I just spent the last twenty minutes or so reading this entire thread and I wanted to make some comments on multiple posts but first let me just say that I feel sincerely bad that this has happened to TW or anyone else that were forced to quit or fired because of this type of policy. I don't agree with it although I think it might have some merits. I just feel that on ballance that its not worth the career distruction it causes. In other words, its using a chainsaw when orthroscopic surgery is all that is needed. In any case, whether this type of policy exists or something more along the lines of "train to proficiency", (which has its bad points also), there needs to be a mechanism to force an impartial person to make a decision taking into account the facts if the parties cannot agree. Again, I feel this is the case with either an up & out policy or a train to proficiency policy. At the least, it takes any appearance of maliciousness away and in the best case, it treats everyone fairly without the fear of unrepairable consequences or retribution.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
Would it have made sense to send me back as an FO on the CRJ ? I'd say yes, but the current rules don't allow for that, unless you're in the good 'ole boy club, etc.
One of the things that irks me the most about workplaces is the presence of a good 'ole boys club. Not that its a 100% sure way of preventing one but a union usually does pretty good at assuring the company treats everyone equally.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
I think it was already stated... whatever labor representation that we (ok, them!) have, if the collective bargaining labor contract says you're canned after failing an upgrade training event, guess what? You're still canned.
The grossly unscientific poll I saw on the SAPA forum was that 25% supported Up-n-Out. I suspect that out of that 25%, virtually all were captains who "already got their's". So, since the current SAPA board is 95% captains, I wouldn't think it would change. And the same would be true if it was a labor union, as I suspect the same thinking would prevail.
Assuming that ALPA was successful, it would have put you into status quo. The current policies would remain in effect, as is, until a CBA was signed. Normally an MEC polls its members before negotiations to see what they want. If this policy was something they wanted changed, it probably would be something they would try to do. At the least, it seems like there are many things that can be improved and clarafied on this policy and that probably would be something attainable on a first CBA.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
I was so wound up, I couldn't get on my motorcycle to ride back to the hotel for about 3 hours. My sim partner, who didn't get signed off for the sim check ride, did his oral after me. He didn't get much of an oral at all. He said he just asked him a couple questions, and was on the phone the rest of the time rescheduling stuff.
I asked him the next day (while he was issuing my second pink slip) how many folks got the "50ft minimum approach light" question right. He said almost nobody.
I wonder if this guy was out to get you?
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
Of the ten folks who signed up for the class, one didn't show (were told he got a job in Citation), one failed the written, passed on retake, and quit. Presumably, he thought he wouldn't complete training, and by quitting prior to FTD/Sim, it doesn't show up as a PRIA. He could actually just reapply, and get hired back on at SkyWest or anywhere... a wise move. And, of course, I failed.
I personally feel that is an unfortunate position to put someone in because of this policy. Hopefully it turns out good for him.
Originally Posted by
Seattlecfi
As what TW said, up or out, is different than qualify in turn. Failing a checkride is also not the end of your career. I interviewed at NWA with a couple of people who had failed checkrides, and they were hired. They don't get the PRIA paperwork until after you interview and have a chance to explain what happened.
This is true. I had a friend who failed his initial IOE under questionalbe circumctances as well and I helped him get a job at XJT a couple of months later.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
I just had a chat with my favorite attorney this evening. The one thing that jumped out to this attorney was how the company regularly, and persistently reminded you that this program was "up-r-out", but would usually qualify that by saying that almost nobody fails training at SkW.
One of the SAPA reps was in that first Metro upgrade class when it was announced (after the class started) that the new policy was "up-r-out". So, when the group became unresponsive in class, the instructor reassured them with, "who do you know that has ever failed a SkW training event?"
He passed, but the reality is folks do not pass. Not very many. But way more than 5 in 4 years. It's just quietly shuffled under the carpet when it happens. We heard that a female new hire had just failed the ground school written exam twice. She was fired, but offered to reapply in 6 months.
But the two female upgrades who failed before our class (unsubstantiated rumor), of course, were fired just like me.
And naturally, they don't include the folks who quit, like the one guy who did in my class, just after the ground written. He basically quit in lieu of waiting to fail and then getting fired.
During the Skywest ALPA drive when I would talk to pilots about this policy they always told me that they very rarely fired anyone under this policy unless they deserved it. And I would ask them how would anyone know if that was true? And even if you knew all 5 guys that failed in the last 4 years, how would anyone know if they deserved it? My feeling was that Skywest, like any company, doesn't air its dirty laundry. TW is right, they don't want to discourage anyone from upgrading. Things like this can happen more than anyone would know without any accountability. You only hear about rumors that probably are not true either but the point is that no one really knows what the truth is without someone making sure everything is legit.
Originally Posted by
reelbigchair
If it would change the policy, sign me up......
However, when I learned of Tony's situation, and I began talking to my captains about the policy, I learned that the vast majority of them support the policy. (Again an unscientific poll of ORD based capts.)
And being that ALPA at each airline, is run by that airline's pilots, I feel fairly certain that this paticular policy would stick. The airline for whatever reason likes it, and unfortunately a large sector of our pilots support it.
Even if what you say is true, the last defense is always with the vote of the rank and file. If there was a union there, the representatives would be voted in by the rank and file. The rank and file could vote anyone in with the issues that they feel are important to them. If this is a policy they feel is important, they can vote for those who agree with them on it. And lastly, if the tentative agreement didn't have the language that the rank and file didn't approve on, they can vote it down and send them back to the table. And they can vote to recall anyone as well
Originally Posted by
sigep_nm
I think at Mesaba we may employ a similar policy for people upgrading prior to being off probation. In that case the union can do nothing for you, but after you are off probation, you just go back to your previous position.
I think this is probably standard at any pilot union. You are covered by all aspects of the CBA except for the right to arbitrate.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
(This is the logical answer to upgrades, also. But, as has been pointed out, probably half the captains at SkyWest disagree. And, as is the case with SAPA, I believe any union would be largely... well, almost exclusively run by captains. Doesn't matter if 75% of the bargaining unit is all over this. They don't negotiate the contracts.
See my reply to reelbigchair above. The power lies with the rank and file.
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
SKW does not fire people lightly, that is a well known fact. If you don't work there you don't really have the slightest clue about how things work.
In TW's case there was likely more than meets the eye, and none of us here know the full story, perhaps not even TW.
Pilots who get fired at SKW almost invariably did one of these things:
- Show up drunk
- Fail a drug test
- Lie
- Commit repeated safety violations (one of which involves the NTSB).
- Aggressively and REPEATEDLY P/O other people, including manangers.
- Fail new-hire training.
For me the point is that there was no one there for TW to go to bat with him and make sure everything was kosher. If there was more than meets the eye, there needs to be a mechanism to get the full story, lay out the facts, and make a fair decision.
I think all airlines have pilots that get fired for the things you mentioned. Those are pretty cut and dry and nothing will stop a company from firing those people. But its for the grey areas or things that happen because of extenuating circumstances or simply because life happens. There needs to be a way of pleaing your case of innocence until proven otherwise.
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
It is common knowledge that people do not just have a bad day and fail upgrade training...there are always underlying issues, such as attitude. If you bust a ride and have a good attitude, they work with you.
But you never hear "he was a great guy, but he failed upgrade and got fired". It usually does not come as a surprise...
Again TW's situation seems unusual and I don't know the answer, nor do I believe in up-or-out. If there is a wild-card in the process, it would be personality conflicts.
This is precisely why there needs to be a way to have an impartial system to figure out if there was underlying issues and if those issues are legitimate. Personality conflicts should NEVER be a contributing factor in the decision to fire a pilot during upgrade.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
The other thing that was brought to my attention that I didn't initially realize is that there is no review for an upgrade failure termination. If I'm accused of sexual harassment, or whatever, I get the option of a review.
Originally Posted by
TonyWilliams
This goes off on the union tangent..... SkW does have an employee handbook. I believe there is also a company policy manual and a crew members policy manual. Items in the latter are negotiated and approved with voted in pilot representatives in SAPA. They aren't changed "willy nilly".
I'll repeat the point I've made a few times regarding the rule at SkW. The folks who currently run the pilot organization, and I believe any future possible labor union, do not support a change to the up-n-out rule.
There's no magic there.
As to issues with my training regarding the policy manual, or established practice; they would have to be handled by legal counsel that I would retain. If it were a union shop, that union MAY elect to pursue this. There is no guarantee there, either.
But, like insurance, generally the union will take all the risk for costs associated with your case.
The folks who currently run the pilot organization aren't necesarily the same folks who would be the elected representatives of a union there. It comes down to the rank and file making this an issue in who runs, who they vote for, and how they vote on a tentative agreement.
With a union shop, or at least ALPA, you would always get to greive this. And you would also be able to appeal the greivance as well. As for taking it the last step of arbitration, that would be up to the MEC to decide. I can tell you that at XJT, the MEC was prepared to take a verbal warning (the lowest level of discipline that doesn't even go in your file) to arbitration. The MEC felt that what the company was doing was not fair in light of the circumstances. Many of these things have precedence issues attached to them as well so that you only have make the issue once.
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Most large companies don't try to play these games, too much money to lose. But pilots, especially at the entry level, are notoriously inexperienced and afraid to make waves. Some of this is for good reason...leaving an employer under contentious circumstances may hurt your future job prospects in this industry.
Leaving an employer in the circumstances that TW left didn't help his job prospects in the industry either. But you make a very good point. How many people have been fired and not make waves as DD did so as to not ruin their future prospects in the industry. Like I said, there needs to be an easier way for people to not let large companies make calculated risks in their firing decisions.