Jet Blue blames WX, pilot rest rules for system meltdown

Seggy said:
Oh that is professional :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Ha. Yeah well. I'm not the one arguing in absolutes...

I'd be willing to accept "attendance policies often create the potential for unsafe attitudes towards sick calls." Or even, "all improperly conceived attendance policies create the potential for unsafe attitudes toward sick calls." But the absolute statement that it is impossible to conceive and implement an attendance policy that is safe, sir, that is just stupid.

Good night.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
But the absolute statement that it is impossible to conceive and implement an attendance policy that is safe, sir, that is just stupid.
Click to expand...


The medical that we need to fly with has legal implications for us if we are not fit to fly. If someone is sick they aren't in compliance with the Federal Regulations which trump ANY attendance policy. This is even FURTHER bolstered by the new Fit For Duty requirement that came out of the last fatal accident by a US Airline were the First Officer was sick. Management folks forget that.

Once again, ALL attendance policies are unsafe.
 
Last edited:
PhilosopherPilot said:
Good night.
Click to expand...

8b16441c87a0720133d0708b5e637460.jpg
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
As far as the quoted text above, nice try. There's a huge difference in calling out for the hell of it vs calling out because your kid is sick. If you don't understand that, well, there's not much else to say here.
Click to expand...

Our company considers the scenario I described as unethical. We have an attendance policy. I'm sure management at JetBlue would love to adopt our policy.
 
cencal83406 said:
So you have to burn vacation for a sick kid?
Click to expand...

exneophyte said:
Last time I checked PTO stood for "Paid Time Off". Not vacation.
Click to expand...

I have been at several companies that have given up on 'sick' time. They give more total time and label it as above. PTO. Dog sick, PTO, kid sick, PTO, you sick, PTO....Makes life much easier and no need to explain a thing...... Have not neet at a company where they have PTO and Sick time. That's just goofy talk.
 
cencal83406 said:
Our company considers the scenario I described as unethical. We have an attendance policy. I'm sure management at JetBlue would love to adopt our policy.
Click to expand...

Like I said, we have a PTO system. You call out sick, and they mark you as sick, and it is paid from PTO. If your kid is sick, they code it as something else, but the pay is still PTO. You don't have to do that "dance" around whether you or the kid is sick. You just tell them what's going on, and they remove you from the trip. They code it however they do, and you go about your merry way.

Like I said, you joined in late in this discussion. I've never held the position that you shouldn't call out when you're sick, or when your family needs you, etc. My beef has been with Seggy making the rediculous claim that it is impossible to create a fair and safe attendance policy. The second you argue in the absolute, you've lost the argument. Few things in life are absolute. This ain't one of them.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
My beef has been with Seggy making the rediculous claim that it is impossible to create a fair and safe attendance policy. The second you argue in the absolute, you've lost the argument. Few things in life are absolute. This ain't one of them.
Click to expand...

Once again, if you have a pilot having issues getting to work, it can be handled outside of an attendance policy.
 
Ive worked under two types of policies. One punitive that was based upon occurences, the other was the "no policy" approach. I asked our VP of Flt ops about the occurence policy and he said we had that policy because we "needed" a policy. Basically six sick calls in a rolling 12 month period equalled termination. So i said, what if pilot x is having a bad year? sick wife, sick kid, sick himself etc. His answer was that he should call in sick and get terminated because it was the right thing to do.

The other policy was to use sick time when you needed it. If the CP thought someone was abusing sick time, he had Professional Standards call the pilot to see what could be done. That policy was head and shoulders better. Very few abusers, and i didn't have to fly with the jokers hacking and coughing the entire trip because they were afraid to get another occurence. The Professional standards approach worked much better and it is the approach the NTSB has said several times is the way it should work.

With the new 117 regs, I don't even know how companies can have a punitive policy when each pilot is required to sign that he or she is fit for duty. It will unfortunately take a lawsuit or another accident before most companies change. Just my thoughts
 
dingo222 said:
Ive worked under two types of policies. One punitive that was based upon occurences, the other was the "no policy" approach. I asked our VP of Flt ops about the occurence policy and he said we had that policy because we "needed" a policy. Basically six sick calls in a rolling 12 month period equalled termination. So i said, what if pilot x is having a bad year? sick wife, sick kid, sick himself etc. His answer was that he should call in sick and get terminated because it was the right thing to do.

The other policy was to use sick time when you needed it. If the CP thought someone was abusing sick time, he had Professional Standards call the pilot to see what could be done. That policy was head and shoulders better. Very few abusers, and i didn't have to fly with the jokers hacking and coughing the entire trip because they were afraid to get another occurence. The Professional standards approach worked much better and it is the approach the NTSB has said several times is the way it should work.

With the new 117 regs, I don't even know how companies can have a punitive policy when each pilot is required to sign that he or she is fit for duty. It will unfortunately take a lawsuit or another accident before most companies change. Just my thoughts
Click to expand...

Clearly a system that discourages people from calling in sick (when sick) is not a good system. That was never my point.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Sure. As long as you're sick, you should be able to call in sick as often as you like (sick time or no).

The problem is that many call in sick when they aren't sick to get time off that they can't get through "legal" ways due to staffing. I agree with the guy who said we should be policing this ourselves. Calling in sick to get a holiday off, or a weekend off, or whatever, that's doing nothing but screwing your fellow pilot.

We have a PTO system. It's fairly easy to drop trips as it is, within the system. Calling in sick (when not sick) is why mgmt feels like they need attendance policies. We are to blame.
Click to expand...

This is more of a surejet problem, but I think some of the abuses of the system that I've seen here stem from a company that isn't particularly willing to work with you for life events that need time off.

I had to threaten to quit to one of our mustached chief pilots in order to be able attend my own wedding. This is despite the fact that I had talked to two different CPs a few months and then a few weeks in advance and they said "just try to drop it and what not, but if that doesn't work, come see us."

RC was behind his desk saying "I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do that. Reserve coverage doesn't look very good."

Sometimes stuff happens that you have to deal with. When you don't give people an easy avenue to deal with these things, you're going to have problems. I would say our commuter clause is a great example. I drilled a deer on the way to work earlier this year. I was able to CC it and then deal with what I had to deal with. Before the CC was changed to include people driving to work, a sick call would have been my only option.
 
Attendance policy are BS. I am on a "First Step Advisory" it is a big deal at Eagle. Here is what was written in the advisory letter.

"A review of your attendance over the last twelve months show 4 sick occurrences and 1 missed assignment totaling 9 days

In September 2013 you called in sick before and after a PVD

Your sick occurrences suggest a pattern of abuse of the attendance control policy"

Some more info for you:
I never used up my PTO.
The MA was one day so I only missed 8 days for my 4 sick calls.
The sick call in Sep counted as 2 occurrences because the PVD so I had 2 sick calls in 11 months.
I had a Doc note for the sick call in Sep.
The sick calls in Sep were for 6 days so my other two were just for a day.

So @PhilosopherPilot do you think I am a abuser of a sick time policy?
I think we all can agree I am not, but the policy is black and white where I work call in sick before and after a PVD and you are being put on a first step.
 
Gonzo said:
Attendance policy are BS. I am on a "First Step Advisory" it is a big deal at Eagle. Here is what was written in the advisory letter.

"A review of your attendance over the last twelve months show 4 sick occurrences and 1 missed assignment totaling 9 days

In September 2013 you called in sick before and after a PVD

Your sick occurrences suggest a pattern of abuse of the attendance control policy"

Some more info for you:
I never used up my PTO.
The MA was one day so I only missed 8 days for my 4 sick calls.
The sick call in Sep counted as 2 occurrences because the PVD so I had 2 sick calls in 11 months.
I had a Doc note for the sick call in Sep.
The sick calls in Sep were for 6 days so my other two were just for a day.

So @PhilosopherPilot do you think I am a abuser of a sick time policy?
I think we all can agree I am not, but the policy is black and white where I work call in sick before and after a PVD and you are being put on a first step.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not arguing that there aren't some crappy policies out there. My point is merely that I think that it is possible to create a policy that both discourages abuse, and welcomes legit sick calls.
 
BobDDuck said:
Not to put you on the spot, but I'd be interested to hear some of the features of this policy that you are thinking about.
Click to expand...

My goal was for Seggy to back off of his absolute argument. Saying something is "impossible" or "never the case" or "always the case" is stupid. He is doing it to make his point seem more forceful or strong, when in fact taking an absolute stance weakens his position. If he would simply say, "In practice, many attendance programs have had a negative impact on safety." I would completely agree with that. So this whole discussion is really between Seggy and I on a very narrow point.

That in mind, I'll happily throw out some ideas that we could toss around. I think to truly build a robust, safety minded program would require a good number of heads getting together to build it. Today's programs have been built by operations-focused people, which is why most programs are less than ideal.

I think a good program would be administered by the safety department, with the responsibility for data tracking and analysis resting with them. When they detect an abnormality or issue, they could contact the crew member anonymously, and see what issues they are having. If the crew member appears to be gaming the system, or has multiple suspicious cases, then the safety department could refer them to the CPO for a carpet dance. The data compiled by the safety department would not be available for the CPO, however, and termination would not be an option. The mere fact that someone is looking and asking questions will prevent most abusers from attempting to game the system.

I believe that's a good place to start at least. There are certainly HIPPA concerns that would have to be dealt with by someone better versed that I. There may be contract language that could be drafted to address some of the HIPPA laws, etc. I'm not certain what can be done in that regard.

At any rate, I'm not saying that I am the guy to build a good program. I'm just saying that it isn't impossible. We aren't talking about faster than light travel here. We are talking about a policy. There's no room for the words impossible, always and never when talking about something like a HR policy. I'm somewhat baffled that Seggy doesn't understand that.
 
Philosopher,

I haven't been active in this thread but I can see both sides based upon my experience as the guy who had to work with mgmt at my property on these very issues. That being said, these are just my observations from what I've experienced. Not casting stones or joining anyone else here since I really don't know anyone..

I like the idea of the Safety department leading, tracking and providing trend analysis on issues. For the most part, Safety departments are not in the operations game, and tend to error on the conservitive rather than painting with a broad brush. I work (ed) at the dance party formerly known as Colgan/Pinnacle/Mesaba and I was involved directly in these discussions with our many management teams. Post 3407, and with NTSB and ALPA feedback, we began a fatigue program that were unlike any other in the industry at the time. We formed a committee of a safety rep, an ALPA safety rep and an FAA rep to review fatigue calls. Fatigue was a contributing issue to the accident, and all parties deemed it vital to "correct" the mindset of our pilot group regarding fatigue mgmt. The final policy was if you felt fatigued, you called crew sched, no questions were asked, you were sent to a hotel, and no pay loss or punitive calls after. So.... we had the handful of abusers. Even though all three reps that reviewed the fatigue reports may have believed the call was bogus, they couldn't do anything. Our MEC leadership saw this problem and proactively proposed a solution to prevent this fatigue mgmt policy from becoming more punitive. They trained Professional Standards reps to call the pilots that the fatigue committee all agreed were abusing the policy. The abuse went down, and mgmt never had to publish a written policy that was more punitive. That practice has been noted by the NTSB at the Professionalism in Aviation Symposium as being "best practice" and several other carriers have adopted it.

Something like that could work at jetBlue if the PVC and Prostans reps were willing to get involved. I don't work at your property, but I do believe that your mgmt is probably more open to doing something like this than those with "it's in the contract or not" crowd. Maybe your idea could be molded with the Colgan post 3407 model to combat abusers without creating a written policy? It's your property and you know how it works much better than I do.

Since our merger, we have not only lost the fatigue policy but also our sick policy that were modeled after the Colgan/NTSB model. In my mind, it is a shame. Just like anything else, once a policy is written and in place, no manager wants to stick their neck out and change it to see if it works or not. It is career roulette for them.

Anyhow, Im not picking sides here. THis caught my eye because it is something I've been working on at my carrier for over five years. I hope B6 can find a way to mitigate the abusers without hurting those that use the time for what it is intended. Cheers to you friend,
 
dingo222 said:
Philosopher,

I haven't been active in this thread but I can see both sides based upon my experience as the guy who had to work with mgmt at my property on these very issues. That being said, these are just my observations from what I've experienced. Not casting stones or joining anyone else here since I really don't know anyone..

I like the idea of the Safety department leading, tracking and providing trend analysis on issues. For the most part, Safety departments are not in the operations game, and tend to error on the conservitive rather than painting with a broad brush. I work (ed) at the dance party formerly known as Colgan/Pinnacle/Mesaba and I was involved directly in these discussions with our many management teams. Post 3407, and with NTSB and ALPA feedback, we began a fatigue program that were unlike any other in the industry at the time. We formed a committee of a safety rep, an ALPA safety rep and an FAA rep to review fatigue calls. Fatigue was a contributing issue to the accident, and all parties deemed it vital to "correct" the mindset of our pilot group regarding fatigue mgmt. The final policy was if you felt fatigued, you called crew sched, no questions were asked, you were sent to a hotel, and no pay loss or punitive calls after. So.... we had the handful of abusers. Even though all three reps that reviewed the fatigue reports may have believed the call was bogus, they couldn't do anything. Our MEC leadership saw this problem and proactively proposed a solution to prevent this fatigue mgmt policy from becoming more punitive. They trained Professional Standards reps to call the pilots that the fatigue committee all agreed were abusing the policy. The abuse went down, and mgmt never had to publish a written policy that was more punitive. That practice has been noted by the NTSB at the Professionalism in Aviation Symposium as being "best practice" and several other carriers have adopted it.

Something like that could work at jetBlue if the PVC and Prostans reps were willing to get involved. I don't work at your property, but I do believe that your mgmt is probably more open to doing something like this than those with "it's in the contract or not" crowd. Maybe your idea could be molded with the Colgan post 3407 model to combat abusers without creating a written policy? It's your property and you know how it works much better than I do.

Since our merger, we have not only lost the fatigue policy but also our sick policy that were modeled after the Colgan/NTSB model. In my mind, it is a shame. Just like anything else, once a policy is written and in place, no manager wants to stick their neck out and change it to see if it works or not. It is career roulette for them.

Anyhow, Im not picking sides here. THis caught my eye because it is something I've been working on at my carrier for over five years. I hope B6 can find a way to mitigate the abusers without hurting those that use the time for what it is intended. Cheers to you friend,
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post! Who do you work for now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top