Thank you, gentlemen, for your learned exposition of the law - which seems to thrive on a United States of Confusion! I especially relish the disclosure of the relevant railroad legal angles that can be used to waft smoke over the aviation procedures....

Going back briefly to the possibility of the station fire crew asking the pilot to stand by evacuating the aircraft, notwithstanding the possibility of smoke in the cabin, this took place, did it not, at St. Petersburg/Clearwater in Florida?
A sleepy place when I was there....how often is SP/C fire service called into a genuine emergency?

A few years back, at Kerry International Airport, Eire, I was informed by the tower that my aircraft was number one to land, and "Air Lingus, you are number two behind the Supercub!"....

So of course I kept pedalling like mad, and after landing safely and rolling out at a walking pace, was caught by a crosswind gust, and ended tail in the air in a bog, while Air Lingus had to go around, and around....

The Airport Fire Service was so excited to AT LAST have a genuine emergency to deal with, after all those years and years of practice, they came dashing up and intended to squirt foam all over my pride and joy.
"Don'T " I shouted, "Its not burning! Just help me to put it right side up and we'll push it to the apron". The fire service guys were so hyped they were actually trembling, but magnificently refrained from squirting their foam.
Eventually Air Lingus was able to land, and no harm done to anyone. And in fact there was no damage to my aircraft, as it was a very slow arrival into a very soft bog!

How much experience do smaller airports actually have for their firecrew to make sensible decisions when they are actually presented with an emergency? And it is even less likely that major airport firecrew will have any actual experience of life threatening emergencies.

Certainly not enough to be able to judge when to countermand a pilot's decision to evacuate. The rule should be well published. They can only inform, not command.

Jesus! What the hell were you wearing??!

Mary, your post as always was eminently sensible, but I have to say SLFGuy, that gave me a genuine "Laugh out loud" :ok: :D :D :D

It's the combustion byproducts (CO, HCL...) that can incapacitate in seconds. Demise from inhaling toxic fumes generally precedes combustion.

The real question in considering evacuation is less the state of the fire 90 seconds from now than the survivability of the cabin atmosphere 90 seconds from now.

Yes, completely agree RBF.

The charred remains may be a secondary outcome.

The PIC really needs to think which of those two scenarios they'd rather be justifying at an inquest.

.

As the old saying goes, if you think flight safety is expensive, try having an accident!

Allegiant pilots have a union and are under the Railway Labor act..And in the RRLA there is a arbitration process that over rides the court system.. Its sad but the courts will rule that the pilot in this case must follow the RRLA and go thru the process.. Arbitrate it... Federal Courts have done this many times before..

Labor hamstrung by the Railway Labor Act of 1926 and extended to the U.S. airline industry in 1936.

This needs to change!

Not quite Magnum, P.I., but....
 

@CAPTDOUG & wanabee777
Case from Hawaii: Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 1994 (findlaw link: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. v. NORRIS | FindLaw)
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Norris, that the RLA does not necessarily require an airline pilot, who claims he or she was discharged from employment because they had been a "whistleblower," to proceed only through the RLA's arbitration dispute resolution system, is still "good law." Meaning unlike Magnum whose run ended (except in syndication), the ruling in Norris, more than 20 years later, is still the law in the U.S.
(If there is a later case, which I have missed, changing the law, after Norris, well, this legal advice is worth what you have paid for it!):cool:

The RLA situation with Allegiant is a bit more complicated since (I believe) there is no existing CBA between the pilots and Allegiant, so the Captain cannot rely on some rights customarily written into CBAs.

Not being a labor expert I'm not even sure what the minor dispute process is without a CBA. Anyone know? This may have been an additional factor of why the suit was filed in Nevada under state law instead of in Federal court under the RLA.

CAPTDOUG & wanabee777
Case from Hawaii: Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 1994 (findlaw link: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. v. NORRIS | FindLaw)
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Norris, that the RLA does not necessarily require an airline pilot, who claims he or she was discharged from employment because they had been a "whistleblower," to proceed only through the RLA's arbitration dispute resolution system, is still "good law." Meaning unlike Magnum whose run ended (except in syndication), the ruling in Norris, more than 20 years later, is still the law in the U.S.
(If there is a later case, which I have missed, changing the law, after Norris, well, this legal advice is worth what you have paid for it!

Your not talking apples and apples.. Its called Air21 and it is a whistle blower. BUT it has to happen prior to a pilot being punished not after if the legal system is to have any power.

Also let it be known that RLA covers all airline pilots regardless if a Union is on property..As in the case of the Allegiant Captain I have heard that their union is giving him the cold shoulder.. So much for paying his union dues....

So they have services to the People's Republic of Cork, then? :p

So as predicted, it came out in court filings that the Captain had demanded $3 million from Allegiant in pre-litigation discussions. This amount obviously meets the dollar threshold for removal from Nevada State court to the U.S. District Court.

Interestingly (for you legal types) Allegiant's motion to remove was not based on diversity, but solely on the argument that the U.S. district court has original jurisdiction. This could backfire on Allegiant.

Also as predicted, Allegiant filed a Motion to Dismiss largely based on arguments stated earlier in this thread including:

• Only the FAA has the right to seek remedy under FARs
• Nevada State laws are preempted by Federal laws
• The Captain forfeited his Federal remedy by not pursuing an AIR21 WPP complaint

Maybe the lawyers are reading this thread? :rolleyes:

Among others, Allegiant argues that Nevada does not have a public policy prohibiting termination of at-will employment based on compliance or non-compliance with FARs.

Allegiant also made some arguments based on the Airline Deregulation Act, which was not very convincing.

Unfortunately for us spectators, there have been no further info from on what actually happened that fateful day.

At this point, the arguments from both sides have lots of holes in them.

The Captain's lawyers want the case to be remanded back to Nevada state court and/or decided under Nevada labor laws. Allegiant's lawyers want the case dismissed, or failing that, for the case stay in the U.S. district court and be decided under preempting Federal laws.

And so the saga continues...

Don't know if it's related but looks like one of the senior Allegiant managers just jumped ship (or walked the plank :confused:):

Allegiant Air COO abruptly quits | Las Vegas Review-Journal

"Maybe the lawyers are reading this thread?" - one would certainly hope that legal counsel worthy of retention in this serious matter would have arrived at appropriate arguments and strategies outside of the forum!


pk, do you happen to know when the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due to be filed in the USDC?


And thanks for posting the litigation update, btw . . . :ok:

Indeed, Allegiant is represented by capable counsels from Jackson Lewis P.C.

On the Motion to Dismiss, both its Response and the Reply to Response have now been filed. I believe next up is setting the discovery schedule.

In the docket there is an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) session set for February 25, 9am.

The case is 2:15-cv-02306, Nevada District Court, if anyone wants to follow.

Allegiant pilots need to impose a "work to rule" action, otherwise the management will continue to pick them off one by one whenever any pilot makes a controversial decision...their management needs to learn the difference between errors, and willful violations

Just a short follow-up on this case. The U.S. District Court rejected Allegiant's arguments on federal jurisdiction. The case has been sent back (remanded) to the Nevada State court, a win for Captain Kinzer.

Allegiant has refiled its "Motion to Dismiss" at the Nevada state court. Due to the usual court system backlog, the next set of activities is likely not until the end of August. The case is long from over and Allegiant will be happy to let it drag out.

Incidentally the presiding state judge is up for re-election in November...

Lower fares generally imply lower service and comfort levels for passengers, not lower on-time performance, and certainly not lower safety.

Safety Culture
 

Do I read this correctly ??

Greg Baden, Allegiant's vice president of operations, and Michael Wuerger, director of flight safety, government affairs and quality assurance, were flying Allegiant's Flight 426 from McCarran International Airport to the Fargo, N.D., Hector International Airport on July 23.

Director of Flight Safety and Quality Assurance are the same person!!!!
Time to go for a Safety Management Course and read page 1.

I'm not a qualified pilot but if I sensed an evacuation was necessary and some unidentifiable person told me to hold off or not evacuate, I'd be backing my original judgement that evacuation is necessary if that person did not identify themselves within seconds.

Even if they did identify themselves and give a reasonable explanation, if I still thought evacuation was necessary I'd still back my judgement to do so (fire, smoke or fumes not visible to those outside the aircraft).

At the end of the day the Captain holds responsibility for the souls on board and the aircraft and the decision rests with them to make the best call they see warranted.

Injuries in an evacuation are unfortunate but a better result than a mass cremation.

Airlines need to back their technical crew to back their pilots in emergency, high pressure situations.

One day we will have cockpit and cabin CCTV fed back to the black boxes and a Captain not proactive could well see themselves to blame for lack of evacuation due to management and bean counter reprisal whilst not being around (along with pax) to even defend themselves in an investigation.

It's the Captain's responsibility to ensure the safety of their flight. It's management's responsibility to ensure the safety culture of an airline is first and foremost.

Pilot fired for doing his job
 

Lucky him, he's in the states and can easily exercise his legal rights. If he was flying for a low-cost carrier in Europe, he would be wasting his time (LOTS of time, and money) trying to sue the airline for firing him.

It’s my opinion that Capt. Kinzer was terminated to quell the pilot group, to silence the pilot group, to in a way ‘take one out’ to keep the pilots from reporting safety events, emergencies, those types of events.”

This is the problem pilots need to stick together,and grow some balls,but I can only dream.

It is not clear that Capt. Kinzer is getting any help from his fellow pilots.
He is posting in the comments to the Washington Star article linked by 'pcpmitch' and seems to be quite alone. That suggests Allegiant has little reason to worry about their pilots forming a group.

What is the opinion of FAA over such a matter? Surely they must be aware of it and can not ignore it?

The FAA would be reluctant to be seen as "meddling" in what's considered a civil employment case. However, the FAA responded by moving up a comprehensive audit of Allegiant's operations (CHEP audit) after this incident and others.

Allegiant's next CHEP audit wasn't due until 2018. Instead, FAA gave Allegiant an audit notice in March and FAA auditors were at Allegiant for three months from April through June of this year.

Allegiant passed the audit with only minor issues flagged and no enforcement actions required. Some of the issues were really minor like one training room apparently had its AC temperature set too low that it was found to be distracting. Allegiant had until this past Friday to address the issues and apparently they did so.

I can't speak for Allegiant pilots, but note that after a tough period they have just won their first union contract (CBA) including up to 30% pay raise and promised improvements to safety processes + culture.

Allegiant is also replacing their aging MD-80s and moving to an all-Airbus fleet by 2019. They recently placed an order for 12 brand new A320neos -- the first time in history they've purchased new aircraft.

So I think Allegiant pilots (now among the best paid in the industry) have room for optimism. They used safety as a "stick" during the contract process and now that concessions have been made it would not be in their benefit to criticize.

If I recall it was noted previously in this thread that Capt. Kinzer's suit was filed without involvement from Allegiant's union (Teamsters).

The Tampa Bay Times has published another hit piece on Allegiant Air.

In true tabloid tradition it starts:

Thousands of people flew Allegiant thinking their planes wouldn't fail. They were wrong. | investigations | Tampa Bay Times

Allegiant Air changes course after Times investigation, admits too many planes failed | Tampa Bay Times

A mea culpa from Maurice....

The case is now inching closer to a jury trial, scheduled to start on July 31, 2017 -- more than two years since the date of this incident.

It appears that the Captain's legal team wanted to depose Maurice Gallagher Jr. (CEO). Allegiant filed a motion to protect. For now the CEO is not required to provide a deposition unless there's evidence that he was involved / had the final say in the Captain's firing.