Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 827555)

I am not going to state which I would have chosen, that is just ignorant.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 827562)

You have some really bad facts in your statement.
First the check airman had become sick and was not at the controls. He was in the back of the aircraft. The flight arrived at about 5:30AM trying to expedite the arrival because his condition was getting worse. They were given multiple runway changes in the last 15 minutes including a switch from 27L to 27R at 1500 feet. The taxiway in question had been written up multiple times as appearing to be a runway from the air because of the new LED lighting which appeared white not blue. The reports were spread out over a year. Tower failed to turn on the approach lights or ILS for 27R. There were several violations of procedures on the ATC side.

The final savings grace for the pilots was when the FAA duplicated the approach in the air and also lined up on the taxiway. The incident while serious without question had so many mitigating circumstances the FAA took no certificate action against either pilot. There was also minimal press coverage. The MSP overflight had extreme political and press issues and the FAA took very strong certificate action against both crew members. The issue by the way is still not over and I believe the FO will be back to work. The Captain made a choice to retire so in his case the issue may be over.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 827554)

Hockey- This is what I was referencing, the name was originally different, and did not match up with a retired DL pilot.

Now that the spelling has been corrected, I most sincerely apologize for calling you out on this. I was wrong, and I am sorry for what I said.



That being said, that scum sucking scab needs his kneecaps taken out Teamster-style.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 825932)

I agree with you Satch, but, how about keeping the posts as a reminder. And then adding an apology post?

---
Or how about for the sake of the Falcon Air pilots calling in sick and refusing to fly struck work for Spirit, how about we move them up the respect totem poll and then figure out why, as slow put it, "a keyboard warrior" from within the DAL pilot group (mvndc10) wants to label all Falcon Air pilots scabs...

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 827571)

due to the high amount of commuters that won't put green slips in.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 827555)

Your facts are wrong on what you think occurred. I will not correct them, but some of what you just stated is incorrect. Also, who says the company and alpa did not back the 188 crew? There is little leverage with emergency revocation (of any kind), and then the inability to perform said job.

Remember that the 188 crew agreed to the revocation so that they could re-certify in 12 months. Look at what has been published and then look at how carefully worded the responses are. I am not going to state which I would have chosen, that is just ignorant.

Originally Posted by iceman49 (Post 827580)

FTB, on those go-arounds can you speculate why? Thx

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 827578)

...and the 320 FO allowed himself to be interviewed by the media instead of hunkering down and letting the union speak for him. Not smart.

Originally Posted by all4114all (Post 827551)

The company and the FAA divided your group when they opted to back the check airman of DAL that landed on the wrong runway in ATL in the same time frame that the NWA pilots overflew MSP.

Landing on the wrong runway is a (remote) possibility for any pilot, but so is the overfly.

Any pilot or knowledgeable aviation professional, would have gladly picked the MSP EAU tour, if they were sitting in back any day, vs the DAL check airman in control landing on the wrong runway. This is why it does not pass the smell test. (IMHO)