.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

I seriously doubt that they have a case against ALPA.

Interestingly, ALPA would have a BETTER case against all these "7 Check Airmen" who went out and busted pilots on line checks that were vocal against the contract within a week after the TA failed. Remember, there were over 50 pilots that failed line checks who had never failed a training event in their career. They went after the vocal ones. This is clear and obvious evidence that the Fantastic 7 Check Airmen were outrageously mad when they did not receive their signing bonus or their jelly of the month club membership (didn't get either of 'em).

There's a stronger case for ALPA to go after these check airmen goons who deliberately and un-reasonably failed people who voted NO. Especially now that they have made it public that they are outraged they didn't get their bonus.

So which Check Airmen is leading the lawsuit?

Does the MEC there not have the horsepower to have the company pull these clowns' LCA status?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it wasn't the vocal people voting "no" to TA1 causing a failed line check/checkride. It was due to the timing of the zero tolerance policy due to the fallout of the Colgan crash. Lets face it our sterile cockpit/checklist usage aint the best in the Navy......kind of like when you hear from some guy that he busted his PC because his instructor was a nazi and busted him for not making one altitude callout, but you learn from his sim partner that he turned the screen red on 3 V1 cuts and busted mins on an approach and the altitude callout was just the final straw.

when a memo/cheat sheet comes out in everyones vfile and says "we are conducting line checks and there are 4 will-fail items" , and lists what they are (basic CRM/airmanship/sterile/IFR issues, no surprise easter eggs) you better pay attention. Most of these individuals did not heed that warning. I saw just as many yes people busted as no people busted. If you want more you can PM me I'm not gonna get into more details in public.

No, but the FAA does. Certainly SOMEONE can drop a dime...

apparently you completely ignored everything I just wrote...

Come on, who violates checklist usage or sterile cockpit on a line check? Nobody. Yes I agree the sterile cockpit and checklist usage did get slack for a while. But nobody is a slacker when you have a check airman goon sitting in your jumpseat.

These goons were using the zero tolerance policy as a method to fail the ones they wanted to hush up about being vocal towards the TA1, while being COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. Anybody can fail a line check anyday of the year, but the power lies solely in the check airmen to be "reasonable" of which these goons didn't apparently get that memo!

In one case, a very senior pilot who had been with the company for twenty years and never ever failed a checkride in his life, just all of the sudden fails a surprise unscheduled line check on a very easy vfr day with no mels. He was a very vocal pilot against the contract. Just a few days before he was found in the crewrooms voicing his concern over no min day, no trip and duty rig, concessionary vacation, more crummy language like "to the extent possible" etc. There were many pilots that had similar stories, voted no, were loud about it, excellent pilots, flawless training history.....and next thing they knew, bada bing - boom unscheduled surprise line check and they fail. Hmmmmm when it smells like a fish, it's a fish.

Yes the zero tolerance policy was made as a result of the colgan crash, but the NMFC used it as an avenue to fail the "no voters" which was very unfair.

A year later they are still mad, suing the union and attempting to recall the best union leader they have....Higney.

The W2 method is somewhat unfair, especially when even 1 seniority number can make a huge difference . The signing bonus should consider only lost wages for hourly salary at min guarantee. That's the fair way to do it. If there is money left over it should be for work rules distributed evenly amongst the group.

IF that is true that there is a small group of A-holes pulling that, then every pilot flying with them needs to play the game back..... every time they as a seated pilot screw up in the least, note it, every time at a jumpseat observer they speak breaking a sterile moment, note it. I guarantee they WILL screw up at some point. Then teach them do unto others..... just make sure you treat them as they have treated you.

I'm not sure how long you have been flying 121, but with some time you will be amazed at some of the stunts people do on line checks and PC's. I see it alot. the people who are not standard on any 1 of their 900 hours that year tend to revert back to nonstandard during a 1 hour check no matter how hard they try. You can tell the guys who are constantly standard and the ones who aren't within the first 10 minutes of a pc/line check.

The check airmen were not given the authority to be "reasonable" by the feds or the higher ups at Pinnacle. They were told "we just had a major F-up in basic airmanship/121 practices and this HAS to stop." The ONLY way this pilot group would accept that and attempt to better themselves was by making this more of a jeopardy event.

If it's the senior guy imthinking that failed (just a wild guess because he told me he failed and it was his first) that guy NEVER picked up a checklist in the last 7 years and it shows. Ask me how he almost took off single engine with me once...

Don't get me wrong I am not supporting their actions in regards to the bonus/lawsuit, but I was a no voter and I know that they are professional enough as pilots/check airmen that they aren't out for revenge when it comes to line checks. Actually the only check pilots I've ever had a problem with have been relatively junior power trip ones in DTW. I think they have been weeded out though.