US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Second?

[wheelsup]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

Don't forget the airline down here who used car parts to save money!

Yeah but that is expected...a US major doing something like this? If the story is true good job on the pilot.

 

[SRA_kbad]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

I always thought the company motto was:

"At US Air, we don't care" - "At US Airways Express, we could care less"

"We're not happy till your not happy"

 

[BobDDuck]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

I always thought the company motto was:

"At US Air, we don't care" - "At US Airways Express, we couldn't care less"

 

[Mark815]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

I always thought the company motto was:

"At US Air, we don't care" - "At US Airways Express, we could care less"

LOL!

I actually saw it in the paper this morning over breakfast. Handed it over to the captain to check out, we both couldn't believe it was in the paper

 

[Apophis]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

"We're not happy till your not happy"

Now wait a minute. I always thought this was the FAA's motto?

 

[DPApilot]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

Now wait a minute. I always thought this was the FAA's motto?

They don't exist as of 44 minutes ago...

 

[granlistillo]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

Nah, didn't you see the movie 2012? You're safest with John Cusack on board, no matter what else is going on.

Is John Cusack a bigger BAMF than Chuck Norris or Chuck Yeager?

 

[granlistillo]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

US Airlines Pilots Association took out a full page ad in the USA TODAY hammering US Airways. It was very interesting. Here is the link they had in their write up.. www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst

Curious what the real story behind this ad is.

Thanks for posting that. It wasn't a shot across the bow, it was a broadside at the waterline. I hope it gets their intended objectives met, as there isn't much more they can say as they pulled no punches. Is there????

 

[pullup]

Don't forget the airline down here who used car parts to save money!

Car parts are exactly the same in most instances, they just are not traceable.

Regarding the letter, those stories need to be told, however using "management" in every line kind of dilutes the message and makes it look like nothing more than union propaganda. Props to the captain for her decision.

 

[WacoFan]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

I know that USAPA is frowned on, but I admire their militancy.

 

[granlistillo]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

I heard this captain made a PA announcement in the terminal of all places about the condition of the plane and said the company is trying to make them fly an unairworthy aircraft. Not sure, but that is a little over the top, no?

1. Where did you hear that?
2. Maybe. Maybe not. I wasn't there. Did she get one phone call asking for more info and flip out? If the company asks you are you "refusing to fly?" They are trying, typically on a recorded line to more or less say "yes, I am insubordinate and am refusing to fly discipline me". Those words mean it is an ultimatum a direct threat to your employment and the decision is made for you. If it came to that, then maybe the company had kinda thrown down a gaunlet so to speak, no? If she really really felt there is a safety issue, would it be easier to walk off and let the next lady or gentleman handle it as replacement captain? Would you let your kids or mom fly on a plane you really felt shouldn't go? Would you let someone else's kids go and not make an announcement?

SIUAv8tor: I know you aren't sure either, so not directed at you personally. I just wondered if I could ever be put in that position and what would I do. I doubt I would make a PA in the terminal, but I am not above a pissin' contest under the right conditions.

 

[derg]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

People really don't care though.

Ultimately, if you need to get to PHL and there's a USAirways jumpseat at 1800 and it's 1715 now, you're going to ride USAirways despite what USAPA said in the article.

If Ma and Pa Buttersworth are flying to Orlando on vacation and UltraPlushSatelliteTVWifiOnboard Airlines is $X and USAirways is $X-Y, they're flying USAirways.

It's good seeing some pushback by USAPA but ultimately, they're not going to shame management into doing anything.

 

[jtrain609]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

People really don't care though.

Ultimately, if you need to get to PHL and there's a USAirways jumpseat at 1800 and it's 1715 now, you're going to ride USAirways despite what USAPA said in the article.

If Ma and Pa Buttersworth are flying to Orlando on vacation and UltraPlushSatelliteTVWifiOnboard Airlines is $X and USAirways is $X-Y, they're flying USAirways.

It's good seeing some pushback by USAPA but ultimately, they're not going to shame management into doing anything.

But the FAA might, and that would probably be the larger issue.

 

[derg]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

You'd figure they'd be all over it, but being a political institution, wouldn't it just mean that they're not doing proper oversight of the industry?

 

[jtrain609]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

You'd figure they'd be all over it, but being a political institution, wouldn't it just mean that they're not doing proper oversight of the industry?

I think we all know they don't have proper oversight of the industry

 

[granlistillo]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

But the FAA might, and that would probably be the larger issue.

For a pilot certificate action they will pull the catch all reckless operation. With a carrier, well I once had a FAA safety inspector tell me "they can't interfere with management decisions". He went on to explain, it really had to be a violation of a regulation, before they could do anything. That is why the ad, imo, differentiated between what was safe and what was legal. USAPA took its case to the court of public opinion. BTW, Airways issued a rebuttal that said, this is all USAPA strong arm negotiating tactics and without substance or merit or words to that effect. FWIW

 

[RightSeatGirl]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

For a pilot certificate action they will pull the catch all reckless operation. With a carrier, well I once had a FAA safety inspector tell me "they can't interfere with management decisions". He went on to explain, it really had to be a violation of a regulation, before they could do anything. That is why the ad, imo, differentiated between what was safe and what was legal. USAPA took its case to the court of public opinion. BTW, Airways issued a rebuttal that said, this is all USAPA strong arm negotiating tactics and without substance or merit or words to that effect. FWIW

I think though, in a clear cut case of "pilot pushing" that anti-internal relations involvement caveat no longer applies and the FAA can indeed investigate towards a possible certificate action against the carrier. Assuming of course that the story is "as is" and there was no wrong doing in the pilot's behavior that we have yet to hear about. There are always two sides to the story with these things. Not saying the pilot did wrong by refusing the aircraft, just saying for all we know she flipped out and was removed due to her behavior vs. her refusing the aircraft. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. I tend to lean towards agreeing with some posts above that nothing will likely change. But on the other hand the USA Today is (according to Wiki) the 13th highest circulating newspaper in the world and the second highest in the US. Most folks want cheap and nothing else phases them, but there are quite a bit of skittish fliers out there that could see this as a no go on US Airways...

 

[Murdoughnut]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

People really don't care though.

I don't know if that's completely true. There's are folks out there who will pay more to fly an airline they prefer. Business travelers for one - particularly if they're charging the client. And as typical for most businesses - 20% of customers account for 80% of revenue. So perhaps the masses flock to the cheapest fare, but they only fly 1.5 times per year on average. You make more catering to a picky business traveler who flies 10 times a year.

As an example of price not being the end all be all, my parents drove from Dallas to Austin to fly SWA to visit us a month ago even though a direct flight on AA was only a few dollars more.

 

[Eagle421flyer]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

It's great they did this but this happens to most other airlines as well. I know personally of 2 other airlines who had CA's refuse to fly planes for one reason or another. The bigger issue is that revenue really is first most places and safety is second, though they would never admit that.....

 

[BobDDuck]

Re: US Airways' Unwritten Policy: Revenues First, Safety Sec

I don't know if that's completely true. There's are folks out there who will pay more to fly an airline they prefer. Business travelers for one - particularly if they're charging the client.

There were a large number of corporate travel departments that weren't allowed to book on Korean Air during the late 80s/ early 90s and Air China during the late 90s/ early 2000s. Even now, NetJets pilots won't be booked on a CJC flight, or at least that was the case a year ago. Sure, Ma and Pa Kettle might not care, but there are probably enough people out there that do that it makes a dent in revenue.