Originally Posted by Staller (Post 1374291)

Interesting! With all the things facing this pilot group, you want to talk about uniforms. No wonder Abbot and Pierce have you under control.

Originally Posted by Poppy (Post 1373593)

1. As yet, no one has told me how to make a deposit at the bank with work rules!

Originally Posted by Jim Lively (Post 1373818)

Just what we need. Waste another day off sitting in a classroom. We all know these are refresher courses. If you have to have someone spoon feed you what you should already know then you probably need to hire a flight instructor.


You should have this procedure down COLD. You shouldn't be in a cockpit if you can't remember how it's done.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1374868)

Your old contract no work rules....

You get used every day on reserve and get paid the minimum hours (72 or whatever)

New contract for CAL (no improvement for UAL folks)

You get used every day on reserve and get paid 90 hours.

The "difference" is 18 hours. You multiply that times pay rates and put it in the bank.

So work rules directly affect pay.

Just this one alone in this scenario is like getting a 25% pay raise. (90/72 = 1.25

We didn't even talk about trip or duty rigs yet.....

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1374911)

Currently CAL flys runway heading regardless of winds. They could have a 100 knot crosswind at 50 feet and you train runway heading. UAL trains fly the runway centerline. Also UAL has special engine failure procedures for those airports where FAA TERPS may not provide adequate safety margins. CAL does not have this either...

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1374911)

Assuming for a moment that you are a CAL pilot then I would say you just added evidence to my general gut feeling because you are missing the point completely.

First, Sabre is a radical new way to flight plan and the company wanted to train us at home using online CBTs. Major corporations have tried CBT training and found the retention rate to be so low as to be counter productive. When the company wants to change how we do things the proper way to train pilots is in a classroom with real instructors and real testing. Not at home on my computer on my time. If you don't understand this issue then you are most definitely part of the problem and the culture of which I am afraid.

Second, my reference to engine out procedures has nothing to do with review, it's about how CAL does them right now. Currently CAL flys runway heading regardless of winds. They could have a 100 knot crosswind at 50 feet and you train runway heading. UAL trains fly the runway centerline. Also UAL has special engine failure procedures for those airports where FAA TERPS may not provide adequate safety margins. CAL does not have this either, and both of these items were up for the chopping block when the AQP syllabus was "handed down" from management but our training committee fought hard to keep the training standards we had at UAL rather than those at CAL. That is what I meant by engine out procedures as an issue.

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1370863)

3 stories that highlight for me the unbelievable gap in pilot and company mentality between L-UAL and L-CAL


Story 1)

L-CAL gate agent comes into the cockpit in EWR on a 767 bound for Europe and says

CSR: "Captain, just so you know, we upgraded an angry premium customer to first class and used the crew rest seat."

UAL Captain: "Well, just so you know this plane isn't moving, until we have our rest seat open."

CSR: "You're serious?"

UAL Captain: "Yes."




CSR then went crying to his boss, but ultimately the passenger was moved, and 3 days later when they returned EWR Chief Pilot said to the Captain (and this is paraphrased):

Chief P: "At Continental we take care of our customers and that's not the way we do things."

L-UAL-Captain: "At United we follow the rules."




Story 2:

This one I was personally involved in. I overheard a L-CAL captain talking on the phone in ops in IAD. The issue was whether or not they needed a 3rd pilot to go IAD to Manchester, England since they had a 3rd pilot for the return leg. Now I may have my facts wrong here and if so I hope some CAL pilots will correct me, but it is my understanding that Section 5-I-6 should now be fully implemented. The L-CAL captain was told by the crew desk that the id had been constructed in February before the rules were in effect so it was legal. The CAL crew flew with only 2 pilots in direct violation of 5-I-6 because the crew desk said it was ok. At a minimum most UAL pilots would have gotten an order to fly, and more likely the majority of L-UAL pilots would have refused the trip until a 3rd pilot was added.


Story 3

The EWR Chief pilot has sent out an email that says in effect "I don't want my pilots to get in the middle of a contract dispute, and this is a blanket order to fly even if you believe the 757 rest seat should have an open seat next to it.


The contract says:




and, the EWR Chief pilot says this means the the adjacent seat shall be the last assigned seat in business-first only.

I agree there are details that need clarification regarding coach passengers not showing up, but if there are 30 unassigned seats in coach and business-first fills up that clearly does not give the company a right to fill the seat next to the rest seat, and I hope to heck CAL pilots are not flying with this situation.



Anyways, I just find the difference in culture to be surprising.

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot (Post 1374868)

Your old contract no work rules....

You get used every day on reserve and get paid the minimum hours (72 or whatever)

New contract for CAL (no improvement for UAL folks)

You get used every day on reserve and get paid 90 hours.

The "difference" is 18 hours. You multiply that times pay rates and put it in the bank.

So work rules directly affect pay.

Just this one alone in this scenario is like getting a 25% pay raise. (90/72 = 1.25

We didn't even talk about trip or duty rigs yet.....

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1374911)

Assuming for a moment that you are a CAL pilot then I would say you just added evidence to my general gut feeling because you are missing the point completely.

First, Sabre is a radical new way to flight plan and the company wanted to train us at home using online CBTs. Major corporations have tried CBT training and found the retention rate to be so low as to be counter productive. When the company wants to change how we do things the proper way to train pilots is in a classroom with real instructors and real testing. Not at home on my computer on my time. If you don't understand this issue then you are most definitely part of the problem and the culture of which I am afraid.

Second, my reference to engine out procedures has nothing to do with review, it's about how CAL does them right now. Currently CAL flys runway heading regardless of winds. They could have a 100 knot crosswind at 50 feet and you train runway heading. UAL trains fly the runway centerline. Also UAL has special engine failure procedures for those airports where FAA TERPS may not provide adequate safety margins. CAL does not have this either, and both of these items were up for the chopping block when the AQP syllabus was "handed down" from management but our training committee fought hard to keep the training standards we had at UAL rather than those at CAL. That is what I meant by engine out procedures as an issue.