Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SIA pilots threaten industrial action (merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SIA pilots threaten industrial action (merged)

Old 13th Aug 2002, 23:41
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exclamation Update on: SIA pilots threaten to take industrial action

Came across this report in the Singapore Straits Times this evening.

What is the practise in other airlines with regards to crew rest on board?

Cheers

-------------

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/pri...137332,00.html

SIA pilots threaten to take industrial action

Manpower Ministry mediating in dispute over pilots' unhappiness at being told to rest in economy, not business class seats

By Dominic Nathan
DEPUTY NEWS EDITOR

SINGAPORE Airlines pilots, unhappy over having to take their in-flight rest breaks in economy class seats, are threatening industrial action for the first time in over 20 years.

Last-minute negotiations are still going on to resolve the dispute, which erupted when pilots were told that with the new Spacebed seats installed in the airline's business class, there would be fewer seats available.

As a result, they would have to take their breaks in economy class if there were no empty business class seats.

Pilots view this as a breach of the collective agreement, which they say entitles them to rest in business class or something similar.

Those interviewed said that flight safety could be affected if they did not get the rest needed, and being 'exposed' in economy class might also pose a security risk.

Some argued that it would tarnish the airline's image to have its pilots seen to be nodding off in economy class.

Several rounds of talks between the airline and pilots have so far failed to resolve the issue.

In a July 31 circular, the Air Line Pilots Association Singapore (Alpa-S), which represents about 90 per cent of SIA's 1,600 pilots, informed members that it would hold an extraordinary general meeting on Friday to consider three resolutions.

Two of them condemn SIA's decision on the seating issue and also its move to terminate the services of the two pilots at the controls of Flight SQ 006,which crashed in Taipei two years ago, killing 83 people.

The third resolution calls for a secret vote on taking industrial action.
The threatened action includes 'withdrawal of goodwill' to management, which means, for example, that pilots will not attend any non-essential meetings on their days off.

They will also vote on taking 'work-to-rule' action, requiring minimum notice for any changes to their roster or duties.

This may disrupt SIA's flight operations.

If the motion is passed, it will be the first time since 1980 that SIA
pilots have resorted to industrial action.

Then, an unofficial work-to-rule was in force after negotiations over claims for higher salaries and benefits broke down. It took the personal involvement of the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to finally settle the matter.

This time, the problem stems from differing interpretations of the
collective agreement, which dates back to 1988.
In May, SIA notified pilots that because of the new and bigger Spacebed seats, which transform into beds, long-haul flights in the business-class of a Boeing 747, for example, will have 50 seats instead of 58.

This reduction made it necessary to fill every available seat with paying customers, SIA had said earlier.

The airline maintains that the move does not violate the collective
agreement since there are separate bunks for crew members to sleep in, and the seat in economy class is only for pilots to relax or have a meal outside the flight deck.

The new arrangements were to have come into effect on June 7, but implementation was delayed till Aug 1.

Yesterday, both SIA and Alpa-S officials declined to comment, but both sides have been talking to the Manpower Ministry.
A ministry spokesman said it was 'providing mediation services to help both parties resolve their differences amicably'.

The Straits Times understands the ministry tried to get SIA to delay implementing the new ruling for yet another month, and for Alpa-S to put off the meeting on Friday.

But there is a hitch, as all the business class seats on some of the
affected flights have already been sold.

A last-minute settlement is still possible, and SIA is likely to release a circular to pilots today spelling out its position on the issues.

++====
This evening's Singapore Straits Times gives
Update on the above :

SIA tried reaching out to pilots
By Ahmad Osman
Straits Times 16/8/2002

With vote on industrial action set for today, airline circular reveals offer to compensate pilots over rest seats

SINGAPORE Airlines told its pilots that it was not using 'brute force' to get them to take their in-flight breaks in economy-class seats instead of business class.

It even offered to compensate pilots who would have to take their meals or rest in economy class when there were no seats available in the first and business class.

But the offer had been rejected by the Air Line Pilots Association Singapore, or Alpa-S, said SIA's senior vice-president for flight operations, Major General (NS) Raymund Ng. He said this in a circular to the airline's 1,600 pilots, dated Aug 13.

A copy of the three-page document was obtained by The Straits Times yesterday.
In it, Maj-Gen Ng explains that the new seating arrangement does not violate the collective agreement between the association and the airline.

He said: 'Even though we honestly believed that we were in compliance with the agreement and could not agree with their position, we were, nevertheless, prepared to discuss the matter further without prejudice to each other's position.'

He also explained why SIA terminated the services of the two pilots at the controls of Flight SQ 006, which crashed in Taipei two years ago, killing 83 people.

A proposed resolution condemning that decision is at the top of the agenda of an extraordinary general meeting which will be held by Alpa-S today.

They will also decide if there should be a secret ballot on taking industrial action over what Alpa-S interprets as management's unilateral move to alter the terms of the collective agreement.

The threatened action includes requiring minimum notice for any changes to pilots' roster or duties, a move which could disrupt flights.

At the centre of the dispute are the new Spacebed seats, which can be converted into beds. Because they are bigger, there are fewer seats available in business class and the airline wants to fill them with paying customers.

In his circular, Maj-Gen Ng recounted in detail the various proposals made since February this year, including an offer to pay the pilots some compensation when they had to sit in economy classs.

He also attempted to correct what he described as 'any misleading impression' that may have been created of the negotiations in the last few months.

For example, he said, the pilots were first informed of the seating changes in February, while Alpa-S had earlier maintained in its own circular to members that it received notice of SIA's decision only in May.

Despite exchanges of letters and several meetings no agreement could be reached as the Aug 1 deadline for implementing the new arrangement approached, he said.

SIA then offered to postpone the new scheme by another month, but the association rejected this, said Maj-Gen Ng.

He added: 'I hope that my clarification will put to rest any misleading impression that may have been created.'

Contacted yesterday, an Alpa-S spokesman said the SIA circular contained inaccuracies and 'was an act of bad faith', for it was released after the Manpower Ministry had started conciliation efforts to settle the dispute.

He said: 'We had yesterday registered our protest with the ministry and reserve our right of response.'


================

Last edited by aviator_38; 17th Aug 2002 at 00:47.
aviator_38 is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 00:16
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
>>What is the practise in other airlines with regards to crew rest on board? <<

In the U.S., it's a red flag issue with the major airlines, not so big with the freight dogs.

A Delta crew diverted to Portland, Oregon in 1999 on a ATL-NRT flight due to inadequate crew rest facilities on an MD-11. Most airline contracts mandate at least a business class seat for crew rest or scheduled deadhead travel. At the other end of the spectrum, cargo pilots sometimes deadhead for hours in a cockpit jumpseat on duty.


Here's an account of the Delta divert to PDX:


Delta pilots say new sleeping quarters are a nightmare
By Russ Bynum, Associated Press writer

ATLANTA -- A Delta Air Lines pilot cut short an Atlanta-to-Tokyo flight this month, saying the plane's redesigned sleeping quarters for his crew were so cramped and noisy that they'd never get enough rest to complete the flight safely.
The incident, involving 30-year veteran Capt. Roscoe McMillan, was the culmination of a months-long fight between pilots and Delta, which had shrunk the sleeping space on some long-haul planes to make more room for higher-paying business class passengers.

Pilots call the tube-like bunks "the coffin." Their union, the Air Line Pilots Association, has filed a grievance with the company.
"It's small. It lacks adequate privacy considerations and it's in a noisy area where the activities of the cabin and the cockpit make it difficult, if not impossible, to get sleep," said Capt. Andy Deane, spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association. "Simply being horizontal is not enough."
Delta says the bunks are safe and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. The airline has questioned McMillan and his three-member crew and the pilots' union fears he could be fired if the airline decides he acted out of rebellion rather than safety concerns.
The aborted flight was disclosed in a report in The Wall Street Journal yesterday. It happened on April 7 when McMillan landed the plane in Portland, Ore., four hours into a 14-hour trip.
Delta spokesman Bill Berry said Thursday he didn't know precisely what McMillan told the passengers, but they were aware the flight was being ended because of a "crew rest" issue. They were angered because they were forced to wait for another flight to Japan. It was the first time the bunk bed battle disrupted any flights.
"The pilots said they had tried to use the sleep module and were unable to get to sleep because of outside noise. The captain, because of that, made his decision," Berry said. "He felt that his crew could not be sufficiently rested to complete the flight."
Berry wouldn't say if Delta is considering sanctioning the pilot, who is just 11 months away from retirement.
"Probably the issue that the company is looking at ... is tied to a suspicion on their part that this was an act perhaps of premeditation or he was doing this as a gesture of defiance over the rest facility. That is not true," said union spokesman Deane.
McMillan declined to comment when contacted at home yesterday.
The FAA requires airlines to provide onboard sleeping quarters for pilots on flights of 12 hours or more. A crew of four -- two pilots, two co-pilots -- take turns at the controls.
The only Delta flights exceeding 12 hours are nonstop from Atlanta to Tokyo. Three Delta MD-11s are equipped with the bunks.
Until this year, crew members used walled-off sleeping quarters -- pilots called them "the condo" -- located in the middle of the business-class section. At nearly seven-feet tall and five-feet wide, it was spacious enough for changing clothes and far enough from the cockpit area's noisy hubbub.
The new bunks are located between the cockpit and the business class area and include a two-inch thick curtain to keep out noise. Pilots have to assemble the bunks in front of the passengers, pulling them out from the wall in telescoping sections. That can be embarrassing for crew members fumbling with the pieces for the first time, said Delta First Officer Winford Speakman, who co-pilots MD-11s.
"It doesn't instill a lot of confidence in some of our passengers," he said.
The bunks are 30 inches wide at the shoulders and close to 7-feet-long.
"You enter from the top and you literally have to tuck your knees up and insert your legs down into the tube," said Deane.
Crew members can hear the cockpit door opening and closing, toilets flushing from the lavatory at the foot of the bunk, and chatter from passengers who sometimes stand and lean against the sleeping quarters, Speakman said. Flight attendants sometimes bump into them with their serving carts.
"Anytime you have a very loud, overriding noise it's almost like a shock to you," Speakman said. "All of a sudden you get a very loud thump or a bang. As a pilot, we're trained to listen to these things that are out of the ordinary. It will absolutely wake you up in a flash."
Delta spokesman Berry said the captain can ask flight attendants to keep noise levels down when people are trying to sleep.
"You can do your best to create a facility that it conducive to sleep," Berry said. "It's FAA approved. It's the largest of its type of units used by other airlines."
Berry said Delta is looking into making improvements to the sleeping quarters, such as giving crew members a bit more elbow room.


http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-99/04-16-99/a02bu012.htm
Airbubba is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 01:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ops! Bunks + business class seats...what else? An exclusive FA for pilots and a tennis court in the cargo compartment?
Bennie and the Jets is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 07:06
  #4 (permalink)  
DIRECTOR
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bennie Dont be a prat. When one does 14 and soon to be 18 hour flights one does not want to spend all the time in a bunk and the agreement was a business class seat in order to be allowed such very long duties in the first place which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by SIA.

In typical SIA fashion they then went on to offer money if we agreed to their demands which are in clear breach of the CA and again in true SIA fashion they threaten that if they win the court case if it comes to that they will withdraw all rights to 1st/business class to crews .

Let me just remind readers that over the recent 2 1/2 years of previous CA negotiations they threatened that if we went to court and won we would only get 6 months back pay instead of the 2.5 years owed!!

They have the morals of an alley cat and the 2 ex Generals are trying to show the Board that they are just as nasty as the previous DFO.
thegypsy is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 07:27
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't know about you BigBrutha, but I do believe that landing that big heavy jet on a 45 "foot" wide runway would not be such a good idea...45 metres maybe
411A is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 08:52
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tamarama beach
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SIA pilots taking industrial action ????????
You should be scared, very very scared
Good God, I'm holding my breath !! well, not too long.
wallabie is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 12:22
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
45ft wide asphalt? This topic is really for professional pilots....
Bennie and the Jets is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 14:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SIA pilots threaten to take industrial action....

What a screamer of a headline...

Really, ah?

Put to a secret vote? As secret as our national elections are, where voting slips come complete with a serial number?.... Wow, I'm sure this is to prevent fraudulent votes from being printed, as my leaders have told me time and again....

Well, we have not long to wait before we find out what awaits us.....
Lithgow is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 18:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ok BigBru, you have your own opinion but it doesn't mean that everyone must agree with what you wrote. If you really believe that business class seats for long haul flights are required to improve aviation safety, beside a horizontal rest, that’s right…it’s your point of view. But I’ve been crossing several time zones every month, and in my opinion I don’t believe they are an important safety issue, so what’s the problem? Just because there are different opinions about this matter you don’t need to treat everyone as child. Come on guy, several messages are posted here daily and divergences are usual…well, I suppose.
And about fatigue, what is your opinion about 2 cargo drivers who fly all night long with many stops during short segments without space and time to rest?
Bennie and the Jets is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 19:35
  #10 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,872
Received 147 Likes on 46 Posts
MMM Just checked the law here in the part of the 1st world I work. 16 hours duty (depending on sign in time) two crew, no problems. No bunks, no seats, no nothing required, just pilots and a flight deck.Individual airline contracts may be different to this of course, but the law says 16 hours on duty is no problem at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SOPS is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 21:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmmm, well the phrase..."you asked for work when you applied..." comes to mind.
And before some wisenheimer pipes up...yes have done very long hours in the left seat...lean back and "rest your eyes" from time to time...same for the F/O, makes the situation soooo much easier.
411A is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2002, 23:28
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think one has to have actually experienced the 15 hour sector, (SFO-HKG in winter for example), before passing judgement on this subject.

Yes bunks are provided and if one's rest coincides with the body's night time then a reasonable rest can sometimes be achieved. Often the rest period comes only a couple of hours after leaving the hotel during the day and bunk rest is a joke, then a comfortable seat, a reasonable meal and some limited privacy, such as is provided by the business class cabin, can facilitate rest and possibly lead to a couple of hours of prone bunk rest later. The facilities of the EY cabin are no comparison to business class and not, in any way, conducive to rest.

What SIA should, I think, have considered is placing a couple of the original business class seats in a quiet part of the EY cabin and surrounded by a curtain, similar to the ones used when carrying stretcher pax etc. but this is a poor compromise.

Improving the quality of the business class product and expecting crew rest to bear the cost of doing it is simply not an option as now commercial considerations are being allowed to impinge on flight safety.

Last edited by BlueEagle; 15th Aug 2002 at 01:24.
BlueEagle is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2002, 00:02
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BigBrutha, I'm with you all the way. Your post was graphic and to the point.

411A - just what is it with the nit-picking, smart-ass sarcasm?
Great, BigBrutha makes a genuine mistake and you pick him up on this rather than addressing the argument. Boy, I'd sure love to fly with you bud.

B-b-b-bennie and the jets - gee, I wish I was macho enough to stay awake for seventy-two hours non stop with a ten minute sleep half-way through taken upright in my chair.

For g**s sake guys, this is a serious issue, and BigBrutha sums up the reasons why perfectly. Some so called professional pilots on here really do us all a great disservice. Unbelievable.

Last edited by Maximum; 15th Aug 2002 at 00:05.
Maximum is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2002, 02:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think everybody is missing the main point here.

Regardless of your opinion on the merits / necessity of business class seats for the crew rest, this is what the company agreed to and guaranteed to provide, in the collective agreement signed by themselves and the pilot's association.

If they can choose to ignore this part of the agreement when it suits them, what will be next?
stable approach is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2002, 02:15
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote
B-b-b-bennie and the jets - gee, I wish I was macho enough to stay awake for seventy-two hours non stop with a ten minute sleep half-way through taken upright in my chair.


Ma-ma-maxximum: Did I say that pilots don’t need to rest during long-haul flights or in my opinion bunk and business class seat are an excess of privilege in name of “Flight Safety”? How do you measure it when, as I asked before, cargo drivers have been flying every night without any space and time to rest and do it safely?
Bennie and the Jets is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2002, 03:17
  #16 (permalink)  
gjp
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TBD
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crew rest

Pilots of long haul carriers require and deserve the best rest they can get and that means a dedicated crew rest containing a comfortable bed and a room wich is quite and separate from passengers and noisy galleys. Anything else just not acceptable. This should be mandatory and up to the respective CAA's to enforce for safety and not up to airline's to use as a negotiating tool or cost saving issue.
The airline I work for has a dedicated bunk which is acceptable. Unfortunately on one of our aircraft type they have a crew rest (Bunk?) which is pathetic, situated at the rear galley in probably the worst position next to the toilets and galleys with little privacy from the pax. In this case the carrier makes available a first class seat - but even that is not really acceptable as it is not possible to have an un - interrupted rest.

The dedicated crew rest or bunk should be the only acceptable rest area and we should not be accepting anything else.
gjp is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2002, 10:14
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bennie

It seems to me your point about cargo is a red herring - so what if these guys are doing it without bunks or business class seats? Does that make it right?

I also don't think we're neccessarily comparing like with like in terms of some of the ultra long haul, heavy crewed passenger ops we now have.

But leaving that aside, the bottom line is that we should all protect our terms and conditions. If the airline agrees to a certain level of crew rest facilities, then that's what crews should get. Nothing less.

They used to send women and children down mines - it didn't make it right.
Maximum is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2002, 23:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Melbourne,Vic, Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SQ Pilot's to Strike???
You gotta be pissing me!

Back in 1980 there were quite a few expats in SQ.
These days I believe the expats are the minority.
Couple this with the fact that the old DFO has gone, there is now new blood there and he must prove himself here and now.

A loss of face over this issue is just not an option.
This new DFO must be seen to please his masters.

If they do strike good on them - I back them up over this issue having done long-haul for many years but will it actually happen???

This will be interesting!
1013 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2002, 00:36
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi folks, here's an update on the issue:


Cheers

=====================================

SIA pilots edge closer to industrial action
By DOMINIC NATHAN and AHMAD OSMAN
The Straits Times

SINGAPORE Airlines pilots yesterday moved one step closer to taking industrial action for the first time in 22 years.

At an extraordinary general meeting of the Air Line Pilots Association Singapore or Alpa-S, they voted in favour of holding a separate secret ballot over a dispute with the airline's management about in-flight rest breaks.

It was one of three resolutions voted on yesterday by some 250 pilots, many of whom arrived at the Pinetree Town & Country Club in Stevens Road with proxy forms empowering them to vote for their colleagues.

Just over 1,000 votes were cast in favour of the two resolutions condemning SIA's decision on the seating issue and also its move to terminate the services of the two pilots at the controls of Flight SQ 006, which crashed in Taipei two years ago, killing 83 people.

The third and most controversial resolution called for a secret ballot on taking industrial action.

With this resolution carried by about 950 votes
the pilots will now have to wait at least three weeks before they can hold the secret ballot that will see SIA's 1,600 pilots imposing work-to-rule conditions.

This is not a strike, but involves, for example, refusing to attend
non-essential meetings on their days off.

Other actions include asking for minimum notice of changes to a pilot's roster or duties, a move which could affect the airline's flight operations.

But there is still a chance that industrial action can be averted if ongoing conciliation talks undertaken by the Manpower Ministry succeeds.

Even if that fails, there is another safeguard. The ministry can order both sides to go for compulsory arbitration.

The Industrial Arbitration Court will then determine the outcome of the dispute.

At the end of yesterday's marathon six-hour session, Alpa-S officials said that they would meet management and ministry officials today to continue conciliation efforts.

The pilots had started arriving from about 5.30 pm and the meeting started at 6 pm. Vote-counting ended just before midnight because there had to be a recount.

Yesterday's meeting was called because pilots are unhappy that SIA wants them to take their in-flight breaks in economy class instead of business class, which has been the practice for 13 years.

They view the new seating arrangement as a unilateral move by the national carrier's management to change the terms of the collective agreement negotiated between Alpa-S and the airline in 2001.

These terms, they argue, cannot be altered without both sides agreeing.

The clause in question reads: 'In the case of an 'augmented' or 'double' crew, horizontal rest facilities are provided for pilots to avail themselves of in-flight rest. Business class seat/s or some other similar rest facility shall also be provided for the additional pilot/s.'

If the pilots do go ahead with work-to-rule, it will be the first time since 1980 that SIA pilots have resorted to industrial action
aviator_38 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2002, 10:51
  #20 (permalink)  
G.Khan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Management have never done it!

Just a point regarding the suggested(?) new terms and conditions for crew rest.

NONE, I repeat NONE of the current manangement, from DCP upwards have ever, ever, completed a lengthy period of long haul flying on the B747-400 and know absolutely nothing about the fatigue caused by such flying or the effects of improper rest facilities.

The most junior of the DCPs will have completed their normal line flying career on the -200 and -300 with the appropriate sector lengths and crew operating patterns, sector lengths and COPs that bear no relation whatsoever to those currently being flown by the -400 crews.

As someone mentioned elsewhere, have SIA even offered two standard business class seats, surrounded by curtains, in the quiet part of the EY cabin? I doubt it.

After a certain very presumptious lady from the Commercial/Marketing department got denied a jump seat out of SIN, (SIN-HKG-SFO), having considered it beneath her to bother to ask the operating captain and assuming she had a right to it, (could also have bought an ID 90% in First!), it has only been a matter of time before these unique and spitefull people would try to get their own back on the tech crew.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.