AMR PRESSES PILOT PERSECUTION CAMPAIGN:Both of these cases serve as stark reminders that management is all too willing to interfere with captain’s authority and legal responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, its passengers and crew. Management is seeking to discipline pilots who are simply following the clear guidance given in Part I and other management communication. “Do as we want, not as we say” appears to be the order of the day. This week APA will represent pilots in two separate hearings. Both cases illustrate that management intends to press forward with their pilot persecution campaign. The first case involves a captain who has been accused of taxiing too slowly. After landing on 13R at DFW this particular captain observed management’s recommended procedures by taxiing single-engine in front of Managing Director—Flight Captain Jeff Osborne, who had landed on 18R and was following him to the east terminals. Even though both arrival gates were occupied, Captain Osborne became so incensed with what he perceived as an unnecessarily slow taxi speed that he used his cell phone while taxiing (in violation of both federal regulations and clear Flight Manual Part I guidance) to have a DFW Chief Pilot remove the captain from the rest of his trip. Captain Osborne then waited 15 minutes for his assigned gate to become available. The result of Captain Osborne’s vindictiveness: despite arriving within five minutes of his scheduled arrival, the captain was removed after the first leg of a three-day trip while four other captains were substituted for the remaining legs. The captain was then removed from his schedule with pay for three weeks while the Flight Office conducted an audit of his taxi performance using ACARS data in violation of Letter C (3) of our contract. To illustrate the absurdity of this situation, LAX Chief Pilot Captain Bob Bush personally apologized to the captain in question, expressed the view that the case is without merit and suggested that the entire incident be forgotten. Captain Osborne nevertheless is insisting on a hearing. Management’s persecution of this captain directly conflicts with previous guidance from flight operations. In a Jan. 21, 2008 HI6 message, Captain Jim Kaiser, Manager—Flight Operations Quality Control, cautioned pilots regarding flight attendant injuries during taxi. This message reports that a S-80 cabin crew was “KNOCKED OFF THEIR FEET DURING A TURN.” The message notes that flight attendants may be in the aisles during taxi and directs captains to “KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE MANEUVERING THE AIRPLANE ON THE GROUND.” In other words, watch your taxi speed. The other hearing concerns a captain who requested guideman assistance, rather than relying on the new docking guidance system in the busy DFW ramp area. Flight Manual Part I states in section 9.5 that “Wing walkers and guidemen may provide guidance for gates with automated parking systems” and that “If there is doubt, stop for assistance from ground personnel.” Moreover, Federal Aviation Regulations vest the pilot-in-command with full authority over the aircraft “without limitation.” APA has previously sought indemnification for our pilots for any incidents involving the docking guidance system, which management has declined to provide. Accordingly, choosing to request guideman assistance if a pilot has any doubt is basic common sense. It is not a decision that a pilot should be forced to defend. Both of these cases serve as stark reminders that management is all too willing to interfere with captain’s authority and legal responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, its passengers and crew. Management is seeking to discipline pilots who are simply following the clear guidance given in Part I and other management communication. “Do as we want, not as we say” appears to be the order of the day. BigJetCity.com |
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites