US Airways Captain Escorted from Aircraft
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sunny Europe
Age: 63
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USSR Airways?
"she was met by US Airways Corporate Security and escorted out of the airport! Furthermore, members of her crew were threatened with arrest should they try to interfere."
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have friends on both sides of the union conflict within US Airways, so I will try to make this balanced. I was in flight ops management at AWA more than 20 years ago, but I do not believe that makes me a management lurker.
This incident is being used as a display in USAPA's "Safety First" campaign, which is in fact a wink, nudge effort to exert pressure on the airline to get along with contract negotiations. The stumbling block on the way to a contract is the seniority issue, and at the heart of that is USAPA's non-acceptance of an arbitrated seniority list.
Other posters are correct in that it is unusual for a union to mix safety with negotiation, but that is in fact what is going on here.
There are many sides to the A330 story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What is certain is that the captain was not escorted off the property for merely refusing to fly an airplane.
This incident is being used as a display in USAPA's "Safety First" campaign, which is in fact a wink, nudge effort to exert pressure on the airline to get along with contract negotiations. The stumbling block on the way to a contract is the seniority issue, and at the heart of that is USAPA's non-acceptance of an arbitrated seniority list.
Other posters are correct in that it is unusual for a union to mix safety with negotiation, but that is in fact what is going on here.
There are many sides to the A330 story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What is certain is that the captain was not escorted off the property for merely refusing to fly an airplane.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirBus759,
Were you present when these events took place? If you were not, just how do you know how or why Capt Valerie was escorted?
Is there any chance that she is a formes USAirways pilot and not an AWA pilot?
You are of course entitled to your opinions but, are they "facts" or just your opinion? Just curious.
Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been either an AAA or AWA pilot/employee.
Were you present when these events took place? If you were not, just how do you know how or why Capt Valerie was escorted?
Is there any chance that she is a formes USAirways pilot and not an AWA pilot?
You are of course entitled to your opinions but, are they "facts" or just your opinion? Just curious.
Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been either an AAA or AWA pilot/employee.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Western Hemisphere
Age: 41
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirBus759,
It sounds like you're a current management pilot...
Please connect the dots:
(1)Captain refuses an airplane over multiple unexplained electrical defects in an Airbus.
(2) USAPA is upset with the seniority agreement / contract negotiations.
Please explain how the union is publicizing this incident to further their contract negotiations / seniority dispute. I see no correlation. Nowhere in their press release did they say anything about contract negotiations or seniority list integration!
This is about Captain's discretion and safety of flight. PERIOD!
It sounds like you're a current management pilot...
Please connect the dots:
(1)Captain refuses an airplane over multiple unexplained electrical defects in an Airbus.
(2) USAPA is upset with the seniority agreement / contract negotiations.
Please explain how the union is publicizing this incident to further their contract negotiations / seniority dispute. I see no correlation. Nowhere in their press release did they say anything about contract negotiations or seniority list integration!
This is about Captain's discretion and safety of flight. PERIOD!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot unions correctly devote a fair effort to flight safety. If airlines and other operators have a good safety culture, union effort required in this area is less. Where the management directed flight safety culture is deficient, the union effort required is greater, as in this case.
Confusion results from illogical linking with other conditions of employment including salary and seniority. Pilot unions do not seem to be in the habit of linking significant safety conditions with these other conditions. The uninformed may grasp at work to rules as a link, but try to concentrate on the actual known facts of this post.
I have been directly present during multiple crew refusals, like this case. Finally a management captain took it. By the time the new 737 landed, there was a telex informing the company that ACARS info indicated the warranty on one of the engines was now invalid.
Rejecting an aircraft is often not so clearly defined. For a start, it has normally been signed off as OK by company engineers. It is mostly up to the captain experience and all of the current circumstances. Captain will consider multiple factors and if there is no single outstanding reason to decline, will need to make a judgement call.
Management may discuss such judgements but is not authorised to over-ride the decision and no captain should allow themselves to be inappropriately pressured. This process is a lonely place to be.
Sure, let them find another crew. If new crew is willing to fly, that is new captain call. Airline attempting to hide the previous decline is morale busting behavious. Morale is a flight safety matter that unions should vigorously pursue.
Well done Captain Val. Only you can make such decisions.
Confusion results from illogical linking with other conditions of employment including salary and seniority. Pilot unions do not seem to be in the habit of linking significant safety conditions with these other conditions. The uninformed may grasp at work to rules as a link, but try to concentrate on the actual known facts of this post.
I have been directly present during multiple crew refusals, like this case. Finally a management captain took it. By the time the new 737 landed, there was a telex informing the company that ACARS info indicated the warranty on one of the engines was now invalid.
Rejecting an aircraft is often not so clearly defined. For a start, it has normally been signed off as OK by company engineers. It is mostly up to the captain experience and all of the current circumstances. Captain will consider multiple factors and if there is no single outstanding reason to decline, will need to make a judgement call.
Management may discuss such judgements but is not authorised to over-ride the decision and no captain should allow themselves to be inappropriately pressured. This process is a lonely place to be.
Sure, let them find another crew. If new crew is willing to fly, that is new captain call. Airline attempting to hide the previous decline is morale busting behavious. Morale is a flight safety matter that unions should vigorously pursue.
Well done Captain Val. Only you can make such decisions.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sassy
Please do not think I wish to have a go at all.
'Valerie refuses a flight, not only did she refuse, the crew following also refused.'
I prefer 'were unable to accept the aircraft, for the planed flight, in accordance with the MEL'. This is usually followed by 'because'...............
As a humble Ops guy in the UK, it is a conversation I have in real time with Engineering, so a pet niggle so to speak, nothing more.
Given the joint responsibility for dispatch, who on the ground allowed a Crew change, with no defect rectification? A big no no, all Crew are trained to the same standard and rules.
Who was going to sign the release for the second Crew, when the first felt unable to accept iaw MEL?
'Valerie refuses a flight, not only did she refuse, the crew following also refused.'
I prefer 'were unable to accept the aircraft, for the planed flight, in accordance with the MEL'. This is usually followed by 'because'...............
As a humble Ops guy in the UK, it is a conversation I have in real time with Engineering, so a pet niggle so to speak, nothing more.
Given the joint responsibility for dispatch, who on the ground allowed a Crew change, with no defect rectification? A big no no, all Crew are trained to the same standard and rules.
Who was going to sign the release for the second Crew, when the first felt unable to accept iaw MEL?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Roswell Georgia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a USAirways pilot and I do not think the Unions actions are based on contract negotiations....
At the end of the day, the Captain should have the final authority....does the aircraft go or not......Legal does not necessarily mean it's the best decision......lot's of factors out there....
I don't know what all the factors are, but if the Captain's decision was to get the airplane fixed, that should be the final decision.....
In some folks minds, the Union went over the top with the ad in the USA Today.....
But again, at the end of the day, the Union is trying to protect the Captain's decision making authority.......
Me, once again, at the of the day, I want the authority to get the aircraft fixed to my satisfaction before taking off......
Is that too much to ask???
At the end of the day, the Captain should have the final authority....does the aircraft go or not......Legal does not necessarily mean it's the best decision......lot's of factors out there....
I don't know what all the factors are, but if the Captain's decision was to get the airplane fixed, that should be the final decision.....
In some folks minds, the Union went over the top with the ad in the USA Today.....
But again, at the end of the day, the Union is trying to protect the Captain's decision making authority.......
Me, once again, at the of the day, I want the authority to get the aircraft fixed to my satisfaction before taking off......
Is that too much to ask???
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour has it that having declined to accept the aircraft she then went to the gate and, using the gate PA, broadcast to the waiting pax that she was not going to fly an unsafe aircraft, that USAir was putting lives at risk by 'forcing' the pilots to fly unsafe machines etc. It was at this point she was escorted away ('Step away from the PA, Mam').
Not accepting the aircraft because of its engineering state is, in my mind, perfectly reasonable and should be supported by the Company. Broadcasting unsubstantiated vitriol to waiting passengers, in a bid to further the Union's 'safety' campaign in the ongoing wrangling, is not acceptable and one cannot blame the Company for wanting to stop her scaremongering.
If this rumour is true, I commend her decision to refuse the aircraft but her latter actions are unprofessional and should be left to the negotiating room, not foisted on the general public.
Small wonder this did not appear in the Union announcement and proves that it's not so black and white after all.........if it's true, that is
Not accepting the aircraft because of its engineering state is, in my mind, perfectly reasonable and should be supported by the Company. Broadcasting unsubstantiated vitriol to waiting passengers, in a bid to further the Union's 'safety' campaign in the ongoing wrangling, is not acceptable and one cannot blame the Company for wanting to stop her scaremongering.
If this rumour is true, I commend her decision to refuse the aircraft but her latter actions are unprofessional and should be left to the negotiating room, not foisted on the general public.
Small wonder this did not appear in the Union announcement and proves that it's not so black and white after all.........if it's true, that is
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know that the captain has the final authority no matter what the MEL says. What was with the theatrics of law enforcement escorting the crew off the plane.
I think the union should have been over there kicking their ass for such behavior. Do they have a bunch of limp d==ks or what? I worked for the competion so don't care. Seems like you should.
To clarify, I am talking about the union. About the limp di....., I mean.
I think the union should have been over there kicking their ass for such behavior. Do they have a bunch of limp d==ks or what? I worked for the competion so don't care. Seems like you should.
To clarify, I am talking about the union. About the limp di....., I mean.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this rumour is true, I commend her decision to refuse the aircraft but her latter actions are unprofessional and should be left to the negotiating room, not foisted on the general public.
It then crashes with every one dead, do you sleep well at night knowing that you did the correct thing. Or do you wonder that maybe you should have done more to prevent the aircraft from being used. Which then leads to the question how far do you go
.I could imagine a scenario where she thought it shouldn't go under any circumstances, and hence was worried about another crew taking it because they where under pressure, hence trying to get the passengers to boycott the aircraft would seem like the thing to do. I'm not saying that's what happened here, just a thought.
Electrical issue, bah humbug absolute pain in the ar#$, have had had seamingly simple unrelated issue be ignored only to end up in a complete meltdown. Requires a lot of thought to dismiss them as nothing, this is especially the case with aircraft.
Had an issue many years ago when I worked in the mines, where I threatened to put a sledge hammer though the sump of a large machine when the boss tried to send it back to work. We where working on large steep hills and it had lost ~40% of its emergency braking, it got fixed.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just make an entry in the aircraft logbook, "Captain refuses the aircraft due to yada yada yada."
No matter what happens to the current crew or if the company finds another plane for the original crew the next crew to man the aircraft can make their own decision if the problem has been fixed or Captain #2 gets out his trusty pen and inks another entry, "Captain also refuses the aircraft due to yada, yada, yada."
If enough Captains have some backbone the plane gets fixed.
No matter what happens to the current crew or if the company finds another plane for the original crew the next crew to man the aircraft can make their own decision if the problem has been fixed or Captain #2 gets out his trusty pen and inks another entry, "Captain also refuses the aircraft due to yada, yada, yada."
If enough Captains have some backbone the plane gets fixed.
'the truth lies somewhere in the middle'
That an easy rationalisation but no more than that.
It probably lies at one or the other end of the story / allegation.
If you look at US Air's management over the years i know what side I would support without a doubt.
That an easy rationalisation but no more than that.
It probably lies at one or the other end of the story / allegation.
If you look at US Air's management over the years i know what side I would support without a doubt.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as a PAX I surely would expect to know when a Captain has decided it is unsafe to fly the a/c. If it is against the rules to inform the PAX, then the rules should be changed.
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a company culture. I spent 20 years going to MOC (Maintenance Operations Control) meetings at 0700. Attended by relevant heads of departments and all the chief pilots. We went over all snags and MELs to determine progress on fixes. Was the most important meeting of the day. It's the culture and determination to be safe.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Goodwood, Sussex, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline jocks please be patient with this rotary-wing flyer!
An MEL is a step-down from the Master Minimum Equipment List which, one assumes, can only be drawn-up by the specific aircraft manufacturer? (Who else is qualified to indicate which items an aircraft can fly without?).
An MEL must therefore contain fewer options than an MMEL and is presumably devised to take operational factors into account?
From what I've read on this thread MEL's only specify single item failures and do not provide multiple-equipment-failure scenarios but can sometimes include provisions whereby one or more specifically identified items must be operative if a particular failed item is accepted?
If this is so (and wanting to address Capt. Valerie's actions from a purely technical perspective) then is it possible to know what Airbus have written in the MMEL regarding both bus and APU failure?
Finally, from those with experience, can you advise whether it is common or rare to accept an aircraft with a double electrical failure or, specifically, a bus and APU fail?
Thanks.
An MEL is a step-down from the Master Minimum Equipment List which, one assumes, can only be drawn-up by the specific aircraft manufacturer? (Who else is qualified to indicate which items an aircraft can fly without?).
An MEL must therefore contain fewer options than an MMEL and is presumably devised to take operational factors into account?
From what I've read on this thread MEL's only specify single item failures and do not provide multiple-equipment-failure scenarios but can sometimes include provisions whereby one or more specifically identified items must be operative if a particular failed item is accepted?
If this is so (and wanting to address Capt. Valerie's actions from a purely technical perspective) then is it possible to know what Airbus have written in the MMEL regarding both bus and APU failure?
Finally, from those with experience, can you advise whether it is common or rare to accept an aircraft with a double electrical failure or, specifically, a bus and APU fail?
Thanks.