AA Pilot, A Sticker and A Month's Pay
07-23-2007, 08:51 PM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
AA Pilot, A Sticker and A Month's Pay
I'd like a small supply of these stickers! 
From the DFW Star Telegram:
An American Airlines pilot has been docked a month of pay — worth about $12,000 — for pasting a small sticker on his MD-80 aircraft that was critical of executive bonuses at the airline.
The pilot, who is based at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, had placed the sticker in May on the exterior of the airplane, over a logo for American’s “oneworld” airline alliance. According to officials with American’s pilots’ union, he was frustrated by comments made by Jeff Brundage, the company’s vice president of human resources.
After an investigation, the Fort Worth-based airline recently decided to suspend him without pay for 30 days.
“We think that this punishment is extreme,” said Michael Leone, an American pilot who is vice-chairman of the D/FW chapter of the Allied Pilots Association.
“No reasonable person would even consider placing such a financial hardship on one of our pilots and their families” for a minor infraction of company policy, Leone told union members in a memo. “The punishment clearly does not fit the crime.”
Sue Gordon, an American spokeswoman, said the carrier typically does not comment on individual employee matters. But she said American followed its normal procedures in the case.
“We’re simply following the steps that are outlined in our collective bargaining agreement,” she said.
The sticker was a violation of Federal Aviation Administration rules, according to the airline. It was unclear exactly which comments from Brundage upset the pilot. But many employees were incensed when he told the Star-Telegram that “if they want to make what executives make, then they need to become executives.” Those comments came after pilots had marched at the airline’s headquarters.
According to the union, the pilot apologized to airline management and said it would not happen again.
“But that wasn’t good enough for management in this outfit,” Leone said in his memo, and added that he believed the airline is making an example of the pilot to quell criticism.
The case is the latest flare-up between American’s management and its employees over the bonuses, which paid about $160 million in company stock to about 800 top executives and managers in April. Employees have complained that they continue to work under reduced wages and benefits whiles executives enjoy the lucrative bonuses.
In April, hundreds of American employees marched at the company’s headquarters and at airports nationwide to protest the bonuses.
It was unclear exactly what the sticker said, but American employees have sported stickers and patches at union events that read “PUP OFF” and “PUP YOU.” That refers to the “performance unit plan,” the original name of the executive bonus plan.
The union has asked members to donate to a fund on behalf of the pilot, and so far has raised $1,100.
Last week, AMR Corp., American’s parent, reported a second-quarter profit of $317 million. It’s shares closed at $28.59 per share, up more than 7 percent, in trading Monday.
From the DFW Star Telegram:
An American Airlines pilot has been docked a month of pay — worth about $12,000 — for pasting a small sticker on his MD-80 aircraft that was critical of executive bonuses at the airline.
The pilot, who is based at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, had placed the sticker in May on the exterior of the airplane, over a logo for American’s “oneworld” airline alliance. According to officials with American’s pilots’ union, he was frustrated by comments made by Jeff Brundage, the company’s vice president of human resources.
After an investigation, the Fort Worth-based airline recently decided to suspend him without pay for 30 days.
“We think that this punishment is extreme,” said Michael Leone, an American pilot who is vice-chairman of the D/FW chapter of the Allied Pilots Association.
“No reasonable person would even consider placing such a financial hardship on one of our pilots and their families” for a minor infraction of company policy, Leone told union members in a memo. “The punishment clearly does not fit the crime.”
Sue Gordon, an American spokeswoman, said the carrier typically does not comment on individual employee matters. But she said American followed its normal procedures in the case.
“We’re simply following the steps that are outlined in our collective bargaining agreement,” she said.
The sticker was a violation of Federal Aviation Administration rules, according to the airline. It was unclear exactly which comments from Brundage upset the pilot. But many employees were incensed when he told the Star-Telegram that “if they want to make what executives make, then they need to become executives.” Those comments came after pilots had marched at the airline’s headquarters.
According to the union, the pilot apologized to airline management and said it would not happen again.
“But that wasn’t good enough for management in this outfit,” Leone said in his memo, and added that he believed the airline is making an example of the pilot to quell criticism.
The case is the latest flare-up between American’s management and its employees over the bonuses, which paid about $160 million in company stock to about 800 top executives and managers in April. Employees have complained that they continue to work under reduced wages and benefits whiles executives enjoy the lucrative bonuses.
In April, hundreds of American employees marched at the company’s headquarters and at airports nationwide to protest the bonuses.
It was unclear exactly what the sticker said, but American employees have sported stickers and patches at union events that read “PUP OFF” and “PUP YOU.” That refers to the “performance unit plan,” the original name of the executive bonus plan.
The union has asked members to donate to a fund on behalf of the pilot, and so far has raised $1,100.
Last week, AMR Corp., American’s parent, reported a second-quarter profit of $317 million. It’s shares closed at $28.59 per share, up more than 7 percent, in trading Monday.
07-24-2007, 12:03 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 168
First off, it's not "his" airplane and he had no business putting the sticker on it. I wonder how he would react if a member of AA senior management slapped a "Screw APA" sticker on his car.
He just may have violated an FAR. Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly. I know it's a nit-picky point, but that's the FAA's stock in trade.
While I think the penalty was way beyond reasonable, what he did was rather silly.
He just may have violated an FAR. Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly. I know it's a nit-picky point, but that's the FAA's stock in trade.
While I think the penalty was way beyond reasonable, what he did was rather silly.
07-24-2007, 12:34 PM
#4
Che Guevara
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
First off, it's not "his" airplane and he had no business putting the sticker on it. I wonder how he would react if a member of AA senior management slapped a "Screw APA" sticker on his car.
He just may have violated an FAR. Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly. I know it's a nit-picky point, but that's the FAA's stock in trade.
While I think the penalty was way beyond reasonable, what he did was rather silly.
He just may have violated an FAR. Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly. I know it's a nit-picky point, but that's the FAA's stock in trade.
While I think the penalty was way beyond reasonable, what he did was rather silly.
07-24-2007, 01:51 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: DC-10 S/O, forever.
Posts: 116
No CG acft
Just to clarify, that's not Coast Guard acft pictured. It kinda looks like the NOAA paint scheme. And I think they do hurricane research, which would account for those stickers below the flags.
07-24-2007, 07:31 PM
#7
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,402
07-24-2007, 10:36 PM
#9
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Tool-Box, old man
Posts: 2,205
First off, it's not "his" airplane and he had no business putting the sticker on it. I wonder how he would react if a member of AA senior management slapped a "Screw APA" sticker on his car.
He just may have violated an FAR. Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly. I know it's a nit-picky point, but that's the FAA's stock in trade.
While I think the penalty was way beyond reasonable, what he did was rather silly.
He just may have violated an FAR. Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly. I know it's a nit-picky point, but that's the FAA's stock in trade.
While I think the penalty was way beyond reasonable, what he did was rather silly.
"Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly.".....GMAFB!fbh
07-25-2007, 06:01 AM
#10
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
I bet you're real fun at a party. "Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly.".....GMAFB!
fbh
"Engineering drawings show what exterior markings are supposed to be on the airplane. I doubt that the sticker was on the drawing. An airplane that is not in compliance with the applicable engineering drawings is not legal to fly.".....GMAFB!fbh
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
