Another Unbelievable CAL Story
05-31-2009, 05:53 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Originally Posted by joepilot
FAR 91.3 (a) The pilot in command is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
This is NOT limited to safety of flight.
Joe
This is NOT limited to safety of flight.
Joe
Funny, I've talked to some that have. CA elected to exercise some PIC authority, let an additional JS rider on, had NOTHING to do with safety of flight, and got his sack slapped for it.
05-31-2009, 10:50 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by joepilot
FAR 91.3 (a) The pilot in command is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
This is NOT limited to safety of flight.
Joe
This is NOT limited to safety of flight.
Joe
Well done Joe - It's always brilliant when someone quotes the good book, scripture and verse, in the presence of those preaching their ideas. Keeps it professional vice coffee shop conjecture.
06-03-2009, 12:39 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 330 FO
Posts: 584
Originally Posted by sandlapper223
I know this is "Monday Morning" talk here, but with an agent bringing up such a fuss, why not depart and upgrade the involved pax when the doors are closed? (I understand this is not the point--this agent is a complete butt-head). But he/she would've never been the wiser.
If the Marine was having as much difficulty moving around as the OP said, maybe he felt he'd be better off staying in coach if that's where he was made to sit originally vs. moving seats.
Not to mention the whole princple of the thing.
06-03-2009, 01:58 PM
#65
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by joepilot
One reason to fight this at the gate is "Captains Authority". We are, by law, responsible for, and the final authority as to, the operation of the flight.
Joe
Joe
06-03-2009, 05:49 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
...another perspective
I think this story is about false choices.
Take a principle that should be sacred to anyone, anyhwere: respect of the sick or wounded. Add another that should be sacred to everyone in this country: respect for our servicemen. Then a third, sacred in our world: the Captain has final authority.
Flip the coin. Change worlds. Go to the gatehouse.
You may find a small person, a small mind. Or maybe a zealot. Or even occasionally a good person. Their functions: 1) to allow access to the aircraft so that people may become subject to Captain's authority, 2) to determine where the person sit for a brief slice of time, between boarding, and the time the door is closed. Foolish as it is, their guiding principle is that they are in charge of the zoo outside. That's the only "power" they have. As far as they know, it's legitimate, because the company tells them it is.
The real problem, clearly, is that the company, intentionally or otherwise, doesn't define the limits of our authority in a way that's respectful of our profession, or of the principles we value.
Let me make an analogy, which may sound degrading on the surface. Don't focus on the fact I am using a dog as a comparison. I'm basing the anaology on the idea that dogs guard their turf as well as they can...
If a German shepperd is barking because you're trying to get into the yard, and there is a dispute as to whose yard it is, you don't try to play mind games with the dog. You don't try to educate someone else's animal: you try to change the owner's behavior. A good shepperd wants to listen to its' master. It doesn't want to chose between ignoring its' training, or ignoring the intruder's authoritary commands.
So it is a matter fo false choices, and this gate agent was not given any option that computes. Going along with the Captain would violate just about everything n their SOP's, or the culture ingrained in them.
I think the way you solve this is the way it is routinely solved: get the guys onboard, close the door and work it out within the world where captain's authority is (supposed to be) unquestioned. Meanwhile, you call the (assitant) CP as boarding goes on, if it's before 4:15PM, and ask them to grow a spine and intervene. Which of course will prove impossible. So you tell them you'll use your authority once onboard, and move them around. And they'll only be too happy to agree to it, because you give them the out the lets them ignore the absence of vertebrae inside their shirt.
THEN, and only AFTER the Marines had a (relatively) pleasant flight, when you get home, write your CP, and ask them for more clarity, and more respect for our authority, even outside the cockpit, from other groups. THEN, when they miserably fail to do anything of the sort, you try to get a concerted effort from the pilot group to defend the profession, and change the system, not the individual. You try to get your negotiators to change contractual language. THEN, while your group debates whether, or not, or how, and find whatever excuse not to move forward because Prater doesn't know how to do that anyway, you start writing. You write to the press, and you write to congress. You ask Congress to write a law stating that, Captains have the authority to upgrade military personnel, and military personnel have the right to accept. They promise a rider. It intially dies in committee, but you persist. So you write. You write on the web, and you lick envelopes. Etc.
You try to change the system. Not do a Vulcan mind-meld with the agent.
In the meantime, at least at my airline, it's pretty clear that the gate agent, as pathetic as it is, is not obligated to follow our principles, and has the right to assign seating at the gatehouse. And you have the right to unassign it when the doors close.
Take a principle that should be sacred to anyone, anyhwere: respect of the sick or wounded. Add another that should be sacred to everyone in this country: respect for our servicemen. Then a third, sacred in our world: the Captain has final authority.
Flip the coin. Change worlds. Go to the gatehouse.
You may find a small person, a small mind. Or maybe a zealot. Or even occasionally a good person. Their functions: 1) to allow access to the aircraft so that people may become subject to Captain's authority, 2) to determine where the person sit for a brief slice of time, between boarding, and the time the door is closed. Foolish as it is, their guiding principle is that they are in charge of the zoo outside. That's the only "power" they have. As far as they know, it's legitimate, because the company tells them it is.
The real problem, clearly, is that the company, intentionally or otherwise, doesn't define the limits of our authority in a way that's respectful of our profession, or of the principles we value.
Let me make an analogy, which may sound degrading on the surface. Don't focus on the fact I am using a dog as a comparison. I'm basing the anaology on the idea that dogs guard their turf as well as they can...
If a German shepperd is barking because you're trying to get into the yard, and there is a dispute as to whose yard it is, you don't try to play mind games with the dog. You don't try to educate someone else's animal: you try to change the owner's behavior. A good shepperd wants to listen to its' master. It doesn't want to chose between ignoring its' training, or ignoring the intruder's authoritary commands.
So it is a matter fo false choices, and this gate agent was not given any option that computes. Going along with the Captain would violate just about everything n their SOP's, or the culture ingrained in them.
I think the way you solve this is the way it is routinely solved: get the guys onboard, close the door and work it out within the world where captain's authority is (supposed to be) unquestioned. Meanwhile, you call the (assitant) CP as boarding goes on, if it's before 4:15PM, and ask them to grow a spine and intervene. Which of course will prove impossible. So you tell them you'll use your authority once onboard, and move them around. And they'll only be too happy to agree to it, because you give them the out the lets them ignore the absence of vertebrae inside their shirt.
THEN, and only AFTER the Marines had a (relatively) pleasant flight, when you get home, write your CP, and ask them for more clarity, and more respect for our authority, even outside the cockpit, from other groups. THEN, when they miserably fail to do anything of the sort, you try to get a concerted effort from the pilot group to defend the profession, and change the system, not the individual. You try to get your negotiators to change contractual language. THEN, while your group debates whether, or not, or how, and find whatever excuse not to move forward because Prater doesn't know how to do that anyway, you start writing. You write to the press, and you write to congress. You ask Congress to write a law stating that, Captains have the authority to upgrade military personnel, and military personnel have the right to accept. They promise a rider. It intially dies in committee, but you persist. So you write. You write on the web, and you lick envelopes. Etc.
You try to change the system. Not do a Vulcan mind-meld with the agent.
In the meantime, at least at my airline, it's pretty clear that the gate agent, as pathetic as it is, is not obligated to follow our principles, and has the right to assign seating at the gatehouse. And you have the right to unassign it when the doors close.
Last edited by Sink r8; 06-03-2009 at 05:59 PM.
06-04-2009, 06:59 PM
#69
Working Class Dog
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Spares Pusher
Posts: 1,668
Originally Posted by Zoot Suit
ANY updates?
The Factor opened the note I sent, but I think the AF story pretty much trumps anything aviation at the moment. As far as checking the validity of the story (your following post), that will be part of the process.
We'll see.
11Fan
06-05-2009, 03:42 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 276
For the time being, I'm taking this story at face value, although I would like to hear more. If it went down exactly as described, kudos to the Captain for acting as he did. In PR terms alone, the potential "upside" of upgrading this young Marine so outweighs the "downside" (giving up 3 unsold, First-class seats), that I seriously question the Red Coats suitability or aptitude for his/her position.
Ditto the Chief Pilot.
The notion that a soldier with brain trauma neccesitating surgery would be permitted by military regulations to travel by commercial carrier is somewhat perplexing, however, especially when MedEvac flights are available almost anywhere in the world. What would have happened had the patient gone into seizures during the flight? Even a physician in attendance would not have been equipped to handle such a situation. While the Captains account of what happened at the gate is quite plausible, something in the rest of this story doesn't pass the sniff-test.
Not neccessarily. It depends entirely upon how tight the MEC/Local is. Some managers will discipline with impunity, knowing that the MEC lacks the wherewithal to defend it's members. Other managers take a much more cautious approach, knowing that chicken-****** on their part will lead to retaliatory chicken-****** by the MEC. Managers manage, while "manager-bullies" generally avoid outright confrontation.
Ditto the Chief Pilot.
The notion that a soldier with brain trauma neccesitating surgery would be permitted by military regulations to travel by commercial carrier is somewhat perplexing, however, especially when MedEvac flights are available almost anywhere in the world. What would have happened had the patient gone into seizures during the flight? Even a physician in attendance would not have been equipped to handle such a situation. While the Captains account of what happened at the gate is quite plausible, something in the rest of this story doesn't pass the sniff-test.
Originally Posted by Mesabah
Yeah I agree, firing a pilot without hearing his side of the story is extremely risky for management, especially this day in age.... Management is incredibly stupid if they just fired him without an investigation especially in this situation; CAL will probably get sued for it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
