And of course you know firsthand what is happening with all ~1200 mainline flights a day, every day. Such is your omnipotence...
Jim
blah, blah, blah. It's so easy, even a dried up old retired pilot could do it........waiting.
Triple Play for September Metrics
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
blah, blah, blah. It's so easy, even a dried up old retired pilot could do it........waiting.
Yet you apparently CAN'T do it...
Jim
What's wrong Jim? I have bowed to you as the "numbers King". For you, it should be so easy to probe me wrong. Go for it. Master.
You have to forgive me for declining the invitation to probe you...either the right or wrong way...I don't swing that way...
Jim
Damn it! I hate it when I give you an easy out with my inferior tying and proof reading skills. PROVE, how's that?
Yeah, that inferior tying will get you every time...
(here's a hint - don't use slipknots)
Jim
You are good! Okay, back to the numbers..........
OP
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #23
"Since an injunction prohibiting a pilot slowdown became effective at the end of September, we have experienced improvement in all performance metrics."
"Our on-time arrivals performance was a respectable 80.7 percent and was our second best in 2011, however, we’re seven points behind last September’s performance."
"While our baggage performance is recovering from a challenging summer, our September third place ranking is not where we want to be."
"We improved our customer satisfaction raking, moving up to third place for the first time since May, but our complaint ratio is still worse than last year as our customers continue to express displeasure with the declines in our performance."
"Robert Isom"
Now, Pie, what were you saying about improved performance before the injunction was issued...
Jim
"Our on-time arrivals performance was a respectable 80.7 percent and was our second best in 2011, however, we’re seven points behind last September’s performance."
"While our baggage performance is recovering from a challenging summer, our September third place ranking is not where we want to be."
"We improved our customer satisfaction raking, moving up to third place for the first time since May, but our complaint ratio is still worse than last year as our customers continue to express displeasure with the declines in our performance."
"Robert Isom"
Now, Pie, what were you saying about improved performance before the injunction was issued...
Jim
"Since an injunction prohibiting a pilot slowdown became effective at the end of September, we have experienced improvement in all performance metrics."
"Our on-time arrivals performance was a respectable 80.7 percent and was our second best in 2011, however, we’re seven points behind last September’s performance."
"While our baggage performance is recovering from a challenging summer, our September third place ranking is not where we want to be."
"We improved our customer satisfaction raking, moving up to third place for the first time since May, but our complaint ratio is still worse than last year as our customers continue to express displeasure with the declines in our performance."
"Robert Isom"
Now, Pie, what were you saying about improved performance before the injunction was issued...
Jim
Jim, Jim, Jim. If only your could use your acknowledged analytical skills for good instead of being a complete tool.
Let's review, shall we? This is what I said:
"Did anyone notice that the #s were getting better BEFORE the injunction, and the CLT's #s have improved since 36C reopened? Shocker!"
Nothing you posted counters that, does it. Just because we are not where Mr. Isom wants to be does not mean the numbers weren't improving before the injunction, now does it? If you won't take my word for it, would you take a management pilot's? Cause that's where I first got it! Before the injunction came out I went in to see how one of the ACPs was doing with a medical problem and ran into one of the new ones I'd never met. Seemed like a nice guy, it was a quiet Sat. morning and we had a good chat about what was going on. He agreed with me that it was a few pilots that were slowing down. As a matter of fact Isom said the same thing after the injunction and the USAPA hardliners were pissed because of it! I asked him how things were going, and he said they had already settled down. I looked at a few past US Daily's and yep, he was right except that CLT still really lagged the other hubs, but 36C and a lot of taxiways were still closed.
So, the company knew it was a small group combined with bad wx and CLT construction that caused the problem, yet they decided to use the A bomb anyway. I think that was a mistake. You can force people to not slow down, but you cannot force them to give a #### and with an airline you really need for your employees to give a ####.
Harry Callahan
Veteran
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
The data the company presented in district court was adjusted for weather and construction issues and it still showed a substantial effort was underway to harm the company and its customers and employees. No one ever said it was an effort by all of the pilots or even a majority of the pilots (or east pilots for that matter). It only takes a small percentage of pilots engaging in illegal slowdowns to cause significant harm to airline operations.
Furthermore, Management notified USAPA multiple times and urged them to notify their members to cease and desist from the illegal work campaign. USAPA did nothing and instead launched a trumped up- safety campaign and even filed a status quo law suit in NY to further drive a wedge between labor and Management relations. USAPA engaged in, supported, and/or failed to halt a costly and disruptive illegal work action and you want to blame Management for using an "A bomb" to ensure the harm being done by some east pilots was brought to an end? USAPA was escalating their efforts with the intentional training delays and threats and intimidation of pilots to compel them to help in the illegal action. The company was perfectly justified in seeking the injunction and it would seem that judge Conrad was convinced that real, measurable harm was brought by USAPA and the east pilots and he responded in a fully appropriate manner.
BTW, when was the last time you recall seeing a post about safety concerns on this board? In the months leading up to the injunction there were deafening cries of systemic safety issues and pilots pretending to be concerned that they were being forced to fly an unsafe AC. We heard that Management only cared about making money and they were, by implication, perfectly willing to risk an avoidable catastrophe because it was profitable for them to do so. Soon after the injunction was issued the cries over safety dropped to zero. Suddenly this big scary issue went away with the injunction fully in place. Seems odd doesn't it? It's almost like there this was just a phantom issue to scare people and make USAPA look credible.
It seems perfectly logical that the operational performance would begin to improve between the time the company filed their request for relief and when the injunction was actually issued. Those pilots that were supporting USAPA's call for a work action soon discovered that Management had more data than they were aware of and that Management could identify specific flights and flight crews who were responsible for the degraded performance. At that point only the hard-core USAPA zealots were continuing their illegal conduct right up until the injunction was official. Those less committed to the cause who could see the handwriting on the wall probably tucked their tails and returned to normal, legal conduct. None of this would have happened absent the "A bomb" as you call it. It's time to stop blaming Isom for doing his job of running a safe, reliable operation that generates profit for the company. If he just stood back and said, "well, pilots will be pilots and there's nothing I can do about it", then his job would rightly be in serious jeopardy. Fortunately Isom is not a guy to play illegal labor games with; he knows how to win and he dealt USAPA a debilitating defeat far worse than what those "few" east pilots thought they were giving to the company.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
An injunction has a way of stifling free expression. ANY pilot employed by US Airways would be a fool to comment on safety issues in a public forum such as this. IP Addressees can be traced and identities found relatively easily. This is yet another example of Management by Fear and Intimidation.
Should certain pilots have engaged in what was proven to be an illegal job action? NO, they shouldn't have. However for me the question is why is government regulating Labor Relations? You talk about the intrusion of the Federal Government when it goes against the agenda set forth by the Tempe Clown Posse, yet you use that same intrusive Federal Government to accomplish what you can't accomplish at the bargaining table.
Let me see if I have this right.
According to you in US Airways v McCutchen, the Federal Government was intrusive and overstepped its boundaries as set forth in the COTUSl by ruling in favor of Mr McCutchen a case that IMO Stevie Wonder could see US Airways naked greed.
So now we travel back in time to US Airways using the very same Federal Court System to seek an injunction from the very same intrusive Federal Government to squash a Labor dispute. Where in the COTUS is this action sanctioned?
See Mr Golf it isn't and like a good Neo-Con Republican you want the deck stacked in your favor at all times. True Freedom & Liberty means no RLA, NMB or any of the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies created to regulate Labor/Management disputes.
You can't have it both ways. A bit hypocritical on your part don't you think?
Should certain pilots have engaged in what was proven to be an illegal job action? NO, they shouldn't have. However for me the question is why is government regulating Labor Relations? You talk about the intrusion of the Federal Government when it goes against the agenda set forth by the Tempe Clown Posse, yet you use that same intrusive Federal Government to accomplish what you can't accomplish at the bargaining table.
Let me see if I have this right.
According to you in US Airways v McCutchen, the Federal Government was intrusive and overstepped its boundaries as set forth in the COTUSl by ruling in favor of Mr McCutchen a case that IMO Stevie Wonder could see US Airways naked greed.
So now we travel back in time to US Airways using the very same Federal Court System to seek an injunction from the very same intrusive Federal Government to squash a Labor dispute. Where in the COTUS is this action sanctioned?
See Mr Golf it isn't and like a good Neo-Con Republican you want the deck stacked in your favor at all times. True Freedom & Liberty means no RLA, NMB or any of the rest of the alphabet soup of agencies created to regulate Labor/Management disputes.
You can't have it both ways. A bit hypocritical on your part don't you think?
See Jim, CG agrees with me!
As for the rest, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it even though I disagree quite a bit.
As for safety, if you will recall I said that we were not an unsafe airline but I did see a safety culture problem developing. A "do as you're told and if we want your opinion we will give it to you" attitude. I still see that and think the injunction might strengthen it. There have been some improvements. The 767s are getting SATCOM after many management and westies said for so long it was unnecessary. I haven't seen a press release lately blaming a fumes event on labor issues. On that topic, I had my first know fumes event after the injunction came out. Guess how I handled it? And remember all those posts from westies belligerently denying the fumes events? I just read a good update from........the PHX REPS about it. Huh. Believe it now?
We have an injunction in place. Could that have anything to do with the decrease in conversations about safety issues? I guess that's good, huh? I've filed a lot of ASAPS since then, just like before.
I absolutely agree that it was management's right to file the injunction relief. As a matter of fact, it is their responsibility to do what they feel is necessary to run a good, safe operation. I have just disagreed with many of their tactics since the fuel school. What about my comment about employees giving a ####? Do you think that is necessary or are you of the same opinion as Parker and Dr. Lee on that topic?
An interesting thing happened the other day. A supervisor came up to me at the end of the boarding process and said "Captain, I pushed the time on this one getting the non-revs on. Can you help me with getting out?" What I wanted to say was "REALLY!? REALLY!? After being treated like crap this summer and blamed by agents and management for things I was not doing now you NOW want my help?". But I didn't. My Dad used to be in his shoes, so I politely reminded him that I couldn't do anything about that until all the doors were closed and with the small mountain of bags in the jetway I didn't think he would make the dreaded D0.
Thanks SH, you beat me to it on that point.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Well the US Airways v McCutchen case has me a bit fired up. I don't know how you guys can work with such a pack of Liars, Cheats and Thieves.
