Guest

Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Sun Mar 14, 1999 3:58 pm

Here in the US they are trying to create a passenger bill of rights which will make the airline pay for delays and stuff. But if the plane is delayed for mechanical reasons I would much rather wait 3+ hours and get the plane working 100% and not get any money rather then good anuff and be on time. Do you think this bill of rights for passengers will affect safety of the flight?
Iain
 
Guest

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Sun Mar 14, 1999 4:20 pm

YES. Not everybody understands that if something goes wrong on the aircraft it could affect the saftey of the Pax. People really make me mad when they think the are an expert in a feild, when they aren't. For example; I've seen and had it happen to me when Pax bitch about delays. If it wasn't for some of those delays, such as De-icing, they would be carried of the aircraft in a body bag or a shoe box. This Bill of Pasenger rights thing is crap. It's probably lobbied by people who know nothing about flying, but think thry do.
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Sun Mar 14, 1999 5:51 pm

This Bill of rights will not afect air safety in any way. If a system problem is caught by a crew during a preflight the item is written up in the AC MX logbook which voids the airworthiness certificate. That legaly grounds the AC. Now maintenance must fix the problem, and have it signed off by the FAA. Then the crew will only accept the AC if the problem has been remedied. I don't mean to sound insensitive but I could care less about the 200 people behind me. I'm the one who's going to hit the ground first. Pilots will not accept aircraft in O.K. condition. They will accept them in perfect condition.

The FAA may preflight the aircraft even before the crew gets there. If he spots something he waits for the crew to finish preflighting and then asks if their done. If you say yes and he found something you didn't your getting what is known as a "letter of Intent" that's in intent to prosecute. A fine or liscence suspension is usually the outcome. So believe me this will not hurt the safety of air travel.

Pilots are protected from the airlines by strong unions. So the pilots will feel no pressure about departing on time. Any delays that may occur are well documented by the ACARS system in use by the airlines today. Operations knows exactly what time that AC left the gate, and what time it took off. That info is sent electronically from the AC to opreations via sattelite. There will be no additional pressure on the crew to take a deficient airplane.
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Sun Mar 14, 1999 6:07 pm

JETPILOT is correct. The pilots could care less if a flight were to depart late. The pilots are the ones in the front end, and what ever is going to happen, they'll experience it first. Since they do not HAVE to have an on-time depart., they'd much rather have the problem fixed. They might be under pressure to 'overlook' a few things so the flight can get out on time, but if they botch the departure, they're covered from front to back by the unions.

fly777ual
 
Guest

RE Jetpilot/fly777ual

Mon Mar 15, 1999 2:00 am

Pilots care a lot about departing late. Also the union do not pay them the airlines do. Part of a pilots job is to get from A to B as cheaply as possible. Also it might not be a case of not getting the plane fixed but they could be in a hurry to do there checklist and miss or do something incorrect.
Iain
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: RE Jetpilot/fly777ual

Mon Mar 15, 1999 3:16 am

It's no skin off their back if they do depart late, though.

be sure to fly777ual
 
Guest

RE: RE Jetpilot/fly777ual

Mon Mar 15, 1999 3:30 am

Pilots hate getting of late even more then the passengers!!
Iain
 
Guest

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Mon Mar 15, 1999 3:53 am

my opinion is that its the airlines job to keep that planes working 100% in the first place.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Mon Mar 15, 1999 4:05 am

We can all thank John Dahlgren the CEO of Northwest Airlines for this. It was his airline screw up this winter that got all the passengers and Sen. John McCain ticked off at airlines. The newstory of last year was air rage. This year it is who badly the airlines treat is passengers.

British Airways 747 I get the feeling that you have never delt with unions before. If you are a member of ALPA then JETPILOT and fly777ual are quite correct. It probably will not be a lot of skin of their necks. If you are non-union either a pilot or ground crew. You can be sure that there will be immense pressures to depart with substandard equiptment. Either way when you start having multiple flights on a single day delayed you will start to see a lot of pressure build up especially when they start having to pay fines.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Mon Mar 15, 1999 4:16 am

I'm with our Speedbird friend here. It's all nice and well in the ideal world that it works like this. In the majors it probably is like this because safety is a big thing and the unions are strong as pointed out by Jetpilot. However, with the smaller operators, commuters and part 135 operators I think it may adversely affect safety. It's very easy to 'forget' to put this one item down in the AC logbook until after arrival at the end of the day. Those who think this doesn't happen probably have never flown for a living.

Anyone who still doesn't believe this should talk (confidentially of course) with a part 135 freight pilot (aka freight dog). They will tell you that commercial pressures are paramount and that if you don't make it in time without a real good excuse you will not keep your job for a very long time. They will take off in a less than 'ideal' situation if need be. With passenger services the emphasis may be more on safety but with these added commercial pressures things will not improve safety.

I also agree with Iain that pilots do care about being on time. I have seen pilots go into fits of rage because of delays with ground handlers and/or slots. This is the real world I'm affraid.
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: RE Jetpilot/fly777ual

Mon Mar 15, 1999 4:50 am

But they would rather have a problem fixed than take their chances.

be sure to fly777ual
 
Guest

RE: RE Jetpilot/fly777ual

Mon Mar 15, 1999 5:19 am

They might rush there checklists and make an error. And C-GMWW is correct abot the de-icing
that might be over looked and in you checklist you double check a lot of things flaps fuel selector and that might not have the attention it needs!
Iain
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Passenger bill of rights vs. Safety

Mon Mar 15, 1999 1:33 pm

Pilots do care about being on time. But we also like to be alive when we get to our destination. Items that may ground the aircraft but do not inherintly threaten the safety of the flight are written on the return leg. Of course I've never done this! An Item like an EPR guage being inop would ground an AC, but you can always set power by the N2.

This Bill of Rights would not affect 135 chartes, or freight companies. There is no more 135 schedualed service. Everything schedualed falls under 121. Freight pilots along with every other pilot will take off in less than ideal situations. But not illegal situations. The first thing a pilot looks out for is himself. I can't explain all the safeguards in the system but there are many such as departure weather minimums, FAA ramp checks for airworthiness, FAA cockpit route checks, and the pilots own common sense. If the plane isn't airworthy I promise it won't go.