Enormous Cultural Gap.
03-18-2013 | 06:32 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: B756 captain
03-19-2013 | 06:30 AM
#92
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
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.....
03-19-2013 | 07:07 AM
#93
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
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.
You should have this procedure down COLD. You shouldn't be in a cockpit if you can't remember how it's done.
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.
03-19-2013 | 08:02 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
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.....
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.....
03-19-2013 | 08:21 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
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...
LCAL does have special engine failure procedures where required by TERPS and always has.
03-19-2013 | 08:26 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
From: B-777 left
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.
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.
03-19-2013 | 09:06 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: Retired
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.
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.
Fact is that from the mid 90's through the late 2000's CAL was earning accolades and awards left and right. The company was well liked and respected and consequently profitable and growing! It reinforced the basic business concept that if you treat your customers right, your business will survive!
United? Well not so much!
United was a dying airline through much of the 2000's. Customer serice was ghastly and the airline withered. Even the government wouldn't approve the post 9/11 loans because the company was in such poor shape that it seemed unlikely to survive! Customers abandoned the company in droves.
I suspect that as the United culture permeates through the combined airline, passengers will continue abandoning us. I hope that the airline can stay in business long enough for me to retire because this baby is going to end up in bankruptcy,
And the pundits will no doubt blame the 'enormous cultural gap'!
03-19-2013 | 10:06 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
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.....
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.....
03-19-2013 | 10:09 AM
#100
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
From: B787 CA - SFO
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
