SWISS: pilot fired for criticism

[Ignition Override]

Airbubba: the "lady" you referred to, a Mrs. Dawn **a**, found the perfect timing to run to FEDEX mgmt and use her amateur psychiatric diagnosis (probably with her FEDEX pilot-husband's strong support), based on reading Internet ramblings from a pilot who called himself "Captain America", to persuade the company to find a scapegoat for the awkward FEDEX battle against ALPA. She used his nickname Captain America as part of her proof that the guy was dangerous, implying that he could be as psychotic as Auburn Callaway. Incidentally, according an article I read years ago in the "Wall Street Journal", one of their rabid anti-ALPA types challenged a pro-ALPA pilot to a fight with tire irons: a 'gentleman's sport'. Someone should have checked the macho guy for hydrophobia and rabies.

Whether Mrs. **a** (I know her real name: send e-mail if you want it) was sincere or not is difficult to answer, but it was very convenient that the allegedly "unstable" pilot was very pro-ALPA, and how about after the terrible, attempted takeover by Callaway? Never mind that the other guy, Barnhart, was NOT about to face a hearing (i.e. regarding a lie on his job application), as Callaway had faced before he "went postal". The guys who tried to introduce ALPA there, at that time with certain tactics, seemed to have assumed way too much about the political landscape, both within their company and the city, at least as much as Napoleon misunderstood the physical landscape at Waterloo, and how motivated certain Allied commanders were to get rid of Him.

A friend's ex-spouse flies certain aircraft there and apparently only a minority of FEDEX pilots trust good old Fred these days.

[Flight Detent]

Hi Guys,
Air Atlanta have been 'firing' flight crew members for years for speaking there mind, usually when they are faced with mindbending stupidity over and over again.
Some guys can handle the frustration, others 'explode' after several times down the same track, so to speak!

Cheers

[wallabie]

My God, am I happy to be working where I am !! My blood pressure is at a happy 110/60 and I don't have to fear m....s like 411A. We may have a few tarty managers but by God it would take until the rest of time to match you 411A !

Lucifer, unfortunatly for our Swiss friends, Swiss laws are far from kind to employees in cases like this and beside, it would be losing face now if they baked down. I'm afraid the guy's toasted.
Never heard of unfair dismissals like this within the EEC.............Come to think of it, I think Captain Clapson BA ( forgive me if I don't spell the name correctly ) was sacked in a rather bullish way.

[411A]

wallabie,

Glad you are happy where you're at...so am I.

My first experience with a large international carrier was in 1977.
During the interview (for a direct entry Captain position) the big man himself (DirFltOps...SK Chan) mentioned that...."we know how to run the airline, so just please do it our way, and we'll all get along just fine."

Some of the best advice I ever received.

Some guys however, like to rock the boat.
Never understood why.

[Kaptin M]

411A, your Alzheimers is really taking over. From another topic written just a few hours earlier by 411 comes THIS gem, "...and the CrossAir guys wanting big aeroplane upgrades (even tho most wouldn't know what to do with a heavy jet if it bit 'em)...", who then goes on to state here, "My first experience with a large international carrier was in 1977 (for a direct entry Captain position)."
Sad...very sad.

[411A]

Well my good Kaptin...that last post of yours might make sense to you, but sure doesn't to me.

But wait, maybe it does...? I think.

Large company...many aircraft (in this case, more than say, 25-30.
Larger than CX at the time, anyway.

Small company...less than 25.

Got the picture?

[Burger Thing]

Kaptin M, can you please enlighten us, what you mean? I just woke up, so I might be still a little bit blur, but even after being half way through with my coffee, your response to 411A was a little confusing to me.

[middlepath]

Now I understand why swiss has fired another pilot unfairly just before official rdundency plan was declared. I was told the pilot was non-swiss. That guy should have contacted the union for such unfair treatments.

[124.8]

Any purpose to contact the union when they don't have money to defend their cases..... will it work for one member when 559 other pilots have been sold down the drain for a cheap package..... after the union had the trump card IN their hand...
If the concerned pilot is not a European passport holder, will the union do their best to put up a GOOD fight in his favour,....hhmmmmm ???
I have experience from this union NOT fighting for the foreign members.

So 411A, you are most happy when some-one else cr@ps all over you, you will keep your opinion to yourself... I wonder, so when the maps are inaccurate and ATC cr@ps on you, what are you gonna do??

Ettore ".....and promissed to look into this case.
I don't believe that any of the party is willing to go for another round of legal fight. No money left for lawsuits (on either sides), no time to waste before grounding the company"

That is my reason for the comment above.

Maybe a certain mr M.... B... can explain that he, in a public place, acknowledged that is his task to get rid of all foreigners in Swiss. That he will now deny, but word has got around to other pilots in this company and elsewhere, who are unknown to him!!!

[411A]

How...you ask, 124.8?

Worked for a company a short time back that steadfastly refused to provide Eastern European Jeppesen enroute charts, even tho sometimes we received re-routing thru this airspace.
So....called Jeppesen in FRA and had 'em send me a few charts, for myself as well as others.
To Jeppesens credit they did so, without charge, especially when they found out that I subscribed to a Western USA coverage for my private aircraft.
All it takes is the effort to ask...not so hard, is it?

Oh, can hear it now....the company should provide proper charts.
Of course they should, but when they don't, there are other ways to obtain the proper documentation, without causing a confrontation with the airline.

Likewise, a year later, same company...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. After many complaints and no action, uplifted the pax, departed at a lighter weight, and diverted enroute for more fuel.
After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine.

It's called....CYA.

[Idunno]

So you loaded up an aircraft with unsuspecting passengers, even though you knew the engine 'would not develop rated thrust'.

In other words, an engine that was incapable of producing full thrust? Is that what you mean sir?

If so, did you consider the consequences if the 'good' engine failed? Do you think an aircraft flying on one engine which cannot produce full thrust is capable of meeting the performance margins it is required to?

You appear to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to give yourself an easy life...including risking the lives of your crew and pax. Thats a pretty spineless way to live...not to mention stupid and deadly.

I hope my family and I never travel on an a/c you are responsible for.

[Nerik]

If this story is accurate, Swiss have just cocked up in a grandiose manner. I guess bhe motivation levels of the Swiis staff are sky high when they know that criticism is gonig to be met in such a way. My only question is, was this guy over the top i.e. unfound allegations etc. in his criticism? If that is not teh case then firing a guy for criticising the company is a big mistake. Swiss should know that MBWA (managing by walking about) can lead to much better staff motivation levels, better staff performance and better profits for the airline. With the current attitude, if staff notice a loss making proceudre they will keep their mouth shut!

[Wanula Dreaming]

411A

Oh, can hear it now....the company should provide proper charts.Of course they should, but when they don't, there are other ways to obtain the proper documentation, without causing a confrontation with the airline.

Hahahahaha! What planet are you from? What do you suggest? They should call 1-800-WX BRIEF? Carry (and pay!) for their own Jepessen?

Likewise, a year later, same company...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. After many complaints and no action, uplifted the pax, departed at a lighter weight, and diverted enroute for more fuel. After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine.

Any suggestions ("Without causing a confrontation with the airline") here? Pay for your own mechanic, or a new engine?

Please tell me, what airline do you work for where this is the company philosophy?

[411A]

Idunno, (an apt discription)

As you clearly know absolutely nothing about large aircraft performance, will endeavor to enlighten your limited knowledge (if possible, and will use simple terms).

1. Aircraft with a full load (360) pax, and required fuel to destination (plus required reserves) unable to depart limiting runway due to performance considerations.

2. In order to leave no one behind, uplifted fuel to airport short of planned destination (for refueling) and departed meeting all performance criteria.

Easily done by someone who knows what to do under the circumstances, so will exclude you from this discussion.

Wanula Dreaming,

It may come a a huge surprise to you, but a few carriers really have limited thinking with regard to required equipment (very seldom used maps/charts, for example) and as it is up to the Commander to be sure they are provided, did so.
At no cost, to myself and others.

If you think otherwise, well....you must really be Wanula 'Dreaming'.

Just noticed you are from 'lalaland', so can understand you limited knowledge.

[middlepath]

could someone from swiss shed some light upto which seniority were effected by this redundency ? I know some nice guys including former chief training pilots but getting no response from them, wondering if they are ok with job.

[Idunno]

411A your original comment sounds like the kind of waffle that might ingratiate you with a dimwitted prospective employer during an interview, but this is not an interview and many of the people you are lecturing here are not 150 hour wannabes, and are thus neither fooled nor impressed by your bluster.

I'm entertained by your second post wherein you attempt to justify your act of lunacy but again only succeed in digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Planning a FUEL TECH STOP is not a new concept. You sound proud of yourself to have thought it up though.

However the planning of a TECH STOP in order to allow departure from a (quote) 'limiting runway' in an aircraft with a dodgy engine unable to deliver full thrust, with a full load of pax on board...now that is a new one on me.
And all to avoid upsetting your equally looney employer.
I'm sure they'd have backed you to the hilt if you came a cropper, huh? Even if you crashed and killed your 360 pax?

I know there are places in the world where pilots feel forced to accept major deficiencies in the operation. Places like Africa or certain areas of South America and Asia. Third world countries usually, with third rate standards for everything.

411A, it takes a certain type of person to work in those kind of places. I've met people like you before. Someone who is willing to not only drop their standards to suit the 'local norm' in order to keep a job or ingratiate themselves, but to bend over backwards to do so, and to seemingly enjoy it (the 'let's keep the show on the road no matter what' brigade).

I've been in those places and I know what goes on.

However most of the pilots I met there had fallen on hard times, knew the operation was bullsh1t and knew the risks they were taking in such crummy jobs. They spent their days praying to get out alive and with their licence and livelihood intact. They certainly weren't happy with the situation (except for a few who went bush) and they certainly weren't the kind of guys who'd come on a website like this and crow publicly about the corners they had to cut, and risks they were forced to take to keep their irresponsible employers happy. They deserve sympathy.

You on the other hand seem to have no difficulty in compromising yourself, and even profess to make a virtue of it, and lecture the rest of your peers on their poor attitude in having a different (higher) set of personal standards. You deserve to be stripped of your licence (if you still own one).

You are welcome to your low standards, and you are an education to every young pilot reading this BB....how NOT to do it.

(PS The comments about my handle...getting sad and old. I guess irony is lost on you. You're a Yank aren't you.)

[411A]

Idunno....(clearly the name fits )

Unless you have been there (the carrier in question operated to JAA standards...or so they said) you really don't know what you're talking about.

Using derated (flex) thrust (even if it's all you can get from one engine) is nothing new. Weights are adjusted to fit the temperature/field length/obstacle/engine inop conditions that prevail at the time.

Do you really not know this?

[viking737]

411A, I found your comment about derated thrust interesting.
Of course it's use saves fuel, engine wear etc., but at my airline
there are certain conditions that require max thrust, such as
tailwind, engine anti-ice,wet runway, windshear etc.
My question is if you know you have an engine that will not
produce max thrust,and you plan on a derated thrust takeoff,
what do you do if conditions change and you had already left the gate planning on such a takeoff?
Do you taxi back and tell the pax, or just go anyway?

[Kaptin M]

As Idunno commented in his previous post to you 411A, you attempt to deliberately - or out of genuine ignorance - cloud the issue by throwing in topics such as redispatch planning, and now derated thrust, to condone one of the most stupid, deliberate acts of unprofessional and irresponsible acts I have heard anyone voluntarily confess. And not only in the confines of somewhere where 1 or 2 others might be privvy but on a public website for the whole WORLD to read!

For the uninitiated, Take-offs using de-rated (flexi) thrust are done to try to extend engine life due to lower engine temperatures during take-off being achieved, by the use of less than full power, when the aircraft weight for the ambient conditions is less than maximum.
This de-rated power is a calculated setting, which in the event of FULL power being required [eg. partial or full failure of the other engine(s)] is possible.

In the case that 411A cites - "#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust." - the degree of degradation is unknown, therefore the performance of the aircraft is not guaranteed.
His statement wrt the redispatch planning, that, in THIS case, the a/c "departed meeting all performance criteria.", is nothing short of deception, as this aircraft's performance was UNKNOWN, due to #2 engine delivering some power, the amount of which was UNKNOWN nad UNRELIABLE!


By your very own admission, 411A - "After many complaints and no action.......they fixed the engine.". You admit to taking a known, unserviceable aircraft and risking the lives of ALL on board through your STUPIDITY.
Knowing your character from previous posts, let me guess the TRUE scenario probably more went something along the following lines.
411A, a known bully, threatened the First Officer and F/E unless they agreed to accompany him on this flight of lunacy. It would be impossible to imagine that there would be 2 other idiots as well as 411A, willing to risk all, by flying an aircraft in this condition.
The redispatch flight plan, was no doubt forced upon 411A by the other 2 crew members, one or both of whom grounded the aircraft once it landed at its first tech stop, much to 411's chagrin no doubt. Did you try to have them sacked 411? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Thank goodness that someone who possessed the LACK of professionalism and airmanship is out of this industry. It is INDEED safer with your removal, 411A.

Fell free to respond, but it was YOU who cooked your own goose, with such an admission!

[411A]

Viking737,
Clearly if you cannot/do not have the performance available for the encounted conditions, you cannot depart.
And, yes have taxied back to the stand on several of these circumstances, whether the company liked it or not.

On the other hand, do not think it prudent to strand an aircraft at an outstation, just because one 'wants too'...there are usually ways to make the best of a bad situation, and still be legal. Companies have a responsibility to maintain their aircraft properly, but if there is a condition that the Commander thinks is unsuitable, then parked it will stay.

Suspect that 'Idunno' is one of those elite types, where everything just has to be perfect....or back to the hotel.

Kaptin M,

Think you need to go back and revisit heavy aircraft performance. You have some very strange ideas.

Derated thrust for example.
When used properly, assures complete adequate performance in the event of an engine failure.
Been this way for a very long time. Long before even you.
Maybe you were asleep in class?

Suggest you leave the 'guessing games' for fortune tellers.