What happens when there are more mixed crews?

More mixed nuts....

Nu

nevermind,,,,

More mixed nuts it is. :)

No, it's not a question of pride - it's a question of best use of time. There are a lot of items the FO does airborne without verification (Climb checklist, Descent Checklist). Maybe there are some critical items (engine) that shoudl be dual verification BUT the entire checklist!!!!

Just my .02. In riding numerous jumpseats on numerous different carriers and ours as well I have witnessed time and time again lip service to the check list especailly when it is a read and respond by one person. Just reading the check list and saying the response by one person does not do much good especially when that person is not verifying his responses. This is a serious business that we are in and they're no room for simple mistakes i.e. look at the result of not setting the flaps in DTW. We have a job to do and we get paid good money to do it right. Would like to make more money- come on contract 2012.

Bottom line for me, if it is a safety of flight item it should be challenge and respond for both pilots and verified by both pilots. Also, I am not a big fan of ckd. I much rather use the position of the switch, number required or setting rather than ckd,ckd,ckd,ckd. Whether it is true or not I certainly don't know, but we keep hearing that these are manufacturer recommended checklists. If so, Boeing has vast experience at designing and building aircraft, but comparatively little experience at flying them in multi-crew operations. It's easier to be a bit looser when the same company test pilots fly together, the same guys all the time. But when you have thousands of pilots, who have never met nor worked together, again the music needs to be played more precisely. Every checklist item should have a specific response, forcing the pilot to state it by viewing it, rather than a generic "checks," perhaps without even viewing it. It is just another layer of safety net, meant to catch errors. The philosophy of "we are professionals, we shouldn't make those kinds of mistakes," is a less effective substitute. Next time you are riding jump seat, watch their checklist disipline and ask yourself about yours. In the mean time fly safe. My wish is for a safer checklist for the entire operation in the future. I understand that they are looking at it.:D

............................

I'm pedaling (sp?) as fast as I can!!! Does that count?!:D

Denny

keensters post reminded me of something else I was pondering.

Many moons ago on this thread it was mentioned that Delta went to standard Boeing ... everything for liability purposes.

What does that do to Delta's liability for taking Airbus aircraft and using a shoe horn to put their manuals into "Boeing standard"

You might want to ask to take look at the MEC budget before you throw the cost issue around. Another Red Herring. Fact is there was a process and agreement in place to resolve outstanding merger related issues that were going to inevitably come up. I don't know if it will end at an arbitrator or not, but as they have already scheduled a Special MEC meeting to address the issue I guess they think it worth the cost of resolving.

One side does not just get to arbitrarily say the other pre-merger groups issues no longer have merit. There will be others as time moves on, particularly if there is a cancellation of the 787 order or penalty payments take the form of another protected aircraft. It's budgeted for.

The tendency to dismiss as without merit or minimize issues where one group does not have a vested interest is problematic and not just limited to this grievance issue.

Have heard that they are keeping the contract open on Worldflight - not that they will be switching back. Apparently Worldflight has more flexibility in routing and specificity in load planning, and saves substantial dollars and allows for more yield, particularly on Intl routes. Second hand only, but interesting.