gloopy

You didn't RTFQ. He stated there would be no defense, because he was apparently implying that it would/could never get that far in the first place. I was just trying to get him to clarify that was what he meant, because his "bet" was that ALPA would never have to spend any resources defending a pilot for this.

The only way that could be the case is if either:

1. it will never, ever, under any circumstances, get that far, or:

2. if it did get that far, ALPA wouldn't defend the pilot(s) involved.

I was pointing out that either one of those was unlikely, and therefore he would easily lose his bet.

Don't be so spring loaded to defend ALPA that you do so when they weren't even attacked in the first place.

tsquare

No, I read it. And I still stand my my question to you. Do you seriously believe that DALPA would not defend a pilot no matter what the infraction? If you do, you seriously need to call them and talk to them about that, because pilots have done some extremely STUPID stuff, and DALPA is REQUIRED to defend them. (I could cite one example of where the guy actually got his job back when a rep told me that the defense was a complete waste of time) It's what you pay dues for. That's not to say they can win, but the defense is mandatory. It is perfectly clear to me what he meant, and I tend to agree with him. This issue has gone into high warble for absolutely no reason. I am sure purple drank is about to pour gasoline all over himself and strike a match as we speak.

forgot to bid

Ive had nothing but forty minute turns but I'm kind of excited about making gate PAs.

i mean there's nothing better than saying we don't know how long this is going to take because maintenance its sill trying to figure it out.

and when it comes to telling people we have no idea what's going on but we will let them know when we do, nobody does that better than a pilot.

and when it comes to telling people that the flight is cancelled and we will begin. ... run like hell.

JetFlyer06

I was referring to the fact that they could record the audio on the airplane and giving you credit for what I thought you meant.

Sink r8

T, you sort of have to be looking for a loophole, in order to extrapolate that his main point was that ALPA would fail to represent. Bottom line, sailing was saying this wouldn't become an issue. I'm starting to think he's right. If there is a conflict, and some over-agressive ACS person writes a pilot up, I think the company will not let it get out of hand. If they don't, then ALPA better be all over it.

I was thinking further about this after talking to a rep, and realized I don't really have a strategy for them to react upfront. The company is emphasizing that pilots have an impact. I agree with that. They're telling ACS we will perform these gatehouse duties, in a beautifully tailored uniform, and I agree we'll do it to the extent it fits our plans. If in the application of this projection of pilot coolness, they get ahead of themselves, then we'll need to act.

I'm not sure I want us anticipating a problem on the PA's, but I'd like to see more assistance on the costs of uniforms.

What if there are a few issues, and a new memo reminds ACS that the PA's will occur if the Captain feels it appropriate in light of his/her other duties? That sentence alone would have made the memo perfect, but it can come in the form of a clean-up if needed.

80ktsClamp

Scope. Need I say more?

Sink r8

We agree. I'm less of a fan of gatehouse PA's now than ten years ago, but then again, the four stripes on my epaulets are black. I can't remember ever making a gatehouse PA myself...

forgot to bid

reword it to say: if you have good public speaking, people skills or devilishly handsome, feel free to make a gate PA...

gloopy

You still don't understand the discussion here.

I do think ALPA/DALPA would defend the pilot(s) involved in something like this after the fact if/when it gets that far. That is not the point.

He was arguing that DALPA would never do so because they would never have to. I refuted that, and even gave him yet another theoretical "out" to his proposed technicality, and then refuted that as well. You completely missed that. Twice.

I never said DALPA wouldn't defend the pilot(s), I only asked him if that was what he was saying because his "wager" could only pay out (to him) if it either never happened, or if it happened and DALPA refused to defend. Otherwise he would lose his bet.

This is a bad policy as written and needs quick clarification from company leadership. If that doesn't happen, DALPA needs to take charge of this and nip it in the bud to the extent possible. They need to at least make the attempt. If they are unsuccessful, then at least we all know where we stand and can go from there. If the company wants to officially make us part time gate agents, subbordinate to superior gate agent directives to follow their orders to make PA's, then let's at least get that out in the open.

Its great if you get your defense when brought up on "charges" from a direct superior gate agent or FA who reports you for disobeying orders for not doing your required PA when they directed you to do so (this will happen eventually). But it would be a million times better for all involved if it never got that far. A simple, completely free memo clarifying that all of this is only a suggestion/guideline and not a strict "will do" policy is very much needed before it gets that far, because without it, it will.

A lot of good ideas become very bad policy when written into mandatory policy. This is one of them, and pilots will face diciplinary actio over this eventually unless we fix this now.

Its great if your rep gets the charges dropped for you, after you apply your affirmative defense of "I was attending to physiological needs" or whatever. Hopefully that holds up to the gate agent's testimony that you were ordered to make it, by them, and you refused because you said that you didn't want to when you were supposed to say "yes sir/ma'am" and do as they ordered you to do.

SailorJerry

Given a predominantly military background for our work force, the level of direct and indirect insubordination is impressive.

They teach some tough flying in the armed forces, but did you guys never practice PAs? Sad.

And insubordination>not wearing your hat