Response to USAPA ad in USA Today

[USA320Pilot]

Response to USAPA ad in USA Today – A Message from COO Robert Isom

July 22, 2011

Dear Fellow Employees,

By now some of you may have seen an advertisement in today’s USA Today paid for by our pilots’ union, USAPA. As you know, USAPA has been embroiled in an intra-union seniority dispute for several years and is also working to negotiate a joint contract. Those efforts have been severely complicated and delayed by their inability to resolve the seniority dispute, and because of this dispute, USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety. Today’s move is simply the latest in a series of misguided efforts to put pressure on the Company as part of those negotiations, and while we are disappointed that USAPA has chosen to use safety as a negotiating tactic, I can tell you unequivocally the union’s claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways.

Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline. On the specific issue that the advertisement focuses on, I’d note that USAPA’s account is highly inaccurate and its claims about the aircraft in question were wrong – it flew that day and performed flawlessly, and has done the same ever since.

Simply put, our safety facts stand for themselves:

•US Airways has just passed the International Air Transport Association’s highest worldwide standard for safety and security – the IOSA audit – with flying colors. This audit, the airline industry gold standard for safety, shows that we are in compliance in every safety area.
•Our safety team also knows how well we are doing on all safety measurements. Our Flight Safety Index, which measures how we’re doing in all areas, is at the highest level in the history of the company. Aircraft damages are 50% better than industry average, and deferred maintenance items are at an all-time low.
•The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has cited US Airways as the model for other airlines to follow with our significant investment of time and resources into the voluntary Safety Management System (SMS) program. We are one of only two airlines to implement SMS in every area of the airline. We also are the first U.S. airline to have our SMS program validated by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

That exemplary record is due to you – the 32,000 outstanding aviation professionals of US Airways who put safety first every day. Please keep that focus and don’t be dissuaded by the misguided and outdated negotiating tactics of a labor union. We will continue to work with USAPA to get to a joint contract, but as they well know, they must resolve their internal seniority dispute before that can happen. We are attempting to facilitate that effort, but expect it will take some more time. In the meantime you will likely hear more defamatory and baseless language from USAPA, but please consider the source and keep doing your jobs in the exceptionally professional and safe manner that you always have.

We have a great team of aviation professionals at US Airways and I am proud to work with you. Thank you very much for all you do and please keep up the great work.

Robert

 

[USA320Pilot]

Follow-up to USAPA ad in USA Today

July 22, 2011

Earlier today we issued a communication related to an ad by the pilot’s union, USAPA, that ran in USA Today. We also felt that the following statement by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding the incident mentioned in the ad, would be informative for employees:

The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and that they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator’s approved maintenance program. We found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.

 

[Jester]

Follow-up to USAPA ad in USA Today

Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied.

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times every summer I have assisted in an air-start due to a bad APU, especially during the desert heat in excess of 110 degrees. Am I mistaken in understanding that jets 50 years ago did not have an APU, and thus, all flights required an air-start?

Unfortunately, "work safe" has the understood meaning of "work slow" around the ramp, and that backlash towards management appears to have infected the flight deck, as well.

So Parallels Jester.

 

[Phoenix]

So, why not come out and speak plainly?

Did the aircraft require maintenance under the circumstances to be safe for THAT scheduled flight? Yes or no? And why did the company tell us about everything else under the sun except THAT?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Am I mistaken in understanding that jets 50 years ago did not have an APU, and thus, all flights required an air-start?

I think you are correct. The Boeing 707/720 did not have an APU, and I don't think any of that first-generation airliner from Douglas and Convair had one, either. The Boeing 727 (debuted in 1963) was the first Boeing airliner to have an APU which could start the engines.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

The mighty DC-8 did, too. Even the Super 70 conversion did not have an APU.



Getting back to the subject (not that I mind discussing first generation jets), how accurate is the account? The part about the Captain being escorted off seems very odd. Not that odd things don't happen>

 

[nic4us]

The mighty DC-8 did, too. Even the Super 70 conversion did not have an APU.



Getting back to the subject (not that I mind discussing first generation jets), how accurate is the account? The part about the Captain being escorted off seems very odd. Not that odd things don't happen>

Rumor has it, that the Captain was removed from premises, not for her refusal to fly the jet, but for her over the top rants on the A/C PA, followed by her similarly manic display on the gate PA once inside the terminal. That is why it seems odd.

usapa is only telling a very small portion of the story, and they are only telling the part that fits into legitimizing their illegal job action.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Rumor has it, that the Captain was removed from premises, not for her refusal to fly the jet, but for her over the top rants on the A/C PA, followed by her similarly manic display on the gate PA once inside the terminal. That is why it seems odd.

Interesting. And plausible. Not to dismiss the rumour, but if the ATC rant was really wild, it should have made liveatc.net. And if the gate PA was crazy, some passenger would have recorded with a cell phone and put on youtube.

 

[Phoenix]

Interesting. And plausible. Not to dismiss the rumour, but if the ATC rant was really wild, it should have made liveatc.net. And if the gate PA was crazy, some passenger would have recorded with a cell phone and put on youtube.

The issue isn't the entertaining distraction. I could care less if pilots were taken away in straight jackets after having a nervous breakdown over being forced to choose between flying what they believed to be an unsafe flight or being threatened with termination and arrest. If I were a passenger on that plane I would have considerable skepticism about employees trying to shut the door and kick us off the gate while they saunter over to Starbucks while we hurl ourselves into the great expanse hovering over the Titanic. When employees fight about safety ya gotta ask who has skin in the game.

The issue is whether or not the Captain and other pilots were pressured to fly a plane that required and eventually received maintenance before flight. Years ago I had a bigwig management type show up and pressured me and the crew to change our mind to fly. Frankly the operation has by definition entered the red zone when management swoops onto the scene and starts to imply your job might be on the line if you disagree and cause a delay for their Starbucks break.

 

[Phoenix]

Rumor has it, that the Captain was removed from premises, not for her refusal to fly the jet, but for her over the top rants on the A/C PA, followed by her similarly manic display on the gate PA once inside the terminal. That is why it seems odd.

usapa is only telling a very small portion of the story, and they are only telling the part that fits into legitimizing their illegal job action.

Was she wearing a rain coat or was her kid right there by her side due to the unavailability of child care? Just saying you have to look at all the mitigating circumstances. B)

 

[767one]

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times every summer I have assisted in an air-start due to a bad APU, especially during the desert heat in excess of 110 degrees. Am I mistaken in understanding that jets 50 years ago did not have an APU, and thus, all flights required an air-start?

Unfortunately, "work safe" has the understood meaning of "work slow" around the ramp, and that backlash towards management appears to have infected the flight deck, as well.

So Parallels Jester.

When things start to go bad on the ground the best thing you can do is slow down in order to allow you to complete required tasks without rushing. Sad to say the boarding, servicing process has become more like nascar than an airline with speed being the main concern. One problem I have run into is that you get a late start due to the aircraft coming in late, or from the hangar late and things continue to go downhill from there, catering problems, fueling problems, aircraft cleaning, maybe a maintenance problem and an agent wants to close the door. When you tell the agent you are not ready to close then more than likely you have his boss, in your face asking you what your problem is and interrupting your flows and checklists thereby making you later.If the pilots tell an agent they are not ready to close that should be the end of the discussion at that point. If the CP wants to know why we were late he can call me later and I'll be happy to explain.


Regards,


Bob

 

[ContUNITEus]

After reading all the surrounding articles, I have to reiterate that America West management running this airline is corrupt, you either conform or you're out. We're dealing with scumbags here. Keep that in mind.

The fact that they have to publish so vigorously a defense in all other departments [taunting the supposed safety RECORD?] suggests that they are trying to pin the other work groups against the pilots. What a waste of resources....

 

[A320 Driver]

Deleted for lack of interest.

 

[Res Judicata]

When things start to go bad on the ground the best thing you can do is slow down in order to allow you to complete required tasks without rushing. Sad to say the boarding, servicing process has become more like nascar than an airline with speed being the main concern. One problem I have run into is that you get a late start due to the aircraft coming in late, or from the hangar late and things continue to go downhill from there, catering problems, fueling problems, aircraft cleaning, maybe a maintenance problem and an agent wants to close the door. When you tell the agent you are not ready to close then more than likely you have his boss, in your face asking you what your problem is and interrupting your flows and checklists thereby making you later.If the pilots tell an agent they are not ready to close that should be the end of the discussion at that point. If the CP wants to know why we were late he can call me later and I'll be happy to explain.


Regards,


Bob

Are all of you such weak leaders that ANY of this actually causes you problems? No wonder the mentally weak Captain had to be escorted from the gate. If I'm not ready, I don't go. It is just that simple. That concept hasn't ever given me one second of heart burn. It's called being in Command. It's in the job description. If it's too hard. Leave. Mental frailty is not something you can simply MEL. The Company did the RIGHT thing in removing the hysterical, ranting lunatic.

 

[ContUNITEus]

SAFETY FIRST AT US AIRWAYS? YEAH???

The US Airways operation can at times prevent employees even the basic rights such as having a few minutes to a meal. If you try to explain that as a living being you need nutrition after working none-stop for six hours, they will come back with a line like this one given by one of my supervisors: "We are not saying that you cannot eat on a 14 hour duty day where your breaks wound up gone due to the late operation, we are just gonna hold you accountable for not turning that late plane back around ON-TIME."

This is America West....

The thing is that if the pilot would have went and something would have went wrong, then the company would still put the full responsibility on her, blaming her for her lack of sense of safety. You are damned if you don't follow the rules, and damned if you do. US management eloquently manages to always twist things around.