q400 pilots disappearing

[ZapBrannigan]

I agree with the poster that said he/she would get off at the end of that leg.

Let Cap'n Bluto call the chief pilot and explain why the next flight is canceled.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Actually, most companies carry pilots that should be fired.

I've seen that first hand.

:yeahthat:x10

Because ALPA forces them to. I was just talking to some guys at our company about folks that are considered "mavericks" but have their job protected by ALPA.

 

[CAPIP1998]

The problem is where do you draw the line between firing a maverick and firing someone because you don't like them. Without the union fighting for each terminated pilot, we could all be subject to losing our jobs because they just don't like us. I agree it's not a perfect system, but I prefer it over the alternative.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

The problem is where do you draw the line between firing a maverick and firing someone because you don't like them. Without the union fighting for each terminated pilot, we could all be subject to losing our jobs because they just don't like us. I agree it's not a perfect system, but I prefer it over the alternative.

I agree that ALPA should fight for each pilot - but we really need to strong arm fellow pilots into not ruining things for the rest of us. Why do companies have disciplinary sick policies and require 3 doctors notes but will "terminate" you for 6 sick calls? Because people abuse the system. I think the company should be able to grieve to ALPA about individual pilots and when ALPA sees they have a member not acting appropriately, take steps to tell the member, this is your "one" chance, shape up or lose your seniority number, and be subject to the company.

However, the discussion also concluded that this won't happen because we want pilot dues.

I'm not really looking to crucify people but the abusers ruin it for the rest of us, and cause the companies to create sweeping policies for 1300 guys rather than dealing with one.

Abusers are as bad as scabs. Discuss.

 

[Velocipede]

Because ALPA forces them to. I was just talking to some guys at our company about folks that are considered "mavericks" but have their job protected by ALPA.

B.S. ALPA will protect a pilot in trouble as much as they can. But I've seen weak sisters carried by check airmen who don't want to hurt someone's feelings or be the "bad guy" and bust someone.

ALPA has NOTHING to do with the daily operation of the airline's training department. And that's where the problem lies.

Nice try at tarring ALPA though.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

B.S. ALPA will protect a pilot in trouble as much as they can. But I've seen weak sisters carried by check airmen who don't want to hurt someone's feelings or be the "bad guy" and bust someone.

ALPA has NOTHING to do with the daily operation of the airline's training department. And that's where the problem lies.

Nice try at tarring ALPA though.

Uh I'm not tarring ALPA. I've seen what I've seen as an rep-in-the-making (so I'm nominated but hope to be more than that). No organization is perfect. I know people on our C3; I know who they've had to protect for what.

 

[Velocipede]

OK, but the way you phrased it was a pretty cheap shot. ALPA only gets involved when the company tries to fire guys.

My point is that there are some pretty marginal pilots out there being allowed to continue BY THE COMPANY'S own check airmen.

We had a pair of idiots who screwed up so badly everyone agreed they needed to be shown the door, but ALPA had to go through the motions of defending them even though we knew what they did was indefensible.

If you don't get ready for a DFR suit.

 

[Velocipede]

I think the company should be able to grieve to ALPA about individual pilots and when ALPA sees they have a member not acting appropriately, take steps to tell the member, this is your "one" chance, shape up or lose your seniority number, and be subject to the company.

However, the discussion also concluded that this won't happen because we want pilot dues.

Again, B.S. There IS a system in place within ALPA for this to get accomplished. Its called Professional Standards. My Chief Pilot routinely refers the "problem children" to the ProStans guys prior to taking disciplinary action.

That way ALPA can police its own PRIOR to the Company getting involved.

Perhaps you should go have a chat with someone at your MEC. You obviously don't understand how ALPA works too well.

 

[BobDDuck]

From what I've seen, ALPA will defend a pilot's termination only in the sense of, "was the termination carried out per the company's policy". We had a guy here who was fired for doing something inappropriate. It was the third time he'd been caught doing this. Per the company policy they had every right to kick him out the door, which they did. However, in doing so they did NOT follow their own policy in HOW they should have done it. This is why ALPA stepped in and in the end got the guy his job back (much to the dissapointment of many other pilots). The key term is WRONGFUL TERMINATION.

 

[Velocipede]

I've seen what I've seen as an rep-in-the-making (so I'm nominated but hope to be more than that). No organization is perfect.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. If you're a prospective LEC rep, the first thing you need to learn is:

"Its is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[BobDDuck]

Velo, at least on my property, ProStands has no legal authority. All they can do is discuss the issue with the problem child. Apparently back in the day you used to be able to throw a member in bad standing for doing stupid stuff and then they were no longer protected by the Union. Now, (as far as I know) you can only put a member in bad standing for not paying dues. And because of that, I think a lot of people feel that ALPA is only after the money.

 

[kellwolf]

Again, B.S. There IS a system in place within ALPA for this to get accomplished. Its called Professional Standards. My Chief Pilot routinely refers the "problem children" to the ProStans guys prior to taking disciplinary action.

Depends on the ProStands committee, actually. I know the one here isn't all that effective, so I'll back up what Cencal said. If ProStands was actually effective, the mavericks wouldn't exist at all since we wouldn't have guys telling FOs "NO! THAT'S WRONG!" and making up their own policies and procedures. Now, if it ever got physical on the flight deck, things might be different, but there are a LOT of guys here that should have been gone. The difference is the company didn't follow procedures. ALPA has to fight for those guys in those cases whether they like it or not. If they don't, it sets a precedence for the company to can a guy that ISN'T a down the road.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

The pilots that are gone, needed to be. One of them singlehandedly brought FAA action upon themself and Colgan 3 tims this year. Every time the FAA ramped up their observations... this pilot was connected.

It seems pilots are having a rough time of transitioning from the SAAB and Beech, where you did what needed to be done to get the job done. On the Q, everybody is watching, so no more of that. Then there is also the stuff that makes you scratch your head and ask why anybody would think a particular course of action was a good idea.

maybe we can put the pro/anti alpa rhetoric on hold for just a litte bit? It all gets pretty repetive

 

[SteveC]

It seems pilots are having a rough time of transitioning from the SAAB and Beech, where you did what needed to be done to get the job done.

That, in and of itself, can be a problem. It's not a good culture to cultivate.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

That, in and of itself, can be a problem. It's not a good culture to cultivate.

No, but you had a lot of GOOD pilots doing everything they could to keep it moving, anything from calling up TMU directly, launching to hold until release time because the weather let up just enough to allow take off, helping the outstations with bags etc.

I agree that this needs to stop as we move to these larger airplanes, but it can be hard to change a mindset that has been in place for a long time. Way back in the 99's day, it was much more a scheduled 135 op, than 121... and i think thats where it all came from. Just now most of this stuff is coming to light, and it doesn't look good.

It would really be nice if everybody would just do their job, by the book for a while.

 

[derg]

Because ALPA forces them to. I was just talking to some guys at our company about folks that are considered "mavericks" but have their job protected by ALPA.

If a pilot willingly and continuously disregards the rules and policies, he's toast. Period.

Now if you've got a rogue pilot and you have not approached professional standards or even your CPO about the person, you're part of the problem.

Don't just "One of my friends said, that he heard from another guy that Captain Smith did XYZ" because it's not actionable. If someone conducts themselves inappropriately, talk to them about it professional to professional. If he doesn't respond, professional standards. If he doesn't respond to that, chief pilot.

Pilots that go rogue, a good example would be a accident that rhymes with Smashville Smeagol 3379, usually end up killing people.

 

[Velocipede]

Now if you've got a rogue pilot and you have not approached professional standards or even your CPO about the person, you're part of the problem...

Exactly.

 

[IrishSheepdog]

That, in and of itself, can be a problem. It's not a good culture to cultivate.

Agreed. If that is the corporate culture at Colgan, it needs to be stopped immedialtely. Don't get me wrong... I'm the type of guy who will always go the extra mile to help the operation. However, when you stray from pushing a wheelchair or tossing a few gate check bags down to the ramp towards skirting procedures and taking shortcuts, you are setting yourself up for disaster.

I'm a big advocate of standards, but I'm also a big advocate of using your head and making decisions that are safe and efficient. You CAN do both. Don't let anyone lead you to believe otherwise.

You can save hundreds of dollars by taking shortcuts, but you'll spend millions if you ball up an airplane. Doing it right actually saves money, even if it doesn't show on the beancounters balance sheet.

I hope I'm getting my point across ok... Trying to type on the iPhone.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

OK, but the way you phrased it was a pretty cheap shot. ALPA only gets involved when the company tries to fire guys.

My point is that there are some pretty marginal pilots out there being allowed to continue BY THE COMPANY'S own check airmen.

We had a pair of idiots who screwed up so badly everyone agreed they needed to be shown the door, but ALPA had to go through the motions of defending them even though we knew what they did was indefensible.

If you don't get ready for a DFR suit.

Ok so it was poorly phrased.... big deal.

Again, B.S. There IS a system in place within ALPA for this to get accomplished. Its called Professional Standards. My Chief Pilot routinely refers the "problem children" to the ProStans guys prior to taking disciplinary action.

That way ALPA can police its own PRIOR to the Company getting involved.

Perhaps you should go have a chat with someone at your MEC. You obviously don't understand how ALPA works too well.

Ok but does pro-stan take care of b.s. sick calls, or pilots who lie to even the C3 members there to defend him or her?

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. If you're a prospective LEC rep, the first thing you need to learn is:

"Its is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Definitely not kidding. I've been looking for that quote for a while. Thanks!

 

[derg]

How do you know it was a BS sick call?