it's only "unsafe" to the point that they would file for injunctive relief in court to stop SOC from moving forward, but not so unsafe that they keep signing for the airplanes, operate the flight schedule, and drawing their paychecks. So it isn't quite such the principled stand.

I know if I were in court, that's a question I would be asking the United MEC. "If you feel this strongly about it, that you haven't had the requisite training to safely operate under the new procedures, then why are you advising your pilots to keep flying?"

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
I'll trust the pilots who are actually having to deal with this stuff over the FAA, who has other agendas.


Right, because the United MEC has no agenda here...

[Edited 2011-09-27 21:55:47]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-27 22:45:52 and read 6098 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 108):
So if it is not unsafe, meaning it is safe, then why the lawsuit?

The fact that something is not unsafe does not mean it is safe. Well, maybe it does in your average business, but not in the world of high reliability that airlines live in.

Quoting catiii (Reply 108):
I know if I were in court, that's a question I would be asking the United MEC. "If you feel this strongly about it, that you haven't had the requisite training to safely operate under the new procedures, then why are you advising your pilots to keep flying?"

Let's say that the MEC did advise their pilots not to fly. The response would be "well, you were trained in accordance with what the FAA signed off on (and thus is safe and appropriate), so any deficiency must be your own - either do your jobs or the airline should find someone else who will". So there's really no winning for the pilots, because you seem unable to realize that the FAA doesn't determine what is safe - they only determine what is legal, and there are plenty of times when the two do not coincide. This would appear to be one of them.

Quoting catiii (Reply 108):
Right, because the United MEC has no agenda here...

Of course they have an agenda, but only one - to protect their members and make sure they have the tools they need to do their job. The FAA has more than one, and that's the problem.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-28 07:25:42 and read 5799 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
I'm not "comparing" - I'm simply pointing out why people can have a negative opinion of unions and their tactics.

Well ALPA doesn't employ tactics like this so there really isn't any point in bringing it up other than spewing anti-union rhetoric. The most noise ALPA makes is from peaceful picket lines. Typical a-net I guess......

Quoting catiii (Reply 102):
Sure it does. Even with SOC, without a JCBA the carrier won't be able to truly pull out the efficiencies of the merger.

US Airways has enjoyed the lowest legacy labor costs in the industry because they don't have a JCBA. New JCBAs improve working conditions dramatically, take Colgan for example, they went from one of the worst contracts in the industry to one of the best because of the JCBA between all the Pinnacle Airline Inc. groups.

Quoting Mir (Reply 109):
Let's say that the MEC did advise their pilots not to fly. The response would be "well, you were trained in accordance with what the FAA signed off on (and thus is safe and appropriate), so any deficiency must be your own - either do your jobs or the airline should find someone else who will". So there's really no winning for the pilots, because you seem unable to realize that the FAA doesn't determine what is safe - they only determine what is legal, and there are plenty of times when the two do not coincide. This would appear to be one of them.

Not to mention the company would likely sue the union for millions of dollars.

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
For what YOU deem to be "adequate and safe training" because it would appear the FAA, headed by a former ALPA President and airline pilot, has deemed it to be adequate and safe.

The POI determined that they were legal, not adequate or safe. Randy Babbit doesn't concern himself with stuff like this.

The FAA deemed our current rest rules to be "adequate and safe" for 20 years despite the fact the NTSB, NASA, and numerous university studies said otherwise.

It took a few smoking holes in the ground to finally get change and that's the problem; the FAA is reactive not proactive. Furthermore they are subject to all the lobbying money from the ATA and RAA. The FARs are written in blood after all so it's up to organizations like ALPA to point of deficiencies in safety before they result in smoking holes.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: NathanH
Posted 2011-09-28 07:38:44 and read 5767 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 108):
So if it is not unsafe, meaning it is safe, then why the lawsuit?

I think safety is probably on a continuum, not an on/off switch.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2011-09-28 08:20:29 and read 5731 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 108):
"If you feel this strongly about it, that you haven't had the requisite training to safely operate under the new procedures, then why are you advising your pilots to keep flying?"

I believe the new (new to UAL) procedures are not yet in effect.

As I understand it, the changes to UAL previous procedures are dramatic and the new procedures are much closer to Continental's (which are rumored to be close to Boeing's).

In the event of an emergency, do you want both pilots on the "same page?" Do you want confusion about what should be done? Do you want one pilot stuck in the "old" UA way (that would probably be Captain Grumpy, by the way) and the other doing it the new way? Do want both pilots to know where the new emergency checklists can be found?

Ultimately, it is the Captain's DUTY to operate the flight safely (see F.A.R. 121.533(d) below). If that Captain believes that the flight cannot be operated safely (possibly due to the confusion I noted above), then that flight should not be operated.

With at least two attempted terminations (at U.S. legacy carriers) - after a Captain refused to operate a flight due to safety concerns - is it any wonder that the pilot group have been complaining to their union? The pilots have found them caught between the airline, the F.A.A. and their duty to operate safely.

Sec. 121.533
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-28 09:15:54 and read 5659 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
Wow...so then that means the UA entire pilot group is knowingly and willingly flying in an unsafe manner in order to protect their paycheck?

No. We have had several pilots refuse to fly until further explanation of the procedures was provided by an LCA, thus delaying the flight. None of the Phase II changes has gone live yet, hence the lawsuit's importance. Somehow, though, I suspect that you'd be the first to cry foul if a UAL pilot refused to fly a flight with these new procedures in the name of safety.

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
That's quite a charge. Do you have any documentation to back up such a loaded charge (beyond "a friend of mine heard in the crew lounge from another pilot...")?

Really? You are that naive? Here's a link to an article that might interest you. Try to read between the lines. http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...illions_of_dollars_in_mergers.html
You don't think one of those "unspecified goals" is S.O.C by the end of the year? If not, then why the sudden and dramatic shift in the way we receive training for changing procedures?

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
For what YOU deem to be "adequate and safe training" because it would appear the FAA, headed by a former ALPA President and airline pilot, has deemed it to be adequate and safe.

Your naivete really is breathtaking. Do you think Babbitt has anything to do with signing off on UAL's training? It's our POI's job to do that. And the FAA's version of "adequate and safe" can often leave a LOT to be desired. There have been plenty of times in my career that I have refused an airplane that involved a legal deferral according to the FAA because I did not think I could operate the flight with the highest level of safety.

You're damned right that what I deem to be "adequate and safe training" counts. What YOU deem to be adequate and safe training means absolutely nothing. I'm the PIC. I have a responsibility by law to speak up when I see safety of flight issues which threaten myself, my crew, and my passengers. That's EXACTLY why ALPA filed this lawsuit. But according to YOU, we're just posturing.

Out of curiosity I looked up your occupation. I see Lawyer and businessman. I don't see pilot anywhere. Your screen name is cat iii. Have you ever done a Cat III approach? I have. It probably wouldn't make sense for you to tell me how to do that either. Do you not see the extreme arrogance of YOU coming on here and telling ME that my assessment of MY training is flawed? You don't see me over on a lawyer forum telling you how to study for the bar exam. Why don't you just leave the safety of our aviation system to the professionals.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2011-09-28 09:32:24 and read 5621 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 95):
As was explained by UA pilots above, when you vary that routine there needs to be a) training b) time to practice some of the more involved operational changes in a sim c) Time to work out any errors/bugs in the changes.

But every pilot we've heard from has said they personally are okay but worry about others. So either we have all the top pilots on a.net, the pilots are lying and are concerned about saying they personally are unsafe, or it's much ado about nothing in terms of safety, and all to do with delay tactics and flexing muscles by the union.

Quoting Mir (Reply 104):
Because their livelihood depends on it.

So their life is less important? Or the lives of their pax?

Quoting catiii (Reply 106):
Wow...so then that means the UA entire pilot group is knowingly and willingly flying in an unsafe manner in order to protect their paycheck?

Of course not. Just union talking point, just like this whole thread is a union talking point festival. Pilots want paid time in SIM rather than having to study on their own time. I don't blame them, but let's call a spade a spade.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
No. We have had several pilots refuse to fly until further explanation of the procedures was provided by an LCA, thus delaying the flight.

Maybe UA/CO beancounters determined that the cost of spot delays is less than the cost of SIM training? I mean, from what I'm reading, the pilots want a little time in the SIM to do the procedures once, and then they'd be confident. Well, that seems to be what is happening (after all, all it takes is one flight to be confident, right?), but it's taking place in the aircraft, and there are some delays but not a major impact on scheduling so far. Maybe that will change as more pilots are instructed to be confused (a "confused out" action, if you will)... I mean, as more pilots have real problems with the procedures and delay the flight for true safety reasons.

Again, it's no different than any other profession where a new set of procedures is implemented. There is a learning curve and things might slow down for a bit. But usually, the implementation is staggered and layered, to minimize major issues. Oh, wait, this is exactly what the irresponsible UA is doing...

And UA may be planning to see how this first phase goes before committing to the next phase in the same manner, or altering the plan to involve SIM time for the next stage and/or the other aircraft.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: meristem
Posted 2011-09-28 10:17:36 and read 5531 times.

From a training perspective, any procedures that have been repeated thousands of times will take quite directed training to be effectively replaced. It's just how humans are wired. The safety risk is the waffling between one and the other procedure, particularly during high stress situations when there is a tendency to fall back on previously known behaviours, which may mean executing a deprecated procedure or, perhaps worse, mix and matching parts and executing neither correctly.

Flying procedures have a cognitive and a physical component and the best way to retrain is to retrain both parts, not just the cognitive via CBT.

Lastly, weren't some United manuals rewritten by human factors experts a few years ago after a ton of research? (experts which were all also pilots, so no armchair quarterbacks were involved)

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-28 10:21:11 and read 5523 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
So their life is less important? Or the lives of their pax?

If you re-read the flow of that particular comment, he was more referring to their professional career and not actual life and limb. Goes back to the BS comment about "well, if things hit the fan, go back to the old way." No, the FAA will not approve of the old way, next..

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Again, it's no different than any other profession where a new set of procedures is implemented. There is a learning curve and things might slow down for a bit. But usually, the implementation is staggered and layered, to minimize major issues. Oh, wait, this is exactly what the irresponsible UA is doing...

No, it is not. But of course the beancounters and yourself think it is.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
And UA may be planning to see how this first phase goes before committing to the next phase in the same manner, or altering the plan to involve SIM time for the next stage and/or the other aircraft.

You are completely disconnected with the situation and what's actually going on. It's evident in your responces. My father is also involved in all of this "training". He has no reason to sugarcoat anything to me or play the union horn and the sentiment shared on here by REAL UAL pilots is the exact same. He doesn't care either way what procedures are being adopted, it's the way in which the company chooses to feed the information (or lack there of) and the timelines being implememented.

The phases are already set with hard dates. They are not deviating, which is why you see the lawsuit..

[Edited 2011-09-28 10:27:10]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: flyhossd
Posted 2011-09-28 10:24:17 and read 5515 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Again, it's no different than any other profession where a new set of procedures is implemented. There is a learning curve and things might slow down for a bit. But usually, the implementation is staggered and layered, to minimize major issues. Oh, wait, this is exactly what the irresponsible UA is doing...

Have you read this thread? The implementation ISN'T safely "staggered and layered" and that's what the UAL MEC suit is about. This is the second phase (again, have you read this thread?) and it is dramatic. Dramatic and rushed.

Why the push to get this done - why the big hurry? Why not give the UAL pilots the time receive sim or FTD training?

Yet again, in our current business climate, dollars are being placed above safety, IMHO.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-28 10:31:17 and read 5488 times.

I am truly surprised at some of the comments. I mean, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, it's one thing to be objective to a particular 'side' (whatever that means) and another to truly sit from the FAR AND opposite side of the fense and tell SMEs what's the best way to do their job.

Cubs, I'm no lawyer so i'm not going to sit and argue about the validity of the lawsuit. Frankly, some of the words you're using makes no sense to me LOL. So why can't there be the same respect shared for these guys that's saying the way this is being done is ineffective? Let's not forget that game day is only a few days away?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-28 10:40:36 and read 5468 times.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 118):
So why can't there be the same respect shared for these guys that's saying the way this is being done is ineffective?

I have a tough time respecting people who file lawsuits that they have no chance of winning.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: apodino
Posted 2011-09-28 10:42:21 and read 5471 times.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 117):
Why the push to get this done - why the big hurry? Why not give the UAL pilots the time receive sim or FTD training?

Yet again, in our current business climate, dollars are being placed above safety, IMHO.

The problem is that there should not be bonuses or any financial incentive to senior management to get things done by a certain date. Yes it is good business sense in mergers like this to get them done in a timely manner, but when you put up artificial deadlines that pressure quick changes, it is not in the interest of safety.

Getting the merger done in a timely manner should be a priority, and I think the Unions agree with that. But do it in the right and safe way, rather than these rushed methods which only guarantee that Smisek and Co's pockets will be lined. And these deadlines in my opinion also fall on the BOD for putting bonus incentives out there when it jeopardizes safety.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-28 10:52:10 and read 5459 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 119):
I have a tough time respecting people who file lawsuits that they have no chance of winning.

That's fine. And your responce seems to be take it public, take it public. Well, we've already seen how the "aviation public" feels. Imagine those that are totally uninformed.

How did you feel about the whole Delta/Freedom lawsuit. Many called it BS but they won. I respect you're candor and expertise but i'll wait and see what the court decides.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-28 10:59:18 and read 5450 times.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 121):
How did you feel about the whole Delta/Freedom lawsuit.

I didn't have problem with it. It seemed like it could go either way - there's a tendency around here to call it frivolous whenever an airline or a manufacturer gets sued, and that's wrong. The hard cases are the ones that get tried, and that's probably what should happen.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-28 11:05:44 and read 5427 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 122):
I didn't have problem with it. It seemed like it could go either way - there's a tendency around here to call it frivolous whenever an airline or a manufacturer gets sued, and that's wrong. The hard cases are the ones that get tried, and that's probably what should happen.

Personally, I didn't care either way. If they lost, the flying would have been up in the not too distant future anyone. However, you make a good and is that not EXACTLY what's happening here?:

"there's a tendency around here to call it frivolous whenever an airline or a manufacturer gets sued, and that's wrong. The hard cases are the ones that get tried, and that's probably what should happen"

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-28 11:28:02 and read 5382 times.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 123):
However, you make a good and is that not EXACTLY what's happening here?:

I think not, and no one has even tried to convince me otherwise. But I'm willing to listen. I'm not a Railway Labor Act whiz, and I could be wrong.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: catiii
Posted 2011-09-28 11:49:04 and read 5359 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
I suspect that you'd be the first to cry foul if a UAL pilot refused to fly a flight with these new procedures in the name of safety.

I'd actually have a little more respect for him because he's putting his money where his mouth is.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
Your screen name is cat iii. Have you ever done a Cat III approach?

Why yes, yes I have. USAFA grad, flew C-17s until I got t-boned in my car, broke my back, lost most of my hearing in my left ear and some of my sight in my left eye. My wing commander then got me a good deal while i was rehabbing and got me an assignment to the Long Beach factory as a "customer rep " before I took an early discharge as part of a RIF pre 9/11. But if you want to also take them out and measure them, we can do that too...

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
Do you not see the extreme arrogance of YOU coming on here and telling ME that my assessment of MY training is flawed?

We have a saying where I grew up: "a hit dog will holler." The slightest bit of criticism or question of motives, which isn't uncalled for given the history with your MEC, and you go high and to the right. Seems a little defensive to me. Maybe your case isn't as strong as you think it is.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
Why don't you just leave the safety of our aviation system to the professionals.

When I see a "professional" on this board then I will defer to him or her.

Quoting flyhossd (Reply 112):
I believe the new (new to UAL) procedures are not yet in effect.

I thought they kicked in on the 23rd?

Quoting Mir (Reply 109):
So there's really no winning for the pilots, because you seem unable to realize that the FAA doesn't determine what is safe

The FAA sets the standards to which any air carrier or other operator must adhere. They set these minimums because they are the criteria that provide the required level of safety.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
Your naivete really is breathtaking.

Haha, my naivete? Just as naive as you spouting your union line.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
Really? You are that naive?

See above.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
You don't think one of those "unspecified goals" is S.O.C by the end of the year?

It isn't. It's a SPECIFIED goal. It's been a number of articles for a long while now. Your company has a publicly stated goal of SOC by the end of the year. So I go back to my original question, because I don't need to read between the lines: you keep saying that people stand to make bonuses off of this, so who and how much?

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
Do you think Babbitt has anything to do with signing off on UAL's training?

Well let's see: If the FAA sets the standard, and he heads the FAA...

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
It's our POI's job to do that.

...and the POI works for the FAA, which is headed by the Administrator...and if the Administrator is responsible for the agency he heads...

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
I have a responsibility by law to speak up when I see safety of flight issues which threaten myself, my crew, and my passengers.

And yet you are so concerned about this apparent lack of safety that you keep...flying...your...airplane. Hmmm....

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 113):
That's EXACTLY why ALPA filed this lawsuit. But according to YOU, we're just posturing.

Who's being naive now?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
But every pilot we've heard from has said they personally are okay but worry about others. So either we have all the top pilots on a.net, the pilots are lying and are concerned about saying they personally are unsafe, or it's much ado about nothing in terms of safety, and all to do with delay tactics and flexing muscles by the union.

Bingo...

[Edited 2011-09-28 11:55:20]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcg
Posted 2011-09-28 12:19:53 and read 5279 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Well, that seems to be what is happening (after all, all it takes is one flight to be confident, right?), but it's taking place in the aircraft,

Speaking as a passenger, I'm not sure I want the 'training' to be heppening on a flight I'm on.

If the changes are as simple as one checklist being renamed, then I think that warrants one level of training. If the changes involove fundamental ways line piolots have been doing things for 20+, then I suspect a different level of training is required.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: par13del
Posted 2011-09-28 13:11:03 and read 5253 times.

Quoting mcg (Reply 126):
Speaking as a passenger, I'm not sure I want the 'training' to be heppening on a flight I'm on.

Happens all the time, whenever you see three cockpit crew entering a two plane cockpit, one of three things are happening.

1. Checkride by management pilot
2. Jump seater in uniform trying to get to work
3. Training.

I know these used to happen, been out of the industry for a while so I stand to be corrected.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-28 14:09:16 and read 5188 times.

ikramerica and catiii


Too many point to go back and quote, so I'll just respond here. Catiii, you are a lawyer, so I get it, you like to argue the minutia instead of seeing the big picture.

First of all, I haven't turned a wheel under the new procedures. I got bumped off the B767 when we parked all the B737's, so I'm on the A320. The only changes we've had are to the FOM, and very manageable with computer based training.

Catiii, as a former pilot, you ought to know better in this argument. Shame on you. If the US Air Force changed your ENTIRE method of SOP and procedures and wanted to send you out flying with nothing but a couple hours of computer study, I hope that you have enough judgement to know that there are significant safety implications in that. The procedures have not gone into effect yet. The computer training was required to be finished this week. We will see how the lawsuit goes, and then how many pilots refuse to fly. I would be in that group if I were still on the B767. By the way, you also ought to know enough about risk management to know that there are different levels of risk with varying degrees of acceptability. Your consistent attempt to label it SAFE or UNSAFE is ridiculous. Every time you start the engines you are dealing with levels of risk, and you work to minimize them. Airmanship 101.

ikramerica, you couldn't be more wrong about us pilots just wanting to go do laps in the sim for fun. It's a GIANT pain in the butt to go do sim training, which is always scheduled on a day off unless you are on reserve or already at minimum contractual days off. You have to fly to Denver, waste at least a day, and then fly back. For this we get paid a whopping 2.8 hours of the 12 or so that we put in.

Two questions: First, you two PERSONALLY are sitting in a plane going into Denver next month. There are thunderstorms rolling in and around the area, and as you get to about 100 feet about the ground the airplane you are riding on gets into a microburst. The pilots go around. Do YOU personally want to be sitting in that seat knowing that the pilots are putting into practice a windshear recovery technique that they have NEVER seen, NEVER done, and only watched a computer video of? It's on the autopilot vs the manual procedure we have been flying for years... and if they don't manage it correctly, the results could very well be catastrophic. Still comfortable?

Second: If this is just a union tactic to....well, I'm not even sure what it is you think we are trying to accomplish. Like I said, going to the simulator is a pain, and whether the company gets the S.O.C. this year or 6 months later doesn't change ANYTHING for us. So why the sudden shift in the way we've successfully trained crews for decades? When we switched our non-precision approach profile a few years back, it was only turned on after everyone had gone through the new procedure in training - either in initial, upgrade, or PC. It was covered in ground school and in the SIM several times until all crews were trained, comfortable, and confident. It went into effect without a hitch. Now, all of a sudden, they want to change DOZENS of procedures, and they want to do it with a computer slideshow. Why the sudden and total shift in training philosophy? I'm pretty sure I know....

catiii, as much as I'm surprised that you would have this attitude towards this lawsuit having been a pilot yourself, I am terribly sorry to hear that such a horrible accident clipped your wings. I was really sad to read that, and I'm glad that you found success in other areas.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2011-09-28 14:27:18 and read 5152 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 127):
Happens all the time, whenever you see three cockpit crew entering a two plane cockpit, one of three things are happening.

1. Checkride by management pilot
2. Jump seater in uniform trying to get to work
3. Training.

I know these used to happen, been out of the industry for a while so I stand to be corrected.

Hi par13del,

These days, we don't do actual "training" on passenger flights. When pilots first check out in a new plane, their first trip is with a Line Check Airman, who is there to ensure a smooth transition between the simulator and the actual airplane. Other flights when we have a Line Check Airman in the jumpseat are considered "checking", not really training.

Your list for international flights might also contain

4. Relief pilot (1 for flights over 8 hours, 2 for 12)

Cheers

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: ual777
Posted 2011-09-28 15:31:22 and read 5071 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):

Of course not. Just union talking point, just like this whole thread is a union talking point festival. Pilots want paid time in SIM rather than having to study on their own time. I don't blame them, but let's call a spade a spade.

No offense, but you're very out of touch. Everybody HATES going to the sim. I MEAN HATES. HATES.

It is one of the most unpleasant experiences you can imagine...akin to being cut by razor blades and somebody rubbing jalapeno paste in the wound.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Mir
Posted 2011-09-28 16:04:23 and read 5009 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Of course not. Just union talking point, just like this whole thread is a union talking point festival. Pilots want paid time in SIM rather than having to study on their own time. I don't blame them, but let's call a spade a spade.

You can't study a windshear escape maneuver on your own time. Well, you can, but without a go in the sim it's pretty much worthless. Going into the sim is a pain, and if you think that UA pilots would do it just for fun and some extra money you're very much mistaken. They want it because in some cases, it's the only way to be trained effectively.

Quoting catiii (Reply 125):
The FAA sets the standards to which any air carrier or other operator must adhere. They set these minimums because they are the criteria that provide the required level of safety.

Your first sentence is correct, but not your second. As we've seen with the rest rules, the minimums do not necessarily provide the required levels of safety. The reason they haven't been changed is that the airlines have too much influence on the FAA and can strong-arm them into putting off needed changes.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 119):
have a tough time respecting people who file lawsuits that they have no chance of winning.

I've yet to hear an alternative that has a better chance of success.

-Mir

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: norcal
Posted 2011-09-29 07:07:58 and read 4660 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Of course not. Just union talking point, just like this whole thread is a union talking point festival. Pilots want paid time in SIM rather than having to study on their own time. I don't blame them, but let's call a spade a spade.

Your ignorance of pilot training is staggering. Perhaps you should learn something before you just apply anti-union rhetoric to every situation

Simulator training is a big pain. I don't get paid even for 25% of the hours I actually spend there and I often lose days off that month because the company schedules it on my off days. I'm away from home, losing time off, and getting paid next to nothing for it. Why on earth would I or any other pilot actually want to do the sim training? It's like going to the dentist or the doctor, I don't like it but it's necessary for my health.

We do in fact learn new things and change procedures all the time. Sometimes on a monthly basis. The scale, speed, and severity of some of these changes require some simulator training and a little more time to comply with them.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Maybe UA/CO beancounters determined that the cost of spot delays is less than the cost of SIM training?

UA/CO bean counters probably didn't factor in delays into their calculation. They are probably just like you and have no idea what is involved in airline training and just assume that this will work. Not the first time bean counters make horrible assumptions that end up costing the company far more money than they would save. Don't worry, management will come knocking and asking for concessions. Some one has to pay for their mistakes and it ain't coming out of their bonus checks.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 114):
Maybe that will change as more pilots are instructed to be confused (a "confused out" action, if you will)... I mean, as more pilots have real problems with the procedures and delay the flight for true safety reasons

Confused out? Really?  

Clearly you are so blinded by your hatred of unions that you've just ignored the numerous posts by pilots on here who actually know what they are talking about. By doing this the pilots are creating more work (with out big fat checks) and losing time off away from their families in order to be safe. But maybe they should just shut the heck up, deal with it, click through some poorly designed powerpoint slides, and hope for the best.

Although you'd be second in line (right behind the company lawyers) to throw the pilots under the bus if they break protocol for which they've had inadequate training.

Delaying SOC does absolutely nothing to help the pilots get a new contract, you can operate for years with out one contract. Just look at US Airways.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 119):
I have a tough time respecting people who file lawsuits that they have no chance of winning.

Yet you've offered no other course of action to pursue......

Talking to the company and going public have failed multiple times, again what else should they do?

Quoting catiii (Reply 125):
The FAA sets the standards to which any air carrier or other operator must adhere. They set these minimums because they are the criteria that provide the required level of safety.

Let's highlight the key term there minimum. That doesn't mean safe or adequate. Like myself and many others have said repeatedly over and over again is the FAA is designed to fix the last accident not prevent the next one. They are far too slow moving on their own to address industry problems. Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "the FARs are written in blood"

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 128):
It's on the autopilot vs the manual procedure we have been flying for years... and if they don't manage it correctly, the results could very well be catastrophic. Still comfortable?

Exactly I would want to at least see this demonstrated in the sim once so I know how the autopilot does in a micro burst and thus be able to identify quicker when it isn't performing as advertised. Seconds count in situations like this and I want to know exactly what it looks like. That is the difference between life and death.

There are some things you simply can't read about and do, you have to get in the box and try it out.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 128):
Do YOU personally want to be sitting in that seat knowing that the pilots are putting into practice a windshear recovery technique that they have NEVER seen, NEVER done, and only watched a computer video of?

   I'd like that just about as much as I'd like a heart surgeon practicing operating on me using a brand new technique after only watching a short video on it.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 130):
No offense, but you're very out of touch. Everybody HATES going to the sim. I MEAN HATES. HATES.

  

Quoting catiii (Reply 125):
When I see a "professional" on this board then I will defer to him or her.

Wow, you should try and cover your disdain for pilots a little better next time.

Quoting catiii (Reply 125):
I'd actually have a little more respect for him because he's putting his money where his mouth is.

oh maybe a "little more respect," but you'd still be calling for him to be fired

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-29 09:08:01 and read 4531 times.

Quoting norcal (Reply 132):
Talking to the company and going public have failed multiple times, again what else should they do?

As distasteful as it is, the answer may be nothing.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2011-09-29 09:24:38 and read 4497 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 133):
As distasteful as it is, the answer may be nothing.

And accept inadequate training, so they can go fly the line without having had an opportunity to practice changes to the way they operate the aircraft prior to putting passengers on board? Good call.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: rdh3e
Posted 2011-09-29 09:27:40 and read 4494 times.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 134):
And accept inadequate training, so they can go fly the line without having had an opportunity to practice changes to the way they operate the aircraft prior to putting passengers on board? Good call.

One thing I don't understand, how much danger are they really putting on people? It seems to me they know how to fly a plane. So that's a    , they always have the old procedures to fall back on. It seems that the real danger is to the Pilot's careers, not necessarily to life and limb. Not to say that it's the right thing to do to put your employees at risk of violating federal laws, it just seems like the actual operating risk is probably negligible.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-29 09:30:26 and read 4492 times.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 134):
And accept inadequate training, so they can go fly the line without having had an opportunity to practice changes to the way they operate the aircraft prior to putting passengers on board? Good call.

I'm not sure why filing a lawsuit that has no chance of success indicates that they do not "accept inadequate training," while simply exhausting the other options indicates that they do "accept inadequate training." It seems quite obvious to me that with or without the lawsuit, they are not accepting inadequate training.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2011-09-29 09:38:24 and read 4471 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 135):
One thing I don't understand, how much danger are they really putting on people? It seems to me they know how to fly a plane.

There is a lot more to being a professional pilot than simply flying the airplane. If all the job took was showing up, flying from A to B and going to the hotel, things would be different.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 135):
So that's a    , they always have the old procedures to fall back on.

It isn't that simple. What if one guy wants to continue to use the new procedures that are supposed to be used but the other guy is trying to go back to the old ones? Or what if the FAA shows up to ride along? If you aren't sure on the current procedures and they catch you trying to fake your way through or see you reverting to something you aren't supposed to use anymore, your day isn't going to go well. Admittedly, more of a career risk with regard to the FAA riding along than life and limb but all it takes is one windshear or microburst encounter to make risking life and limb very real.

But hey, why listen to the professionals you employ when they tell you the manner in which you are going about implementing changes isn't adequate?


Quoting rdh3e (Reply 135):
It seems that the real danger is to the Pilot's careers, not necessarily to life and limb. Not to say that it's the right thing to do to put your employees at risk of violating federal laws, it just seems like the actual operating risk is probably negligible.

And why shouldn't they protect their careers? Pilots at UA and CO have already invested decades in their careers, they have every right to protect them. I speak from experience when I say having your procedures changed without adequate training most certainly makes things less safe than they were. It took a lot for us to get what we felt was adequate training prior to implementing the procedures.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 136):
I'm not sure why filing a lawsuit that has no chance of success indicates that they do not "accept inadequate training," while simply exhausting the other options indicates that they do "accept inadequate training." It seems quite obvious to me that with or without the lawsuit, they are not accepting inadequate training.

Doing nothing is far worse. Allowing management to get away with procedural changes without proper training only opens the door to further changes without proper training.

[Edited 2011-09-29 09:39:15]

[Edited 2011-09-29 09:40:48]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: rdh3e
Posted 2011-09-29 09:41:24 and read 4464 times.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 137):
Or what if the FAA shows up to ride along? If you aren't sure on the current procedures and they catch you trying to fake your way through or see you reverting to something you aren't supposed to use anymore, your day isn't going to go well. Admittedly, more of a career risk there than life and limb but all it takes is a windshear or microburst encounter to make risking life and limb very real

Thank you for making my point. And if they currently handfly the windshear and microburst encounters, then they know how and it wouldn't be a safety risk.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 137):
And why shouldn't they protect their careers?

I didn't make a judgement either way did I? I was simply making an observation.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-29 09:48:53 and read 4453 times.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 137):
Doing nothing is far worse.

Why? What difference is there between filing a lawsuit that won't succeed and doing nothing? I guess filing the lawsuit allows people to feel better.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-29 09:51:41 and read 4445 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 133):
As distasteful as it is, the answer may be nothing.

Norcal answered before I could but what it does is set a precedent. You by you're own admission said that you don't agree with what's going on but disagree with the way in which ALPA is handling it; through the lawsuit. Well wrong, is wrong, is wrong. You may disagree with the outcome but it's their agenda and interests and I can't blame them. In the end, they will still be flying and SOC will be achieved but this needs to be nipped in the bud, quickly.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 135):
One thing I don't understand, how much danger are they really putting on people? It seems to me they know how to fly a plane. So that's a , they always have the old procedures to fall back on. It seems that the real danger is to the Pilot's careers, not necessarily to life and limb. Not to say that it's the right thing to do to put your employees at risk of violating federal laws, it just seems like the actual operating risk is probably negligible.
Quoting rdh3e (Reply 138):
Thank you for making my point. And if they currently handfly the windshear and microburst encounters, then they know how and it wouldn't be a safety risk.

I don't have a clue. Having two people in a cockpit performing different procedures is a VERY REAL danger, period. It is the basis of CRM breakdown. Do I have an ATP? No, not even old enough to hold one but i've been flying since I was 15, and have sat on both sides of the fence. Did enough Flight OPS internships to know that those not flying and those that are, share very different philosophies on what's safe and what's not.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2011-09-29 10:07:50 and read 4406 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 138):
And if they currently handfly the windshear and microburst encounters, then they know how and it wouldn't be a safety risk.


Hand flying doesn't do anything if the procedure is not followed properly, or if you have two pilots trying to do two different things.

I ask this out of curiosity, are you a pilot? What do you think hand flying will do?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 139):
Why? What difference is there between filing a lawsuit that won't succeed and doing nothing? I guess filing the lawsuit allows people to feel better.

It shows they aren't going to roll over and allow management to start implementing changes without adequate training.

[Edited 2011-09-29 10:08:51]

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-29 10:16:13 and read 4378 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 139):
Why? What difference is there between filing a lawsuit that won't succeed and doing nothing? I guess filing the lawsuit allows people to feel better.



You really don't see the difference? Doing something (whether you feel they'll succeed or not) is better than doing absolutely nothing. One thing my parents taught me was to stand up for what I believe in and above all else, SPEAK UP! Never heard the term "I doesn't hurt to ask"? At the worst, the answer will be no. Well at least you tried. By doing nothing, you absolutely know what you're answer will be.

Like I said, I know you feel this will go nowhere but i'd wait and see what the court decides.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Flighty
Posted 2011-09-29 10:36:33 and read 4342 times.

As simply a passenger (who looks at probabilities for a job), I am fine with qualified crew doing anything they like, within their certified parameters, for any purpose, including training. I figure they are good for it. =

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: mcg
Posted 2011-09-29 11:33:34 and read 4260 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 128):
Why the sudden and total shift in training philosophy? I'm pretty sure I know....

My advice would be to avoid speculating on anybody's motivation, it's irrelevant. Focus on the importance of operating the worlds largest (I think) airline safely. As a customer of UA and CAL I do appreciate the crews professionalism and skill.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: dutchflyboi
Posted 2011-09-29 12:37:32 and read 4209 times.

As reported today:

Pilots at United Airlines lost on Thursday in their bid to postpone the integration of flight operations with Continental Airlines, an essential step to completing the 2010 merger of the two carriers.

U.S. District Judge Sterling Johnson denied the request by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the union representing United's pilots. Johnson said ALPA had failed to prove its claim that implementation of revised flight operation procedures on Friday would pose safety hazards.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United...-merge-rb-1477899558.html?x=0&.v=1

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: TVNWZ
Posted 2011-09-29 12:41:27 and read 4191 times.

Cubsrule wins the argument.
-
-
-

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-29 13:09:32 and read 4137 times.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 146):

Wom, what? I know for me I said in two separate posts that i'm not an attorney nor do I understand the law enough to know if they had a case or not. My only argument was that I fully understand the situation at hand and that those trying to turn this into an us against them debate is illinformed.

I suspect that this will hurt one side more than the other. I'll let you take a guess.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: rdh3e
Posted 2011-09-29 13:18:21 and read 4123 times.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 146):
Cubsrule wins the argument.

Cubsrule wasn't arguing the validity of the pilots concerns, just saying that the lawsuit didn't stand a chance. He remained pretty neutral on the matter of the actual necessity of the training.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2011-09-29 13:33:55 and read 4090 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 148):

      Which is why i've held respect for the guy from the time I first started posting on this site. One of the more level-headed and partial members 

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-09-29 14:29:42 and read 4031 times.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 146):
Cubsrule wins the argument.

Maybe so, but given the unanimity of pilots in this thread that there are real safety concerns, it's sort of an empty victory.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: TVNWZ
Posted 2011-09-29 14:39:25 and read 4006 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 148):

Cubsrule won HIS argument.



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 150):

An empty victory is a victory none the less.

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: GreenArc
Posted 2011-09-30 12:26:02 and read 3664 times.

This is what UA management is doing to consolidate their court victory:

1) With the changes going into effect tomorrow, UA has shut down the Flight Safety Awareness reporting system for the weekend. FSAPs as they are called are THE avenue for reporting safety deficiencies and concerns to the governing authorities. This is the last line of defense if something should occur due to non compliance (intentional or otherwise) with new procedures/policies. Down for maintenance for 48 hours.

2) Requests by pilots for additional training have so far been denied: no pilot instructor sessions, no fixed base sim, or simulator training is available for those who feel they need it.

This is what the company's lawyer told the judge earlier this week:

Quote:
MR. SIEGEL: …One other thing. When there was some discussion
that perhaps some individual pilots thought they should have
additional training or different types of training to make
them comfortable, United Airlines said we will do that. Any
individual pilot who wants training in the classroom or
additional training on an individual basis beyond what the FAA
has approved and ordered could do so.

I think we can all agree there are concerns. Perhaps the TRO was a bad idea or simply destined to fail in the courts. But I wonder how the judge would view these actions?

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: xdlx
Posted 2011-10-01 04:53:59 and read 3430 times.

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 152):

ATTN ALL UA PILOTS REPORT YOUR FSAP GRIEVANCE DIRECTLY TO YOUR PIO

Topic: RE: United Pilots Sue To Stop Merger Integration
Username: sbworcs
Posted 2011-10-01 07:42:59 and read 3347 times.

Quoting GreenArc (Reply 152):
2) Requests by pilots for additional training have so far been denied: no pilot instructor sessions, no fixed base sim, or simulator training is available for those who feel they need it.

Is that your data, companies data or Unions data?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/