Jet Blue blames WX, pilot rest rules for system meltdown

PhilosopherPilot said:
You must have a policy in place to outline the limits and expectations, or people will abuse sick calls. We had a pretty big problem, and that drove the policy to be put into place. No one is getting punished for calling in sick. You can all in sick 100 times if you are sick 100 times. You will get into trouble if you call in sick and aren't sick, and as a safety guy, I'm fine with that.

Pilots are into this mindset lately that they never have to answer for anything. And the mere act of asking them to deign to answer a question is discipline. That attitude needs to die.
Click to expand...
After the accident at CJC we had no more sick policy. None! Ask me how many section 19 events I either went to or coordinated as a result of no sick policy. I'll make it easy for everyone, 1. That wasn't so much for the abuse of sick time more for the please stop having your wife call scheduling when you get reassigned.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
You must have a policy in place to outline the limits and expectations, or people will abuse sick calls. We had a pretty big problem, and that drove the policy to be put into place. No one is getting punished for calling in sick. You can all in sick 100 times if you are sick 100 times. You will get into trouble if you call in sick and aren't sick, and as a safety guy, I'm fine with that.

Pilots are into this mindset lately that they never have to answer for anything. And the mere act of asking them to deign to answer a question is discipline. That attitude needs to die.
Click to expand...
Except don't you have this horrific health insurance that will make each sick call an out of pocket visit to verify the incident?
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
You must have a policy in place to outline the limits and expectations, or people will abuse sick calls. We had a pretty big problem, and that drove the policy to be put into place. No one is getting punished for calling in sick. You can all in sick 100 times if you are sick 100 times. You will get into trouble if you call in sick and aren't sick, and as a safety guy, I'm fine with that.

Pilots are into this mindset lately that they never have to answer for anything. And the mere act of asking them to deign to answer a question is discipline. That attitude needs to die.
Click to expand...

What happens if you guys have an incident/accident where the pilot says they are sick, but were afraid to call in because they were reaching their 'limits'?

How is that going to play out with the NTSB?

Not well. Ask me how I know.
 
amorris311 said:
After the accident at CJC we had no more sick policy. None! Ask me how many section 19 events I either went to or coordinated as a result of no sick policy. I'll make it easy for everyone, 1. That wasn't so much for the abuse of sick time more for the please stop having your wife call scheduling when you get reassigned.
Click to expand...

What was the policy before the accident?

@PhilosopherPilot, I got the call from the VP of Flight Operations saying they are doing away with the sick policy a few days prior to the NTSB hearing. Guess who told them to get rid of it? The law firm defending the company. Why do you think that was?
 
Seggy said:
What was the policy before the accident?

@PhilosopherPilot, I got the call from the VP of Flight Operations saying they are doing away with the sick policy a few days prior to the NTSB hearing. Guess who told them to get rid of it? The law firm defending the company. Why do you think that was?
Click to expand...
The one that always made me scratch my head was the clause that said something to the extent of, "if you call in sick and it cancels a flight, discipline could lead to termination". Since it has been almost five years since the crash, that was the excuse the first officer made for the reason she was flying that night.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Pilots are into this mindset lately that they never have to answer for anything. And the mere act of asking them to deign to answer a question is discipline. That attitude needs to die.
Click to expand...

So what are you looking for if you question a pilot who calls in sick? First, if you ask to see a diagnosis you are in violation of HIPAA laws. Secondly, what is the follow up question going to be to the pilot when they tell you, "I called in sick because I was not fit to fly..."? Remember, you can't ask to see a diagnosis, so what are you accomplishing? Nothing, but subtly intimidating pilots.
 
Captain's Authority has been eroded over the last few decades by middle management trying to overly question air crew's decision making processes. The law is quite clear in regard to that as well. Pilot in Command means something. Let us not forget that.
 
Seggy said:
@PhilosopherPilot, they actually reopened the CVR Group on the Colgan Accident to properly note coughs, sneezes, sniffles, from the sick First Officer. That was extremely rare.
Click to expand...

No question, Colgan didn't have a good policy.

Face it, you just don't like the idea of a pilot having to answer any questions. If you're sick when you call out, you've got nothing to worry about. We had a saying at here, "If you can't Flic it, sick it." In other words, if you can't drop a trip legally in Flica, just call in sick. I flew with lots of captains who just called out when they didn't want to fly a trip, regardless of their fitness for duty. Management did what they did as a result of the crews, not in spite of them.

We aren't going to agree on your absolute statement that sick policies can NEVER be safe. I do agree that the Colgan policy wasn't a good policy, but your blanket and absolute statement that ANY policy is unsafe is just absurd. There are any number of ways a policy could be built to engender a positive relationship with the crews. You could form a safety committee that reviews sick calls independent of the CPO, for instance.

I'm not defending JetBlue's policy. I think it was hasty and poorly implemented, but your statements are too absolute to be true. Few things in life are black/white.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
No question, Colgan didn't have a good policy.

Face it, you just don't like the idea of a pilot having to answer any questions. If you're sick when you call out, you've got nothing to worry about. We had a saying at here, "If you can't Flic it, sick it." In other words, if you can't drop a trip legally in Flica, just call in sick. I flew with lots of captains who just called out when they didn't want to fly a trip, regardless of their fitness for duty. Management did what they did as a result of the crews, not in spite of them.

We aren't going to agree on your absolute statement that sick policies can NEVER be safe. I do agree that the Colgan policy wasn't a good policy, but your blanket and absolute statement that ANY policy is unsafe is just absurd. There are any number of ways a policy could be built to engender a positive relationship with the crews. You could form a safety committee that reviews sick calls independent of the CPO, for instance.

I'm not defending JetBlue's policy. I think it was hasty and poorly implemented, but your statements are too absolute to be true. Few things in life are black/white.
Click to expand...

Yeah but...

I'd like to know, from an academic perspective, what a judge would say when the argument was presented in a suit for wrongful termination, that the sick call policy made an employee violate federal law or face termination when they could evidence that they were sick.

Further, what would an ambulance chasing, scum sucking tort lawyer say after a crash when they presented evidence that pilots were afraid to call in after evidencing that other pilots were terminated for being legitimately sick.

And I know you're saying that's not going to happen, but it seems to lead down this road.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
We aren't going to agree on your absolute statement that sick policies can NEVER be safe. I do agree that the Colgan policy wasn't a good policy, but your blanket and absolute statement that ANY policy is unsafe is just absurd. There are any number of ways a policy could be built to engender a positive relationship with the crews. You could form a safety committee that reviews sick calls independent of the CPO, for instance.
Click to expand...

What @jtrain609 said.

Furthermore, how would this committee get around HIPAA laws? How are they going to respond when the pilot says, "I was not fit to fly."?

Once again, sick policies aren't safe.
 
ERfly said:
Actually, yeah, you can. When I was hired at US Airways last year, the VP of Ops specifically told me he was hiring me for Age 65 attrition and the new rest rules. This was in December of 2012.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Likely because their simulations said "We need X number more pilots to deal with this" and you were in that X number. We did the same thing last summer. That's a bit different than just carrying extra reserves for an IROP. What we do at Blue is offer extra reserve shifts for line holders at 150% if they use you or not. It's cheaper than carrying an extra person for the whole year.
 
Seggy said:
The rest behind the door was known two years ago when the rules first came out. Pretty black and white, however, according to @kellwolf, JetBlue was waiting for the FAA to call JetBlue back to get an interpretation? So what is really going on there?
Click to expand...

It wasn't to do with the rest behind the door. I love how guys that work at other airlines seem to know exactly what's going on because some pissed off guy on BluePilots started a rumor and the internet ran with it. If United had a meltdown tomorrow, I sure as hell wouldn't be blasting them on the internet. I have no idea how your schedules are built or what preparations went on leading up to that. Apparently, everyone here works in JetBlue HR, though, and has it all figured out. Take a step back and think if you're just sounding like an internet keyboard commando or not. Me? I'm done. Between this and people at my own airline telling me I'm stupid because I'm happy to be where I am, I'm seriously thinking about just bailing on aviation boards altogether. I've been around here for over a decade and this place didn't used to be a place where pilots would dog pile on other guys when they had a bad day or their airline did something not popular. Now, even this place has turned into a bunch of finger pointing "my airline is better than yours" elitists.
 
Seggy said:
ALPA is a safety organization first. Having a sick policy isn't safe in this line of work.
Click to expand...
This may have been true in the past, and, while I can't speak for national, on the local level with my experience it's more or a self-serving, what can I do for me than safety.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
You must have a policy in place to outline the limits and expectations, or people will abuse sick calls. We had a pretty big problem, and that drove the policy to be put into place. No one is getting punished for calling in sick. You can all in sick 100 times if you are sick 100 times. You will get into trouble if you call in sick and aren't sick, and as a safety guy, I'm fine with that.

Pilots are into this mindset lately that they never have to answer for anything. And the mere act of asking them to deign to answer a question is discipline. That attitude needs to die.
Click to expand...

The bold, scares me.

Setting aside family and self preservation, I answer to the FAA FIRST, when it comes to how the privelages of my certificates are used. The mindset that an employer has any power or say over how and when I determine my fitness for flight is asinine. There is no "buck up, toughen up, grind through it, etc" clause on the back of my medical or anywhere in the FARs.

Short of violating a reg, bending metal, etc, no, I don't need to answer for anything. The answer was already given "Unfit for duty/flight/whatever".
 
Not all of the IMSAFE checklist (vital part of determining fitness for flight / validity of medical on any particular flight day) includes "sickness".
Illness
Medication
Stress
Alcohol
Fatigue
Eating

Any of those could lead to a call to scheduling stating "I'm sick".
 
Dugie8 said:
The bold, scares me.

Setting aside family and self preservation, I answer to the FAA FIRST, when it comes to how the privelages of my certificates are used. The mindset that an employer has any power or say over how and when I determine my fitness for flight is asinine. There is no "buck up, toughen up, grind through it, etc" clause on the back of my medical or anywhere in the FARs.

Short of violating a reg, bending metal, etc, no, I don't need to answer for anything. The answer was already given "Unfit for duty/flight/whatever".
Click to expand...

I didn't say "buck up" or any of that. But some guys seem to have this attitude that they should never have to answer or explain anything. I've never understood that. I don't feel that way, personally. If I do a gate return, I fully expect to have to explain why. Lots of people feel it's an insult to have to explain anything to anyone. The act of explaining your actions and decisions is not a reduction if your authority or discipline.

If someone asks you "why were you unfit?" They aren't asking you to defend it. They are just asking why. What was the reason? You don't work for yourself. You answer to the authorities above you because you don't own the company. Just like you fly the plane the way they tell you to because they pay your salary.

I really don't like that attitude. It's supremely arrogant to say "I don't answer to anyone unless I bend metal."
 
cencal83406 said:
Not all of the IMSAFE checklist (vital part of determining fitness for flight / validity of medical on any particular flight day) includes "sickness".
Illness
Medication
Stress
Alcohol
Fatigue
Eating

Any of those could lead to a call to scheduling stating "I'm sick".
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, but what's wrong with having to explain what happened? Not to a scheduler, since they aren't your supervisor, but to the CPO or to the Safety dept.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top