220 Additional pilot retirements by end of October

[eolesen]

Dunno. Looks like an answer to me.

A station manager in the Caribbean once came into his annual budget review with Crandall, and said he needed to pay for a security guard to watch over the freight house because of after-hours theft.

Short version of the story... Bob told him to get a watch dog. The next year, he told him to make a recording of the dog barking, and then, to get rid of the dog.


Same thing here --- if stats show that the planes aren't breaking down as often (and statistically, that may actually be the case), then why staff the station with only a few flights a day?

 

[Bob Owens]

Dunno. Looks like an answer to me.

Not to the first question. But it's understandable that you didn't see it, all the mechanics and pilots know exactly what the question is and why he won't answer it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That question was superfluous - just an attempt to deflect focus to the messenger because the message was unpopular. For the sake of argument, say US pilots had been carrying minor items to maintenance stations. Then, unhappy with the lack of movement in contract negotiations had started a coordinated program of writing up those minor items where-ever the problem occurred, claiming that they were just going by the book as directed by the FAR's and company policy. Guess what - that's either an illegal job action or the pilots are admitting that they were violating the FAR's and policy before. So pick your poison - an injunction on the union (with fines if the behavior doesn't stop) or a violation from the FAA.

The moral of the story is that one should be very careful if partaking in an illegal job action, no matter how it's rationalized. No one is being fooled and the company does have the tools to punish those who choose to do that.

Jim

 

[Frank Szabo]

That question was superfluous - just an attempt to deflect focus to the messenger because the message was unpopular. For the sake of argument, say US pilots had been carrying minor items to maintenance stations. Then, unhappy with the lack of movement in contract negotiations had started a coordinated program of writing up those minor items where-ever the problem occurred, claiming that they were just going by the book as directed by the FAR's and company policy. Guess what - that's either an illegal job action or the pilots are admitting that they were violating the FAR's and policy before. So pick your poison - an injunction on the union (with fines if the behavior doesn't stop) or a violation from the FAA.

The moral of the story is that one should be very careful if partaking in an illegal job action, no matter how it's rationalized. No one is being fooled and the company does have the tools to punish those who choose to do that.

Jim

There's something I don't believe you're seeing here.

When AA got its collective tit in the wringer over the S80 wiring bundle thing, AA agreed to provide additional training for the mechanics, computer based. The theme was very simple - whatever you were doing before is immaterial - from this point forward, you WILL do things VERBATIM (a definition of the word was provided for the sheeple taking the training). The training was less than two years ago.

The training specifically addressed the normal shortcuts employed on a daily basis by anyone that's been doing their job for more than two weeks and said, in effect, "this stuff is verboten - no more." This particular computer based training is a part of every title one employee's record of qualifications as are many others.

In the past, as I recall, the only mention of following the manuals, etc., was in the required training for certificates. One was expected to know they were supposed to follow the books re: repairs.

Because of the additional training required for the mechs and such that mitgated the fine AA had to pay the FAA the company, in effect, demanded these rules, manuals, procedures, etc. and etal, be followed VERBATIM - it made no difference what people did before - "Ye are forthwith commanded to do everything per the company's FAA-approved technical publications."

If American's mechanics do as the company-mandated and company-provided training demands, how could that possibly be a job action in any sense when we have, in our files, proof of taking the required training that demanded we do things VERBATIM with said training spelling out, in no uncertain terms, the consequences of choosing to NOT DO SO?

Calling a "by the book" campaign a job action for not violation FAA rules and taking short cuts (after completing company-mandated training), a wonderful case could be made to excuse a mechanic for sitting on his/her butt doing nothing as either of the other options would land one in deep doo-doo, either with the company or the FAA. They can't have it both ways after the mandated training.

 

[eolesen]

Because of the additional training required for the mechs and such that mitgated the fine AA had to pay the FAA the company, in effect, demanded these rules, manuals, procedures, etc. and etal, be followed VERBATIM - it made no difference what people did before - "Ye are forthwith commanded to do everything per the company's FAA-approved technical publications."

If American's mechanics do as the company-mandated and company-provided training demands, how could that possibly be a job action in any sense when we have, in our files, proof of taking the required training that demanded we do things VERBATIM with said training spelling out, in no uncertain terms, the consequences of choosing to NOT DO SO?

By calling a "by the book" campaign a job action for not violation FAA rules and taking short cuts, a wonderful case could be made to excuse a mechnic for sitting on their butt doing nothing as either of the other options would land one in deep doo-doo.

Frank, had the time attributed to dealing with maintenance write-ups spiked *after* the VERBATIM directive from management, you'd have a point.

If the training took place two years ago, and suddenly there's a spike next month, then that line of defense really isn't going to hold up under the least bit of scrutiny by an outside party, be it an arbitrator, a judge, or even the FAA.

The judge and arbitrator will simply call it a slowdown.

The FAA will probably point to the evidence, and fine the company for not having followed their own directives for the previous two years...

 

[Bob Owens]

That question was superfluous - just an attempt to deflect focus to the messenger because the message was unpopular. For the sake of argument, say US pilots had been carrying minor items to maintenance stations. Then, unhappy with the lack of movement in contract negotiations had started a coordinated program of writing up those minor items where-ever the problem occurred, claiming that they were just going by the book as directed by the FAR's and company policy. Guess what - that's either an illegal job action or the pilots are admitting that they were violating the FAR's and policy before. So pick your poison - an injunction on the union (with fines if the behavior doesn't stop) or a violation from the FAA.

You still didnt answer the question.

So which did you do Jim? Violate the FARS on a continuous basis or report every item as they occurred? (Its really by when discovered which is the way around the FARs).


The fact is, as Jim and everyone else with a ticket knows that the FAA has rules, but on this issue they leave it up to the pilots to practice good judgement and nearly all do, but they didnt change the rules, they just operate under the same principle of as long as they dont know that a pilot waited to report a discrepancy they have nothing to act on. But statisticaly its impossible for the reported items going into a maintenance city to vary as much as they do compared to going into a non-maintenance city. Most would not hesitate to report an obviously dangerous discrepancy and have the carrier call in a field trip for repair even if it meant they got stuck there, however there are borderline items such as tires, leaks. lights, etc that could develop or contribute into something worse that are found on preflights and carried over for that final leg to a maintenence station on a regular basis. Anyone who has flown knows this, anyone who has worked on airplanes knows this as well. Technically these items should be written up as found however if that was the case then the carriers would lose millions of dollars because they would not only have to staff all those cities but stock them as well. We all know that the FAA will sacrifice a certain degree of safety for cost. The pilot bears the responsibility to make a judgement call and if negotiations arent going so well why not go "by the book" and absolve ones self of any risk? Is it truly a job action if that decision is always available to them, negotiations or not? Let the FAA change the rules to say that pilots are free to not report discrepancies as they find them.

 

[FWAAA]

Not to the first question. But it's understandable that you didn't see it, all the mechanics and pilots know exactly what the question is and why he won't answer it.

There's really no need to make everything personal, but many of us undestand why you do it.

There. Do you see just how uncivil that is? Is there really a need to be that uncivil to this forum's most civil poster?

When you still fixed airplanes, Bob (before you became a union local leader), did you pencil whip maintenance issues or did you fix them?

See, Bob - that doesn't further the discussion at all.

 

[Bob Owens]

There's really no need to make everything personal, but many of us undestand why you do it.

There. Do you see just how uncivil that is? Is there really a need to be that uncivil to this forum's most civil poster?

When you still fixed airplanes, Bob (before you became a union local leader), did you pencil whip maintenance issues or did you fix them?

See, Bob - that doesn't further the discussion at all.

No, not at all.

I fixed them, or placarded them as prescribed in the MEL. I never saw a need to whip things or try to convince a crew to take an airplane. I always felt it was my obligation to just deliver the facts as I saw them and let them make the choice. On occasion crews would demand that they wanted something that was placarded to be fixed under threat of not taking the plane, Ok by me, get my boss to tell me to fix something that can be placarded and I have no problem doing it, but the delay will be attributed to Flight and not MX. If something can be placarded and fixing it could result in a delay I'm compelled by FAA approved company regs to placard it.

 

[eolesen]

As exciting as this all is, what does it have to do with the anticipated 220 additional pilot retirements by the end of October?

It's not like there are a couple hundred other threads already dedicated to the perils of being a mechanic.

Is it possible we can abandon "Six Degrees to The Mechanics" and get back a little closer to the original topic?

 

[Hopeful]

As exciting as this all is, what does it have to do with the anticipated 220 additional pilot retirements by the end of October?

It's not like there are a couple hundred other threads already dedicated to the perils of being a mechanic.

Is it possible we can abandon "Six Degrees to The Mechanics" and get back a little closer to the original topic?

You know why there are so many threadys about mechanics, Eric?

Because there are a slew of posters who are not AA employees nor are they AA mechanics who are continually preach on this forum that is because AA does its overhaul in house is a major reason AA is at an economic disadvantage.


Why not preach the perils of SCOPE being we are in a pilot topic?

 

[Bob Owens]

As exciting as this all is, what does it have to do with the anticipated 220 additional pilot retirements by the end of October?

It's not like there are a couple hundred other threads already dedicated to the perils of being a mechanic.

Is it possible we can abandon "Six Degrees to The Mechanics" and get back a little closer to the original topic?

I asked a pilot about being a pilot. A pilot who was saying that if pilots write up items they may be guilty of an illegal job action. FWAA turned in a question about how I am as a mechanic, should I have ignored him? If I did you would cite the fact that I did, so, since my answer probably was not to your liking you complain about this turning into a mechanics thread, we still never got an answer for Boeing Boy. I'd like to see his answer, and I'm sure many of his peers that he now criticizes would as well.

 

[eolesen]

Ok, so what does discussing illegal work actions have to do with a pilot shortage induced by sudden retirements?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I asked a pilot about being a pilot. A pilot who was saying that if pilots write up items they may be guilty of an illegal job action.

Sorry, eolsen - can't resist when my words are twisted out of recognition...

OK, Bob - show me where I said that writing up legitimate maintenance discrepancies that need to be fixed or MEL'd before flight is an illegal job action. Heck, I didn't even bring up writing things up at outstations with no maintenance vs hubs - that was you and other defenders of "by the book" being a way to affect the operation and at the same time not be illegal.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

Ok, so what does discussing illegal work actions have to do with a pilot shortage induced by sudden retirements?

I didnt bring it up, saw it and responded.

 

[Bob Owens]

Sorry, eolsen - can't resist when my words are twisted out of recognition...

OK, Bob - show me where I said that writing up legitimate maintenance discrepancies that need to be fixed or MEL'd before flight is an illegal job action. Heck, I didn't even bring up writing things up at outstations with no maintenance vs hubs - that was you and other defenders of "by the book" being a way to affect the operation and at the same time not be illegal.

Jim

Mach 85 brought up write ups, or the lack thereof into non-maintenance stations. Nowhere was the distinction made as far as legitimacy, I think it was clear he was talking about legitimite items. Some may consider some items "nuisance items" but that does not make them illegitimate. You responded:

Which is what I basically said in one of these threads. If working to book slows down the operation or affects the historical pattern of write-ups, you're proving that either you weren't following the book before or are engaged in an illegal job action now. A lose-lose for the union.

Now you, as a retired 737 pilot (from looking at your avitar) more than likely routinely flew several legs into non-maintenance stations and odds are that sometimes you would discover discrepancies there. So was it expected that unless they were very serious and affected flight safety that you would wait till you went into a maintenance station to write them up? Did you ever have a situation where you found a serious item and was pressured into just getting it to a maintenance base? You still have not answered the original question, so I dont expect that you will answer these either.

I believe I made my point. You will not answer the questions because you will either have to admit that you bent the rules for the sake of the operation or lose credibilty amongst your peers who know otherwise. Not everything in the FARs is crystal clear, some things are open to interpretation and the question is what lattitude does a certified Airman have? If something is grey can they go with the more stringient interpretation and if they do 'bend" the rules for the sake of the operation and getting people where they need to be are they legally compelled to continue to do so? I would say they are not.

Like I think I already said, the FAA knows that statistically its impossible that all the items that get written up occurred on the final leg into a maintenance station but thats the normal trend throughout the industry. They will not say its OK to not report discrepancies as they are discovered but they wont question the practice either, why? Because it saves the carriers millions of dollars by not having to staff and stock every station they fly into with maintenance. Personally, I wish they would as it would generate thousands more jobs for us mechanics but we realize that the pilots will continue with the practice and use this to their advantage when they need to, so I say more power to them. Pilots should not be legally compelled to possibly put themselves at risk and bend the rules to save the airlines money. If the carriers dont like it then staff every station they fly into with mechanics.