United flight canceled after upset pilot refuses to fly

Hacker15e said:
Should a "union" even need to send a message that they're "unified"? Aren't they sorta that by default? If they need to take a measure to prove it to the people they work for, then sounds to me like it's not exactly what you'd call an effective organization.

Not wearing hats is just a ridiculous measure to take.

I'm sure the corporate guys are just shaking in their boots at the thought that all those pilots are "unified" in not wearing their hats and what they "might" do next.
Click to expand...

But I'd imagine you wouldn't advocate an illegal job action that would get the point across better eh?

So what's your solution?
 
Kristie said:
can't call a reserve pilot *that* fast.....it can be at least 2 hrs if not longer (i think) before a reserve pilot is able to show.
Click to expand...

gtpilot said:
Dunno about other airlines but we have a couple of pilots each day sitting on duty in ATL for this type of thing. Most of the rest of us on reserve have to be able to duty in within 2 hrs. Not being a hub would make it more problematic though! ;)
Click to expand...

MQAAord said:
Most major/legacy pilots do not have to do the "airport reserve" thing. ;) Heck, DL's reserve report time is 12 hours, with "short call" (an eight-hour period where you have a roughly two-hour call out) being considered a reserve assignment in and of itself!

DL and AA do not have reserve pilots sitting at the airport. AA had "Standby" flight attendants, but not pilots.

Also, the crew base thing as others have mentioned is the other issue. To get a reserve pilot to cover a trip like that could take 4-6 hours to get him/her actually to that airplane, by the time you call out a reserve and get him on a dh flight to SLC.
Click to expand...

Thanks! :)
 
Polar742 said:
Look at it this way, what is the best signal, that when the corp is ready to burn the house down? You ALL do something unified. It's sending a message that everyone cares enough to do something as simple as not wearing a hat. It's merely a message.
Click to expand...

I agree that the idea is to send a message, but I think the message is weak and as was mentioned, should it not just be a given that a union is unified and organized?

To me the fact that they have to "send a message" of being unified signifies exactly the opposite. Sure they can all take their hats off, but when it gets serious will they hold together? Or fold as most unions have in recent years?

This is not a stab at United pilots or any other particular union, just an outside, uninformed observation/opinion about how nobody is going to "get it back" without "bleeding" for it.
 
MQAAord said:
Most major/legacy pilots do not have to do the "airport reserve" thing. ;) Heck, DL's reserve report time is 12 hours, with "short call" (an eight-hour period where you have a roughly two-hour call out) being considered a reserve assignment in and of itself!

DL and AA do not have reserve pilots sitting at the airport. AA had "Standby" flight attendants, but not pilots.
Click to expand...
What?! More and more SouthernJets stand out in appeal to me. :D
Nick said:
I don't know what you mean by real airline; if it has to do with mainline unions caring more I disagree -- I fly an RJ and our union has gotten one particular pilot's job back seven (7) times.
Click to expand...
Well the union and a good attorney. ;) I've heard (unconfirmed, of course) that said pilot is gone, though.

What I'm a bit confused about is whether the union angered the pilot or the company did. That wasn't too clear to me.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Good on him for realizing that he was too irked to fly....but I hope it was something much more serious than a hat.
If there is something on your mind that wont let you give flying your full attention, you should opt out....but you should also have a fairly thick skin I'd hope. But we were not there, so who knows.
Click to expand...

It would take courage to make that announcement. Good on him for doing what he thought was safe however unpopular.
 
WestIndian425 said:
What I'm a bit confused about is whether the union angered the pilot or the company did. That wasn't too clear to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know what the source of the anger was, if the conversation was with a union rep, a company representative, another pilot, or someone else......
 
bdhill1979 said:
I agree that the idea is to send a message, but I think the message is weak and as was mentioned, should it not just be a given that a union is unified and organized?

To me the fact that they have to "send a message" of being unified signifies exactly the opposite. Sure they can all take their hats off, but when it gets serious will they hold together? Or fold as most unions have in recent years?

This is not a stab at United pilots or any other particular union, just an outside, uninformed observation/opinion about how nobody is going to "get it back" without "bleeding" for it.
Click to expand...

Well, again, it's one of those things. I'm not trying to condesend, to if it comes across this way, I apologize.

This is one of those subjects, that no matter how many times you read about it, theorize on it or have discourse about it, until you actually live it and take it in practice, it's diffucult to affix in your mind the constant games required.

To a reasonable mind, a union should be unified. Unfortunately, there are airlines where people break the ranks to "get mine". Sending a nice message to management is often one way to get their attention that the group is indeed unified.

IMHO, the main reason CBA's have been gutted is the bankruptcy code and the President's use of the "Presidential Emergency Board". The PEB can be used to prevent an organized group that is governed by the RLA from striking. The current administration has used this feature more than any previous.
 
Polar742 said:
Well, again, it's one of those things. I'm not trying to condesend, to if it comes across this way, I apologize.

This is one of those subjects, that no matter how many times you read about it, theorize on it or have discourse about it, until you actually live it and take it in practice, it's diffucult to affix in your mind the constant games required.

To a reasonable mind, a union should be unified. Unfortunately, there are airlines where people break the ranks to "get mine". Sending a nice message to management is often one way to get their attention that the group is indeed unified.

IMHO, the main reason CBA's have been gutted is the bankruptcy code and the President's use of the "Presidential Emergency Board". The PEB can be used to prevent an organized group that is governed by the RLA from striking. The current administration has used this feature more than any previous.
Click to expand...
Not being taken in a condescending tone at all. It is just hard for me to fathom why people continue to put up with it as much as they do.
 
Polar742 said:
Sending a nice message to management is often one way to get their attention that the group is indeed unified.
Click to expand...

Noted...but my question is, just WHAT MESSAGE is being RECEIVED BY corporate by everyone not wearing their hats? Never mind what is being SENT...what is being RECEIVED?

I understand that the ALPA thinks that the message is, "we're unified...if we want to do something together, we'll do it. Today it's hats, tomorrow it's...."

That's fine.

Unfortunately, the message that I as an outsider am getting out of it (and I fear what those outside the soda-straw viewpoint of the pilot group -- a.k.a. corporate -- are getting out of it) is twofold:

1) The pilot group has to prove that they have solidarity, because apparently they haven't all ready proved that through past action or management doesn't all ready recognize it.

2) Whoop de frickin' do...they're not wearing their hats. There's no message there. The message that's being recieved is, "Don't mess with us! Or else we won't wear our hats! Next time, we'll all wear lanyards with a different slogan on them!"

It's like the parent that says, "don't you dare do that again, or else I'll give you ANOTHER verbal warning!" to their misbehaving child.

I don't know what the right answer is...but this certainly doesn't seem to send the message that ALPA apparently thinks it does.
 
Hacker15e said:
Noted...but my question is, just WHAT MESSAGE is being RECEIVED BY corporate by everyone not wearing their hats? Never mind what is being SENT...what is being RECEIVED?

I understand that the ALPA thinks that the message is, "we're unified...if we want to do something together, we'll do it. Today it's hats, tomorrow it's...."

That's fine.

Unfortunately, the message that I as an outsider am getting out of it (and I fear what those outside the soda-straw viewpoint of the pilot group -- a.k.a. corporate -- are getting out of it) is twofold:

1) The pilot group has to prove that they have solidarity, because apparently they haven't all ready proved that through past action or management doesn't all ready recognize it.

2) Whoop de frickin' do...they're not wearing their hats. There's no message there. The message that's being recieved is, "Don't mess with us! Or else we won't wear our hats! Next time, we'll all wear lanyards with a different slogan on them!"

It's like the parent that says, "don't you dare do that again, or else I'll give you ANOTHER verbal warning!" to their misbehaving child.

I don't know what the right answer is...but this certainly doesn't send the message that ALPA apparently thinks it does.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:That sums up my thoughts on it better than I did
 
Good for the pilot for recognizing he was too perturbed to fly. Self awareness is a good thing.

I think the more relevant question is; Does someone who gets that upset over an issue regarding a hat really need to be in the left seat of an airliner?

If the call was a death in the family, or some catastrophy then this wouldn't be news and we wouldn't have a thread about it. The fact that he is fragile enough to become that upset over a call regarding a hat calls into question his overall mindset and ability to deal with stress. Would Velocipede get so upset that he would cancel the flight because a co-worker or a union rep got mad at him? Is DE727UPS so brittle that, on the rare occurences he actually flies, he would cancel because of something like this? Would Doug even have time to have a phone call between flights after making sure JC was still operational? Seems to me, if this is about a union issue chewing-out, the guy may be a little too emotional. Just my opinion, flame me at will.
 
WacoFan said:
Good for the pilot for recognizing he was too perturbed to fly. Self awareness is a good thing.

I think the more relevant question is; Does someone who gets that upset over an issue regarding a hat really need to be in the left seat of an airliner?

If the call was a death in the family, or some catastrophy then this wouldn't be news and we wouldn't have a thread about it. The fact that he is fragile enough to become that upset over a call regarding a hat calls into question his overall mindset and ability to deal with stress. Would Velocipede get so upset that he would cancel the flight because a co-worker or a union rep got mad at him? Is DE727UPS so brittle that, on the rare occurences he actually flies, he would cancel because of something like this? Would Doug even have time to have a phone call between flights after making sure JC was still operational? Seems to me, if this is about a union issue chewing-out, the guy may be a little too emotional. Just my opinion, flame me at will.
Click to expand...

Something tells me this goes a little deeper than a hat. ;)

It could be something personal between the pilot and the individual on the other end, we still do not know who he was talking to.

We have very few pieces of this puzzle. Like all things we see in the media, there's more to this than we're seeing in the brief news reports.
 
Waco,
I seriously doubt this was about a passing comment made about a hat. I could be wrong, and maybe this guy broke bad. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately in this business, there are guys with pretty strong personalities. Things can get ugly, and the stress level among pilot groups these days are pretty high to begin with.
So it seems to me that he takes the old IMSAFE checklist that the FAA pays lip service to, and made a decision not to endanger his passengers.

(Remember the FAA does not support pilots with this, they will just crucify any who dont follow ex post facto). Read that statement from the FAA spokesperson, or here's the translation: We expect pilots to not fly if they are unsafe, but we wont lift a finger to ensure that there is no retribution for following our rules.

Here is an ironclad law of the FAA- they will not interefere in management in any company barring breaking of a FAR. The onus is on the pilot and the consequences too.

He obviously knew there would be consequences for his decision, but made his decision and according to you he doesnt belong in the left seat???:confused:???
 
Aye yi yi, if that guy registers for JC, chances are he'd require an inordinate amount of counseling, yellow cards and "for the love of David Hasselhoff bro, can ya just chill for the sake of the rest of us?" chats :)
 
Maybe Doug... or maybe it was the drop that shattered the cup.

I cant see why he didnt call off fatigued or sick? Is he that honest? Was he making a point?

If you are dealing with stressors like a pending divorce, or a recent death in the family, things can push you over the edge. I just hate to call the guy a sissy without all the facts.
 
Oh me too. I figure sometimes less information to the passengers is better. Primarily because if you give folks a little "TMI", the very next thing is a torrent of calls to the news media which always has a boner for "News of the Weird" from the airline world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top