Originally Posted by
Sunvox
3 stories that highlight for me the unbelievable gap in pilot and company mentality between L-UAL and L-CAL
Story 1)
L-CAL gate agent comes into the cockpit in EWR on a 767 bound for Europe and says
CSR: "Captain, just so you know, we upgraded an angry premium customer to first class and used the crew rest seat."
UAL Captain: "Well, just so you know this plane isn't moving, until we have our rest seat open."
CSR: "You're serious?"
UAL Captain: "Yes."
Calling BS on this one, if the seat is permanently blocked, no CSR would do this.
Story 2:
This one I was personally involved in. I overheard a L-CAL captain talking on the phone in ops in IAD. The issue was whether or not they needed a 3rd pilot to go IAD to Manchester, England since they had a 3rd pilot for the return leg. Now I may have my facts wrong here and if so I hope some CAL pilots will correct me, but it is my understanding that Section 5-I-6 should now be fully implemented. The L-CAL captain was told by the crew desk that the id had been constructed in February before the rules were in effect so it was legal. The CAL crew flew with only 2 pilots in direct violation of 5-I-6 because the crew desk said it was ok. At a minimum most UAL pilots would have gotten an order to fly, and more likely the majority of L-UAL pilots would have refused the trip until a 3rd pilot was added.
Probably happened that way, the deal is that the flight isn't operating every day, so the return, which is over 8 hours, wasn't built into the pairing. Since no leg was over 8 they didn't put an IRO on it. This has since been brought to the attention of whoever is in charge of the constructing the pairings. Both the company and union agreed that it should be augmented even though no leg is over 8 hours on the pairing (ID), but have also agreed that because the pairings were built that way for March, they would leave them and fix it in April. BS, but the JIT agreed to it soooo....
Story 3
The EWR Chief pilot has sent out an email that says in effect "I don't want my pilots to get in the middle of a contract dispute, and this is a blanket order to fly even if you believe the 757 rest seat should have an open seat next to it.
The contract says:
and, the EWR Chief pilot says this means the the adjacent seat shall be the last assigned seat in business-first only.
I agree there are details that need clarification regarding coach passengers not showing up, but if there are 30 unassigned seats in coach and business-first fills up that clearly does not give the company a right to fill the seat next to the rest seat, and I hope to heck CAL pilots are not flying with this situation.
Anyways, I just find the difference in culture to be surprising.
We have been getting orders to fly for this on every flight that has been operating not in compliance with this section of the contract. You call, and within minutes you have a written order to fly signed by the EWR chief pilot. I've had it once, and then followed up with the grievance. I don't know what your issue is here, the pilots are doing as the union has directed by requesting an order to fly for each and every flight that goes out like this, and management has responded by ordering each and every pilot on the crew an order to fly. Personally, I think it is a little stupid, because the outcome of requesting the order is now a fait accompli, it is obviously going to go to a presidential grievance, requesting the order to fly isn't delaying the flights at all, but if the union wants me to do it, I do it. Hopefully, this isn't the way orders to fly will be issued in the future, but whatever.