I dont understand the latest O Gram about this crew related service failure stuff. In my ten years at FedEx I have never seen a delay of any kind that was the crews fault.

 

"I will start sending out a Service Failure Bulletin when we experience service failures that can be
directly attributed to factors that we (crews) can control. My intention is education, not to lay
blame; thus I will not provide details as to the specific cause."


If the guy is not trying to lay blame, why is he attributing them to the crewforce without any explanation as to what constitutes a "crew related service failure" and any specificity on what these "failures" are. His goal is education??? In what context do we now feel more educated??? This dude speaks his own odd language that I struggle to comprehend. Maybe he should just have his XO do this kind of stuff since he runs the place anyway.

 

Well, you could argue that landing a plane in a location other than a runway could be attributed to the crew (and we've had a few of those), but beyond that I agree with you. 2000 BNA?? I don't see how that could be a crews' fault.

 

"Don't try to act dumb. You're not as good at it as I am."

"Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion."

 

Why is this even a big deal? Most of the pax carriers post some sort of similar statistic(s) on delays/cancellations that have been attributed to crews. As long as he isn't calling people into his office over it, it just is what it is information. Are we seriously going to get riled up over something that isn't even having an effect on us?

 

I am calling Larusso out. First, how do you know that no one was called into O's office?? And, if you know that these aforementioned crews were not admonished, then please share the details of said failures.Right now we have absolutely no information as to what constituted the service failures. Personally, I would like a little more info, ie, did the Panama crew call in fatigued? Is this a backend attempt to thrawt our ability to use the fatigue card?Or was it a diversion? Was it a mechanical that the company is questioning that the crew did not want to fly? Or was it the fact someone missed a deadhead to BNA?? (and that Larusso would be a visit to your ACP or 'O').

 

Once again an "O"gram causes more confusion than provide substantial info. If for educational purposes, who exactly was educated with this info? Anybody that was educated, please enlighten me as to how we as a crew force can use this to enhance our performance in the future. And "don't fly BNA or Panama trips" doesn't count as education.

 

Only one use of quotations and only one grammar error this time.

 

I was educated. The message reaffirmed my apathy towards this kind of management drivel.

Another reason to avoid reading company email. Why do I even open them? Must be something in the coffee.

 

You're calling me out? What are you 12? Should I meet you at the sandbox? I said, "As long as he isn't calling people into his office over it, it just is what it is information." Sure doesn't sound like I thought I knew for sure that people aren't getting called in, just that thus far we have no evidence of such. Just because O is putting this into an email now, I hope you are not naive enough to believe that they haven't been monitoring these things internally for years. Personally I think if people were getting called in for this, we'd hear either anecdotal evidence or something from the union on it, like the disability sick leave interpretation thing. I've worked at places where you did get called on the carpet for little things and if that's the case here of course we have a problem. I'm just saying that right now we have no proof of that, so chill out and put your powder back in the keg. If this really riles you up, you'll likely be popping a fat vein when other larger issues pop up ahead of us in future.