Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Pilots:no Confidence In Training Management  
User currently offlinemaxthrusta330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14284 times:

For the first time it's history, Boeing has contracted out the line assist training that it is obliged to provide to its airline customers - to an offshore company based in the Isle of Man   

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...st-use-contractors-train-787-crews

Six weeks after unanimously voting “No Confidence” in the management of Boeing’s Training & Flight Services division, pilots employed by the company to deliver airplanes and help prepare customer crews to fly them have decided to go public with their displeasure with Boeing’s decision to hire contract pilots to perform 787 training.

According to the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA):

“What really pushed [the AMFA pilots] past the breaking point was when it was announced that the 787 work was going to be contracted out, and that customers were going to be getting trainers who had never even flown in the 787. That was such a degradation of standards and, frankly, a fraud on the customer, that the pilots couldn’t stay silent.”

If the airline customers were led to believe that bona fide Boeing pilots would be performing line assist, then I for one agree that the management of Boeing’s Training & Flight Services division has been shamefully deceptive and fraudulent in its conduct. This is a case of corporate arrogance gone to far - well done to the Boeing pilots for giving their management a dressing down   

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30551 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

By their own admission, AMPA does not have enough pilots available to perform the necessary delivery tasks, so I guess the expect Boeing to hold up customer deliveries?

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13933 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
For the first time it's history, Boeing has contracted out the line assist training that it is obliged to provide to its airline customers

1) This is not "the first time in it's history." Boeing has been using some contract and/or external training pilots for years.
2) They're not obligated to provide line assist training, it's something negotiated with individual customers.

Tom.


User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13821 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
By their own admission, AMPA does not have enough pilots available to perform the necessary delivery tasks, so I guess the expect Boeing to hold up customer deliveries?

Uh, gee, or hire enough people to do it?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30551 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13408 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Uh, gee, or hire enough people to do it?

They did just that through Cambridge Communications Limited.



It sounds like this is just more fallout from the 787 production and delivery delays. Perhaps Boeing needs the AMPA pilots to handle the pre-delivery Boeing and Customer test flights and can't spare half of them to assist the customers with their own training.

But those customers are not clueless, so they must be aware of the qualifications of the contract line-assist pilots. And as they have not raised a stink, I'm inclined to believe that those contract pilots have the qualifications that Boeing claims they do, even if they have not personally flown the 787 (as of yet - once the 787s arrive in those fleets, they should be able to get hours).


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1455 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13298 times:

(Potentially disconcerting) news for those who haven't been trainers: most of the "trainers" with whom you interact will not have done most of what they teach you. Training is usually accompanied by curriculum,one purpose of which is to provide a structured framework for knowledge of delivery. Most trainers are schooled in the curriculum and deviations from that curriculum may give them trouble, depending upon how knowledgeable and experienced they are.

There are even "train the trainer" courses in some fields, expressly written to equip a trainer with the knowledge and techniques they need to be an effective trainer, not an effective field person.

Professionally, I frequently provide "training" for problems which I've never solved. And I'm purely an "outsourced" resource, both from the client's perspective and the software OEM's perspective. In fact, I have no affiliation whatsoever with the software maker in whose product I profess expertise. Such training is effective because when a client asks for "training", they aren't really asking to have a problem solved, but rather to be equipped with both knowledge and modes of thought that make them better able to solve their own problems. Some of this knowledge is product features and best practices, and the modes of thought are usually specific to the technical field (or application) in question, such as multidimensional thought (as opposed to relational set-based thought).

Is it fraudulent to provide training on an aircraft you've never flown? Certainly not legally. Morally, I don't think it is either. I'm sure this comment will elicit the usual platitudes about how aviation really is different because people's lives are at stake or flying is inherently different from other jobs, blah blah blah. I offer my rebuttal right now: whatever.

What I would like to hear is what specific training objectives training would require a trainer to have actually flown the plane. Also, I would like to hear why these cannot be accounted for when the training is developed and when the contract is crafted.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm in favor of well-run unions, but this is a scare-mongering piece of garbage. One sentence explains everything: "They come as Boeing and SPEEA prepared to meet on September 13 over a new labor contract for the company’s 23,000 engineers and technicians."

The rest is a collection of key words to try and impress some of Boeing's customers and the public in the hope to gain an edge in contract negotiations. The reference to a contractor based on the Isle of Man is hilarious. Do they even know where it's at? Are we supposed to think this is the India of pilot jobs? The few pilots that live there are probably all high-time BA crews, a prime outsourcing market indeed...



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13077 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 6):
The rest is a collection of key words to try and impress some of Boeing's customers and the public in the hope to gain an edge in contract negotiations.


like the public and customers sit in the negotiations room .... I do see the union striking but from a less secure base than we had the last time... yes we had the element of shock that we dared, but do it too often and the company just schedules routine maintenance for 6 weeks. Also consider Boeing has now shown that the pilots can be easily replaced...so they will work on the engineering and tech staff portions of the contract.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11683 times:

I see this as just union posturing, on the part of SPEEA.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11452 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 6):

I'm in favor of well-run unions, but this is a scare-mongering piece of garbage. One sentence explains everything: "They come as Boeing and SPEEA prepared to meet on September 13 over a new labor contract for the company’s 23,000 engineers and technicians."

The AMPA pilots wouldn't be under that contract whether or not they were in SPEEA. SPEEA administers multiple contracts for multiple groups. This issue has nothing to do with current contract negotiation.

Tom.


User currently offlineYchocky From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10497 times:

Forget having pilots who have flown it, they just need one of these?



[Edited 2012-09-13 11:20:59]

User currently offlinemaxthrusta330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9568 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Uh, gee, or hire enough people to do it?

Exactly! It's not like Boeing didn't have enough lead time to recruit the extra manpower, given the numerous delays surrounding the 787's entry into service.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
1) This is not "the first time in it's history." Boeing has been using some contract and/or external training pilots for years.

You've misunderstood what I actually said:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
For the first time it's history, Boeing has contracted out the line assist training that it is obliged to provide to its airline customers

I clearly stated "Line Assist Training". If Boeing has contracted line assist training out before (which I doubt) then perhaps you could provide evidence to back up your claim.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
2) They're not obligated to provide line assist training, it's something negotiated with individual customers.

Yes, and if it is negotiated then by definition Boeing BECOMES OBLIGED TO PROVIDE IT...

The key issue here it that of customer commitments i.e. what Boeing has committed to provide, and how it differs from what they actually provided or attempted to provide. If Boeing promised to provide their customers with "Boeing" pilots for line assist training, and then tried to sneakily get the job done with contractors who have never even flow the 787 before, then that is nothing less than a despicable fraud and the entire Boeing Training & Flight Services management found to be responsible should all be fired.

The Boeing Company has suffered enough bad publicity on breaking customer commitments over the shockingly late delivery date of the 787 - what Boeing certainly doesn't need is a bunch of Training & Flight Services managers, who are cocooned away in their offices in Seattle, causing more reputational damage for the company by fraudulently breaking commitments to customers.

If anyone is still confused about the possible fraud that Boeing Training & Flight Services management has committed, here is the quote from the SPEEA:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):

“What really pushed [the AMFA pilots] past the breaking point was when it was announced that the 787 work was going to be contracted out, and that customers were going to be getting trainers who had never even flown in the 787. That was such a degradation of standards and, frankly, a fraud on the customer, that the pilots couldn’t stay silent.”


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30551 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 11):
If Boeing promised to provide their customers with "Boeing" pilots for line assist training, and then tried to sneakily get the job done with contractors who have never even flow the 787 before, then that is nothing less than a despicable fraud and the entire Boeing Training & Flight Services management found to be responsible should all be fired.

The CCL pilots appear to be "Boeing" pilots per Boeing's statement, even if they are not full-time Boeing employees, but instead contractors / contingent staff. I started my career at Boeing as a contingent staffer and I was considered no less a "Boeing" employee by the folks I worked with on behalf of the Boeing company as I was when I became a Boeing full time employee.

AMPA's argument appears to be that the pilots should have flight hours at the controls of a 787, not that they must. And there have been no reports of airlines with line assist training contracts with Boeing objecting to those pilots not having flight hours at the control of a 787. As such, I am inclined to assume that these contracts do not have that stipulation - or at least some of them do not, and therefore CCL pilots meet the contractual requirements.

So unless the contract states the line assist training pilots would have flight hours at the controls of the 787, a charge of Boeing acting fraudulently should not hold up.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2492 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9186 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 6):
One sentence explains everything: "They come as Boeing and SPEEA prepared to meet on September 13 over a new labor contract for the company’s 23,000 engineers and technicians."

That was my first thought as well. The local news reported the other day that the two sides were pretty far apart so maybe this is just more saber rattling by SPEEA?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7785 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 11):
If Boeing has contracted line assist training out before (which I doubt) then perhaps you could provide evidence to back up your claim.

The entity now known as Boeing Flight Services - Training used to be Alteon. Boeing spun Alteon off as a wholly separate business in the 2000's before buying them back a few years later. For the entire period that Alteon was its own business, Boeing contracted them to provide all training services, including line assist training.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 13):
The local news reported the other day that the two sides were pretty far apart so maybe this is just more saber rattling by SPEEA?

"The two sides" in this case does not include the AMPA pilots. The current contracts up for negotiation are the engineering and tech contracts.

Tom.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2973 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7749 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
The entity now known as Boeing Flight Services - Training used to be Alteon. Boeing spun Alteon off as a wholly separate business in the 2000's before buying them back a few years later.

March 10, 1997. I was there. It was then called Flight Safety Boeing International, otherwise knows as "Fuzzbutt" (FSBTI). It was a joint venture between Boeing and Flight Safety international in which the employees had to quit Boeing and show up at their same desks, doing the same job, for the new company at a lower benefit rate.

It was renamed to Alteon later. You know, when things aren't going well you change the name.

I'll just stated the facts and keep my editorial comments to myself, lest I get myself in trouble. Not like I have strong feelings about that situation or anything.........


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7683 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Uh, gee, or hire enough people to do it?

That's what they have done, it seems. This is a temporary situation, requiring "temps" contracted in.

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 11):
Exactly! It's not like Boeing didn't have enough lead time to recruit the extra manpower, given the numerous delays surrounding the 787's entry into service.

Doesn't matter. Try hiring a short-term union pilot in the USA. Try hiring a short-term union ANYTHING in the USA. Unless the profession in question is based on short period jobs, it's nearly impossible. It's also very expensive.

Boeing knows the number of full time, long term trainers it needs and will staff that number. Any short term demand needs to be dealt with externally via contractors lest Boeing face the wrath of "laying off" union employees once they are no longer needed...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinemaxthrusta330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7486 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):

The CCL pilots appear to be "Boeing" pilots per Boeing's statement, even if they are not full-time Boeing employees, but instead contractors / contingent staff. I started my career at Boeing as a contingent staffer and I was considered no less a "Boeing" employee by the folks I worked with on behalf of the Boeing company as I was when I became a Boeing full time employee.

Understand - a contractor pilot is not an Employee of the Boeing Company. Period. Also in this case, the contractor pilots have ZERO flight experience with the 787 - so they may be lots of things, but they are not "Boeing" pilots. If Boeing's airline customers were promised "Boeing" pilots for line assist training, and instead are now being given contractors with no flight experience on the 787 - then it is straight and simple fraud.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
Boeing spun Alteon off as a wholly separate business in the 2000's before buying them back a few years later. For the entire period that Alteon was its own business, Boeing contracted them to provide all training services, including line assist training.

You need to get your facts straight - Alteon was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...archive/2005/may/mainfeature2.html


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30551 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7231 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 17):
If Boeing's airline customers were promised "Boeing" pilots for line assist training, and instead are now being given contractors with no flight experience on the 787 - then it is straight and simple fraud.

I don't hear any of the current or soon to be 787 operators making a fuss about the CCL pilots, so evidently they were not promised this.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7134 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 17):
You need to get your facts straight - Alteon was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company:

If you're going to accuse me of getting facts wrong, I recommend that you read the facts you're citing. The article you linked to is entirely correct...Alteon was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company *since 2002*. From 1997-2002 (see Reply 15 for more details) it was not a Boeing company. Which was exactly what I said...Boeing spun off their training as its own business for several years, then later brought it back in:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 17):
Understand - a contractor pilot is not an Employee of the Boeing Company. Period.

That really depends on the structure of the contract. Boeing, like most large companies, uses direct contract labour all the time. Those people are correctly considered Boeing employees for the purpose of their relationship with the outside world (the only difference between contract and direct labour is how their pay/benefits are handled). However, if Boeing contracts with another company to provide services, and it's employees of that company that are actually doing the work under the umbrella of the contracted company, they would not be considered Boeing employees.

Tom.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7056 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
like the public and customers sit in the negotiations room

No, but they have phones to voice their concern with Boeing after reading this kind of report. Granted, Boeing is going to be far less impressed by the public (read investors) than by customers calling...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
This issue has nothing to do with current contract negotiation.

It wouldn't the first time that an union uses one bargaining unit to put pressure on management on behalf of another...

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 16):
Try hiring a short-term union ANYTHING in the USA.

Even at union shops, I don't believe that employment contracts have to be open ended. Can't they hire a few extra employees for a one-year period, for example? If that is what their contract stipulates, why would the union raise a beef over it? At least they collect dues, as opposed to contractors that do not pay union dues...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 19):
Those people are correctly considered Boeing employees for the purpose of their relationship with the outside world

"Correctly" by whom? Absent a court order, I'd say the final authority on this matter is the labor department, and for having been there, I believe their decision would come on the side of these trainers being contractors, not employees-almost-like-all-other-employees. How Boeing treats them is a factor, but not the only one by far.

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 17):
If Boeing's airline customers were promised "Boeing" pilots for line assist training, and instead are now being given contractors with no flight experience on the 787 - then it is straight and simple fraud.

It is highly unlikely Boeing promised in-house pilots, their lawyers wouldn't even have to graduate at the top of their class to know it's a bad idea. The time frame of these contracts is measured in years between the moments they are signed and the last aircraft covered is delivered. Years during which Boeing might decide that spinning off line training again may be a good idea, were it not for a contract they signed a few years back.

More than likely, the contract specifies the use of trainers that have been vetted, tested, trained and/or supervised by Boeing. At this point, what their exact relationship to Boeing is becomes moot.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6943 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
This issue has nothing to do with current contract negotiation.

It wouldn't the first time that an union uses one bargaining unit to put pressure on management on behalf of another...

True. Although, in this case, the AMPA group is a fraction of 1% of the size of the engineer or tech groups, so I don't think it's much pressure.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 19):
Those people are correctly considered Boeing employees for the purpose of their relationship with the outside world

"Correctly" by whom?

Customers. If you walk around a Boeing facility you will interact with people with blue badges and with black badges. Blue is direct, black is contract. If you call Boeing and ask for someone to help, you may get a blue badge or a black badge person and, from a customer standpoint, they're totally interchangeable. You will often have a mix of the two within the same group, colocated, doing the same work.

Tom.


User currently offlinemaxthrusta330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 19):
That really depends on the structure of the contract. Boeing, like most large companies, uses direct contract labour all the time. Those people are correctly considered Boeing employees for the purpose of their relationship with the outside world (the only difference between contract and direct labour is how their pay/benefits are handled). However, if Boeing contracts with another company to provide services, and it's employees of that company that are actually doing the work under the umbrella of the contracted company, they would not be considered Boeing employees.

To repeat - a contractor by definition is not legally an employee of the Boeing Company. Period.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 19):
If you're going to accuse me of getting facts wrong, I recommend that you read the facts you're citing. The article you linked to is entirely correct...Alteon was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company *since 2002*. From 1997-2002 (see Reply 15 for more details) it was not a Boeing company. Which was exactly what I said...Boeing spun off their training as its own business for several years, then later brought it back in:

You are changing your tune - lets have a look at exactly what you said originally:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
Boeing spun Alteon off as a wholly separate business in the 2000's before buying them back a few years later.

As Alteon was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company (since 2002) Boeing didn't buy them back as they already owned them! What subsequently happened (around late 2009) was simply a re-integration into The Boeing Company and basic re branding from Alteon to Boeing Training & Flight Services.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):

It is highly unlikely Boeing promised in-house pilots

I'm not so sure it is that unlikely. Boeing is by no means averse to making promises it can't keep - just look at the multiple false promises relating to the delivery dates for the 787.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I don't hear any of the current or soon to be 787 operators making a fuss about the CCL pilots, so evidently they were not promised this.

Neither do I (yet) but my guess is that there must have been grumbles behind the scenes by the 787 customers that the AMFA pilots are aware of, and are now coming forward about it. If the operators are genuinely unhappy about it, I don't think it will take too long for the likes of Akbar Al Baker to make themselves heard. At the end of the day it all comes down to what committment(s) The Boeing Company made to the customer.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6796 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 22):
As Alteon was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company (since 2002) Boeing didn't buy them back as they already owned them!

They bought them back in 2002. Not sure what's so hard about this.

They owned them from 2002 on. They owned them up to 1997. They didn't own them in between. For that entire intervening period they were not Boeing and they were doing Boeing's contractually obligated training. That was the whole point.

Tom.


User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6649 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 17):
Also in this case, the contractor pilots have ZERO flight experience with the 787 - so they may be lots of things, but they are not "Boeing" pilots.

Do all in-house, directly-hired-by-Boeing pilots have flight experience with the 787? If not, your argument is moot.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
More than likely, the contract specifies the use of trainers that have been vetted, tested, trained and/or supervised by Boeing. At this point, what their exact relationship to Boeing is becomes moot.

Makes sense to me... I've worked Temp contracts (nothing nearly so skilled as what Boeing is doing) where for all intents and purposes, to the end customer, I was an employee of the company they were dealing with. Was I "Legally" an employee of said company? No. But I was trained to do the job required in any and all capacities, so for the purposes of a contract some other company might have with the company I was assigned to, I was as good as an employee. As a matter of fact, that was the case with EVERY Temp position I've held.

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Reply 22):
To repeat - a contractor by definition is not legally an employee of the Boeing Company. Period.

But what's at question here is not Labor law, it's contract law. For contract law a temporary contractor trained to the same standards as a hired-in employee will be acceptable unless there is VERY specific language in the contract prohibiting such.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
25 jeb94 : Um...if I recall Boeing designed the 787 cockpit to have commonality with the 777 cockpit similar to the 767 and 757. If these contract pilots have 77
26 Hamlet69 : For someone who is accusing a (still) very professional, well-run company of: One would think you'd have more than: Your entire line of accusation is
27 BoeingGuy : The 777 and 787 are not the same flight deck. Nor are the 757/767 with the 777. The 777 and 787 flight decks were designed to be similar enough to ha
28 tdscanuck : Not initially. I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually. Tom.
29 Post contains images maxthrusta330 : That's funny Let's take (ANOTHER) look at what you said: By your own admission: Therefore, as Alteon was already wholly owned by Boeing (from 2002 on
30 Cubsrule : He seems to have misspoken about the spinoff date, but it was 1997. If you replace "the 2000s" with "1997" in the original statement, it's entirely c
31 tdscanuck : I got the sell date wrong (it was 1997). The buy-back date was, indeed, a few years into the 2000's: Let's not for get the original claim: They did.
32 BoeingGuy : As I stated earlier, Monday, March 10, 1997. I had the misfortune of being there at the announcement.
33 Post contains images maxthrusta330 : I've checked the link (http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/may/mainfeature2.html) and couldn't find anything to back up your claim. Per
34 dynamicsguy : From that link: and Since it states that Alteon has been wholly owned by Boeing since 2002, and it was established in 1997, by extension it was not w
35 tdscanuck : Bingo. Also, in case anybody want to jump on the "aha, a joint venture!" bandwagon, Alteon was a completely separate operating business; just ask Boe
36 maxthrusta330 : Dude if you want to interfere - at least make an effort to understand the context....geez. To illuminate you as to what you are actually commenting o
37 Post contains links mffoda : Here is the press release form Boeing regarding the JV in 1997... Don't know if it helps here? http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.9
38 tdscanuck : If you want to accuse BoeingGuy and I of outright lying, just go ahead and say so. It would be much simpler. Evidence has been provided, along with m
39 dynamicsguy : Mate, I understand the context. I've been reading the whole thread as it developed. How about you make up your mind what you're trying to prove with
40 BoeingGuy : Alteon was not Boeing owned. It was 49% owned by Boeing and 51% owned by Flight Safety. They structured it that way so they could make the employees
41 tdscanuck : And Tom would certainly agree with that. Tom.
42 mrocktor : Whenever the price is higher than a viable alternative, people tend to buy the alternative. This is the fact that unions seem terminally incapable of
43 BoeingGuy : The quality of training went WAAAAAY down after March 10, 1997. Customer complaints were even reported in one particular media article back then.
44 Post contains images bikerthai : I've worked with several contractors in my career at Boeing. From what I understand, the contractor works for Boeing as an independent contract (typi
45 Post contains images bikerthai : Some questions: Will the training be done in Europe then? If this is the case then I can see the business case. European airlines may decide to send
46 BoeingGuy : Great question. It wasn't the same people. Many experienced instructors left for other jobs within Boeing so they could stay Boeing employees. They e
47 bikerthai : So it would be interesting if a follow-up evaluation can show whether: 1) the service improved once some experienced was obtained by the new trainers
48 mrocktor : It is amazing how much organization, attitude and motivation can affect performance. This is definitely the other end of the issue. When accountants
49 CM : Like unions, airlines have their own motivations for making their complaints public. As hard as it is for some to accept, the motivating factor is no
50 bikerthai : Good insider info . . . clears things up a bit. bt
51 Post contains links and images maxthrusta330 : Which is what exactly, since you apparently have such a deep understanding? The central point of this thread is extremely simple: a number of BOEING
52 Post contains images CM : Did you really just say this in a post where you are demanding evidence for people's statements? Nice!
53 maxthrusta330 : You got it.
54 Post contains images bikerthai : LOL. I take SPEEA statements with as much salt as I trust statements from BOEING. Although I can not confirm or deny, I would venture to guess that s
55 maxthrusta330 : At least the SPEEA and Boeing employees (AMPA pilots) are CLEAR in what they ARE saying. The people who don't like allegations made by The SPEEA and
56 tdscanuck : OK, let's do that. The AMPA pilot's claim is false. Boeing does not have a 50-year practice of using only qualified Boeing pilots to provide training
57 Post contains links and images maxthrusta330 : Agreed. Alteon pilots may not have been legally employed by The Boeing Company, however they were all: Alteon were "Qualified Boeing Pilots" in the s
58 sweair : If there is a shortage of test pilots now with 3.5 frames a month, imagine when they crank out 14 a month like the goal is. Going for a 787 piloting l
59 Post contains links mffoda : Perhaps there is another reason why this article was withdrawn from the ainonline website? In your opening post you quoted that article form: (below)
60 tdscanuck : Maybe we're arguing at cross purposes here..."Qualified Boeing Pilots" can mean a lot of things. Do you mean a pilot who's trained on Boeing aircraft
61 maxthrusta330 : Libel and slander? Dude get real. Unless ainonline made the quote up (which I highly doubt is the case) what possible grounds would there be for a "l
62 tdscanuck : If that were the case, I'd agree. But there are two things to note...this has *nothing* to do with whether the pilots are contract or not (your origi
63 maxthrusta330 : You've clearly misunderstood my opening post, and it would also appear, the the central point this discussion. If you are not familiar with the meani
64 Post contains images bikerthai : As a clarification, can someone define what is involved in "line assist training" ? That way, we can understand whether it is really that important i
65 tdscanuck : It happens. For large carriers with in-house simulator and training facilities it makes sense to have Boeing (or whatever OEM) "train the trainers" a
66 CM : This is really just a red herring in the union piece. It's designed to get people excited who don't really understand the business and it clearly is
67 bikerthai : Which lead me to this chicken an egg question. With all the pilots doing flight testing, who did the training of ANA pilots? Did they get training fr
68 tdscanuck : Initially, Boeing trainers who didn't have 787 flight time (because nobody but test pilots and FAA pilots had it). Not initially. Later, as their pil
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airways Pilots Vote No Confidence In Management posted Sat May 24 2003 02:29:47 by Artsyman
Pilots Vote 'no Confidence' In NWA Execs posted Sun Jun 17 2007 00:04:39 by Xbraniffone
Mesaba Employees Vote No Confidence In Management posted Tue Feb 7 2006 21:25:51 by LUVRSW
Boeing Sees No Interest In 747-8I Upper Deck Sleep posted Tue Oct 31 2006 20:21:24 by NYC777
Any Airline Pilots With No Interest In Aviation? posted Fri May 23 2008 06:25:35 by LIFFY1A
Boeing 737-900 No Longer In Production? posted Thu May 1 2008 08:44:47 by Speedmarque
Northwest Pilots Vote `no Confidence' posted Tue Jun 19 2007 08:01:50 by Rsmith6621a
Boeing Expects No 747-8 Passenger Orders In 2005 posted Tue Nov 15 2005 16:38:27 by BestWestern
No Frills Pilots Ignoring ATC In The UK posted Tue Jun 18 2002 09:46:30 by Artsyman
Boeing-No Future In Europe?! posted Mon Jan 24 2000 22:23:36 by WorldTraveller