Families groan, protest listening to Colgan..
05-13-2009, 08:42 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: DHC-8 100/300 CA
Posts: 238
Families groan, protest listening to Colgan..
Families groan, protest listening to Colgan exec : Home: The Buffalo News
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Family members of Continental Connection Flight 3407 today finally heard enough from Colgan Air’s executives stressing how their company values safety and how safe their flights are.
Mary Finnigan, Colgan’s vice president for administration, was greeted with audible moans and protests from the families during the second day of the National Transportation Safety Board’s hearing into the Feb. 12 crash.
Asked her personal standard in who she hires to undergo Colgan’s flight training, she said, “My personal standard is I would not sign off on any applicant that I personally would not want flying with my family in the back of an airplane.”
That proved too much for several families who have been sitting quietly during two days of testimony designed to explain why Flight 3407 crashed and took 50 lives, and their protests reached the dais where the questioners sit.
Acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker immediately interrupted the hearing, reminding audience members to respect the panelists.
It has been that kind of day as a number of Colgan executives have taken the stand and testified to their airline's policies, and what might and might not have led to Flight 3407’s crash.
Fatigue is one of the explanations offered on why Capt. Marvin Renslow and first officer Rebecca L. Shaw reacted as if they were startled when a stall warning sounded when they approached the Buffalo Niagara International Airport.
Members of the NTSB questioned Finnigan and Harry Mitchel, Colgan’s vice president for flight operations, on Shaw’s 36-hour commute from her home in the state of Washington, a commute that ended in the early morning hours of the day of her flight to Buffalo.
Finnigan had earlier testified that Shaw, 24, made only $16,000 a year as a first officer, and that she had worked a second job in a Norfolk, Va., coffee shop before she switched duty stations from Norfolk to Newark, N.J.
Shaw, who had also recently moved home to Washington, faced a choice of cross-country commutes and sleeping in the crew room at the Newark airport — prohibited by company policy, or living in Newark.
Complete Buffalo News coverage of the crash of Flight 3407, including the days following the crash, the investigation and the lives of those who were lost.
How does someone making $16,000 a year afford to live in Newark? Colgan VP Mitchel was asked.
Mitchel replied that airline pilots for years had made do by sharing places, and that he viewed Colgan as a stepping stone for pilots looking to move up to a major carrier.
“I think it’s a recipe for an accident, and that’s what we have here," NTSB board member Kathy Higgins said.
Earlier today, Colgan Air said it has revised its pilot hiring standards in a way that would have disqualified someone as inexperienced as Renslow from being hired.
Under questioning from investigators, Finnigan acknowledged that when Renslow was hired, the minimum number of flight hours a pilot needed to be considered for hiring was 600 hours.
Since the Clarence crash, Colgan has boosted its minimum flying requirement for new pilots to 1,000 hours, Finnigan acknowledged.
That acknowledgment came a day after the transcript of the flight's cockpit voice recorder showed Renslow saying he had only 625 hours of flying time when Colgan hired him.
"Oh wow," the co-pilot, Rebecca Lynn Shaw, replied. "That's not much for, uh, back when you got hired."
Colgan officials also said that if they had known that Renslow failed to acknowledge on his job application that he had failed three federal "check flights," he would not have been hired.
Renslow acknowledged only one of those failures, but Colgan, hamstrung in part by a federal privacy law, never double-checked that part of his application with the Federal Aviation Administration.
Asked if Renslow "slipped under the radar" by getting hired at Colgan, Finnegan said no.
"I don't think he slipped in under the radar," she said. "We did our job."
Colgan officials also faced harsh questions about how much it pays its flight crews.
Investigator Roger Cox said his research showed Shaw only $16,254 a year.
Cox questioned whether that is enough for Colgan employees such as Shaw who are based in Newark.
"Did you expect her to reside in the New York metro area at that rate of pay?," he asked.
"We do not dictate where our employs want to live," replied Finnigan, saying Colgan's salaries are "industry standard."
Shaw commuted on an overnight flight from her home in Seattle before reporting to duty in Newark the day of the crash.
Hopefully this might start some initiative to move towards all of our causes...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Family members of Continental Connection Flight 3407 today finally heard enough from Colgan Air’s executives stressing how their company values safety and how safe their flights are.
Mary Finnigan, Colgan’s vice president for administration, was greeted with audible moans and protests from the families during the second day of the National Transportation Safety Board’s hearing into the Feb. 12 crash.
Asked her personal standard in who she hires to undergo Colgan’s flight training, she said, “My personal standard is I would not sign off on any applicant that I personally would not want flying with my family in the back of an airplane.”
That proved too much for several families who have been sitting quietly during two days of testimony designed to explain why Flight 3407 crashed and took 50 lives, and their protests reached the dais where the questioners sit.
Acting NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker immediately interrupted the hearing, reminding audience members to respect the panelists.
It has been that kind of day as a number of Colgan executives have taken the stand and testified to their airline's policies, and what might and might not have led to Flight 3407’s crash.
Fatigue is one of the explanations offered on why Capt. Marvin Renslow and first officer Rebecca L. Shaw reacted as if they were startled when a stall warning sounded when they approached the Buffalo Niagara International Airport.
Members of the NTSB questioned Finnigan and Harry Mitchel, Colgan’s vice president for flight operations, on Shaw’s 36-hour commute from her home in the state of Washington, a commute that ended in the early morning hours of the day of her flight to Buffalo.
Finnigan had earlier testified that Shaw, 24, made only $16,000 a year as a first officer, and that she had worked a second job in a Norfolk, Va., coffee shop before she switched duty stations from Norfolk to Newark, N.J.
Shaw, who had also recently moved home to Washington, faced a choice of cross-country commutes and sleeping in the crew room at the Newark airport — prohibited by company policy, or living in Newark.
Complete Buffalo News coverage of the crash of Flight 3407, including the days following the crash, the investigation and the lives of those who were lost.
How does someone making $16,000 a year afford to live in Newark? Colgan VP Mitchel was asked.
Mitchel replied that airline pilots for years had made do by sharing places, and that he viewed Colgan as a stepping stone for pilots looking to move up to a major carrier.
“I think it’s a recipe for an accident, and that’s what we have here," NTSB board member Kathy Higgins said.
Earlier today, Colgan Air said it has revised its pilot hiring standards in a way that would have disqualified someone as inexperienced as Renslow from being hired.
Under questioning from investigators, Finnigan acknowledged that when Renslow was hired, the minimum number of flight hours a pilot needed to be considered for hiring was 600 hours.
Since the Clarence crash, Colgan has boosted its minimum flying requirement for new pilots to 1,000 hours, Finnigan acknowledged.
That acknowledgment came a day after the transcript of the flight's cockpit voice recorder showed Renslow saying he had only 625 hours of flying time when Colgan hired him.
"Oh wow," the co-pilot, Rebecca Lynn Shaw, replied. "That's not much for, uh, back when you got hired."
Colgan officials also said that if they had known that Renslow failed to acknowledge on his job application that he had failed three federal "check flights," he would not have been hired.
Renslow acknowledged only one of those failures, but Colgan, hamstrung in part by a federal privacy law, never double-checked that part of his application with the Federal Aviation Administration.
Asked if Renslow "slipped under the radar" by getting hired at Colgan, Finnegan said no.
"I don't think he slipped in under the radar," she said. "We did our job."
Colgan officials also faced harsh questions about how much it pays its flight crews.
Investigator Roger Cox said his research showed Shaw only $16,254 a year.
Cox questioned whether that is enough for Colgan employees such as Shaw who are based in Newark.
"Did you expect her to reside in the New York metro area at that rate of pay?," he asked.
"We do not dictate where our employs want to live," replied Finnigan, saying Colgan's salaries are "industry standard."
Shaw commuted on an overnight flight from her home in Seattle before reporting to duty in Newark the day of the crash.
Hopefully this might start some initiative to move towards all of our causes...
05-13-2009, 08:50 PM
#2
First Rule of Fight Club
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: My seat smells like cat pee
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by mjarosz
Hopefully this might start some initiative to move towards all of our causes...
05-13-2009, 09:21 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: FDX B757 FO
Posts: 116
Someone posted this comment online in response to USA Today's article about the CVR transcript. Here, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ash-ntsb_N.htm. Personally, I think he/she nailed it:
--------------------------------------------------
"I'm a pilot for another regional carrier (not Colgan, or any company owned by Pinnacle Holdings...the company that owns Colgan). So many people don't understand the life of a regional airline pilot, I almost feel obligated to give some insight here.
To become an airline pilot it's almost impossible to gain all the licenses and experience necessary to get hired without racking up at least $50,000+ in student loans for training, including all your books, equipment, other materials, fuel, instructor fees, renter's insurance, ect. You could easily get a bachelors and masters degree at most state schools for less.
My first year in the regional airlines I made $28,000 before taxes, and that's at the top end of the scale. And I spent about $2000 of that (7% of my paycheck, about 10% after taxes) on uniforms, luggage, and other equipment just to be able to do my job. I got lucky in that when I got hired we were in the middle of a hiring boom, and I never had to sit on reserve duty (where you only make a minimum monthly guarantee pay most of the time). Had I not been hired when I was, I would have probably made $20,000 per year or less. Most of the captains I'm flying with now made less than $15,000 their first year in the industry.
The passengers obviously provide our paychecks, just like customers in any other industry. But, the flying public wants their $69 one way tickets. In my opinion, flying should never be less than at least two or three times the cost of driving the same distance. Let's say I flew you 1000 miles (a pretty common distance, even for a regional carrier). If you drove it, at $2.20 per gallon and 25 MPG in an average car/suv, it would cost you about $90 in gas, $100 for a hotel (because the average person doesn't drive 1000 miles in one day). The trip would take you about 17 hours by car averaging 60 MPH. Double all those figures for the return trip, and you would have paid close to $400 not including food or other incidentals, and taken four days of your time. But, the flying public demands that we provide travel for that same distance for about $300 or less for a round trip. And, we can get you there in about two hours (as opposed to two days...one way). You can avoid the milage and wear and tear on your car, fly your 1000 miles, for 25% less money, and 90% faster time. Then you could do your business, turn around and come back in time for dinner. Yet, the public goes into uproar if ticket prices go up.
So, "thank you", Mr. and Mrs. U.S. flying public, for demanding the lowest airfare in the world, and for my minimum wage paycheck. I would buy you a beer for your caring and compassion, but you can't buy that with food stamps. Oh, and while I have your entire family's life in my hands, flying through thunderstorms, ice, rain, and snow in some of the most congested and complicated airspace in the country on less than three hours of sleep, please feel free to keep sending up your complains about how hot or cold it is, the seats are uncomfortable, my bag won't fit in the overhead, why is the seatbelt sign still on, there isn't enough leg room, it's too bumpy, this is taking too long, blah blah blah.
It takes a special kind of person to work in this industry. These days being a pilot is viewed by the public as being not much more than a glorified bus driver. So, until ticket prices go up, wages increase, work/rest rules are improved, and the industry regains some of its exclusivity, it will never attract the caliber of individual the public expects to see at the controls. Until that happens, the flying public has made the airline industry about the almightly dollar rather than actually serving the customer. The same is true in crew training. I can can tell you from experience that safety is always our number one concern, but not far behind in the list of priorities is completing the flight on time. We fly with substandard and/or broken equipment on a daily basis because you, as the flying public, want your free meals, hotel stays, and free travel vouchers if the flight is delayed or cancelled. The maintenance guys could delay a flight by 45 minutes to change a tire, because it's so worn that one more landing would make the thing explode. And, all we get from the passengers are arms thrown up in frustration and comments about how "rediculous" this is. Yet, you still want to pay peanuts for your ticket.
So, yes pilot training in some places might be considered substandard compared to the ideal level of proficiency the public demands. The airline industry likes to boast about how well pilots are trained and how safe it is. What they really mean is that the pilots are trained well and safety is held at the highest standard given the available financial resources and associated costs. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want airfares cheaper than dirt, that lack of cash flow trickles up to all levels of the individual company, including training for pilots and maintenance personnel, as well as making the industry as a whole unattractive to the most qualified and capable people.
The pilots of Colgan 3407 might have made some bad decisions, and it cost many people their lives. I prayed for their families and hope it never happens again. But, those pilots' level of training and arguably lack of experience is a direct result of the demands of the flying public. While I go to work every day, trying to make the best decisions possible and keep my passengers as safe and comfortable as I can, I know Colgan 3407 will not be the last or the worst accident we'll have, maybe even just this year. And, what I cannot tollerate is the public's constant complaining, insistance on perfect performance and better safety, while also demanding cheaper fares. Do you go to a BMW dealership and demand quality parts, power, and German engineering for the price of a Kia? Probably not. So, which one do you want? Quality or economy?"
--------------------------------------------------
"I'm a pilot for another regional carrier (not Colgan, or any company owned by Pinnacle Holdings...the company that owns Colgan). So many people don't understand the life of a regional airline pilot, I almost feel obligated to give some insight here.
To become an airline pilot it's almost impossible to gain all the licenses and experience necessary to get hired without racking up at least $50,000+ in student loans for training, including all your books, equipment, other materials, fuel, instructor fees, renter's insurance, ect. You could easily get a bachelors and masters degree at most state schools for less.
My first year in the regional airlines I made $28,000 before taxes, and that's at the top end of the scale. And I spent about $2000 of that (7% of my paycheck, about 10% after taxes) on uniforms, luggage, and other equipment just to be able to do my job. I got lucky in that when I got hired we were in the middle of a hiring boom, and I never had to sit on reserve duty (where you only make a minimum monthly guarantee pay most of the time). Had I not been hired when I was, I would have probably made $20,000 per year or less. Most of the captains I'm flying with now made less than $15,000 their first year in the industry.
The passengers obviously provide our paychecks, just like customers in any other industry. But, the flying public wants their $69 one way tickets. In my opinion, flying should never be less than at least two or three times the cost of driving the same distance. Let's say I flew you 1000 miles (a pretty common distance, even for a regional carrier). If you drove it, at $2.20 per gallon and 25 MPG in an average car/suv, it would cost you about $90 in gas, $100 for a hotel (because the average person doesn't drive 1000 miles in one day). The trip would take you about 17 hours by car averaging 60 MPH. Double all those figures for the return trip, and you would have paid close to $400 not including food or other incidentals, and taken four days of your time. But, the flying public demands that we provide travel for that same distance for about $300 or less for a round trip. And, we can get you there in about two hours (as opposed to two days...one way). You can avoid the milage and wear and tear on your car, fly your 1000 miles, for 25% less money, and 90% faster time. Then you could do your business, turn around and come back in time for dinner. Yet, the public goes into uproar if ticket prices go up.
So, "thank you", Mr. and Mrs. U.S. flying public, for demanding the lowest airfare in the world, and for my minimum wage paycheck. I would buy you a beer for your caring and compassion, but you can't buy that with food stamps. Oh, and while I have your entire family's life in my hands, flying through thunderstorms, ice, rain, and snow in some of the most congested and complicated airspace in the country on less than three hours of sleep, please feel free to keep sending up your complains about how hot or cold it is, the seats are uncomfortable, my bag won't fit in the overhead, why is the seatbelt sign still on, there isn't enough leg room, it's too bumpy, this is taking too long, blah blah blah.
It takes a special kind of person to work in this industry. These days being a pilot is viewed by the public as being not much more than a glorified bus driver. So, until ticket prices go up, wages increase, work/rest rules are improved, and the industry regains some of its exclusivity, it will never attract the caliber of individual the public expects to see at the controls. Until that happens, the flying public has made the airline industry about the almightly dollar rather than actually serving the customer. The same is true in crew training. I can can tell you from experience that safety is always our number one concern, but not far behind in the list of priorities is completing the flight on time. We fly with substandard and/or broken equipment on a daily basis because you, as the flying public, want your free meals, hotel stays, and free travel vouchers if the flight is delayed or cancelled. The maintenance guys could delay a flight by 45 minutes to change a tire, because it's so worn that one more landing would make the thing explode. And, all we get from the passengers are arms thrown up in frustration and comments about how "rediculous" this is. Yet, you still want to pay peanuts for your ticket.
So, yes pilot training in some places might be considered substandard compared to the ideal level of proficiency the public demands. The airline industry likes to boast about how well pilots are trained and how safe it is. What they really mean is that the pilots are trained well and safety is held at the highest standard given the available financial resources and associated costs. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want airfares cheaper than dirt, that lack of cash flow trickles up to all levels of the individual company, including training for pilots and maintenance personnel, as well as making the industry as a whole unattractive to the most qualified and capable people.
The pilots of Colgan 3407 might have made some bad decisions, and it cost many people their lives. I prayed for their families and hope it never happens again. But, those pilots' level of training and arguably lack of experience is a direct result of the demands of the flying public. While I go to work every day, trying to make the best decisions possible and keep my passengers as safe and comfortable as I can, I know Colgan 3407 will not be the last or the worst accident we'll have, maybe even just this year. And, what I cannot tollerate is the public's constant complaining, insistance on perfect performance and better safety, while also demanding cheaper fares. Do you go to a BMW dealership and demand quality parts, power, and German engineering for the price of a Kia? Probably not. So, which one do you want? Quality or economy?"
05-13-2009, 09:44 PM
#4
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by BoredwLife
Doubt it, but we can all hope.
Lets just hope that low pay becomes bad PR.
05-13-2009, 09:55 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: crj-200 FO
Posts: 479
Geeze... I think she may have went over the top... I agree with everything she said other then the level of training is effected by income. That part is more gray then black and white I think.
As for the artical... The CA may have been hired with low time but he had 4,000TT at the time of accident right? So why does his hire time matter (600TT)? He had gained the experience but just didn't properly apply it.
As for the artical... The CA may have been hired with low time but he had 4,000TT at the time of accident right? So why does his hire time matter (600TT)? He had gained the experience but just didn't properly apply it.
05-13-2009, 10:21 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by USMC3197
Geeze... I think she may have went over the top... I agree with everything she said other then the level of training is effected by income. That part is more gray then black and white I think.
As for the artical... The CA may have been hired with low time but he had 4,000TT at the time of accident right? So why does his hire time matter (600TT)? He had gained the experience but just didn't properly apply it.
As for the artical... The CA may have been hired with low time but he had 4,000TT at the time of accident right? So why does his hire time matter (600TT)? He had gained the experience but just didn't properly apply it.
05-13-2009, 11:47 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Pilot sleeping.
Posts: 615
The consumer is their own worst enemy. I read an article awhile back about cheap tickets and how far a passenger was willing to go in order to save a few bucks. They created a poll asking if people would be willing to stand on a flight if it meant saving money on the ticket. A surprising (or not so surprising) number of people said they would. The author of that comment hit the target dead on. This isn't the first time I've heard this either. You get what you pay for.
Disclaimer:
Interpret this how you will. All flames directed to /dev/null/
Disclaimer:
Interpret this how you will. All flames directed to /dev/null/
05-14-2009, 03:27 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
If any good comes out of this horrible accident, I hope it's that the FAA finally wakes up and abolishes Pay-For-Training Programs such as Gulfstream.
I won't blame the school directly, but scumbag operations like that allow pilots to leapfrog over vital flight training experiences while pushing quaified applicants to the side.
The main issue here is that you can't substitute a qualified, experienced aviator with a less experienced aviator who is eager to fly at any cost.
I won't blame the school directly, but scumbag operations like that allow pilots to leapfrog over vital flight training experiences while pushing quaified applicants to the side.
The main issue here is that you can't substitute a qualified, experienced aviator with a less experienced aviator who is eager to fly at any cost.
05-14-2009, 03:31 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Seatownflyer
The consumer is their own worst enemy. I read an article awhile back about cheap tickets and how far a passenger was willing to go in order to save a few bucks. They created a poll asking if people would be willing to stand on a flight if it meant saving money on the ticket. A surprising (or not so surprising) number of people said they would. The author of that comment hit the target dead on. This isn't the first time I've heard this either. You get what you pay for.
Disclaimer:
Interpret this how you will. All flames directed to /dev/null/
Disclaimer:
Interpret this how you will. All flames directed to /dev/null/
Bingo, I love to see the amount of people who think it's outrageous that regional pilots make less then 20K/year, but those people are outraged if they have to pay more then $50 to go to Florida for vacation. The falling standards in this industry are a result of the Airlines over-catering to the customers by feeding on themselves. The mentality of taking out your competitor then gobbling up their revenue after their got bust has not worked so the landscape is the way it is. Ticket prices are way undervalued.
05-14-2009, 03:46 AM
#10
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,945
If the public only knew that 600 with 250 multi was high time....
Colgan is enamored with multi time and I recall talking to a recruiter and one of the new hires on the line at Colgan and for some reason it came up that the kid had 300 hours when hired...but.....THE RECRUITER SAID HE HAD 180 MULTI!!!
For a long period of time I would say that the VAST majority of colgan new hires had nowhere near 600 TT
Colgan is enamored with multi time and I recall talking to a recruiter and one of the new hires on the line at Colgan and for some reason it came up that the kid had 300 hours when hired...but.....THE RECRUITER SAID HE HAD 180 MULTI!!!
For a long period of time I would say that the VAST majority of colgan new hires had nowhere near 600 TT
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
