Boeing Fleet management: Legal/industrial issues
 

So this is how it is going to be is it? Last newsletter you (BCP) told us that we couldn’t call in unfit AFTER we had been assigned a duty off of a reserve period (highly illegal, and I am certain you have put yourself in legal jeopardy with that, what say you AOA?). After all, if I come down with food poisoning on the Airport Express on the way to said duty, you seem to suggest I am supposed to still operate, in contravention of ANO's regarding operating when unfit. In the latest newsletter, you say we can’t “discuss industrial issues on the flight deck”. Good luck with that. I can safely assure you that that is about the ONLY thing that is being discussed, every day, every flight (with the result usually being what airline we are applying to, what airline we have interviewed with, what airline start date am I waiting for). I'll talk about whatever I want to talk about on my flight deck. Why not stand up for your pilots and represent their concerns and issues to Swire management (holding my breath). If there was not a complete failure of management and a laundry list of grievances, there wouldn't be anything to talk about would there? No, instead, you feel you can just amend human nature, coerce to operate unfit and shut down freedom of expression. Ok, that about sums up the complete disconnect between management and the aircrew body. Is there any wonder that nearly every pilot under the age of 45 is looking to get out.

Did you expect anything different from our Boeing CP? Who gives a rats ass what he writes in his newsletters?

Once again MC, you demonstrate the abject inability of management to see the woods for the trees. Also an inability to read and understand. The OP was pointing out that what the CP said was in fact illegal (you know, that little thing called the "Law", which seems to be conveniently ignored by CX whenever they seem to feel like it). You can't tell a pilot that he can't call in unfit, at ANYTIME. If a pilot deems himself unfit, then that ends the debate, no matter where and when. Secondly, no airline needs a 180 people on reserve, only an alrline that has demonstrated epic incompetence in their scheduling of pilots, thereby needing 180 people on reserve. The other point raised, that of him telling us we are restricted to what we can discuss. Laughable. You have reaped what you have sown.

MC, it just makes me assume that CC have called the 4 who were most fatigued from their rosters and felt they wouldn't get called out.

If CC call you on reserve, or you have turned up at dispatch and get a last minute change, one must still assess if the duty can be safely completed. If your rest prior to the duty is not adequate one must refuse the duty. It is nit that hard. If CC say 'but it is legal', just reply that it is not legal due fatigue.

Nope, the CP has dictated that you must operate, even if unfit. I'm sure that's legal. It must be, it came from a manager.

Next Fleet Newsletter: instructions as to what style and colour underpants we can wear.

CP Boeing has already been told to retract this statement. He was told in no uncertain terms that if any legal challenge arose then "he would be on his own".

Watch the film "Sully" if you want to see how much support you'll get.
Don't fly fatigued.

Well, we'll see. If the history of arrogance and bloody mindedness inherent in our management ranks holds to form, it will be snowing in Central in August before that happens. I hope he doesn't retract it, as it would be better that management remain in constant legal jeopardy, setting themselves up for numerous lawsuits like the one in progress from Annabelle (if you have a problem at work, just show the CAD the newsletter from the CP, where he insists you can't call in sick if unfit, then pass to your lawyer).

​​​​​​​When you work for a company in a lawless environment, it's no surprise that you are witness to lawless pronouncements from the management of such companies. The sad thing is, he's probably convinced himself that his statement was completely reasonable. I wonder what the CAA/FAA think about it? I'm sure those jurisdictions appreciate having aircraft operating into their airspace with bullied, unfit and distracted pilots. What a joke this entire company has become, and what a disgrace is our management. (remember, don't discuss any of this on the flight deck:eek:).

I do not remember the exact wording of the statement made.

If its intent was to bridle, intimidate, or imply retribution toward the legitimate use of sick leave guaranteed in COS, CA, or CBA, and was applicable to other jurisdictions (like the US for example), I believe it would unquestionably violate the laws in those jurisdictions. I think it might be prudent if a 'clarification' were issued which would indicate the Company fully supports the legitimate use of sick leave which in some cases is a contractural right.

Bah Humbug
 

The French lawsuit (fiasco) is over (i.e. "settled" i.e. checks written non disclosure agreements signed) and what exactly happened to the person (DFO) who was spitefully responsible for that. As usual, rode off into the sunset with huge pension and bonus. Nothing changes.

#CXit

Actually he has returned to CX as a consultant and does sim ride assessments on new pilot applicants.

Download, and backup to a cloud service, every single newsletter. It's a chore, but this is proof that it's worthwhile.