Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA LGA Captain Fired

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Interesting. Hard to say, but a go-around may have been better than trying to save the landing. I am sure she will get her job back though within say 12 months.
 
Why is the f/o getting training? Are they going to train him how to wrestle the controls from the captain at low altitude? I'd hope SWAPA would be fighting that before worrying about the captain's job. Of course all of this is speculation as the NTSB has not finished their investigation yet.
 
Luv2BFlyin said:
Why is the f/o getting training? Are they going to train him how to wrestle the controls from the captain at low altitude? I'd hope SWAPA would be fighting that before worrying about the captain's job. Of course all of this is speculation as the NTSB has not finished their investigation yet.
Click to expand...


Most likely this is just CYA. If an incident happens, airlines always have to make sure everyone gets "re-trained", mostly for political reasons.
 
HowardBorden said:
They don't have a choice, that is their job whether they like it or not. SWAPA will argue the case to the best of their abilities.

"The union will ensure the terminated pilot receives their right to due process"
Click to expand...

Due process, means that all the contractual requirements for discipline/termination are met.
Pretty sure totaling the plane and injuring passengers would most likely be a terminable situation though.
 
The MDW captain retired immediately. He was very upset over what happened. Everyone will tell you that he was a class act and a great man. Just got caught in the perfect storm. I wish him the best. I'm not sure about the BUR captain.
 
PBRstreetgang said:
Due process, means that all the contractual requirements for discipline/termination are met.
Pretty sure totaling the plane and injuring passengers would most likely be a terminable situation though.
Click to expand...


If don't want to be held responsible you require a political or upper management position.
 
NoJoy said:
Interesting. Hard to say, but a go-around may have been better than trying to save the landing. I am sure she will get her job back though within say 12 months.
Click to expand...

There is nothing hard to say about it. She violated FARs not doing a go around at 400'. It was too much time for any other choice.

Now if there was a blunder by the FO at a lower altitude lets say in the flare or maybe slightly higher a go around still should have been executed, but a save might have been more a legitimate mistake and less about pilot judgement.

I still have to say that we do not know the whole story yet.
 
Last edited:
Luv2BFlyin said:
Why is the f/o getting training? Are they going to train him how to wrestle the controls from the captain at low altitude? I'd hope SWAPA would be fighting that before worrying about the captain's job. Of course all of this is speculation as the NTSB has not finished their investigation yet.
Click to expand...

This is a typical interview question.

You get on the god dam radio and call a go around unless you are going to run out of gas soon.

Once you call the go around ATC cancels your landing clearance. They do not care if you are the Captain or FO. Now I would find any pilot hard pressed to ask for another landing clearance after a go around is called by a pilot on board, but I suppose it depends on location and time to touchdown. Inside the marker and below 1000' asking for another landing clearance would be nuts.
 
K-Mart said:
They don't have a choice. Unless she doesn't fight it.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. The union controls the grievance process. If they don't want to file a grievance, and they have a legitimate reason, they don't have to. Most unions just file any disciplinary grievance to avoid DFR litigation, but they certainly have no requirement to file the grievance if they feel it is without merit.
 
I have to say I am impressed with the SWA guys closing ranks on this incident. I not heard much if any thing about what happened thus far. Good job guys.
 
PCL_128 said:
Sure they do. The union controls the grievance process. If they don't want to file a grievance, and they have a legitimate reason, they don't have to. Most unions just file any disciplinary grievance to avoid DFR litigation, but they certainly have no requirement to file the grievance if they feel it is without merit.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true.

The union MUST file a grievance if requested by the grievant PERIOD. The grievant is the one that is entitled to all of the contract protections and to have their case heard all the way through and including the full System Board if that is what is desired.

This is not just a discipline hearing matter either...this would apply to any grievance technically, however, everybody is more careful in a termination case obviously because of the HUGE potential liability.

For non-termination cases, if the grievant is wrong, it is very difficult to win a case when the Grievance Chairman AND the company lawyer both testify in front of the arbitrator that the pilot is wrong about what the contract requires...but it is still the grievant's right to do so.

As far as not initiating a go-around below 400', SWA would have to show that they terminate everybody that doesn't initiate a go-around below 400'. Also note that it is required to deploy the spoilers after landing, was that Captain fired? This isn't as much of a slam-dunk as you are making it out to be.

As far as totaling the airplane because of a mistake, SWA will run into difficulty if they have not terminated everybody that wrecks an airplane.

I have a feeling they offered her some hush money to resign and she refused...hence the firing.

Also realize that in the termination hearing all the CVR/FDR information, and hence, most of the NTSB stuff findings will be out since they will be based on the contents of the FDR/CVR's. So all you have is what the FO said happened...what the Captain said happened...what is on the tower tapes...and the fact that you have a 737 with a busted nose-wheel.

My prediction is once the real lawyers get a hold of this she will "retire" with a nice little nest egg, with a signed non-disclosure agreement.
 
igneousy2 said:
Absolutely not true.

The union MUST file a grievance if requested by the grievant PERIOD. The grievant is the one that is entitled to all of the contract protections and to have their case heard all the way through and including the full System Board if that is what is desired.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Talk to a lawyer. You may learn something.
 
PCL_128 said:
Wrong. Talk to a lawyer. You may learn something.
Click to expand...

PCL is correct; the union owns the grievance, not the individual. And unions (including SWAPA) have refused to carry grievances put forth by members when they don't believe it's merited. However, having said that, I can't imagine any union NOT grieving a termination if the member asks for it--if nothing else, then to cover its own ass. In this case, SWAPA is carrying the grievance to ensure the pilot gets due process. I don't know that they expect to win, but they want to make sure she gets every benefit of doubt.

Bubba
 
Let's face it in any industry where you cost your company several million dollars through your negligence you deserve to be fired( not even accounting for the passengers) she is lucky there were no criminal proceeding as a result.
 
KarmaPolice said:
This job is so easy, and so easy to screw up too.
Click to expand...
\

If you are taking it easy on your job because you think it is easy, you WILL screw up.

Stay vigilant and do not become complacent. Ever.

Cant wait to read the CVR transcripts.
 
DUBLINFLYER said:
Let's face it in any industry where you cost your company several million dollars through your negligence you deserve to be fired( not even accounting for the passengers) she is lucky there were no criminal proceeding as a result.
Click to expand...

Then you also deserve to be compensated commensurate with those responsibilities. As an industry, aviation has a long F'n way to go in that respect...
 
I heard she took the controls at 40 feet. I've also heard the FO is a good guy and a solid flyer. I wish him the best.
 
DUBLINFLYER said:
Let's face it in any industry where you cost your company several million dollars through your negligence you deserve to be fired( not even accounting for the passengers) she is lucky there were no criminal proceeding as a result.
Click to expand...

Not true. There was no intent to cause harm. Be careful what you are promoting . . . . It's a slippry slope.
 
Union pilots are “disappointed” by the captain’s dismissal, Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association President Mark Richardson said in an e-mailed statement.
Click to expand...

I'm sure. All of the FOs on her no-fly list must be drowning their tears in Champagne.
 
DUBLINFLYER said:
Let's face it in any industry where you cost your company several million dollars through your negligence you deserve to be fired( not even accounting for the passengers) she is lucky there were no criminal proceeding as a result.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but lets face it, pilots have crashed with multiple fatalities and the unions have gotten their job back. I won't waste my time agreeing or disagreeing with it. It just is.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom