Another Screw Up in Training?
 

What's the deal with several of FO's and Capt's having to requal owing to an alleged "paperwork" issue in the training dept?

FAA audit showed that some pilots were taught by unqualified instructors during parts of their training.

Would this be the 3rd time?

Yes, I do believe the most recent event of mishandled accounting of one or more sim checkairman resulting in the disqualification of one or more pilot(s) makes this latest snafu the third (3rd) occurrence under J.O's watch. In order to correct this apparent serial probelm, those pilots effected by the mishandling of training will be required to re-train and re-qualify. I am interested in learning what cost F9 will incur to remove the pilot(s) from their schedule, get them in the sim, pay them for another sim event in addition to dropped flying, as well as sim and instructor cost(s). Who is accoutable? and what will be the consequences to those directly responsible? From an outsider looking in, would not BL ultimately be accountable? Can anyone come up with a cogent reason BL continues to cover and protect his lackey, JO? I mean really? three times? No changes? No wonder F9 is incapable of elevating themselves from the worst airline four years running.

Just curious. There any proof of this? Or, is this about as accurate as selling 150 airbus orders?
BTW, do you even work here? How’d you get this FAA Audit?

Can confirm.

Those affected, including myself, are being called by JO directly to explain the situation. I was told repeating the SIM events preceding a checkride doesn't mean you'll have to repeat the checkride.

Fair enough. Hey I believed it. I just take everything with a grain of salt around here.

You're an outsider? But you know the names of the people in the training dept?

Obviously your work here currently or used to. And if you don't work here, why are you here?

Anyhow, I don't disagree with anything your said. The last 2 times this happened, it was very costly and no one lost their jobs over it. Inexcusable to have happened again. Last time the FAA wouldn't even let pilots fly one leg back to base. They were dead in the water which I felt like was unnecessarily harsh on their part. It wasn't like the pilots hadn't taken and passed their checkrides. I know that one of the times the instructor (retired, non line pilot) hadn't attended ground school so they dequaled all the guys who'd done checkrides with him. That's pretty ridiculous. I mean, has the FAA sat thru one of our ground schools? Lol. They are not exactly the cornerstone of our safety culture.

ground school is sh!t hot.

What he said.

A 3rd time ?!

Thats not a good look 🤡

Imagine if the company treated the pilots well and there wasn't a need to get through 40+ new hires with 1200hrs every month.

Bet we wouldn't have these issues, but BL says this is alright. Just like not requiring route quals for South America.

pays to have a friend at the top

Dr Demby strikes again!

Follow Alaskas lead and FIRE him!

serious question/thought

Much like SWAPA sued Boeing for withholding information about aircraft systems, is there any way we (the union) can sue Frontier for inadequate training practices? There's obviously a precedent and just because most of our LCA/sim check peeps are decent instructors doesn't mean a thing in a mishap investigation. Who's gonna be left holding the bag on an NTSB investigation when it's determined that a pilot was UQ when he/she slid off the runway (or worse, the plane is at the gate, the pilot is doing everything right and a bag loader runs into the plane so badly an investigation is triggered)? You think the pilot will be given a pass because F9 training dept is incompetent?

This is more serious than I think some people think...

as long as the pilot didn’t know they dequaled due to a paperwork issue they would still be protected under the asap program just as if they hadn’t dequaled due to paperwork issues.
You can make up any scenario but as long as no alcohol was involved and an incident/accident wasn’t intentional asap should protect. Of course judgement in the decision making process is open to scrutiny as always.

In order to bring action against a party and prevail, the moving party must prove damages. In this case, if a pilot who is adversly effected, i.e loss of job, loss of promotion, rejection of employment, the aggrieved pilot may sue for damages owing to the "loss" he/she incurred as a direct result of negligence caused by the F9 training dept. Through a legal lens, at first blush this will be very difficult to prove. However, a "Vote of No Confidence" may be a more effective avenue F9 ALPA may pursue to remove those individuals responsible for the recurring FAA record keeping infractions effecting several pilots. I would hope a class action suit could be avoided simply by the FAA imposing sanctions, fines, and whatever additional punishment the FAA deems appropriate to correct this ongoing problem with F9's training dept. It appears the same names keep surfacing surrounding this specific issue. At the end of the day, BL is responsible and as such, he and JO, BD, and TS should be held accountable for what they have done and/or failed to do. You license is your livlihood. Considering PRIA, do you trust F9's training dept, BL to protect you if there is evidence to support you Dequal'd for whatever reason? Do you really want to be positioned to possibly be forced to explain what happend in hopes the listening party takes what you say at face value? C'mon guys, this needs to be corrected ASAP. Too much at stake to let this slide.

I feel like this would be more of an indictment of our training system as a whole then crossing a T and dotting an I.
if someone slides off the runway, it certainly looks bad if they were signed off by someone who wasn’t signed off themselves. But, was that the REAL reason they slid off the runway?

I get that the paperwork must always be right. You can fly a flight and do everything correctly. But, if there’s a missing signature in the MX can, you’re still wrong.

yeah you’d lose in the court of public opinion, and you’d also lose in real court too.

TLDR: mishandled paperwork doesn’t necessarily mean failure of the system or improper training.

BD was top most no-fly-listed Captain at Frontier when he was on the line at Frontier

OK.

The ASAP program is NOT a get out of jail free card. While it does provide "protection" or more simply an explanation of how/why a pilot shouldn't be found at fault for a FAA rule violation (or similar) doesn't mean the FAA couldn't come back and say that despite the explanation of not knowing, the pilot SHOULD have known or taken a larger interest into their own training/qualification, and therefore . . . Frankly, I don't know what the FAA might say (I don't suppose many really do).

Let's just make sure we don't represent ASAP as some sort of saviour/infallible program that it is not.

I guess anything is possible. I’m not that concerned about some incident happening then the faa blaming the fact that I had unknowingly dequaled as the reason or even a contributing factor for that incident. Sounds like you are. We disagree no problem.

Fair enough.

I think that if you, as a pilot, missed a training event, you'd be right. But we are talking about inter dept record keeping error. I don't think any pilot is at any risk of certificate action in this case.

Yeah, I am not sure how you would ASAP a training event you didn't know about until it was too late. What if you were operating for months? I think a better plan of action would be to get a hold of the ole F.A.A. and ask what to submit or fill out if anything.

I’ll play along with this. Some of this ridiculousness might eventually be incorporated into a vote of no confidence to a particular individual. Packed with several other issues we currently have. You wouldn’t really want it as a stand alone issue vote as it’s a bit like crying wolf. You do it to much over individual issues or name to many folks that might have plausible deniability you’ll lose credibility for future votes of no confidence. By the way do you work at f9?

Per the FAA:

The objective of an ASAP is to encourage employees of air carriers, repair stations, or other entities (collectively referred
to as “eligible entities”) to voluntarily report safety information that may be critical to identifying potential precursors to accidents.

Per ALPA:

ASAP fosters a voluntary, cooperative, non-punitive environment for the open reporting of safety of flight concerns. Through such reporting, all parties will have access to valuable safety information that may not otherwise be obtainable. This information will be analyzed in order to develop corrective action to help solve safety issues and possibly eliminate deviations from Federal Aviation Rules.

not sure how ASAP would apply to administrative paperwork issues in training department. Many have already agreed that nobody is flying around unsafe or incompetent as a result of these issues.

ERC has wide discretion on what is accepted into the program. Paperwork issues have in the past provided protection from logbook errors (flying with open write ups discovered days later). Timelines can be discretionary. Generally it’s 24 hrs from end of sequence (or when you’re first aware of the issue) but that can be extended. Theres an advisory circular outlining asap programs and how there supposed to work. It’s 20 plus pages so a bit more to it than that one paragraph.

agree, but those are all "flying, or intent to fly, a real airplane" occurences.

Training department run via colored highlighters, post it notes, and phone tag, is probably not what the ASAP program was designed for.

(But quite possible it fully fits in there)

Right. If I was told that I flew when I wasn’t legal due to f9 paperwork error I would file an asap. It would be unreasonable for me to have to actually view documents from required training instructors every six months. Pretty sure the feds (with a union rep sitting there) would agree.

Good point.

Agree

Not only do I wish to see F9 flourish and grow beyond expecataion, I have a vested interest in F9.

In my humble opinion, F9 has incredible potential; not simply from an investor's position, but from an employee's position as well. Unfortunately, F9 will remain at the bottom (on many levels) so long as F9's current leadership (or lack thereof) remain in place. Specifically; BB and BL. With all due respect, both gentleman have reached their useful potential. Both are in first gear with the pedal to the floor. Both gentleman are not well respected amongst their peers; in part due to their lack of credibility and evident poor performance and public perception. Simple litmus test: If BB and BL were to be replaced by Bastion, Kirby, or the like, how do you think the market would react? Unfortunately, top talent comes at a price as does their Rolodex. On a more personal level relevant to pilots reading this thread, it's no secret BL deliberately minces his words; committing the sin of omission on a regular basis. BL little to no respect and credibility amongst the line-pilot ranks (other than possibly JO and a small handful of BL's cronies and minions). I struggle to believe anyone would get in a foxhole with BB or BL in combat. Do you think that was the case at SWA during Kelleher's reign? Kelleher was best known for his "servant" leadership style which contributed to SWA's tremendous success. Kelleher valued his employees, understood how to manage people and customers and motivated his employees to want to come to work every day - and perfom their best! Compare Kelleher's style to BB and BL's style - wonder why F9 employees on all levels are leaving in droves? Good leadership vs. Bad leadership. Poor leadership always (emphasis added) rears it's ugly head on the bottom line. How can investors and employees expect BB and BL manage and control a major airline when neither are able to control their own emotions.

So is your plan to just wait it out until BB/BL are replaced?

You're an idealist. Probably a great person. Would drink a beer w/ you on an overnight. But, there's a very good chance you'll stay on until it's no longer practical to jump ship waiting for the calvarly that never comes and retire at F9 having made millions less...

And if so, Indigo retaining BB/BL served its purpose.

Valid questions. The plan you describe is one of many in consideration. After listening to the Q4 conference this morning, it is wise to assess what was said in the meeting, then develop a strategy moving forward. It's not extraordirily difficult to sperate the wheat from chaff. BB's statements were predominately pro forma, forward looking rosy picture. Not much time spent discussing why F9 suffered yet another consecutive quarterly loss, there was no discussion regarding supply chain management, current market forces, or strategy to combat competition. The 56 minute meeting was as informative as F9 ground school. I don't envision BF replacing BB in the near term, but the market sure will react to F9's continued losses, failure to meet market expecations, and the litney of excuses may ultumately cause shareholders to divest, which may be the opportune time for Indigo to buy back ULCC shares at a discount. The decision to apply, work for, or leave F9 may already be determined. I am curious to see how NK will play out, which may prejudice one's decision to seek employment at F9. I do agree with BB insofar the window of opportunity to seek employment at a legacy is slowly but steadily closing this putting a choke hold on F9's MEC to effectively negotiate. The people in the TK in DEN have taken notice to the slowdown as well. Not just F9 pilots. Interesting comment made by BB indiating F9 has seen a slow down in attrition" Hey buddy... it's not owing to people wanting to stay, it's due to a slow down in outside hiring. Contract 2025? LOL, don't hold your breath.

We made money. They did some fun accounting to show a loss.

"Net loss for the fourth quarter of 2023 was $37 million, including the recognition of a $37 million non-cash valuation allowance against deferred tax assets. This allowance does not affect the Company's ability to utilize cumulative net operating losses against potential future income tax liabilities. Excluding special items, adjusted net income, a non-GAAP measure, was $1 million. Refer to “Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Financial Information” in the appendix of this release."

As far as "fun accounting", F9's CFO simply kicked the tax can down the road. The cold hard reality is F9 will pay a hefty price within two (2) years when F9 will be required to pay 35% tax. Keep in mind, a valuation allowance account is established to recognize the reduction in a deferred tax asset. The temporary difference will reverse evenly over the next two years at an enacted tax rate of 35%.

F9 is showing a "loss" to avoid taxes, but will be paying the piper in 24 months. Not the best strategy considering: (A). F9 really has no idea what the next 24 months will bring with consideration to the war in Europe and Isreal. (B) Most airlines keep some tax deferred assets in reserve (carry forward) for the future profitable quarters in order to reduce future tax burdens id profits are achieved. Which brings us to (C). If Biden is re-elected, there is a very distinct possibility existing corporate tax benefits may no longer be available so that our Gov't is able to generate more cash to pay it's debts (and illegals coming in through Texas - had to say that). Especially during an election cycle, astute businesses plan accordingly to hedge risk associated with a change in party on Capitol Hill.

End of the day, BB is throwing a hail-Mary pass.

We are still hiring over 2000 pilots this year....... "slower" yes but classes are still full (from 70 per week to 50 per week). 99% of the info coming out of TK turns out to be falsehoods.

Will we hire forever.....nope but this year we still are.

Ive been very busy so can’t respond to this fully but something doesn’t make sense with what you say. I’m not in corporate finance or a tax pro so I can definitely be mistaken.

Where are you getting 24 months or 35% tax rate?

My understanding of a valuation allowance is different than what you are suggesting. My understanding is we have too many deferred tax assets over the last three years due to losses each year. As a result a valuation allowance is required by tax code to get rid of a phantom over-valuation of our company due to the excessive DTAs.

My apologies for not being more clear. It is my understanding when taking depreciation of an asset (consideraing both GAAP and FASB for Corporations, not LLC's, S-Corp's, etc..) a corporation is allowed to depreciate certain tangible assets for the purpose of reducing their tax burden on a scheduled bases - typically 1- 10 years. I liken the benefit of depreciation as a temporary "loan" from the Gov't. The Gov't loses revenue when allowing businesses to lower their taxable income (EBITA) owing to non-cash outlay associated with depreciation. Current Federal tax laws provide rules and regulations requiring corporations to "pay back" portions (in some cases all) of the amount depreciated in a defined period of time. The Gov't will get their money one way or another, or one may find themselves behind bars. The exact IRS Tax Code defining this requirement escapes me at the moment, however I am aware of the requirement to pay back, and/or account for the depreciation within in speciafied time period, (two fiscal years if I remember correctly or the sale (change of disposition of an asset)) at a corporate tax rate of 35% despite Federal corporate tax rate being 21% for FY23. That being said, F9 may have temporarily avoided taxes for FY23, but the chickens will be coming home to roost in the not too distant future. If F9 doesn't have the money to pay their tax burder, the Gov't could move to seize assets for the purpose of sale and ultimately payment of F9's debt to the Fed Gov't. and/or place a tax lein on property/assets. It's a bit more complicated for publicly traded companies/SEC. *disclaimer: When I studied this stuff there were the "Big-6" accounting firms, now we have have the "Big-4", so my info may be a little dated.

I don’t disagree with anything you said BUT I don’t think that is what they did. Again, I can definitely be wrong here…

In the last three years we have had a loss. (225) 2020, (102) 2021, (37) 2022…(364M) ish in losses that are allowed to be deferred against future tax gains. Deferred tax assets. So our DTAs have ballooned up so much that there is a greater than 50% chance we won’t be able to produce enough profit to realize those DTAs in a timely manner despite them never expiring under current tax code. Since they are considered assets they have ballooned our company valuation inappropriately as they are phantom assets. As such there is a way to rectify the asset with a contra asset. The valuation allowance.

“To reconcile the balance sheet and the company’s actual value, a valuation allowance for the deferred tax assets reduces the value of the assets carried on the balance sheet. Removing these “phantom” assets reduces the distortion of company value, aligning values on the balance sheet more closely with the actual value of the business.” “The offsetting credit is usually to the income tax expense, which has the effect of increasing it, thereby reducing net income.” -various websites

When this account was created It removed, or
more accurately balanced, 37M worth of DTAs. So despite making money in 2023 we now show a loss. This can be reversed at anytime if it appears we will be able to utilize all available DTAs. However, to do so we will have to show the reversal of the allowance as income again to be taxed appropriately.

Stayontarget - thank you for your thoughtful and cogent response. I agree with with your assessment in toto however, I do have concerns surrounding F9's tax strategy in the long-term. While I am not privy to inside information defined by the SEC, I am only able to assess based on publicly available information. That being said, in my humble opinion, F9 could be painting themselves in a corner by focusing on near-term profits rather than long-term strategy. Lot's of bravado from BB and the gang with little or no measurable financial or market gain. The "cost-cutting to achieve profitability" method comes at a very high price and high risk - especially when applied to Part 121 air carriers. Historically, airlines that have failed, or suffred bankruptcy first cut costs in pilot training. Looking at PAA, EAL, CAL, and BNF, even UAL in 2002, all of whom first cut costs in training while facing financial stress. I can't help but strongly suspect F9's training dept is being pressured by BL to significantly reduce the training footprint for already inexperienced new hires in an effort to perceivably reduce expenses. History has the propensity to repeat itself. Is F9 setting themselves up for a perfect storm?