United Airlines warning letter to Pilots about safety
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is becoming evident in reading this thread is that the comments posted are taking the form of ‘alignment’ along very obvious lines … those of “management” and those of “workers.” It’s my opinion that as long as the participants are focused on defending and accusing – regardless of the side – the potential is that the separation of interests is going to be, and remain, the center of all attention.
The problem with this, beyond the hurt feelings and the explosive reaction that such disagreements often fuel, is that the issues of “safety” and “professionalism” and “competence” receive minimal attention and little or no direct or active “hands-on” actions to correct any “short-coming” or prevent any similar circumstance from developing in the future.
I contend that the time has long-passed since ALL of us in this industry must realize that each of us has our own defined experiences – and it is that combined grouping of experiences that must be brought to bear on ANY logical addressing of the multiple, collective circumstances that periodically combine in such a way as to present a unique and challenging scenario that sometimes develops into a problem – which then, sometimes, results in tragedy.
Pointing fingers and assigning blame does little or nothing to correct any knowledge or competence short-comings – and such emotional tendencies do not generate solutions, and, in fact, may well stand in the way of achieving a collective attitude toward ensuring that knowledge and competence can be increased to a level that might prevent the kinds of unwanted circumstances that seemingly generate the kinds of situations that all too regularly generate these kinds of finger pointing reactions.
It reminds me of the now-famous quote of Rodney King, when he said, “Can’t we all just get along?” If we can’t find a way to regularly “get along,” (and by that, I mean, work together to identify, and then completely correct - and then verify that correction - the short-comings in training, knowledge, and competency that might well exist – anywhere throughout the entire flight sequence … gate-to-gate) I’m afraid we’re doomed to continue to relive, over and over, the deterioration of circumstances that all too often result in yet another tragedy.
The problem with this, beyond the hurt feelings and the explosive reaction that such disagreements often fuel, is that the issues of “safety” and “professionalism” and “competence” receive minimal attention and little or no direct or active “hands-on” actions to correct any “short-coming” or prevent any similar circumstance from developing in the future.
I contend that the time has long-passed since ALL of us in this industry must realize that each of us has our own defined experiences – and it is that combined grouping of experiences that must be brought to bear on ANY logical addressing of the multiple, collective circumstances that periodically combine in such a way as to present a unique and challenging scenario that sometimes develops into a problem – which then, sometimes, results in tragedy.
Pointing fingers and assigning blame does little or nothing to correct any knowledge or competence short-comings – and such emotional tendencies do not generate solutions, and, in fact, may well stand in the way of achieving a collective attitude toward ensuring that knowledge and competence can be increased to a level that might prevent the kinds of unwanted circumstances that seemingly generate the kinds of situations that all too regularly generate these kinds of finger pointing reactions.
It reminds me of the now-famous quote of Rodney King, when he said, “Can’t we all just get along?” If we can’t find a way to regularly “get along,” (and by that, I mean, work together to identify, and then completely correct - and then verify that correction - the short-comings in training, knowledge, and competency that might well exist – anywhere throughout the entire flight sequence … gate-to-gate) I’m afraid we’re doomed to continue to relive, over and over, the deterioration of circumstances that all too often result in yet another tragedy.
I like your post AirRabbit but I need convincing that the mature and measured attitude you display will help in any way unless you yourself are the head of an airline.
At a core level there should be no separation of interests. After safety, we should all be concentrating on the commercial elements regardless of what role we play in the company. Problems arise when some within the company purport to be pursuing safety and then economy , in that order, but their actions prove otherwise.
It is true that a leadership has an influence on the way a group, (be it a nation, a sports team, or a company) behaves. Until we have an effective way of ensuring that the people responsible for developing and maintaining the cultures of our pilot groups are skilled at doing this, aviation safety will continue to flat line as it has since the nineties.
the potential is that the separation of interests is going to be, and remain, the center of all attention.
It is true that a leadership has an influence on the way a group, (be it a nation, a sports team, or a company) behaves. Until we have an effective way of ensuring that the people responsible for developing and maintaining the cultures of our pilot groups are skilled at doing this, aviation safety will continue to flat line as it has since the nineties.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer – sorry, I don’t think I would ever be able to convince you, or anyone else, that any single person’s “mature and measured attitude” (and, by the way, thanks for the compliment…) would do anything short of generating a severe headache for that “someone.” I believe it is going to take multiple persons – several in each of the major participant groups – and very likely at least that same number from each of the participant groups immediately adjacent to the “major” groups – that, all together, make up the aviation industry – to come together with a single goal in mind. THAT goal has to be the professional, competent, and safe operation of each separate airline.
If it were true that running an airline professionally, competently, and safely cannot be accomplished profitably … then, it must be true that eventually each venture into that business field will eventually falter … due to one of the following:
1) their spending profits on industry-leading salaries and esoteric (and costly) airplanes, airplane systems, marketing, and state-of-the-art training and terminal facilities, and similar focus on an old but outdated attitude of “buying the best to be the best;”
2) their “catering” to the “rich-n-famous” persons, and letting the average airline passenger fend for him/her-self;
3) their operating a schedule to and from destinations that appeal to the “frequent” business traveler and avoiding those destinations frequented by families and every-day citizens; and, perhaps most negative of all …
4) their developing a reputation for compromising the safety of their passengers … resulting in no one wanting to buy a ticket to take their chances on getting to their destination in one piece;
But THAT is not the story here. No – as it has been demonstrated far too many times in far too many different businesses, providing needed and wanted goods and/or services, provided in return for a fair and equitable price, treating customers like extended families or at least valued friends, and done so in an honest, proper, and professional manner … does not lead to anything but a successful business. And I would hasten to point out that a “successful” business is not one that necessarily garners all the publicity, generates interest by skyrocketing to the top of the stock market price-per-share listing, or one that allocates a sizeable portion of their operating expense to “advertising.” Most successful business provide their goods or services quietly and dependably, generating return customers on the basis of each customer’s own perceptions of value for cost – where that assessed value includes all kinds of individually important characteristics.
The best way – usually the only way – to assure that the service or product supplied will be received in that manner by customers is to do the job – build the product or offer the service – using the very best of every employee’s professional ability, using professional courtesy, professional competencies, following of all rules and regulations, being honest in the development of the character of every employee, ensuring that each employee knows his/her job, is trained to know what to do, when and how to do it, and provide honest and complete performance of those learned and practiced skills, from the first to the last effort, on every job.
However, in a business that is so subject to the times and the resulting developmental capabilities of systems and equipment, as is an airline operation, a major portion of the efforts describe here, are necessarily going to involve the use of modern equipment, modern capabilities, newer learned facts and capabilities, staying abreast of new and advanced equipment. Equally true is the vast expanse of fields of expertise that are all involved (deeply involved) in day-to-day operations. Regulatory authorities, management officials, prized professional employees – from several vastly different backgrounds and skill sets, valued providers of mundane and routine functions, and a critical dependence on other companies providing an equally professional and competent service or product.
This is the reason that I’ve recommended a regularly held review meeting of representatives of ALL of the aspects of an aviation operation – as I said in an earlier post in this thread … the international effort recently mounted by the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society to develop training and evaluation standards for pilots, instructors, and evaluators … to match the recently developed uniform standards developed for the involvement of flight training simulation devices … is an effort that may well be able to initiate and hopefully maintain an awareness by all participants of the efforts, the challenges, the failures, and the successes of each of those other participants.
As I’ve said, this effort should not be looked upon as a “once done – it’s done forever” kind of effort. It should be a “living” and “breathing” effort, that is continually and regularly reviewed and examined – using the most recent memories and concerns, and being sure to specifically include all of the newest systems and equipment whose original design was to enhance or make easier the eventual operation of an airplane, into those deliberations and training/evaluation development efforts.
Cutting salaries of some employees … reducing training costs or service costs or reducing some other supposedly costly function … extending flight duty times … and other such outwardly recognizable efforts are NOT going to achieve the lasting kinds of results that any industry needs to be successful. I am almost – well not almost – I AM pleading for the world’s airlines (including managers, supervisors, vice presidents, managers, trainers and evaluators; training systems purchasers and users) … local, national, and international pilot/flight attendant/dispatcher organizations … and the world’s regulators … to join in this international effort – to expand it where required – improve it where necessary – and revisit the process on a regular basis … each time reflecting on history and what “new” industry innovations have made it (or will make it) to the front page. Rational and equally respectful understandings of everyone else’s positions, problems, and potential solutions – should be the regularly scheduled subjects for such discussions and reviews.
If it were true that running an airline professionally, competently, and safely cannot be accomplished profitably … then, it must be true that eventually each venture into that business field will eventually falter … due to one of the following:
1) their spending profits on industry-leading salaries and esoteric (and costly) airplanes, airplane systems, marketing, and state-of-the-art training and terminal facilities, and similar focus on an old but outdated attitude of “buying the best to be the best;”
2) their “catering” to the “rich-n-famous” persons, and letting the average airline passenger fend for him/her-self;
3) their operating a schedule to and from destinations that appeal to the “frequent” business traveler and avoiding those destinations frequented by families and every-day citizens; and, perhaps most negative of all …
4) their developing a reputation for compromising the safety of their passengers … resulting in no one wanting to buy a ticket to take their chances on getting to their destination in one piece;
But THAT is not the story here. No – as it has been demonstrated far too many times in far too many different businesses, providing needed and wanted goods and/or services, provided in return for a fair and equitable price, treating customers like extended families or at least valued friends, and done so in an honest, proper, and professional manner … does not lead to anything but a successful business. And I would hasten to point out that a “successful” business is not one that necessarily garners all the publicity, generates interest by skyrocketing to the top of the stock market price-per-share listing, or one that allocates a sizeable portion of their operating expense to “advertising.” Most successful business provide their goods or services quietly and dependably, generating return customers on the basis of each customer’s own perceptions of value for cost – where that assessed value includes all kinds of individually important characteristics.
The best way – usually the only way – to assure that the service or product supplied will be received in that manner by customers is to do the job – build the product or offer the service – using the very best of every employee’s professional ability, using professional courtesy, professional competencies, following of all rules and regulations, being honest in the development of the character of every employee, ensuring that each employee knows his/her job, is trained to know what to do, when and how to do it, and provide honest and complete performance of those learned and practiced skills, from the first to the last effort, on every job.
However, in a business that is so subject to the times and the resulting developmental capabilities of systems and equipment, as is an airline operation, a major portion of the efforts describe here, are necessarily going to involve the use of modern equipment, modern capabilities, newer learned facts and capabilities, staying abreast of new and advanced equipment. Equally true is the vast expanse of fields of expertise that are all involved (deeply involved) in day-to-day operations. Regulatory authorities, management officials, prized professional employees – from several vastly different backgrounds and skill sets, valued providers of mundane and routine functions, and a critical dependence on other companies providing an equally professional and competent service or product.
This is the reason that I’ve recommended a regularly held review meeting of representatives of ALL of the aspects of an aviation operation – as I said in an earlier post in this thread … the international effort recently mounted by the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society to develop training and evaluation standards for pilots, instructors, and evaluators … to match the recently developed uniform standards developed for the involvement of flight training simulation devices … is an effort that may well be able to initiate and hopefully maintain an awareness by all participants of the efforts, the challenges, the failures, and the successes of each of those other participants.
As I’ve said, this effort should not be looked upon as a “once done – it’s done forever” kind of effort. It should be a “living” and “breathing” effort, that is continually and regularly reviewed and examined – using the most recent memories and concerns, and being sure to specifically include all of the newest systems and equipment whose original design was to enhance or make easier the eventual operation of an airplane, into those deliberations and training/evaluation development efforts.
Cutting salaries of some employees … reducing training costs or service costs or reducing some other supposedly costly function … extending flight duty times … and other such outwardly recognizable efforts are NOT going to achieve the lasting kinds of results that any industry needs to be successful. I am almost – well not almost – I AM pleading for the world’s airlines (including managers, supervisors, vice presidents, managers, trainers and evaluators; training systems purchasers and users) … local, national, and international pilot/flight attendant/dispatcher organizations … and the world’s regulators … to join in this international effort – to expand it where required – improve it where necessary – and revisit the process on a regular basis … each time reflecting on history and what “new” industry innovations have made it (or will make it) to the front page. Rational and equally respectful understandings of everyone else’s positions, problems, and potential solutions – should be the regularly scheduled subjects for such discussions and reviews.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely.
Unfortunately it leaves out the fairly crucial aspect of company politics and the relentless self advancement pursued by some. We have to operate in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
Unfortunately it leaves out the fairly crucial aspect of company politics and the relentless self advancement pursued by some. We have to operate in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well … calypso as you, and everyone else here, understands (or should), politics and self-advancement are not merely “fairly crucial” aspects, they are very likely the most centrally obstructive attitudes that are seemingly ever-present in many, if not most, organizations. So … do we attempt to do something about the circumstances – whatever those circumstances may be - or, do we “fold our tents” and head for the bar?
So … what are the alternatives?
1) throw barbs over a bargaining table?
2) write “letters to the editor”?
3) carry UNFAIR picket signs?
4) cut labor costs by reducing salaries?
5) institute lay-offs?
Of course, such a list could go on “ad nauseam” – and could include any of all the other tried-and-failed alternatives. Notwithstanding this unlikely-to-occur effort, it seems that the only logical alternative is—
a) to determine what may be in error (perhaps training goals and evaluation methods?);
b) identify what can be improved (perhaps competence, knowledge, understanding, and practice?);
c) recognize and understand the fiscal limitations (perhaps frontal understanding that corporate income is generated by ticket sales – alone – and recognizing the impact of lowering salaries is not necessarily off-set by increasing work hours?);
d) understand the costs of “doing business” (perhaps acknowledge rising fuel costs and airport fees? – and/or the necessity for specifically qualified personnel to install/maintain/repair the advancing technology currently found in modern aircraft?)
The bottom line quickly comes into focus … work within these boundaries to understand the meaningful methods that can be employed to correct errors, to improve what can be improved, and allow everyone the opportunity to experience the satisfying recognition of their own participative efforts being a contributing factor to the success of the organization employing them.
Is this “pie-in-the-sky?” Maybe … a bit. A perfect solution? Certainly not. But, no one ever got anywhere by sitting on their duff while complaining. What I, and others – most notably the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society – are attempting to employ, is a process involving ALL of the significant parties in a regular review of existing operations and collective agreements regarding what can be done to improve the process (the WHOLE process) and, from that, the meaningful bottom line.
So … what are the alternatives?
1) throw barbs over a bargaining table?
2) write “letters to the editor”?
3) carry UNFAIR picket signs?
4) cut labor costs by reducing salaries?
5) institute lay-offs?
Of course, such a list could go on “ad nauseam” – and could include any of all the other tried-and-failed alternatives. Notwithstanding this unlikely-to-occur effort, it seems that the only logical alternative is—
a) to determine what may be in error (perhaps training goals and evaluation methods?);
b) identify what can be improved (perhaps competence, knowledge, understanding, and practice?);
c) recognize and understand the fiscal limitations (perhaps frontal understanding that corporate income is generated by ticket sales – alone – and recognizing the impact of lowering salaries is not necessarily off-set by increasing work hours?);
d) understand the costs of “doing business” (perhaps acknowledge rising fuel costs and airport fees? – and/or the necessity for specifically qualified personnel to install/maintain/repair the advancing technology currently found in modern aircraft?)
The bottom line quickly comes into focus … work within these boundaries to understand the meaningful methods that can be employed to correct errors, to improve what can be improved, and allow everyone the opportunity to experience the satisfying recognition of their own participative efforts being a contributing factor to the success of the organization employing them.
Is this “pie-in-the-sky?” Maybe … a bit. A perfect solution? Certainly not. But, no one ever got anywhere by sitting on their duff while complaining. What I, and others – most notably the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society – are attempting to employ, is a process involving ALL of the significant parties in a regular review of existing operations and collective agreements regarding what can be done to improve the process (the WHOLE process) and, from that, the meaningful bottom line.
I am almost – well not almost – I AM pleading for the world’s airlines (including managers, supervisors, vice presidents, managers, trainers and evaluators; training systems purchasers and users) … local, national, and international pilot/flight attendant/dispatcher organizations … and the world’s regulators … to join in this international effort
At the moment it is easier for them to cut spending, watch the balance sheet react, take the bonus, and move on to the next CEO job in a different industry ( hopefully before the next incident).
All short term activities.
We need a distinct 'fit and proper person' requirement for the leaders of this industry and ongoing requirements for them to demonstrate active management of their company's 'safety culture'.
When ICAO and the FAA publicly acknowledge that aircraft accidents are just as often caused by poor leadership within the company as they are by operational staff making 'one off ' mistakes, then the pressure might come on to regulate those with the greatest influence on safety, the heads of our Airlines.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by framer
We need a distinct 'fit and proper person' requirement for the leaders of this industry and ongoing requirements for them to demonstrate active management of their company's 'safety culture'.
When ICAO and the FAA publicly acknowledge that aircraft accidents are just as often caused by poor leadership within the company as they are by operational staff making 'one off ' mistakes, then the pressure might come on to regulate those with the greatest influence on safety, the heads of our Airlines.
When ICAO and the FAA publicly acknowledge that aircraft accidents are just as often caused by poor leadership within the company as they are by operational staff making 'one off ' mistakes, then the pressure might come on to regulate those with the greatest influence on safety, the heads of our Airlines.
If those in the job functions I’ve described earlier, can get together, repeatedly, regularly … perhaps with smaller groups a couple of times a year, and the larger, more international kinds of gatherings perhaps every other year, or so … I think that a legitimate set of understandable and logical standards could very likely be developed. If those standards can be put into meaningful and understandable regulatory language – any airline manager is going to have to comply or be in violation of those regulations.
The “trick” (if you will) is to find language that provides for the development of logical competence (for all of those who must undergo some kind of regulatory required training, evaluation, or observation – pilots, flight attendants, instructors, evaluators, mechanics, and so forth…) that sets out the minimum training time requirement (i.e., number of hours – usually broken into segments of training/evaluation) before being able to be released “for duty,” BUT allowing a demonstration of a specifically defined set of performance requirements or standards to preclude the necessity of continued training time that would have been clearly unnecessary – depending on the voracity of the prescribed “demonstration of performance.” As you would expect, the KEY here is the language used … and a clear, and unambiguous understanding of what that language means.
Yes – there could be attempts to circumvent such standards – but if these standards are carefully worded and policed correctly by those who fully understand the meaning of the terms used and are honest in their characterizations of what they see in the performance of those undergoing that training, any attempt to subvert these authorizations can be more easily recognized for what such efforts really are attempting to do.
It shouldn’t take long to determine whether or not the language used is doing the service intended and it would logically be affected any time an adjustment is warranted due to a change in operations, a change in equipment capabilities, or other such alterations from the initial examinations. BUT, there are some who believe this effort – or something very similar – is one of the few ways in which a meaningful set of standards can be developed, used, and ultimately produce the kinds of human performance we all would like to see occur.
Will it break/falter? Certainly there will be times where closer attention may be needed – which is ONE of the reasons I’m recommending a regular, periodic re-gathering of the appropriate personnel to review, and revise when/where necessary, to ensure the program is producing what it was/is intended to produce … capable, productive, competent professionals to run, manage, supervise, and ultimately, reflect proudly on an industry that has few rivals for the kinds of self-worth recognized by those involved, while providing a determinedly needed service to the general public.
I, for one, want to do all I can to find some way to make right what we all know is right - and do it honestly, directly, (and hopefully, with the willing cooperation and participation by ALL involved) but in the end, I'd very much like to see it occur ... period.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's a union response from the UAL MEC Chairman to a Wall Street Journal article about the safety memo:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/uniteds-...tor-1425675378
United’s Pilots Working for Safety
We take pride in our work, in our professionalism and in our safety record.
March 6, 2015 3:56 p.m. ET
As chairman of United Airlines’ 12,539 pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, I would like to respond to the article “United Issues Pilot Warning After Recent Close Calls” (page one, Feb. 26). We take pride in our work, in our professionalism and in our safety record. Procedures, traditions, infrastructures and tired processes that worked for the previous respective legacy airlines need to be readdressed, updated and modified. The United pilots have repeatedly raised these concerns with our management and offered solutions that seek improvements in training, mitigating external distractions, flight planning and the use of new technology to conduct safe operations.
The fact that pilots and management can discuss these issues and work toward solutions should give our customers comfort. The U.S. aviation industry has long-standing safety programs in place that identify threats and errors through a cooperative approach among ALPA, management and the Federal Aviation Administration. The release of a Jan. 9 confidential company memo to the media is unfortunate. Good practice requires open communication within the company regarding safety issues. Every employee at United Airlines has safety at the forefront of their minds and their actions. The pilots have a legacy of leadership in airline safety and will continue to advocate and strive for the safest transportation system.
Capt. Jay Heppner
United Master
Executive Council
Rosemont, Ill.
We take pride in our work, in our professionalism and in our safety record.
March 6, 2015 3:56 p.m. ET
As chairman of United Airlines’ 12,539 pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, I would like to respond to the article “United Issues Pilot Warning After Recent Close Calls” (page one, Feb. 26). We take pride in our work, in our professionalism and in our safety record. Procedures, traditions, infrastructures and tired processes that worked for the previous respective legacy airlines need to be readdressed, updated and modified. The United pilots have repeatedly raised these concerns with our management and offered solutions that seek improvements in training, mitigating external distractions, flight planning and the use of new technology to conduct safe operations.
The fact that pilots and management can discuss these issues and work toward solutions should give our customers comfort. The U.S. aviation industry has long-standing safety programs in place that identify threats and errors through a cooperative approach among ALPA, management and the Federal Aviation Administration. The release of a Jan. 9 confidential company memo to the media is unfortunate. Good practice requires open communication within the company regarding safety issues. Every employee at United Airlines has safety at the forefront of their minds and their actions. The pilots have a legacy of leadership in airline safety and will continue to advocate and strive for the safest transportation system.
Capt. Jay Heppner
United Master
Executive Council
Rosemont, Ill.
Once again AirRabbit speaks words of wisdom. It is not enough for management, pilots and all those who work in the safety front line of airlines just to talk safety. It requires ALL these people to live, breath and enact safety all the time. And safety is also consistent with sound economics.
The work of the RAeS in this area is very much along the right lines.
The work of the RAeS in this area is very much along the right lines.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time I hear an airline executive utter the words "safety is out number one priority", I cringe. Most don't care at all about anything other than their own careers - they want the bonuses and salaries and little else. Therein lies the problem - as long as they can circumvent rules and regulations well enough to stay out of prison while increasing profits and thus their bonus, then they will congratulate themselves on a job well done with no interest in the long term future of the business or its staff and customers.
What is needed is for legislation to be invoked that links salaries and bonuses of executives to the long-term performance and safety of whatever business they're in. It needs to be legislative because few executives will do this voluntarily. There are interesting statistics on the psychological makeup of of certain jobs, psychopathy being a worrying norm in certain roles. The worst on the list, unsurprisingly, were bankers/traders, followed by executives. They cannot be persuaded to look after the long term interests of others - it has to be forced on them.
I can't disagree with anything AirRabbit has written, but sadly I think hoping for enlightened airline management is fantasy because of the nature of the people involved.
What is needed is for legislation to be invoked that links salaries and bonuses of executives to the long-term performance and safety of whatever business they're in. It needs to be legislative because few executives will do this voluntarily. There are interesting statistics on the psychological makeup of of certain jobs, psychopathy being a worrying norm in certain roles. The worst on the list, unsurprisingly, were bankers/traders, followed by executives. They cannot be persuaded to look after the long term interests of others - it has to be forced on them.
I can't disagree with anything AirRabbit has written, but sadly I think hoping for enlightened airline management is fantasy because of the nature of the people involved.
The way of the world now is to make profit.
The low cost airline industry model has been recognised as a good way to make money.
The CEOs and upper managers DO understand all about safety and morale:-
BUT THEY DON'T CARE.
It does not affect their balance sheet, so they don't need to pay it much attention. They only pretend to care about safety. It's like politicians pretending to believe in God. Believing in God gets the politicians votes. Pontificating about safety gets the CEOs passengers for their airline.
If conditions get so bad that pilots leave, the CEO will just hire more new pilots. (At a reduced salary of course. A benefit to the CEO is that with a high staff turnover, they can drive wages down).
Many companys nowadays are run like this. The CEOs know that all they need to do is slash operating costs by reducing training, maintenance and salaries, and increase hours, and hey presto ! They make more profit. But these profits are only for them and the owners, not us, (even if it were ethical to make profits in this way, which it isn't).
My company has recently slashed our salaries and pensions - by about 35% - and thanks to EASA, we are about to be legally allowed to work even longer hours in a flight duty period. And why? - so the company can offer even cheaper fares. And why are they doing that? - because it is a very easy way of making profits. You don't have to worry about quality or anything. So myself and my fellow pilots are now effectively subsidising the passengers' cheap fares though our reduced salaries. Some of my colleagues have had to sell their houses and move to cheaper areas. Why are we doing this?
Our new CEO seems to think that he can maintain our airlines' standards of passenger comfort and satisfaction NO MATTER WHO IS PROVIDING THE SERVICE. He thinks that he can staff the aircraft with anybody and the service will be as good as it used to be. All the dedicated staff who really cared and worked hard to provide that service and make the airline what it was have gone or are going.
The CEO will move onto another company in five years time or less, so he/she does NOT CARE about you or the state they will leave your once proud airline in, or if it fails after they have left. The CEO will be taking the profits with them. Profits YOU earned by having your pay reduced and by working more hours for them.
The low cost airline industry model has been recognised as a good way to make money.
The CEOs and upper managers DO understand all about safety and morale:-
BUT THEY DON'T CARE.
It does not affect their balance sheet, so they don't need to pay it much attention. They only pretend to care about safety. It's like politicians pretending to believe in God. Believing in God gets the politicians votes. Pontificating about safety gets the CEOs passengers for their airline.
If conditions get so bad that pilots leave, the CEO will just hire more new pilots. (At a reduced salary of course. A benefit to the CEO is that with a high staff turnover, they can drive wages down).
Many companys nowadays are run like this. The CEOs know that all they need to do is slash operating costs by reducing training, maintenance and salaries, and increase hours, and hey presto ! They make more profit. But these profits are only for them and the owners, not us, (even if it were ethical to make profits in this way, which it isn't).
My company has recently slashed our salaries and pensions - by about 35% - and thanks to EASA, we are about to be legally allowed to work even longer hours in a flight duty period. And why? - so the company can offer even cheaper fares. And why are they doing that? - because it is a very easy way of making profits. You don't have to worry about quality or anything. So myself and my fellow pilots are now effectively subsidising the passengers' cheap fares though our reduced salaries. Some of my colleagues have had to sell their houses and move to cheaper areas. Why are we doing this?
Our new CEO seems to think that he can maintain our airlines' standards of passenger comfort and satisfaction NO MATTER WHO IS PROVIDING THE SERVICE. He thinks that he can staff the aircraft with anybody and the service will be as good as it used to be. All the dedicated staff who really cared and worked hard to provide that service and make the airline what it was have gone or are going.
The CEO will move onto another company in five years time or less, so he/she does NOT CARE about you or the state they will leave your once proud airline in, or if it fails after they have left. The CEO will be taking the profits with them. Profits YOU earned by having your pay reduced and by working more hours for them.
Last edited by Uplinker; 10th Mar 2015 at 12:35.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
BUT THEY DON'T CARE.
It does not affect their balance sheet, so they don't need to pay it much attention. They only pretend to care about safety. It's like politicians pretending to believe in God. Believing in God gets the politicians votes. Pontificating about safety gets the CEOs passengers for their airline.
If conditions get so bad that pilots leave, the CEO will just hire more new pilots. (At a reduced salary of course. A benefit to the CEO is that with a high staff turnover, they can drive wages down).
Many companys nowadays are run like this. The CEOs know that all they need to do is slash operating costs by reducing training, maintenance and salaries, and increase hours …
It does not affect their balance sheet, so they don't need to pay it much attention. They only pretend to care about safety. It's like politicians pretending to believe in God. Believing in God gets the politicians votes. Pontificating about safety gets the CEOs passengers for their airline.
If conditions get so bad that pilots leave, the CEO will just hire more new pilots. (At a reduced salary of course. A benefit to the CEO is that with a high staff turnover, they can drive wages down).
Many companys nowadays are run like this. The CEOs know that all they need to do is slash operating costs by reducing training, maintenance and salaries, and increase hours …
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
It seems to me that if this “practice” can be beneficial, but someone, someplace has decided “not-on-my-airline/airplane,” things are likely not to change unless someone in a superior position (either in fact or in theory) to those who are currently “having it their own way,” clearly says what will be done and makes this “hand flying” exposure a regular occurrence. Again, it seems that this will occur only if one of 2 things take place; 1) similar thinking line pilots pool their resources and buy the airline from the current owner and make such a practice logical and expected; or 2) the regulator adds such a requirement to the regulations and thereby makes such a practice necessary to comply with the rules, if not logical and expected as well … and I’ll leave to your imagination which of those alternatives is the most logically to occur … at least, in my not-so-humble opinion.
But, again, I am NOT advocating that a “blank check” be handed to the regulators! Rather, I am advocating that a regular meeting of interested parties (regulators, airline managers, pilots, pilot’s representatives, educators, and anyone – everyone – else who may be able to make meaningful inputs, comments, and/or recommendations about the best way to ensure each pilot behind the controls of an airplane (primarily airline operations) has the very best opportunity to learn, practice, and absorb all there is to know about, and practice performing the appropriate skills necessary, to initiate and follow through on any task set before that pilot. Anything short of that goal will be just that – short of that goal.
This industry has been fortunate enough to have some pretty knowledgeable folks, full of foresight and imagination. I believe we cannot afford to lose those folks. But we ALSO need to find a way to take advantage of what they say, and make what they develop into meaningful examples of professional competence. And if that means putting a new requirement into the regulations – then THAT is exactly what we must do. If an airline manager decides he/she does not want to follow the lawful presence of a regulation – there are ways he/she may go about seeking an exemption – and what would be done would be to provide the proverbial level of safety “equivalent;" BUT knowledgeable folks MUST be able to agree that what is being proposed really does provide an equivalent practice that provides an equivalent ability to perform the tasks required to an equivalent level of competence. Anything less is simply NOT equivalent!
To prevent someone from finding a convenient combination of “words” to “sound” good in support of granting an authorization to disregard a regulatory requirement – the knowledgeable folks who examined, proposed, and wrote that requirement simply MUST be ever-diligent and stand up for what they know - including whether or not a proposed "equivalent level of safety" actually WILL provide that "equivalent level of safety." Truth is a hard thing to prove at times, but it is the only thing that regularly brings airline flights to successful and safe conclusions.
