Federal Court Grants US Airways' Request For an Expedited Hearing On A Preliminary Injunction Agains

[Iclubbabyseals]

Good try and very true, but Lee doesn't say that pilot's cancel flights. A non-pilot example - a ramper driving the beltloader puts a hole in the side of an airplane, breaking stringers and ribs. MOC, considering all the factors, decides to cancel that flight. Did MOC cause the cancellation or did the ramper? Lee talks about pilot caused cancellations. In my hypothetical, if the company were trying to prove that rampers were engaged in an illegal job action, Lee would be talking about ramper caused cancellations.

Jim

Causation is very tricky. At what one in a chain of lapses does one pin a "cause"? From the "quality control" specialist who passes a marginal ELAC box to a supplier that accidentally drops the box (but it works) to the mech who installs the box improperly initially to, well, what?

The cancellation is "caused" by the deciding factor, in your case, MOC.

Unfortunately, in this environment and Mr. Parker induced blame game, finger pointing obscures the true nature of what is going on.

The pilot cannot "cancel" a flight. They can only refuse to fly the airframe. The company can always replace the aircraft and/or find another pilot.

I am reminded of the reserve pilot who was called to fly PHL-SJU-PHL in a 321. He stated that he needed a third pilot. Tempe refused and subsequently replaced him. As should be, he went to the FAA where they found the company in error, in fact, violating several pilots who actually flew the company proffered missions, aside from the company fines.

Look, I don't want harm to come to my co-workers. I just want tempe to abide by "the rules". Just like they expect us to do.

 

[nycbusdriver]

There would be a representation vote with status quo remaining until the results are published.

Dream on. If USAPA goes away, there is no provision in any law for status quo while the labor group holds an election. The group becomes non-union, and IF another CBA is elected, it gets to negotiate a "first" contract, as the group is coming from a non-union status.

How long do you think it would take Tempe to negotiate a first contract? What do you think it would look like?

I would expect the company to continue the pattern of longevity increases and F/O to Capt increases although it's certainly not guaranteed. But almost anything could happen.

Jim

I wouldn't expect anything. The company could simply impose LOA 93 rates and conditions on everybody.

They could rearrange the seniority list by date of birth, if they cared to. Captain upgrades to the biggest kiss asses. CM would be the top block-holding A330 captain in CLT.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Dream on. CM would be the top block-holding A330 captain in CLT.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Causation is very tricky.

Yes it is and that's precisely why I said that looking at the assumptions instead of the math was important. Some of those assumptions are in Lee's report (not his declaration).

However, "causing" a cancellation to me means determing which event in a potential chain resulted in the cancellation, not who actually has the authority to cancel. Getting a replacement aircraft, if available, is a part of MOC's decision making process - least cost and/or inconvenience to the least people. That decision making process doesn't make an airplane unflyable. The obvious assumption for cancellations, stated by Lee, is that a "control" time period (1+ years as I remember it) was representative of cancellations. Was it representative or was it a low point if looking at a longer period? What is meant by "pilot caused"? Presumably at least a maintenance write-up but anything else. Was a determination made about the validity of the write-ups? Etc. Usually being the last link in the chain when a cancellation occurs, pilots are easy to pick out as the "cause" but if all the cancellations were justified the increased number relative to the control period means nothing.

Which is why I said look at the assumptions and not the math. The math is undoubtedly a dead end for USAPA.

Jim

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

CM would be the top block-holding A330 captain in CLT.

They'd have to hire him as an "asst. cp" because too few would fly with him. Just like another. um. pilot.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Dream on. If USAPA goes away, there is no provision in any law for status quo while the labor group holds an election. The group becomes non-union, and IF another CBA is elected, it gets to negotiate a "first" contract, as the group is coming from a non-union status.

Technically true, but what are the chances that you'll wake up one day and find that USAPA disappeared during the night? Even more than the westies, you must think that USAPA is a scumbag fly-by-night outfi.

I would expect that there would be some warning and that could give time for filing a "investigation of a representational dispute" with the NMB, and that would give you status quo.

I wouldn't expect anything. The company could simply impose LOA 93 rates and conditions on everybody.

I'd remind you that even LOA 93 has (or continues at a reduced rate) pay scales with increasing rates for longevity. No airline with more than a handful of airplanes that I know of pays every pilot the same rate - even Mesa. Likewise with the different scales for captains and f/o's. Hence I'd expect that US would continue that. What the rates would be on each step of a scale is an entirely different question.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Bingo. As usual, you exposed his hubris, a money making tool if I ever saw one.

All he has to do is convince the judge, right or wrong. Perhaps his demeanor is more important that his supposed math skills? Proof might seem to lie in the profferers communicative skills rather than actual math skills. Lectures at real universities has led me to question where we as a society are going with this. Global warming is a great example.

Here we go again. The blame game starts. So if the company gets their injunction whose fault will it be? The incompetent stats guys who is more style than substance. The biased judge (oh wait this is in usapa backyard). Cheating unethical lawyer? The company bought off a federal judge? What will the excuses be?

I know could it be the east pilots are actually slowing down the operations and are really guilty of the accusations? Can't wait to read the excuses.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Here we go again. The blame game starts. So if the company gets their injunction whose fault will it be? The incompetent stats guys who is more style than substance. The biased judge (oh wait this is in usapa backyard). Cheating unethical lawyer? The company bought off a federal judge? What will the excuses be?

I know could it be the east pilots are actually slowing down the operations and are really guilty of the accusations? Can't wait to read the excuses.

Bear in mind that in legal proceedings the truth and the ruling are not always compatible. If that judge has a anti-union bias and the evidence comes down to a coin flip, the judge is going to rule for the Company. It's human nature. Having a case that is winnable on its merits is nice to have but it's not required to prevail in court.

No blame here, I honestly don't know how it will turn out. I guess we'll find out Friday.

 

[Jester]

Which is why I said look at the assumptions and not the math. The math is undoubtedly a dead end for USAPA.

Jim,

The methodology maybe called into question, as what was not said or explained would be an issue.

For example, I reviewed the research of Dr. Lee and I did not see any mention of a Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation, which might suggest an excluded variable bias in time series data. Normally, speaking one should expect a value of approximately 2.0 +/- .1. Of course, that assumes there are some excluded variables in the first place as the R-Square explains only between approximately 50 - 60% of the respective dependant variables. The degrees of freedom in the analysis are well beyond what is reasonable, but the inability to explain the remaining 40 - 50% of the dependent variables would cause concern given the extensive use of dummy variables in attempting to encompass day of week, electrical failures, de-icing equipment and the wide variations of rain, snow, wind, etc. I believe the analysis did mention the failure to include load factor, but I am certain that other issues could be included, for example, the age of the aircraft and aircraft type, as it is unlikely to see any West pilots pushing a B737 to CLT or PHL.

However, in reality, Dr. Lee is actually hypothesis testing the East pilots in various metrics before and after the May 1st breakpoint, and not attempting to explain or predict those respective dependent variables entirely. As such, Dr. Lee probably does not care if approximately 50% of the dependent variable(s) to be unexplainable. Assuming the Durbin-Watson test is found to be acceptable, it will be difficult to refute the conclusions, unless there is another variable which so happens to "move" in the same directions as the aforementioned East pilot metrics. For example, the East pilots only fly East planes, so how does Dr. Lee know it is not an issue with the planes and not the pilots, and the issue of multicollinearity becomes a critical factor and would void the entire analysis.

Personally, I would love to see the raw data which was used in an Excel download file and conduct some of my own analysis. I would expect USAPA to demand the raw data used for their own econometricians to parse over the results and attempt to interject some reasonable doubt to Dr. Lee's conclusions.

So Advises Jester.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation

You went over my head right there. I'll certainly bow to your knowledge of statistical methods and computation and freely admit that you've left me in the dust. I'll also retract my statement that Lee probably knows more about statistics than anyone here - you've shown to my satisfaction that that may not be the case.

Jim

 

[Jester]

You went over my head right there. I'll certainly bow to your knowledge of statistical methods and computation and freely admit that you've left me in the dust. I'll also retract my statement that Lee probably knows more about statistics than anyone here - you've shown to my satisfaction that that may not be the case.

Jim

Jim,

It isn't a difficult concept to understand, insofar it is the analysis of errors of the statistical model from the actual data. For example, let's say we have a simple X/Y chart with Time on the hortizontal axis and US GDP on the vertical axis from 1935 to 1945 (I choose those dates for a reason). Now I wish to draw a straight line through the data points which minimize the distance between the actual data points, and with some simple math, I can figure the equation for the line, and conclude that GDP grows with time. Ordinary Least Squares (regression analysis) attempts to do this same thing by minimizing the error between the actual data and the model through math equations which are far more complex with potentially hundreds of variables, instead of the two I am using in this example.

However, getting back to my example, I failed to include an important event while drawing my line... World War II? So if I was to draw that straight line, I would be over estimating the predicted GDP above the actual GDP prior to 1942, and then 1942 and later, the line would be underestimating the actual GDP relative to the predicted GDP. The errors are to be random if there was not auto-correlation, and thus, the next data point is just as likely to be above the model estimate or below the model estimate, thus when the errors are no longer random, then there is a very good chance of an excluded variable bias.

So what's the solution to the model and the line? Include a dummy variable where the war years from 1942 - 1945 would add an additional amount and the (no longer straight) "line" would notch-upwards and continue through those data points during the war years. I would expect and this is just a guestimate, my simple model in the example: f(GDP) = C + (Year * X1) + (War * [0 or 1]), where C is the Constant and X1 is the coefficient multiplier for each year, would have an R-Square of around 85% or better, be statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval with a Durbin-Watson of around 2.0, thus explaining all but 15% of the GDP growth during that limited time.

Dr. Lee's problem is that the Durbin-Watson test was unstated, and his statistical models fail to explain approximately 50% of the variation in the dependent variables being compared against. These issues can create doubt as to a possible excluded variable bias.

So Explains Jester.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

It isn't a difficult concept to understand

That's easy for you to say My math after the standard 1960's small high school courses (65 in my graduating class), didn't get much into statistics. Likewise with college where any sort of mechanical engineering involved using data from a reference book on strength of materials. I do sorta get what you say about concept, but the nuts and bolts is Greek to me.

Jim

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Dr. Lee's problem is that the Durbin-Watson test was unstated, and his statistical models fail to explain approximately 50% of the variation in the dependent variables being compared against. These issues can create doubt as to a possible excluded variable bias.

So Explains Jester.

Wow!

IMHO, I believe that one of his founding assumptions, that Express and Mainline aircraft would experience the same or similar changes, is incorrect to a significant degree, for several reasons.

One, the easy access to/from 18L/36R to the express ramp. A factor utilized by SWA to minimize taxi time. The less the taxi time, the less time there is to manipulate, if that is the pilot's intent. I likely missed it but perhaps the Dr. could factor in the percentage of Express departures north through south vs total, highlighting those Express taxi times that would be more likely to correlate with mainline. Also, I don't see that the broken concrete on the ramp and taxiway areas (from spot 7 around west to spot 2, taxiways M, E and F) impact Express operations all that much. Parts of E have been shuttered on and off for construction for the better part of a year, now.

As to the assertion that he is only comparing differences, the fact that Express stays clear of those above areas would tend to change the statistics. I have not been able to use 18L/36R for many months now for operational reasons.

There are other issues, when B3 through B9 simultaneously push, delays occur. Also when CLT, for some reason, put a 330 in B9, I think it is, blocking 7 and 11.

As with Jim, you just put me into the yellow/red on math and have to dig my old books out of the closet. Thank you. Sincerely.

 

[john john]

All this expert resource research has Glass and gang all over it
At a big cost $$$$$$ This is all about egos

 

[aquagreen73s]

Jim,

The methodology maybe called into question, as what was not said or explained would be an issue.

For example, I reviewed the research of Dr. Lee and I did not see any mention of a Durbin-Watson test for auto-correlation, which might suggest an excluded variable bias in time series data.

The data analysis here is not a time-series analysis. D-W has no bearing