Captain Charm School Impressions
02-19-2018, 11:45 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 342
Kool-Aid,
Not to be a total jerk but comparing our refusals to anyone else's is meaningless. They should be comparing our refusals to last years and the year before and looking only at UA.
Take an A320 into LGA with no A-Skid? (etc.) No problem. Take the uber-guppy? Well, that might not be such an easy decision. How many of those Top-Fuel funny planes do we have? How many does DAL?
Not sure if it's still the case, but for a while at Brand-X airline, guys were immediately pulled off a trip and suffered pay loss when they refused a plane. How often did that policy effect pilots decisions? How many guys took broken trash because of it? How many of those flights should have been refusals and was there a potential (negative) impact on the safety of those flights? At some point, the guy with the cool hat is obligated to say "Nyet!"
To minimize refusals, fix planes promptly, and when that's impossible, route them in a manner which will minimize impact to the operation.
Years ago a 767 was dispatched to GRU without an APU. A whole mess of guys refused it, over and over. Finally, Marvin took it. Well, guess what, it shat a gen and they did the 0300 divert into a Big E. The plane sat for days. Whose dumb decisions affected the operation the most?
*Very glad to read the positive from OM and the rest of your post.
Not to be a total jerk but comparing our refusals to anyone else's is meaningless. They should be comparing our refusals to last years and the year before and looking only at UA.
Take an A320 into LGA with no A-Skid? (etc.) No problem. Take the uber-guppy? Well, that might not be such an easy decision. How many of those Top-Fuel funny planes do we have? How many does DAL?
Not sure if it's still the case, but for a while at Brand-X airline, guys were immediately pulled off a trip and suffered pay loss when they refused a plane. How often did that policy effect pilots decisions? How many guys took broken trash because of it? How many of those flights should have been refusals and was there a potential (negative) impact on the safety of those flights? At some point, the guy with the cool hat is obligated to say "Nyet!"
To minimize refusals, fix planes promptly, and when that's impossible, route them in a manner which will minimize impact to the operation.
Years ago a 767 was dispatched to GRU without an APU. A whole mess of guys refused it, over and over. Finally, Marvin took it. Well, guess what, it shat a gen and they did the 0300 divert into a Big E. The plane sat for days. Whose dumb decisions affected the operation the most?
*Very glad to read the positive from OM and the rest of your post.
Oldmako, you brought up a case that did a SAFE air return "YEARS AGO" (your words) about a bad situation with someone taking a plane with a busted APU. I can tell you I accepted an A/C at least 5-10 times in my career over tens of thousands of hours of flying and have NEVER had an issue. So, the moral of the story is, with our 2 stories is you may lose a Gen. (which I've only done in SIM) once in your career and not have a Gen. to fall back on but, will still be able to return SAFELY to the Airport.
Flying involves RISK and I'm sure glad management is taking the opinion of letting the crew decide how much they are comfortable with. Its each crews own personal choice and I think as time goes on its starting to balance out.
02-19-2018, 11:56 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Not to make this a Legacy thing (Unfortunately I am) but, I would also like to see a break down of the difference between LUAL and LCAL. (Cultures) I think it was HUGE when we first merged. However, I bet it decreased quite a bit over the years. Pilots always used to say it was "being safer and more conservative to turn a plane down". So, my response to that was, then lets not push back from the gate since thats the safest thing of all to do! Oldmako, you brought up a case that did a SAFE air return "YEARS AGO" (your words) about a bad situation with someone taking a plane with a busted APU. I can tell you I accepted an A/C at least 5-10 times in my career over tens of thousands of hours of flying and have NEVER had an issue. So, the moral of the story is, with our 2 stories is you may lose a Gen. (which I've only done in SIM) once in your career and not have a Gen. to fall back on but, will still be able to return SAFELY to the Airport. Flying involves RISK and I'm sure glad management is taking the opinion of letting the crew decide how much they are comfortable with. Its each crews own personal choice and I think as time goes on its starting to balance out.
Oldmako, you brought up a case that did a SAFE air return "YEARS AGO" (your words) about a bad situation with someone taking a plane with a busted APU. I can tell you I accepted an A/C at least 5-10 times in my career over tens of thousands of hours of flying and have NEVER had an issue. So, the moral of the story is, with our 2 stories is you may lose a Gen. (which I've only done in SIM) once in your career and not have a Gen. to fall back on but, will still be able to return SAFELY to the Airport. Flying involves RISK and I'm sure glad management is taking the opinion of letting the crew decide how much they are comfortable with. Its each crews own personal choice and I think as time goes on its starting to balance out.Yes. I should add that Howard did say, 10 years ago we had 50 a day, and he admitted there was a period in UAL history when maintenance simply didn't have the resources to keep up, but more importantly I think he was just asking for people to use logic and not emotion when deciding to reject a plane. Personally, I think that is a fair request.
As a minor aside, we got to see while on our visit to the NOC a list of planes with broken items and where they were scheduled to meet up with the parts and maintenance. Point was, the company is making a much more significant effort to get the planes to a place where they can be fixed because dispatch reliability is a very high priority for the new team. In fact they have a global briefing where stations from around the world report in 4 times a day and in that briefing the first item discussed is dispatch reliability. While we were in the morning session, SFO had a double refusal. No one asked a single question about the pilot, they simply asked what part was needed to fix the problem and when it would be fixed.
Oh . . . and yes, Howard also mentioned that there are most definitely particular individuals who account for a disproportionate share of refusals.
02-19-2018, 11:58 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Just to clear this up, they didn't do a "safe air return". They dove into an emergency ONLY and crappy facility in South American mountains in the middle of the night. I can't recall if it was Manaus, or somewhere else. The plane was then stuck there.
02-19-2018, 12:06 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
I believe the answer to their refusal problems is there to diagnose, and it should have been done years ago. A small number of pilots are responsible for a large amount of our "buffoonery". They should have either paid them to go away years ago, or fire them, and let them sue United.
The problem is flight ops leadership has no balls, and hasn't had in a long time. A simple cost benefit analysis would have shown this was the cheaper option. The amount of money these guys have cost not just the airline, but our passengers, in missed meetings, holidays, missed daughters weddings, etc, is staggering.
Nobody wants to make the hard decisions.
The problem is flight ops leadership has no balls, and hasn't had in a long time. A simple cost benefit analysis would have shown this was the cheaper option. The amount of money these guys have cost not just the airline, but our passengers, in missed meetings, holidays, missed daughters weddings, etc, is staggering.
Nobody wants to make the hard decisions.
My guess is once the slippery slope is upon us you'll end up with "the MEL is safe and legal" mentality. No thanks.
02-19-2018, 12:48 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 1,982
I’m around 900 numbers junior to the bottom SFO 320 Captain. Looking at the Vacancy Bidding Screen, it shows me at 138 of 140. I believe these are based on the May numbers.
Something is out of place.
Or are the Airbus on the way!?
Something is out of place.
Or are the Airbus on the way!?
Last edited by pilotgolfer; 02-19-2018 at 01:23 PM.
02-19-2018, 01:24 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
The system seniority number displayed on various bidding and information locations don’t match. Compare you monthly bid to the JS number and they are not the same, yes only a few numbers off, but not the same. So I asked IT what’s up?
Answer, they use different pilot lists in different applications. In plain speak this means UAL’s databases and computer systems are not always talking to each other.
As far as “charm school” goes, here’s the short course.
When you sign and say you are “fit for duty,” establish communications with your crew it’s your airplane by law. So as Captain you are responsible for all that goes on and the decisions you make.
Turning down airplanes for legitimate reasons, using emergency authority and buying drinks for your crew are all good decisions. Some may require telling others why you chose to do what you did, especially when your SO sees the credit card bill.
Answer, they use different pilot lists in different applications. In plain speak this means UAL’s databases and computer systems are not always talking to each other.
As far as “charm school” goes, here’s the short course.
When you sign and say you are “fit for duty,” establish communications with your crew it’s your airplane by law. So as Captain you are responsible for all that goes on and the decisions you make.
Turning down airplanes for legitimate reasons, using emergency authority and buying drinks for your crew are all good decisions. Some may require telling others why you chose to do what you did, especially when your SO sees the credit card bill.
02-19-2018, 01:32 PM
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 172
Probe,
The hard decisions are being made by Captains who are paid to make them. You seem to insinuate that some Captains are buffoons and need to be disciplined, or worse, for taking their responsibility seriously when they refuse an airplane. I find your finger pointing a tad unseemly.
Do you know the facts under which such "buffoonery" occurred? Unless you work in the Flight Office I don't expect that you do. And neither do I. I've only seen a Captain refuse a plane one time which I would have taken. And after he explained his reasoning, I agreed with him.
I've had to make my opinion very clear on an occasion when I would not accompany a Captain on a flight should he decide to sign for the jet. I guess that was buffoonery on my part and I should be disciplined.
I don't second-guess Captains decisions publically and I would appreciate it if they didn't second guess mine on this forum, if I were a Captain.
Individuals are what they are. Managements job is to minimize the opportunities for refusals by keeping the parts required to keep the planes MEL free.
The hard decisions are being made by Captains who are paid to make them. You seem to insinuate that some Captains are buffoons and need to be disciplined, or worse, for taking their responsibility seriously when they refuse an airplane. I find your finger pointing a tad unseemly.
Do you know the facts under which such "buffoonery" occurred? Unless you work in the Flight Office I don't expect that you do. And neither do I. I've only seen a Captain refuse a plane one time which I would have taken. And after he explained his reasoning, I agreed with him.
I've had to make my opinion very clear on an occasion when I would not accompany a Captain on a flight should he decide to sign for the jet. I guess that was buffoonery on my part and I should be disciplined.
I don't second-guess Captains decisions publically and I would appreciate it if they didn't second guess mine on this forum, if I were a Captain.
Individuals are what they are. Managements job is to minimize the opportunities for refusals by keeping the parts required to keep the planes MEL free.
Having said that, there are situations that I will not put my crew and passengers into. Every deferral brings its own unique set of circumstances and chain of decisions.
For instance; I will NEVER take an aircraft into Latin America or Mexico without an APU. The loss of an engine generator is only ONE of many factors in this decision. For example, I can guarantee you that if you need to divert from your planned destination there will be MANY places you could end up with no GPU and no start carts (huffers). I have experienced this and was pleased that I did have an operating APU.
My bottom line is safety. It is involved in almost every decision I make when I put on the uniform. Your customers PAY for and expect the highest level of safety you can provide. I am not someone who will deliver some subjective lower level of safety simply because a MEL says I can go without something.
Since this discussion is currently on refusals, I will throw out one more time when I wont take an aircraft - inop TCAS. TCAS has saved my and my passengers lives on numerous occasions. Simply not safe to go without it in my opinion.
Pest
02-19-2018, 01:36 PM
#18
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 42
Yes. I should add that Howard did say, 10 years ago we had 50 a day, and he admitted there was a period in UAL history when maintenance simply didn't have the resources to keep up, but more importantly I think he was just asking for people to use logic and not emotion when deciding to reject a plane. Personally, I think that is a fair request.
As a minor aside, we got to see while on our visit to the NOC a list of planes with broken items and where they were scheduled to meet up with the parts and maintenance. Point was, the company is making a much more significant effort to get the planes to a place where they can be fixed because dispatch reliability is a very high priority for the new team. In fact they have a global briefing where stations from around the world report in 4 times a day and in that briefing the first item discussed is dispatch reliability. While we were in the morning session, SFO had a double refusal. No one asked a single question about the pilot, they simply asked what part was needed to fix the problem and when it would be fixed.
Oh . . . and yes, Howard also mentioned that there are most definitely particular individuals who account for a disproportionate share of refusals.
As a minor aside, we got to see while on our visit to the NOC a list of planes with broken items and where they were scheduled to meet up with the parts and maintenance. Point was, the company is making a much more significant effort to get the planes to a place where they can be fixed because dispatch reliability is a very high priority for the new team. In fact they have a global briefing where stations from around the world report in 4 times a day and in that briefing the first item discussed is dispatch reliability. While we were in the morning session, SFO had a double refusal. No one asked a single question about the pilot, they simply asked what part was needed to fix the problem and when it would be fixed.
Oh . . . and yes, Howard also mentioned that there are most definitely particular individuals who account for a disproportionate share of refusals.
Lual I’m sure.
02-19-2018, 01:48 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 262
If they’re concearned about hiring then maybe they should start hiring before all the qualified people are elsewhere The other majors are hiring close to 1000 a year and running a little fat while we hire 200 a year, we’ve missed a lot of good people over the last two years.
02-19-2018, 02:03 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
If they’re concearned about hiring then maybe they should start hiring before all the qualified people are elsewhere The other majors are hiring close to 1000 a year and running a little fat while we hire 200 a year, we’ve missed a lot of good people over the last two years.
Could it be CM????
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
