Airline pilots 'buckling under unacceptable pressures'?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still find it utterly astonishing that the working hours and conditions of a whole industry can be changed, apparently to the detriment of the workers, without any input from the same said workers. Astonishing. Equally without any meaningful opposition from the same said workers. Jack Jones & Arthur Scargill and numerous other union leaders would be shocked to the core.
The FTL's have become worse for flight crew, both pilots & cabin crew. However, if I understand correctly, the ground based links in the chain, i.e. office staff, ATC, engineers, even the XAA staff themselves have, enjoyed improved workers' rights under EU legislation. The general melee of pax, who are normal ground based workers, have also enjoyed the fruits of EU workers' rights. Why have the few donkeys inside the shiny aluminium tubes suffered so that the many can prosper? Can some of our erstwhile politicians and safety law-makers enlighten us as to the logic of this? And where was ECA while all this was happening?
The FTL's have become worse for flight crew, both pilots & cabin crew. However, if I understand correctly, the ground based links in the chain, i.e. office staff, ATC, engineers, even the XAA staff themselves have, enjoyed improved workers' rights under EU legislation. The general melee of pax, who are normal ground based workers, have also enjoyed the fruits of EU workers' rights. Why have the few donkeys inside the shiny aluminium tubes suffered so that the many can prosper? Can some of our erstwhile politicians and safety law-makers enlighten us as to the logic of this? And where was ECA while all this was happening?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat5 unfortunately it would appear that you are still living under the impression that we are all still inhabiting the same world that Jack Jones and Arthur Scargill lived in. Reality Check!!! We aren't! I'd love to know what these 'new EU rights are' that all us ground based workers have benefitted from. N.b. I know what they are ... I just don't see that many of us have benefitted from them The general management philosophy is 'these are your rights but if we choose to 'get around' giving you them there's not much you can do about it". The latest UK proposal for GP practices to open 7 days a week will be a case in point. Incentives will be offered and as soon as it happens either they won't fully materialise or the '7 days' will magically expand to 24/7!
Don't get me wrong, as people in charge of an aluminium tube responsible for getting it and any number of human beings safely from A to B I wish you were benefitting from them but you are only going the way of the rest of us. I've never understood why if 'we' want better conditions or a change in contract for safety reasons we have to negotiate carefully and are portrayed as Public Enemy Number One whereas if Management want a change in contracts, 'for the good of the company' aka to make more money more often than not it just happens. It took years before I worked out that contracts and conditions only apply to one side ...
Don't get me wrong, as people in charge of an aluminium tube responsible for getting it and any number of human beings safely from A to B I wish you were benefitting from them but you are only going the way of the rest of us. I've never understood why if 'we' want better conditions or a change in contract for safety reasons we have to negotiate carefully and are portrayed as Public Enemy Number One whereas if Management want a change in contracts, 'for the good of the company' aka to make more money more often than not it just happens. It took years before I worked out that contracts and conditions only apply to one side ...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kemi,Finland
Age: 69
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TV,would You clarify your point a little bit more? I just know,that flying as a system is so safe just because of the margins built in there. By accepting that they can be thinner,one must also accept the rising risks within that. comparison is not linear as one might think. It is exponential.
Last edited by Naali; 25th Jun 2015 at 18:40. Reason: Adding
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TV. I just make the point that there appears to be no loud voice on behalf of the oppressed and abused, as there was in the day of the train drivers and coal miners. I'm living in full reality where I realise that corporate & shareholder greed decides much policy in many industries. Human issues have taken a backward step. You sound like you are such a victim.
EU wokers' directive has benefited those of lower level salaried workers status. As soon as you rise to anything basically described as management or professional status you have no rights. You work until the job is done. No breaks, no fixed start/finish times, no overtime, no compensation for extras. It is all supposed to be included in your perks and extras. guess what; those perks & extras are the first thing that hatchet management chop off. You are now are back to the grind wheel with no worker's protections and all of the grunt. No unions to protect you; you are management. Top management are all about slash & burn to make short term bonuses. Long tern career minded employees are all about long term survival and improvement of their company, plus a slice of the pie. Their voice is never heard. Who has the greater interest of the company at heart, but who benefits most? More airlines have gone bust and the 'buster' has gone on to continue their wave of destruction, unheeded, than any pilots' union has crashed an airline.
EU wokers' directive has benefited those of lower level salaried workers status. As soon as you rise to anything basically described as management or professional status you have no rights. You work until the job is done. No breaks, no fixed start/finish times, no overtime, no compensation for extras. It is all supposed to be included in your perks and extras. guess what; those perks & extras are the first thing that hatchet management chop off. You are now are back to the grind wheel with no worker's protections and all of the grunt. No unions to protect you; you are management. Top management are all about slash & burn to make short term bonuses. Long tern career minded employees are all about long term survival and improvement of their company, plus a slice of the pie. Their voice is never heard. Who has the greater interest of the company at heart, but who benefits most? More airlines have gone bust and the 'buster' has gone on to continue their wave of destruction, unheeded, than any pilots' union has crashed an airline.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Dublin
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stress in modern flying
I go back far enough to remember Constellation, DC7 and Britannia pilots almost staggering out of the aircraft, after being up to eighteen hours on duty, required to be ready again after twelve hours, to resume. They would have been very busy, in cramped cockpits, with cigarteete smoke being the norm in the cockpit, or cigar smoke, if they were Americans. I think they did not have the same stress factor, as there was a certain amount of activity in the cockpit, at all times duting the flights, so they were not bored and definetly not liable to fall asleep. They were not limited to JAR regulatory hours and, although reasonably well paid, were not rich. The old duty-free was often the nightcap, before collapsing into deep sleep. Boredom causes stress and the less the requirement for use of grey matter and old-fashioned manual flying skill, due to the advent of computerised flying, causes even more stress.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must agree with RAT5`s posting no.270, particularly his statement:
" Human issues have taken a backward step ".
Remember the Trident I, G-ARPI Staines crash in June 1972. The state of so called industrial relations was a carefully considered factor.
The link to the AAIB report is at:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...973_G-ARPI.pdf
Chapter IV, The Human Factors thereof, is of relevance.
I hope human issues have not taken back a step back to those times, 43 years ago. Do keep your hats and caps on chaps and try and avoid blowing any fuses now and be good lads. Also remember, no graffiti in the CEO`s loo please.
" Human issues have taken a backward step ".
Remember the Trident I, G-ARPI Staines crash in June 1972. The state of so called industrial relations was a carefully considered factor.
The link to the AAIB report is at:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...973_G-ARPI.pdf
Chapter IV, The Human Factors thereof, is of relevance.
I hope human issues have not taken back a step back to those times, 43 years ago. Do keep your hats and caps on chaps and try and avoid blowing any fuses now and be good lads. Also remember, no graffiti in the CEO`s loo please.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naali, my point that you asked about was in response to RAT5's mention of Jack Jones and Arthur Scargill. The point I was making very badly was in the heyday of Messrs Jones and Scargill the people they were representing had a 'we' mentality. That is where they got their influence from. Once it disappeared and union memberships became just a load of 'I''s it disappeared. If you want any chance of achieving any change, or resisting any change to conditions in the workplace be it cockpit or pit you won't do it as a collection of individuals. It always amuses me when I hear people say "the union should do this or that ..." and I wonder what exactly they think the union is.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kemi,Finland
Age: 69
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tks Teevee,You have a very good point at that. Clarification at any issue,-should be our aiming point. Sadly,sometimes our own community forgets freely some basic things. By want,or somethung ... u is by purpose.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, the circle comes round: many discussions ago we discussed this very point. The fact of the matter is we are in a vocational industry. It is similar to many, including the health service. The owners/managers/shareholders see us as easy pickings. To them we are doing a paid hobby. They exploit that and we allow them to abuse us. Capitalism at its worse, in one aspect. After many years of abuse unions/associations formed. They were, still are, very amateurish. The reason I mentioned the union bosses of old is they had passion for their industry and members. They were overtaken by market forces and became rather dinosaural; head in the sand and Canute in their attitude. But they tried. I've watched as the aviation unions have allowed the industry to be decimated and T's & C's to be diluted on the backs of huge profits. This has not been market forces where the commodity has been bought in from cheaper foreign regions, it has been the absolute dilution of local, at home, working conditions for longterm employees whose loyalty to their companies has been committed. This has been caused by the short term aspirations/greed of managers & share holders. If the share price roars up and you sell, who cares if the company folds? The money's in the bank and the employees are on the street/runway. Vocational employees need leadership. I've met so many who said they were anti-union. Naive, as they did not understand the concept. They thought, 'if I do right by the company they will do right be me'. Wrong. That is what I say has been missing; a leader from our side with passion for the industry; to oppose the short term profit takers. NOTE: I say industry, not company. Most of the EU unions have been bred from their national carriers. They have been totally chauvinistic in their actions. They have protected the T's & C's, or tried to, of the golden goose. They HAVE NOT protected their national industry. The employees have a longterm vested interest in the success of their company. can the same be said for those who control them? Now, everyone is wondering what the hell happened. The whole industry is crumbling but the few are making megabucks. Standards have crashed (excuse the pun) and we are all asking how did this happened. Lack of passion and leadership!!!!!!! Plus lack of oversight by you know who!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by RAT 5; 16th Jul 2015 at 20:56.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Golden Years of aviation it was handsome pilots and pretty stewardesses, dressed in their smart uniforms that were the posters to attract the travelling public. Now in the age of mass air travel it is the cheapest fare bought from some faceless computer, programmed by faceless geeks and monitored by an army of faceless number crunchers, for the benefit of billions of cheap booze thirsty lemmings.
Withthe state of the airline industry being portrayed by the 2010 TV mocumentary series Come Fly with me, with a boss such as Omar Baba of Fly Lo.
Can any of you identify yourselves with the characters in this mocumentary, is it anywhere near the mark so far as the true situation is concerned. All good comedy is based on reality, viewed from another perspective.
But who is really to blame for all this. I think it is better to believe in reincarnation and when it is your time to choose, come back as a bird, but make sure it is not a penguin again.
Withthe state of the airline industry being portrayed by the 2010 TV mocumentary series Come Fly with me, with a boss such as Omar Baba of Fly Lo.
Can any of you identify yourselves with the characters in this mocumentary, is it anywhere near the mark so far as the true situation is concerned. All good comedy is based on reality, viewed from another perspective.
But who is really to blame for all this. I think it is better to believe in reincarnation and when it is your time to choose, come back as a bird, but make sure it is not a penguin again.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had always thought the XAA's had a dual remit. One was to ensure the correct compliance of all aviation regulations, and to oversee the financial viability of the companies. If they believed an airline was trading in such a way as to be at great risk of failing in its obligations to transport its pax they could pull its AOC. ....
I seem to remember an accident in USA where it became clear the FAA had a conflict of interest over the company and had been lax in oversight of it for alleged financial viability concerns. I thought the outcome, certainly the NTSB recommendation, was that the FAA financial oversight and operational/safety oversight be separated completely.
I seem to remember an accident in USA where it became clear the FAA had a conflict of interest over the company and had been lax in oversight of it for alleged financial viability concerns. I thought the outcome, certainly the NTSB recommendation, was that the FAA financial oversight and operational/safety oversight be separated completely.
I believe the accident you are thinking of was the Valu-jet crash in the Everglades. The NTSB did cite insufficient FAA oversight as a contributing factor to the accident. However, I have never seen anyone (other than you) suggest that the leak of oversight was purposeful due to a concern for the airline's financial viability. A lot of ink was spilled about how absurd it was that the FAA had a "dual mandate" to both ensure safety and promote aviation (that was part of the FAA's original charter when it was formed in 1958) People were shocked to discover that the two aspects of mandate could seemingly be at odds. They didn't stop to think that it was that way intentionally, and for good reason. It was designed that way, so that there was a mandate to regulate for safety, but not in such a heavy handed way that it kills aviation. If you're not follwing the logic there, it's pretty simple. If you give me a mandate to make aviation absolutely safe, with absolutely no other considerations, I can do that very simply and easily. I merely ground all airplanes. When no airplanes fly, there are no aviation accidents. Bingo, I have just achieved perfect aviation safety. Of course, I've destroyed aviation in the process, but that's not my concern. But, if my mandate is to promote aviation safety, and to ensure that aviation remains viable, it becomes a balancing act. I can no longer institute regulation without concern for the fact that my heavy handed regulation is crushing aviation.
The people who were unable to reason their way through this won, in the end, and the FAA's dual mandate was removed.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I have never seen anyone (other than you) suggest that the leak of oversight was purposeful due to a concern for the airline's financial viability.
I have never suggested, or intended to suggest, that this was the case in Valujet's case, but I seem to remember it was a catalyst & motivation to ensure a compete separation of duties. In your message you continue and confirm the conflict of interest that can exist in an XAA if they oversee both the safety and viability of an operation. It seems we are in violent agreement; i.e. it should not happen.
I wonder if EASA is so squeaky clean. The combined power & influence of the Airlines of Europe CEO's & shareholders is immense and their lobbying has shown more sway in the T's & C's and FTL's than that of the many unions involved in the 'getting airborne' process.
I have never suggested, or intended to suggest, that this was the case in Valujet's case, but I seem to remember it was a catalyst & motivation to ensure a compete separation of duties. In your message you continue and confirm the conflict of interest that can exist in an XAA if they oversee both the safety and viability of an operation. It seems we are in violent agreement; i.e. it should not happen.
I wonder if EASA is so squeaky clean. The combined power & influence of the Airlines of Europe CEO's & shareholders is immense and their lobbying has shown more sway in the T's & C's and FTL's than that of the many unions involved in the 'getting airborne' process.
Separation of obligations.
Thread creep maybe but this can certainly be a real issue. Without having a solution to it to advocate here, I encountered a specific example of this conflict at the initial discussion of ETOPs at ICAO.
Airbus and Boeing had built and certified the A300, 757 and 767 for cross-continental routes but then realised they actually had the range for oceanic travel. They plus IATA sought to have ICAO simply erase the "90 minute rule" existing at that time with no additional precautions other than an engine failure rate for which they proposed a very dubious definition - only a "total non-restartable hard failure of the core engine" would count in the reliability stats.
IFALPA was in agreement with the concept of allowing these aircraft to operate but subject to additional restrictions - demonstrated reliability of overall thrust delivery to include precautionary shutdowns due to e.g. loss of oil, additional systems redundancy, better forecast wx at alternates etc. These were set out in papers to the special study group set up by ICAO in 1982.
The evening before the first meeting the ranking official of one of the major authorities present approached me to say they were in a very difficult situation because of they had this dual remit. Their view was that that the "industry" position was grossly unsatisfactory from a public safety viewpoint, but they had been briefed not to advocate new restrictions due to their "support the industry" obligation. Therefore they had come to the Study Group "only to listen" before reaching an official view on the subject.
Unofficially they strongly supported the IFALPA view (as did other XAAs), but felt it needed strengthening data, which was very true. The end result was a discussion which revolved around "if you were to put it to me that X is the case ...... I should find it very hard to refute, and if you were to mention this specific data that you may have found, that would strengthen the argument!" The end result was the ETOPS regs which have worked very well ever since.
Airbus and Boeing had built and certified the A300, 757 and 767 for cross-continental routes but then realised they actually had the range for oceanic travel. They plus IATA sought to have ICAO simply erase the "90 minute rule" existing at that time with no additional precautions other than an engine failure rate for which they proposed a very dubious definition - only a "total non-restartable hard failure of the core engine" would count in the reliability stats.
IFALPA was in agreement with the concept of allowing these aircraft to operate but subject to additional restrictions - demonstrated reliability of overall thrust delivery to include precautionary shutdowns due to e.g. loss of oil, additional systems redundancy, better forecast wx at alternates etc. These were set out in papers to the special study group set up by ICAO in 1982.
The evening before the first meeting the ranking official of one of the major authorities present approached me to say they were in a very difficult situation because of they had this dual remit. Their view was that that the "industry" position was grossly unsatisfactory from a public safety viewpoint, but they had been briefed not to advocate new restrictions due to their "support the industry" obligation. Therefore they had come to the Study Group "only to listen" before reaching an official view on the subject.
Unofficially they strongly supported the IFALPA view (as did other XAAs), but felt it needed strengthening data, which was very true. The end result was a discussion which revolved around "if you were to put it to me that X is the case ...... I should find it very hard to refute, and if you were to mention this specific data that you may have found, that would strengthen the argument!" The end result was the ETOPS regs which have worked very well ever since.
