AA Pilots plan job disruptions , not full strike

[goathead]

Bloomberg.com: Transportation (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=afEM.aI7XtFw&refer=transportation)
:ok:

[Saturn]

The mention by the AOA recently that ALL Oneworld airlines are having issues with crew. We hould ALL join AA on the picket line!!!

[Kitsune]

Like you picketed for the 49ers ay........:cool:

[slapfaan]

Talk's cheap...money buys the whisky!!

[hongkongpilot]

I think they deserve better pay.:ok:

Incredible Landing on Airport - Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2394223/incredible_landing_on_airport/)

[poydras]

no hk pilot in the US and elsewhere pilots have a great deal of LUCK!!
they land an airliner just by sheer of luck and miracles....truly they are incompetent ut indeed LUCKY!!!
ONLY Cathay pilots are the choosen ones to aviation........(especially when both PF and PNF Identify 35 times the same VOR on a bright sunny day and then missing ATC clearance for the approach because they race who is the first to say ABC vor Number 36 times identified... ).

[Captain Dart]

Mr Poydras, you are either drunk or English is not your first language (maybe both apply).

However I do agree that 'ABC VOR identified' means nothing, and is not a required call anyway. On this very subject, for members of associations affiliated with HKALPA, there is a thought-provoking article by DN in the latest HKALPA 'Techlog' on whether tuning or monitoring ground-based aids in an RNP environment is necessary at all.

[AAIGUY]

thought the same last week when TD was U/S. What does it matter?
It's a lat/long in a nav database. Who needs the ground aid ?

[Kitsune]

Remember in Kai Tak days a United Airlines senior Captain (he had a VERY gravelly voice) reply to the instructions to do a CC NDB approach...You want me to do WHAT?
Apocryphally there were diversions to TPE until the ILS/IGS was fixed.:cool:

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

Who's still verbalizing that "XXX identified visually L/R" bull****?!?!? Never mind, too many, I know!!! You're supposed to do it, but not required to verbalize it. There's no such "standard callout" anymore and this isn't new. Why in the 'ell are you people rattling off bs that's not a "standard callout" ??? Read the f'ing book so you know what's in there and what's not. But then again, we don't have the up to date hardcopy issued to us, and since not many spend time in front of the old 'puter reading FCOM 3 etc... not many know what's actually in there and just do the old "monkey see, monkey do" and confusion reigns supreme. Next time a c/t capt. brings up "you need to call this or that..." pull out FCOM 3 and show him what's standard and required!!! I do it and believe me, some actually don't know!! I do it and let the man argue with the book while I continue with the task at hand! It works every time! They're people too. It's not natural to read a book off a computer screen and have the info sink in. Make the book happy!!! Quit trying to make every c/t capt. you fly with happy with whatever fantasy he has about what's SOP and what's not! Or you will forever feel like an idiot at your job, becuase you'll never know what you're supposed to to. I'll take a write up in my eras about me not doing something that's not SOP any day rather than spew or do sh!t that's not SOP! If it's not in writing, it's not SOP, period. Otherwise you can't claim to have any level of 'standardization'. And the organization that allows lack of standadization among it's c/t group can't claim to have any level of standadization either. Take a step back and see the distinct steps the 744 fleet office has been taking for at least a year now to fix just that problem. You almost don't have to read between the lines. It's pretty obvious. They just don't want to accept the fact that some of the crusty c/t problem dudes are not fixable and need to be removed.

Don't even get me started!:rolleyes: