Tropical

Yeah, I'm thinking that's exactly what he meant. Yet we still have some captains here who think they are godlike and everyone on the crew is just there to assist them. These are also the ones who seem to make the most mistakes, and need the most convincing that they are wrong. Fortunately there aren't many and they retire soon.

I read the RG memo as a bunch of fluff that means nothing until we see actual policy change, but I took it to mean that we aren't going to have gate agents telling captains no anymore when the CA says "I'll take the delay, put 'em on", and then writing them up, only to have a CP call the CA and tell them they don't own the airplane at the gate.

Meme In Command

I am saying that in jest and i should've quoted your previous comment because I was agreeing with you

Abouttime2fish

I’ll just throw this out there. The godlike part, yeah that’s no good.

However. For background my history is FO - Capt - MOAD back to FO - now awaiting upgrade training. My second time around being an FO, I was a much better FO. 100% I viewed my job as making the captains job easy. Captains appreciated it. Captains respected my opinion. Captains also understood when I smiled and told them it was a captain problem. And don’t interpret that as doing the captains job. More of taking care of the minutia and feeding him the info he needs before he realizes he needs it.

marcal

Under joint dispatch authority in the FOM, it states very clearly that the Captain can delay a flight with no agreement from the dispatcher. If putting people on causes a late flight, the FOM allows it. I do it for weather when necessary.

m3113n1a1

This is why being an RJ or other 121 captain before Delta is so valuable. I was a MUCH better FO here after I had been an RJ captain than I was before I upgraded at the regionals. I think being a captain really helps because you get to fly with all kinds of different FOs and you really do see some awesome FOs so you sort of model them next time you're an FO. That's my theory anyway

gloopy

Does "owning the airplane at the gate" mean unilateral authority to flat out remove/deny employees' non rev and jumpseat benefits?

Hotel Kilo

To your first. Read FOM 10.2.2.1 - all of it. I agree with Trip7 here, Delta has always supported captains so long as you are following the operational procedures. Expand team - then make a command decision. Which leads me to your second. I've held the aircraft at the gate waiting for pax to make the connections. I P-code it and put it on me, then in remarks explain why. I have never been called by a CP or anyone else for doing this.

Some of the worse FO's I've flown with were former regional captains. Especially ones with lots of time in the left seat at the regional. The best FO's are like about-time-to-fish, a former DAL captain, displaced to right seat. Mil folks are pretty good too once they get the 121 op understood. Even when green, once you get them off the ramp they are spectacular aviators with very high situational awareness.

contrails

I get what you mean, and obviously I chose that example on purpose, but the fact of the matter is, there are many things that used to be PIC discretion that have since morphed into a paragraph in the FOM (at all US carriers of course, not just one).

That is the very definition of lessened PIC authority.


For instance:

It's two days after a cold front in on a perfect autumn day and an A321 is about to fly ATL-SAV. Weather at both ATL and SAV is VRB03KT 30SM CLR 22/10 A3025. A quick glance at flight weather viewer shows absolutely zero light green whatsoever, and the crew just came up from Florida themselves and can confirm the glass smooth air and perfect day for flying. Furthermore, the flight is too short for a normal cabin service, so a quick "water walk" will probably be it in the back section of the plane.

There are two seats blocked for turbulence, and it is the last flight of the day and some non-revs would really like to finish their trip home to SAV instead of being stuck in ATL.

The captain should be able to tell the gate agent, "Based on my check of the conditions and forecast, you may release the blocked seats to non-revs."

Common sense, but that is not permitted.

I think any reasonable person would agree that in the above example, there is not reason that the PIC cannot have the authority to make a decision like that.

Point being, FOM and policies do also blend into this discussion about PIC authority.

Of course most policies are important...windshear avoidance, minimum fuel, etc.

But part of what PIC authority is, is not having a sentence in the FOM to begin with, that prevents them from making a decision.

PIC authority is definitely not what it used to be. Many good reasons, but plenty that are also unnecessary and err to the micromanaging side.

Hotel Kilo

Great example to discuss. Flight Ops had a say in how that company policy for blocking seats for FA safety was written. Both Flight Ops and In flight determined that those seats could be used for revenue passengers, but not for non-revs. That is not a CA's issue in my book, that is company policy. A bad one I would agree with you on that. If confronted with this scenario I would get on FF and start a convo with gate/OCC/Flight control. Maybe they will make an exception or maybe they will tell me to pound sand. I'd try at least. I'm looking at RG reversing that practice and letting us, like you indicated in your example, be able to make the call real time and get those non-revs on those blocked seats. Lets see if RG walk is like his talk.

Tropical

HK doesn't like former R-E-G-I-O-N-A-L P-I-L-O-T-S. What a shocker.