220 Additional pilot retirements by end of October

[wrencher]

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:






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.

Well we had mechanics staffed at MCI and the twu with the company got rid of us. I get confused not really the twu and the company got rid of us here in Kansas City spread us out all over the system now you are tallking about staffing those stations with mechanics or maybe you mean all other stations except MCI

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

He probably was, but as I've explained US uses an FAA approved CML for nuisence items. There could be 10 items in there but a pilot is perfectly legal to continue flying the airplane. So if a pilot puts one of those in the airplane log book it has to be signed off. Is that an illegal slow down action?

As far as legitimate items, you make my point - going "by the book" and writing up legitimate items when/where they occur could result in delays/cancellations if pilots had been carrying minor legitimate discrepancies to maintenance stations. So if pilots suddenly stop carrying those items they're admitting that they weren't following the book before - guilty of violating the FARs and company procedures. Having the union held liable for an illegal job action is probably preferable to the other possibility - losing the job for breaking the FAR's and company policy before.

Of course, you ignore all the other claims that US made against the East pilots - waiting to call in legitimate write-ups till just before departure to cause delays/cancellations, taxing slower, writing up CML items, delaying completion of required on-line training to be illegal for their trip, etc. - which have nothing to do with carrying discrepancies. The company can say, as they undoubtedly would if an injunction is issued, that legitimate discrepancies should absolutely be written up where/when found (within the latitude that pilots have to write them up after landing). But stop the other illegal job actions or the union will face fines. So stop fixating on carrying things to a maintenance station since that wasn't one of US' charges. US is not charging anything I may or may not have done 5 or more years ago, but back then there weren't the seniority legal battles and stalled contract talks. There wasn't a spike in delays/cancellations/late arrivals that occurred beginning on a specific day.

That's the last I'm going to say on the matter. Keep stewing if you wish.

Jim

 

[Buck]

Well we had mechanics staffed at MCI and the twu with the company got rid of us. I get confused not really the twu and the company got rid of us here in Kansas City spread us out all over the system now you are talking about staffing those stations with mechanics or maybe you mean all other stations except MCI

If the company ever decides to restaff MCI, you can believe that you will get $12,500 to relocate.....

 

[wrencher]

If the company ever decides to restaff MCI, you can believe that you will get $12,500 to relocate.....

I retracted my comment it does not belong on this topic

 

[Super FLUF]

Another 129 left Oct. 1st. Short of the 220 that was predicted. However, the Nov. 1st number may be higher, as those retirees can still lock in on the end of July B-fund value.

B fund unit values:
June $92.829
July $90.809
Aug. $84.311

Waiting until Nov. 1st gives fence sitters an extra month to decide whether or not to leave. It also gives them an extra month to increase their A-fund multiplier.

Obviously, waiting until December would be foolish, as the B-fund unit value drops precipitously. Not only that, but should AA declare BK, the A-fund lump sum option would vaporize.

As you may have read, AA has said that these retirements would cause "minimal" disruption to the schedule. Dozens of widebody captains leaving, hundreds of training cycles initiated, but everything will be fine and dandy. Nothing to see here.....move along.....

 

[Mach85ER]

And yet AA has asked APA for relief.

Appears to be not going well amongst the angry villagers.

 

[Super FLUF]

Pilots now bailing mid-sequence. A few have gone at age 60 (on their birthday) in the past couple of days.

VERY SMART COOKIES. Here's why -

Age 60 is considered "normal retirement" by the company. Normal retirement gets paid the first business day of the next month, so any guy bailing today would get his payment November 1st.

"Non-normal" retirements have a 60 day waiting period to get their money, so the October 1st early or late retirements have to wait 60 days and will not be paid until Dec 1st.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

And yet AA has asked APA for relief.

Appears to be not going well amongst the angry villagers.

AA has asked for relief because the size of the retirements has been so unusual.

If the APA wants a functioning airline for its members to fly with in the years to come, they'll make a deal or fold one into a new contract pronto. I'm always amazed at how some groups seem bound and determined to work against their self interest.

 

[jimntx]

AA has asked for relief because the size of the retirements has been so unusual.

If the APA wants a functioning airline for its members to fly with in the years to come, they'll make a deal or fold one into a new contract pronto. I'm always amazed at how some groups seem bound and determined to work against their self interest.

Oh, well of course you would jump to the conclusion that the union is the bad guy here, and the company is like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error. As a matter of fact, the union would LOVE to "make a deal and fold it into the new contract pronto." It is the company that is trying to get the union to sign another side LOA which will bypass the current contract's restrictions on pilot hours and "we'll get to the new contract later." The company has been using this approach for the last 3 or 4 years to avoid negotiating in good faith with ANY of the unions.

So far this time, the union has taken the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me" approach. If the company wants pilots to fly additional hours, and the company wants pay rates for the new equipment that is on order, they KNOW what they can do--come to an agreement with the APA on a tentative agreement for a new contract. So very simple.

 

[flyastrojets]

Could a deal be near?

From DMN