|
Originally Posted by skypest
(Post 2533158)
The document was revised and updated in 2016. Still relevant and the policy of the UAL MEC.
How about we support Captain's authority and refrain from second guessing our brothers' decisions. Safety far outweighs any of our other priorities, but even Attarian admits that our operational metrics have improved well beyond those of other departments. And United's on-time and other DOT metics are industry leading, but some folks still can't resist parroting management BS deflections about problems of their making. |
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 2533230)
Wow, you must fly some real junk or are “fatigued” an awful lot. Personally I rarely see any rule or issue which would cancel the flights I’ve been in charge of.
Over my years as Captain I can remember turning down Just a few airplanes and actually turned around once for a strong vibration prior to going feet wet on an ETOPs flight. I have also delayed takeoff for weather and cancelled a flight for severe WX at the destination. Basically I think one would have to look really, really hard to find something at UAL to cancel a flight or turn down and airplane. The maintenance is really good and the Dispatchers are normally on top of things. Night, late flight, long day DEN RNO. 320, one gen inop, APU has to run and has history of faults. One pac deferred, other pac has history of faults. Limited to FL300 if memory serves on the Bus with one pac. TStorms across the Rockies and in RNO area..... CA called dispatch and asked WTF. Dispatcher was explaining that he just got on shift and was looking at it......then he’s like WTF once he looks. Aircraft re routed to ORD over the VFR plains to ORD to get fixed after he brings MX into the conversation. CA would have refused in a heartbeat. And that was probably the only time I can remember saying I ain’t gonna be on that flight with that airplane. Fortunately common sense prevailed. If a CA says no go, so be it. This CA knew he wasn’t going to take the aircraft. He used the resources available and got a suitable aircraft replacement. Never had to refuse the aircraft. Just worked inside the system to find a better answer. I wouldn’t be pleased with the aircraft but would have flown it to ORD that day but not RNO night over the rocks. Just an example of when “legal” doesn’t necessarily mean smart regarding MELs. Lee |
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 2533230)
Wow, you must fly some real junk or are “fatigued” an awful lot. Personally I rarely see any rule or issue which would cancel the flights I’ve been in charge of.
Over my years as Captain I can remember turning down Just a few airplanes and actually turned around once for a strong vibration prior to going feet wet on an ETOPs flight. I have also delayed takeoff for weather and cancelled a flight for severe WX at the destination. Basically I think one would have to look really, really hard to find something at UAL to cancel a flight or turn down and airplane. The maintenance is really good and the Dispatchers are normally on top of things. No, I don't fly with junk anymore, but I used too. It is burned in my memory. There is a small number that still do it, and it is much smaller than it used to be at LUAL. I have been flying in a LCAL base for 5 years. There is almost none of that that goes on, and the little that has gone on, are some LUAL guys that flew here. Would you like to guess what year they were hired? No, the pilots in my BES aren't better pilots, or more professional. They do benefit from not spending the first 70% of their careers at a company that hated them, and working for an antagonistic union that told them to punish their passengers to "show the company". My point has nothing to do about Captain's authority, or judgement. It has to do with a few Captains exercising Captains "Ego" and "Vindictiveness". These individuals need to go. I stand by my statements. |
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 2533262)
They do benefit from not spending the first 70% of their careers at a company that hated them, and working for an antagonistic union that told them to punish their passengers to "show the company".
|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 2533262)
Regularguy;
No, I don't fly with junk anymore, but I used too. It is burned in my memory. There is a small number that still do it, and it is much smaller than it used to be at LUAL. I have been flying in a LCAL base for 5 years. There is almost none of that that goes on, and the little that has gone on, are some LUAL guys that flew here. Would you like to guess what year they were hired? No, the pilots in my BES aren't better pilots, or more professional. They do benefit from not spending the first 70% of their careers at a company that hated them, and working for an antagonistic union that told them to punish their passengers to "show the company". My point has nothing to do about Captain's authority, or judgement. It has to do with a few Captains exercising Captains "Ego" and "Vindictiveness". These individuals need to go. I stand by my statements. Sadly neither legacy has a claim to a lack of professionalism. It comes from both sides and DOH. WB and NB fleets and both seats. My two cent and personal observation having flown with both. Lee |
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2533242)
One of my last trips to MEX, we were brought a plane with an inop APU. I ran down to the ramp and implored them to get air hooked up ASAP.
Guess what? No conditioned air in MEX. I then asked them to hook up the huffer so that we could at least keep the packs running for the hour the plane sat on the ramp. Guess what? The huffer in MEX is barely capable of starting an engine, let alone run the packs. So, they refused our request. It was in the middle of the summer. Once loaded and hooked up, it took three tries to get an engine running with their crapped out huffer. What do you suppose the temp was in the cabin that day? So, for all who claim that troublemakers are refusing reasonably airworthy planes, here is my anecdotal evidence that suggests other guys are carrying trash because they think....well hell, I don't know what they were thinking other than "Gosh, I sure don't want to take a call from the CP!". Boy, we really shined that day. I wonder what Oscar would have said if he knew the whole story? Stupid is as stupid does. And that was off the chart stupid. Could we have refused the plane? Of course. And how would that have looked? Guys on APC would be giving us the giant (female canine) slap for buffoonery. "Why, I used to fly Twin Otters! We could only DREAM of an APU!" Was the company better off getting it back into service, where it could be properly serviced? Of course. But that plane should never have been dispatched to MEX with an INOP APU. Some hard decisions are easy. |
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2533242)
One of my last trips to MEX, we were brought a plane with an inop APU. I ran down to the ramp and implored them to get air hooked up ASAP.
Guess what? No conditioned air in MEX. I then asked them to hook up the huffer so that we could at least keep the packs running for the hour the plane sat on the ramp. Guess what? The huffer in MEX is barely capable of starting an engine, let alone run the packs. So, they refused our request. It was in the middle of the summer. Once loaded and hooked up, it took three tries to get an engine running with their crapped out huffer. What do you suppose the temp was in the cabin that day? So, for all who claim that troublemakers are refusing reasonably airworthy planes, here is my anecdotal evidence that suggests other guys are carrying trash because they think....well hell, I don't know what they were thinking other than "Gosh, I sure don't want to take a call from the CP!". Boy, we really shined that day. I wonder what Oscar would have said if he knew the whole story? Stupid is as stupid does. And that was off the chart stupid. Could we have refused the plane? Of course. And how would that have looked? Guys on APC would be giving us the giant (female canine) slap for buffoonery. "Why, I used to fly Twin Otters! We could only DREAM of an APU!" Was the company better off getting it back into service, where it could be properly serviced? Of course. But that plane should never have been dispatched to MEX with an INOP APU. Some hard decisions are easy. Pest |
Respectfully. If you don’t like having a hot aircraft, I would suggest not accepting an aircraft with no APU and no ground air.
|
Originally Posted by ReadyRsv
(Post 2533322)
Respectfully. If you don’t like having a hot aircraft, I would suggest not accepting an aircraft with no APU and no ground air.
Twice in IAH in the last 5 years I've had a jet with inop APU that would not cool down on the gate in the summer time. Hot sunny day, VFR all the way to destination (domestic). Ordered extra 1000 lbs gas. Told gate if they want the plane to depart, to,collect all carry-on that might be gate checked and send them down prior to boarding. Once the bellies were loaded and closed up, we would start right engine at gate, cool down jet, board, push, crossbleed, depart. Gate and ramp agreed. Added about 20 minutes to departure dance at gate. Everybody happy,... including flight attendants who didn't have sweat stained necks during boarding. Unfortunately, Boeing did not design the 57 to be cooled with ground air on a sunny day when it's above 85 and humid. |
I guess that works but unless there was someone on the aircraft rushing to see a dying spouse or child I’d prefer to wait until the APU is fixed. At the regionals where this happens more often pax have died. Yes died from heat.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:36 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands