Gojet Loses Another Federal Employment Case
10-09-2018, 02:47 PM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 68
BY MR. HARRISON:
Q. I want to focus your attention, Mr. Bratcher, to paragraph 4: "Pilots who have been unqualified for more than 12 months" -- and that means unqualified at GoJet, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. -- "must complete the initial new-hire ground training curriculum." And then there's a "However, the director of flight ops" -- that in 2017 would have been you?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
-- "may request and the POI" -- and can you tell the Court what POI stands for.
A. The POI is the principal operations inspector. He's the individual from the FAA designated to oversee --
THE COURT: So it's an FAA person.
THE WITNESS: -- a particular airline. Yes, sir.
BY MR. HARRISON:
Q. -- (continuing) "may approve a reduction to no less than recurrent ground school."
Q: So first question is, at that time, what did the
recurrent ground school consist of?
A. In 2017, the recurrent ground school consisted of a couple
days' training.
Q. Okay. Now, in 2017, you heard his testimony
that, A, he's flying the same exact aircraft and no training
deficiencies. If he had either of those, he was flying a
different airplane, or he had training deficiencies or been
out of flying altogether, would those factors have impacted how you would have approached this?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Given that he was a current pilot for Sky West and
no training deficiencies and flying the same plane, what would
you have done in 2017?
A. I would make that recommendation that we reduce his time,
his training time. There is no need to send him back to the
entire new-hire training program. Much of the training is the
same. We generally fly the aircraft the same way if it's the
same type of aircraft. The specification that we all use are
set by the manufacturer of the aircraft. There are some
tweaks to the checklist along the way, but generally speaking,
it's very much the same.
Q. And obviously it would have been the FAA -- do you sitting
here today, based on your experience, have any estimation as
to what the FAA would have done?
A. I have no reason to believe they wouldn't have approved a
reduction.
Q. Now, that's not the end of it. It also says he also would
have had to have done flight simulator training to
proficiency. Given that he was flying the same
plane, no deficiencies, and presently a pilot at GoJet {Skywest actually}, what would have that have taken?
A. I would fully expect it to be one day of simulator
training to demonstrate the proficiency, followed by another
day, which would be the check ride by the PC.
So, after more than 3 years after being terminated, not having flown as a captain for over 3 years; not having access to Gojet's books, procedures, changes in procedures, changes in the GOM; Randy Bratcher thinks that the FAA is going to simply allow Gojet to give him one simulator and a check ride. Does anyone believe that. Am I that far out of touch to believe that would never happen? He was terminated, he is looked at by the FAA as a new hire isn't he?
Q. I want to focus your attention, Mr. Bratcher, to paragraph 4: "Pilots who have been unqualified for more than 12 months" -- and that means unqualified at GoJet, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. -- "must complete the initial new-hire ground training curriculum." And then there's a "However, the director of flight ops" -- that in 2017 would have been you?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
-- "may request and the POI" -- and can you tell the Court what POI stands for.
A. The POI is the principal operations inspector. He's the individual from the FAA designated to oversee --
THE COURT: So it's an FAA person.
THE WITNESS: -- a particular airline. Yes, sir.
BY MR. HARRISON:
Q. -- (continuing) "may approve a reduction to no less than recurrent ground school."
Q: So first question is, at that time, what did the
recurrent ground school consist of?
A. In 2017, the recurrent ground school consisted of a couple
days' training.
Q. Okay. Now, in 2017, you heard his testimony
that, A, he's flying the same exact aircraft and no training
deficiencies. If he had either of those, he was flying a
different airplane, or he had training deficiencies or been
out of flying altogether, would those factors have impacted how you would have approached this?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Given that he was a current pilot for Sky West and
no training deficiencies and flying the same plane, what would
you have done in 2017?
A. I would make that recommendation that we reduce his time,
his training time. There is no need to send him back to the
entire new-hire training program. Much of the training is the
same. We generally fly the aircraft the same way if it's the
same type of aircraft. The specification that we all use are
set by the manufacturer of the aircraft. There are some
tweaks to the checklist along the way, but generally speaking,
it's very much the same.
Q. And obviously it would have been the FAA -- do you sitting
here today, based on your experience, have any estimation as
to what the FAA would have done?
A. I have no reason to believe they wouldn't have approved a
reduction.
Q. Now, that's not the end of it. It also says he also would
have had to have done flight simulator training to
proficiency. Given that he was flying the same
plane, no deficiencies, and presently a pilot at GoJet {Skywest actually}, what would have that have taken?
A. I would fully expect it to be one day of simulator
training to demonstrate the proficiency, followed by another
day, which would be the check ride by the PC.
So, after more than 3 years after being terminated, not having flown as a captain for over 3 years; not having access to Gojet's books, procedures, changes in procedures, changes in the GOM; Randy Bratcher thinks that the FAA is going to simply allow Gojet to give him one simulator and a check ride. Does anyone believe that. Am I that far out of touch to believe that would never happen? He was terminated, he is looked at by the FAA as a new hire isn't he?
10-22-2018, 07:49 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 90
So Randy Bratcher says that he can take a pilot who has been away from Gojet for 3 years, flying for another airline, a different model of the plane, with different procedures, give him one sim ride and a sim check and then put him into the airplane. He says he does not see why the FAA would not allow him to do this. Is he really this crazy? No he is not. He was simply lying in federal court.
Randy Bratcher lies in a federal court and he wants people to come to Gojet because they are a changed company, they don't do these things to people like this any more.
Gojet is maintaining their position as the bottom regional airline in my opinion. Anyone want to make the case for Gojet?
Randy Bratcher lies in a federal court and he wants people to come to Gojet because they are a changed company, they don't do these things to people like this any more.
Gojet is maintaining their position as the bottom regional airline in my opinion. Anyone want to make the case for Gojet?
10-22-2018, 11:18 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by Bombardier Stev
So Randy Bratcher says that he can take a pilot who has been away from Gojet for 3 years, flying for another airline, a different model of the plane, with different procedures, give him one sim ride and a sim check and then put him into the airplane. He says he does not see why the FAA would not allow him to do this. Is he really this crazy? No he is not. He was simply lying in federal court.
Randy Bratcher lies in a federal court and he wants people to come to Gojet because they are a changed company, they don't do these things to people like this any more.
Gojet is maintaining their position as the bottom regional airline in my opinion. Anyone want to make the case for Gojet?
Randy Bratcher lies in a federal court and he wants people to come to Gojet because they are a changed company, they don't do these things to people like this any more.
Gojet is maintaining their position as the bottom regional airline in my opinion. Anyone want to make the case for Gojet?
10-23-2018, 03:27 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 164
I don't think there have really been many Gojet defenders. The only true believer Gojet pilots I remember reading all started out the same way, "I've only been at Gojet for a few months, but everyone in management has been peachy keen." By about a year, usually all of us have figured out what it is like and stop defending the company.
Even GOJET RECRUITER quickly stopped defending Gojet and merely answers questions to the best of his ability.
Everyone who knows, I believe, has been honest. The ones who are excited about Gojet are the pilot-want-to-bes excited to get their first flying job. They don't know any better.
Even GOJET RECRUITER quickly stopped defending Gojet and merely answers questions to the best of his ability.
Everyone who knows, I believe, has been honest. The ones who are excited about Gojet are the pilot-want-to-bes excited to get their first flying job. They don't know any better.
10-25-2018, 07:10 PM
#17
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Strenyakov
I don't think there have really been many Gojet defenders. The only true believer Gojet pilots I remember reading all started out the same way, "I've only been at Gojet for a few months, but everyone in management has been peachy keen." By about a year, usually all of us have figured out what it is like and stop defending the company.
Even GOJET RECRUITER quickly stopped defending Gojet and merely answers questions to the best of his ability.
Everyone who knows, I believe, has been honest. The ones who are excited about Gojet are the pilot-want-to-bes excited to get their first flying job. They don't know any better.
Even GOJET RECRUITER quickly stopped defending Gojet and merely answers questions to the best of his ability.
Everyone who knows, I believe, has been honest. The ones who are excited about Gojet are the pilot-want-to-bes excited to get their first flying job. They don't know any better.
GoJet doesn't need to be defended. Who would you suggest it needs to be defended from? Uninformed folks like yourself who usually don't even get the name of the airline correct? Baseless accusations spewed by people who have never worked here? Or maybe I have to wonder if you failed out of training or if you're bitter for yet another reason? That would certainly explain your jealousy of the new hires.
I will ASSUME that you work for some sort of airline (or did). If you're reading the transcript of the trial, Mr. Harrison refers to "Paragraph 4" of an unidentified publication ( Perhaps the training guide)
This reading outlines the shortening of training in certain cases. Do you think that GoJet simply typed this up and unlocked the doors? Or do you think maybe, just maybe that the FSDO had a peek? Maybe?
Based on the POI reading this plan and approving this plan, do you think maybe... I don't know, that they approve of the plan?
At this point, Captain Bratcher may be trying to do the guy a "favor" and make training as brief as possible given his child at home. Perhaps right a wrong?
Was the gentleman given the option to do the full training? I can't speculate on either person's motivation but you're simply saying it would not be approved.
I am sure you probably know more than the Director of Operations at the company, the guy suing the company, pilots that have worked here for YEARS.
Gojet is doing great without your approval. Our pilots are great people. So, when I take offense to your uninformed blatherings, it is because a lot of folks here do an outstanding job.
Our new pilots are lucky to be here. If this isn't a good fit for them, they can move on. But, we have had pilots come here from almost every other regional because it wasn't a good fit there.
But, thank you for letting us know about the company we work for. I am sure you will be a great source of information in the future. May I call on you for more questions you don't know the answer to?
10-26-2018, 10:06 AM
#18
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 68
WILLSFLYING seems to have missed the relevant points of the case.
Gojet illegally terminated the pilot.
Pilot goes to another regional flying 200s after a year. Has to leave his disabled child for several weeks for training.
After 3 years of fighting this, Gojet knows they are going to lose big time. The VP of ops sent out an email right after the pilot went on leave ordering the Chief Pilot Randy Bratcher and Base Manager not to communicate with him because they were going to fire him, which they did. The email was discovered and Gojet was in trouble.
Gojet wants to limit their damages so they make an offer of reinstatement after 3 years. `He asks how long he would have to go away for training. They tell him he would have to go through the "full initial training course".
He says he cannot be away again another 6 to 7 weeks for training. He rejects the offer of reinstatement.
Gojet loses the case. Gojet argues that his rejecting the offer of reinstatement was unreasonable and his damages should end there. To say that coming back was unreasonable, they change their stance that he would have to go through the entire initial course and Randy Bratcher gets up there and testifies that with FAA approval, he could have had one day of class, one sim, and a check ride. Then Bratcher would have returned him to the line. Did they talk to the FAA, no, because the FAA would never have approved that. They did not run it by the POI as Willsflying hints at.
You can be the judge. Do you really think that Randy Bratcher believed that he could get the FAA to approve his sending a pilot who has been gone from the company for 3 years, back on the line with away of class, sim and a sim check?
The pilot was away from Gojet for 3 years. He was not teaching sim for Gojet during those 3 years keeping up on Gojet procedures, GOM Changes, etc. He was flying a different model with different procedures at another carrier.
Gojet illegally terminated the pilot.
Pilot goes to another regional flying 200s after a year. Has to leave his disabled child for several weeks for training.
After 3 years of fighting this, Gojet knows they are going to lose big time. The VP of ops sent out an email right after the pilot went on leave ordering the Chief Pilot Randy Bratcher and Base Manager not to communicate with him because they were going to fire him, which they did. The email was discovered and Gojet was in trouble.
Gojet wants to limit their damages so they make an offer of reinstatement after 3 years. `He asks how long he would have to go away for training. They tell him he would have to go through the "full initial training course".
He says he cannot be away again another 6 to 7 weeks for training. He rejects the offer of reinstatement.
Gojet loses the case. Gojet argues that his rejecting the offer of reinstatement was unreasonable and his damages should end there. To say that coming back was unreasonable, they change their stance that he would have to go through the entire initial course and Randy Bratcher gets up there and testifies that with FAA approval, he could have had one day of class, one sim, and a check ride. Then Bratcher would have returned him to the line. Did they talk to the FAA, no, because the FAA would never have approved that. They did not run it by the POI as Willsflying hints at.
You can be the judge. Do you really think that Randy Bratcher believed that he could get the FAA to approve his sending a pilot who has been gone from the company for 3 years, back on the line with away of class, sim and a sim check?
The pilot was away from Gojet for 3 years. He was not teaching sim for Gojet during those 3 years keeping up on Gojet procedures, GOM Changes, etc. He was flying a different model with different procedures at another carrier.
10-30-2018, 09:24 AM
#19
Part of the problem
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: CRJ200 CA
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by WILLSFLYING
I have to wonder how little of a social life GoJet haters have to sit here and come up with this trash? Bashing a new pilot for accepting a job based on your own hang-ups? How about congratulating them for getting to this point?
GoJet doesn't need to be defended. Who would you suggest it needs to be defended from? Uninformed folks like yourself who usually don't even get the name of the airline correct? Baseless accusations spewed by people who have never worked here? Or maybe I have to wonder if you failed out of training or if you're bitter for yet another reason? That would certainly explain your jealousy of the new hires.
I will ASSUME that you work for some sort of airline (or did). If you're reading the transcript of the trial, Mr. Harrison refers to "Paragraph 4" of an unidentified publication ( Perhaps the training guide)
This reading outlines the shortening of training in certain cases. Do you think that GoJet simply typed this up and unlocked the doors? Or do you think maybe, just maybe that the FSDO had a peek? Maybe?
Based on the POI reading this plan and approving this plan, do you think maybe... I don't know, that they approve of the plan?
At this point, Captain Bratcher may be trying to do the guy a "favor" and make training as brief as possible given his child at home. Perhaps right a wrong?
Was the gentleman given the option to do the full training? I can't speculate on either person's motivation but you're simply saying it would not be approved.
I am sure you probably know more than the Director of Operations at the company, the guy suing the company, pilots that have worked here for YEARS.
Gojet is doing great without your approval. Our pilots are great people. So, when I take offense to your uninformed blatherings, it is because a lot of folks here do an outstanding job.
Our new pilots are lucky to be here. If this isn't a good fit for them, they can move on. But, we have had pilots come here from almost every other regional because it wasn't a good fit there.
But, thank you for letting us know about the company we work for. I am sure you will be a great source of information in the future. May I call on you for more questions you don't know the answer to?
GoJet doesn't need to be defended. Who would you suggest it needs to be defended from? Uninformed folks like yourself who usually don't even get the name of the airline correct? Baseless accusations spewed by people who have never worked here? Or maybe I have to wonder if you failed out of training or if you're bitter for yet another reason? That would certainly explain your jealousy of the new hires.
I will ASSUME that you work for some sort of airline (or did). If you're reading the transcript of the trial, Mr. Harrison refers to "Paragraph 4" of an unidentified publication ( Perhaps the training guide)
This reading outlines the shortening of training in certain cases. Do you think that GoJet simply typed this up and unlocked the doors? Or do you think maybe, just maybe that the FSDO had a peek? Maybe?
Based on the POI reading this plan and approving this plan, do you think maybe... I don't know, that they approve of the plan?
At this point, Captain Bratcher may be trying to do the guy a "favor" and make training as brief as possible given his child at home. Perhaps right a wrong?
Was the gentleman given the option to do the full training? I can't speculate on either person's motivation but you're simply saying it would not be approved.
I am sure you probably know more than the Director of Operations at the company, the guy suing the company, pilots that have worked here for YEARS.
Gojet is doing great without your approval. Our pilots are great people. So, when I take offense to your uninformed blatherings, it is because a lot of folks here do an outstanding job.
Our new pilots are lucky to be here. If this isn't a good fit for them, they can move on. But, we have had pilots come here from almost every other regional because it wasn't a good fit there.
But, thank you for letting us know about the company we work for. I am sure you will be a great source of information in the future. May I call on you for more questions you don't know the answer to?
I recently flew with 2 FOs at 9E who were CAs at GoJet. They both went there for the promise of quick upgrade. They both upgraded quickly, but were almost exclusively flown as FOs, thus not logging any PIC time. They both had nearly the same horror stories about the training department and management. They both literally confirmed every story I've ever heard about GoJet.
They both left their CA positions at GoJet to be FOs at 9E.
That says quite a bit about GoJet.
10-30-2018, 05:24 PM
#20
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by Flogger
I recently flew with 2 FOs at 9E who were CAs at GoJet. They both went there for the promise of quick upgrade. They both upgraded quickly, but were almost exclusively flown as FOs, thus not logging any PIC time. They both had nearly the same horror stories about the training department and management. They both literally confirmed every story I've ever heard about GoJet.
They both left their CA positions at GoJet to be FOs at 9E.
That says quite a bit about GoJet.
They both left their CA positions at GoJet to be FOs at 9E.
That says quite a bit about GoJet.
I've heard the same from folks who have gone there. Transtates Holdings in general is a dumpster fire. They have a very high bust rate and are about to lose some flying. Steer clear!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
