FUD at Flight Options

[fischman]

Trying to reason with B19 is like trying to reason with a 3 year old. This guy is out of his mind. Literally, he is the most uninformed, arrogant person I have EVER conversed with.

 

[Mr. Pebbles]

B19

Are you guys sure that B19 is who you say he is? I have a different therory who he is.

 

[Guitar Guy]

Are you guys sure that B19 is who you say he is? I have a different therory who he is.

Please do share. There have been a few theories already put forth.

 

[TurboHonda]

Are you guys sure that B19 is who you say he is? I have a different therory who he is.

We're pretty sure.

Hey Bob. It wasn't me that keyed your car, in spite of what you think.

 

[dime line]

http://www.hallmark.com/wcsstore/HallmarkStore/images/products/ecards/nfg1969.swf

 

[CA1900]

http://www.hallmark.com/wcsstore/HallmarkStore/images/products/ecards/nfg1969.swf

It never gets old! :laugh:

 

[B19 Flyer]

B19, please please PLEASE do some research before you try to pass yourself off as some kind of expert in the frac business.

True, the fracs don't have nearly the number of daily ops that any of the majors do. I don't have our daily numbers available to me. But when you look at something like hull losses, or reportable incidents and accidents (that are the result of something a flight crew did, not something such as an FBO employee driving a fuel truck into a wing) I would bet my next year's pay that the fracs have a lower (even MUCH lower) number of incidents&accidents/1000 ops. And I'm willing to look back a decade, not just since 91K came into existence.

As for the rest of the frac industry, I'd love to know who exactly you're referring to. Are you talking about an operation like the one where they're selling shares in Cirrus aircraft? If so, you aren't making anything near a valid comparison. With that kind of 'fractional' program, you have an entirely different program from what the 'majors' in this industry do. In an operation such as that one, the owners are also the pilots. There aren't any ferry legs since the owners all do out and back legs. Duty and rest limits, why would this type of operation need them? What kind of SOP's would this operation need, since it's unlikely two owners would be flying together (and the aircraft only requires one pilot anyway)? And most importantly, can you point to Cirrus's falling out of the sky prior to 91K?

So you may be right. It's probable that 91K would have significantly raised the cost of doing business for an operator like the one described above. But did it really make it safer? I'm going to say yes, just because fewer people can afford the product, and if people aren't flying, they aren't having accidents in planes.

The real question is, was there a problem with safety prior to 91K. So far, you've presented absolutely nothing that shows there was.

And since it appears that you have to be told something at least three times before it sinks in, 91K came about NOT because of any safety issues. Go back and reread my posts about that in this thread. I'm not going to type it all again. You don't even have to take my word for it. Just do a little research on your own, and you'll discover that 91K was a competetive business thing, maybe even political, but certainly didn't come about because of genuine safety concerns.

As for the safety culture, it most certainly DID come from our union. The fact that you claim it didn't only demonstrates your continued ignorance on the subject. Yes, I'll give you the point that management had to buy off on it to make it work. But management was doing NOTHING to develop and enhance further safety programs at Netjets. What we have now was developed, and carried out, by the union. All management did was rubber stamp it. That hardly qualifies management as being proactive in the field of safety.

However, I'm happy to report that after our recent IBB, the union and management are finally working TOGETHER in a more synergistic relationship to enhance safety, along with many other programs.

How much research do you need, and how much clearer does it get than the federal government?

I pretty much quoted this earlier today off the top of my head, but here is is for you.

Next thing you are going to say is that the Federal Register is wrong too.


I've never seen so many people that don't understand the inner business workings of an air carrier.

_________________________
From the Federal Register, September 17, 2003

Summary of Final Rule​

This rule establishes a new subpart K
in part 91 to cover fractional ownership
operations. The new Subpart K clarifies
what qualifies as a fractional ownership
program, clarifies who has operational
control, defines operational control
responsibilities, codifies many of the
‘‘best practices’’ now being used
voluntarily in fractional ownership
programs, and incorporates many of the
safety standards of part 121 and part
135. By this rulemaking, the FAA
establishes safety standards to maintain
the safety record of current fractional
ownership programs and to ensure that
new fractional ownership programs will
also meet a high level of safety.
In brief, new subpart K accomplishes
the following:
(1) It establishes the criteria for
qualifying as a fractional ownership
program.
(2) It establishes that fractional
owners and the management company
share operational control of the aircraft
and delineates operational control
responsibilities.
(3) It establishes regulatory safety
standards for operations under
fractional ownership programs,
including management operations,
maintenance, training, crewmember
flight and duty requirements, and
others.
This rulemaking also revises certain
requirements in part 135 on-demand
operations. Many of the requirements in
new subpart K of part 91 are based on
requirements for on-demand operations
in part 135. In the process of reviewing
part 135 requirements, the committee
and the FAA determined that some of
the current part 135 requirements
needed to be updated in accordance
with new technology and other changes.
The FOARC studied the best practices of
the fractional ownership programs to
determine under what circumstances
part 135 operations could use those
practices as an alternate means of
compliance with part 135 standards. For
example, FOARC recommended that ondemand
operators be allowed to land at
airports without weather reporting
facilities, provided the flight plan
includes an alternate airport that has
such facilities and they carry additional
fuel to fly to that alternate airport.
Further, this eligible on-demand
operation must provide a 2-pilot crew
with increased pilot experience and that
meets crew pairing standards. In
addition proving test requirements for
both fractional ownership programs and
part 135 on-demand operations were
reviewed and amended. A proving test
requirement was added for fractional
ownership programs and the
requirement for multiple proving tests
for part 135 operations was amended.
Specific requirements in subpart K
and revisions to part 135 are discussed
in detail in the public comment
discussion that follows.​

 

[WabiSabi]

What about the rest of the industry? And unions don't create safety culture. That's insane, because it's management from the top down. That's Safety 101. No buy-in from management, the culture will never even begin.

Dear BOB,
Tell me how unions don't promote safety when FLOPS management did everything they could to keep the IBT out of the ASAP program. It took the union to go to the FAA to show FLOPS management that the FAA's language on ASAP, in no uncertain terms, dictates that if a union is on the property, then said union should have a representative on the event review committee.
BOB, what's with your management is infallible notion? The IBT has a Professional Standards Committee. The IBT has also, on many occasions, pointed out and disseminated valuable information through DYK (Did You Know?) bulletins well before you heard a peep out of the Safety Dept. @ FLOPS.

Where was FLOPS management's safety acumen when management changed the parameters of the circadian low that was defined by the NTSB? Where's that "top down" philosophy to which you pay your babbling lip service?

I don't know about NJ but, the IBT is much more active and effective with safety issues than FLOPS' safety department.....which is there only for the image of promoting safety, apparently.

Of course, you know about all of this. I'm just pointing it out in a public forum.

Babble on Bob, babble on.

 

[realityman]

Thanks for continuing to make my points for me B19.

In the bold black section it states to 'MAINTAIN the safety record'. Hmmmmm.......the word 'maintain' seems to imply that there weren't any real safety problems to begin with. Otherwise I imagine it would have said something about 'to IMPROVE' the safety record of current fractional operators'.

Kinda negates your argument that there were any real safety problems, doesn't it?

But I stand by my assertion that 91K was NOT, I repeat, NOT a result of any safety issues. However, with all the fussing and carrying on by Mark Fruchter and all the charter operators he had behind him, as well as many 91 operators (according to aeroboy), the FAA was basically bullied into taking this action. You don't really think the FAA was going to come out and say, "Due to the fact that the fractionals are kicking the collective butts of the charter outfits, and these charter outfits are upset about it, we're coming up with some new rules which will hopefully even things out somewhat between the fracs and charter outfits"? I suspect that would have appeared somewhat anti-capitalistic.

Uh, no. It was instead disguised as a 'safety issue'. Probably one of the very few times in the history of the FAA where there WASN'T a problem and they took action. Considering the FAA's very long history of not taking action until there's actually a problem, you don't really believe they took the safest sector of aviation and regulated even more it just because they felt like it, do you?

Sheesh! I've never seen someone supposedly in management in aviation who doesn't understand the inner workings of the fractional industry.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some accident/incident statistics from you showing that prior to 91K there was any problem.

PS- Did you notice how at the end of your Federal Register summary, it mentioned adjusting some 135 rules to be more in line with 91K? Since this is supposedly about safety at fracs, why modify 135 regs? Unless, of course, it was never about safety, and just a way to allow charters to be more competitive with the fracs. Thanks for helping make my point even further.

 

[dime line]

Arpey faces difficult negotiations this year with several of the airline’s unions, all of whose members have made billions of dollars’ worth of salary, benefit, and work-rule concessions to keep American out of bankruptcy. When union representatives pressed Arpey about the executives’ pay, at American’s annual meeting in May, Arpey said management and labor might have to “agree to disagree” about the suite life.

“This is an issue on which we may have a hard time finding common ground,” he said.

So how is it that unions don't help B19?

 

[400pilot]

How much research do you need, and how much clearer does it get than the federal government?

I pretty much quoted this earlier today off the top of my head, but here is is for you.

Next thing you are going to say is that the Federal Register is wrong too.

I've never seen so many people that don't understand the inner business workings of an air carrier.

What is your point? NJ(and f/o) already had all of this because we are 135 operators. You said that NJA's success prior to 2005 is not relevant due to the change in cost structure. There was no change because we already did all of that.......what part of this are you not getting?

 

[B19 Flyer]

What is your point? NJ(and f/o) already had all of this because we are 135 operators. You said that NJA's success prior to 2005 is not relevant due to the change in cost structure. There was no change because we already did all of that.......what part of this are you not getting?

It IS a different cost structure, and NJ is not the only fractional in the industry. Which part of it are YOU not getting?

It's not all about NJ, if it was, let's just combine all of them and be done with it.

 

[B19 Flyer]

So how is it that unions don't help B19?

You tell me, this was printed today... I see it as union intervention at it's worst. The union wants to take a program that is successful with virtually all other carriers and reform it to what THEY think it should be.

I don't see the union helping here, I see the union doing exactly what I said many posts ago, allow pilots that have failed to be forgiven, even when the pilot has clearly done wrong.
Are unions helping here? I think not. (but somebody will counter with an arguement, because every piece of documentation I post gets twisted...)

__________________________________

Airline's labor fight threatens safety program

Star-Telegram Staff Writer


A much-lauded safety program at American Airlines is at risk of being eliminated amid the latest dispute between pilots and airline officials.
The program, which began in 1994, allows pilots to voluntarily report safety-related incidents for investigation without fear of discipline from the company or the Federal Aviation Administration, even if the pilot is determined to have been at fault. Dubbed ASAP, or "aviation safety action partnership," it has served as a model for the industry, inspiring other airlines to establish similar rules. American also has ASAP programs with mechanics and dispatchers.
The current program expires Feb. 7. In recent days, talks to renew the program have broken down over how discipline is handled for a small number of cases.
Officials with the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American pilots, allege that in some cases, the company has unfairly disciplined pilots even when an incident was accepted for review under the program. That, they argue, has made pilots wary of participating and could eventually increase the chances of safety breakdowns.
"Attempting to force safe operations through punitive discipline is an ineffective approach long abandoned by experts in aviation safety," wrote union President Lloyd Hill in a Jan. 24 letter to Gerard Arpey, American's chief executive. "Allowing American Airlines to adopt such an approach vastly increases the risk to [the airline's] shareholders of a catastrophic accident."
Airline officials counter that discipline is extremely rare when ASAP reports have been filed, and they deny that there has been any attempt to intimidate pilots. They note that other programs for reporting safety issues will remain in place even if the ASAP program expires.
"Our top priority is making sure that American Airlines is the safest airline out there," said Billy Nolen, an American pilot who oversees the ASAP program. "ASAP is just one part of our vast safety program."
'Honest mistakes'
The program has been lauded for its success since its inception. It was honored by President Bill Clinton in a White House ceremony in 2000 that included union officials and then-American CEO Don Carty.
About 5,000 reports of possible safety violations are submitted every year under the program. Most concern minor issues, such as problems with paperwork or small pilot errors during a flight. But some involve more serious incidents such as minor runway collisions with baggage carriers or equipment failures. Cases that involve deliberate or criminal acts, or drug or alcohol use, cannot be submitted to the program.
A three-person committee, which includes representatives from the union, the airline and the FAA, reviews each report and decides whether it will be accepted.
Pilots say the program gives them the freedom to work with the company and the FAA to determine the cause of safety problems stemming from "honest mistakes," and identify solutions without worrying about the effect on their careers.
"The very best way to gain insight into a safety incident is to have completely open discussions with everyone involved," said Tom Westbrook, the union's vice president. "If you're in a position of defending your [pilot's] license, you're going to be a lot less likely to sit down and bare your soul."
The amnesty does not extend to incidents in which sources in addition to the pilot report the incident. For example, if someone on the airport ramp or in air-traffic control also reports the problem, American can discipline that pilot based on the other report, even if it is under ASAP review.
Such cases make up only about 2 percent of all ASAP incidents reported, according to the airline. Westbrook says there has long been a "gentlemen's agreement" that those cases would also not be targeted for discipline. He says the airline broke that agreement in recent years, holding disciplinary hearings for dozens of pilots.
"We feel like it can have an incredible chilling effect on the willingness of pilots to cooperate" with the safety program, he said.
Little discipline
American counters that just five pilots have been disciplined in ASAP cases, and the punishment in four of those was a letter placed in the employee's file, which is destroyed after two years.
"There are a very small number of cases that rise to the level where the company would want to take some sort of action," Nolen said. "The [union] wants to remove the company's right and responsibility to do that."
The union has been negotiating with American for several months to renew the program.
Union leaders want amnesty for pilots even when another person reports the safety violation. American's mechanics already have that protection under their ASAP program, pilots say.
American officials maintain that the program has worked well and there isn't any need to change it. They also say that the mechanics' program is appropriate for them because their work environment includes more oversight and supervision than a cockpit.
"Remember that 98 percent of the ASAP programs in the industry are almost identical to our program with our pilots," Nolen said.
American has been battling with its pilots' union over a host of issues in recent years. A bid to begin a nonstop flight from Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to Beijing fell apart last year when the airline and union couldn't agree on a deal for pilots to fly the route.
And labor officials have recently blasted the airline over pilot staffing.
The airline and the union are also locked in diffi- cult contract negotiations. Pilots are pushing for substantial wage improvements, while airline officials want to keep labor costs under control.
Westbrook insisted that the ASAP dispute is unrelated to the contract talks or any other struggles with airline management.
"Safety is never political," he said. "It's too important for that, to our pilots and our passengers."

 

[B19 Flyer]

Rofl!!!

Thanks for continuing to make my points for me B19.

In the bold black section it states to 'MAINTAIN the safety record'. Hmmmmm.......the word 'maintain' seems to imply that there weren't any real safety problems to begin with. Otherwise I imagine it would have said something about 'to IMPROVE' the safety record of current fractional operators'.

Kinda negates your argument that there were any real safety problems, doesn't it?

But I stand by my assertion that 91K was NOT, I repeat, NOT a result of any safety issues. However, with all the fussing and carrying on by Mark Fruchter and all the charter operators he had behind him, as well as many 91 operators (according to aeroboy), the FAA was basically bullied into taking this action. You don't really think the FAA was going to come out and say, "Due to the fact that the fractionals are kicking the collective butts of the charter outfits, and these charter outfits are upset about it, we're coming up with some new rules which will hopefully even things out somewhat between the fracs and charter outfits"? I suspect that would have appeared somewhat anti-capitalistic.

Uh, no. It was instead disguised as a 'safety issue'. Probably one of the very few times in the history of the FAA where there WASN'T a problem and they took action. Considering the FAA's very long history of not taking action until there's actually a problem, you don't really believe they took the safest sector of aviation and regulated even more it just because they felt like it, do you?

Sheesh! I've never seen someone supposedly in management in aviation who doesn't understand the inner workings of the fractional industry.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some accident/incident statistics from you showing that prior to 91K there was any problem.

PS- Did you notice how at the end of your Federal Register summary, it mentioned adjusting some 135 rules to be more in line with 91K? Since this is supposedly about safety at fracs, why modify 135 regs? Unless, of course, it was never about safety, and just a way to allow charters to be more competitive with the fracs. Thanks for helping make my point even further.

The official summary the FAA chose to publish listed 3 specific points and safety was one of those three:

In brief, new subpart K accomplishes
the following:

(1) It establishes the criteria for
qualifying as a fractional ownership
program.
(2) It establishes that fractional
owners and the management company
share operational control of the aircraft
and delineates operational control
responsibilities.
(3) It establishes regulatory safety
standards for operations under
fractional ownership programs,
including management operations,
maintenance, training, crewmember
flight and duty requirements, and
others.

Frac was a free for all that needed to be reigned in.

The FAA (not me) chose safety as one of the three key points as to why it was regulated.

You can't even admit when it was clearly documented that there were three priorities in regulating fractionals and that safety was one of these three key points.

The text goes through a battery of work groups and lawyers before it gets published, yet you can't seem to get a grip that after hundreds of people reviewed the original text, that safety was one of their top three priorities.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Dear BOB,
Tell me how unions don't promote safety when FLOPS management did everything they could to keep the IBT out of the ASAP program. It took the union to go to the FAA to show FLOPS management that the FAA's language on ASAP, in no uncertain terms, dictates that if a union is on the property, then said union should have a representative on the event review committee.
BOB, what's with your management is infallible notion? The IBT has a Professional Standards Committee. The IBT has also, on many occasions, pointed out and disseminated valuable information through DYK (Did You Know?) bulletins well before you heard a peep out of the Safety Dept. @ FLOPS.

Where was FLOPS management's safety acumen when management changed the parameters of the circadian low that was defined by the NTSB? Where's that "top down" philosophy to which you pay your babbling lip service?

I don't know about NJ but, the IBT is much more active and effective with safety issues than FLOPS' safety department.....which is there only for the image of promoting safety, apparently.

Of course, you know about all of this. I'm just pointing it out in a public forum.

Babble on Bob, babble on.

Babble, did you know pass "Safety 101" in college?

The only one that is babbling is you, because it's crystal clear you don't have a clue about SMS or true safety culture.

You have a lot to learn about safety culture, but that isn't going to happen because your union speaks for you and you only learn what you are told.

Pilots (you know, the unionized group?) are the end user of a true safety program and if all goes right they will hold equal partnership with all other stakeholders of the company. A union doesn't do that. Pilots do.

The safety culture begins before the airplane is purchased, threads through the maintainance program, through the flight training program, through the flight followers, through the fueling agents, through the billing clerks, through the ATC system and on and on.

Culture means that it's everybody. NO UNION can force it's culture on those that are not part of the group. You can't document safety, it's not about the paper, it's about the fueler walking the ramp and picking up FOD, it's about the aircraft always being grounded (or bonded) during fueling, ensuring the the fuel is always to proper standards, that the weather reporting products and notams are accurate.

Don't go telling me about how all of safety is based on what the union does..... that just continues to show how little you understand and the continued babble about things that you don't understand about aviation and the cost structure behind each and every flight.

 

[400pilot]

It IS a different cost structure, and NJ is not the only fractional in the industry. Which part of it are YOU not getting?

This is good......you have zero knowledge about what you speak.

If you are so sure and know so much about this then why don't you answer the questions from my previous post. Here they are so you don't have to look...

Answer these questions....

The fractional industry did not begin with it's current cost structure until February of 2005.

Specifically, what is the difference between the cost structure prior to 02/2005 and today?

If your answer is additional cost of being regulated, then my next question in response to...

Thus, any profits that were made did not take into account the additional cost of being regulated;

Specifically, what additional costs(line items and amounts) are being incurred now that were not being incurred prior to 02/2005?

Also, which regulatory changes have resulted in higher expenses to these companies?

It's not all about NJ, if it was, let's just combine all of them and be done with it.

We were talking about NJ success with their union, to which you responded by trying to say that their success is not relevant due to change in cost structure of the industry. You are trying to deflect the issue by creating an issue (industry change.)

Reading these posts have me convinced that you are not BT. Even he isn't this ignorant about his own industry....

 

[realityman]

B19, you are the one who is cherry-picking from the articles you post, not me. Again, read the WHOLE summary.

Now answer my question: If it was all about safety, why did they modify some of the 135 rules to be more in line with 91K? What, the charter operators were TOO safe? Certain restrictions they had, which could be easily argued to enhance safety, were lifted, such as the need for weather reporting at the destination airport.

So, why change the 135 rules while working on 91K?

The answer is what I've said three freaking times now! It was NEVER about safety! You have yet to post ANY statistics showing that prior to 91K the fracs had a problem with safety. The best you can come up with is "it was a free for all", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

It's not rocket science. Research old articles of AIN about the time certain people were calling for more oversight and regulation of the frac industry. Google the name Mark Fruchter. It really won't take you long to see that no one had a problem with the safety culture in the frac world, but a lot of people had a big problem with a perceived inequity of operating rules for fracs vs charter ops. That's why 91K moved the fracs closer to charter restrictions and the new 135 rules moved the charter outfits closer to frac rules.

As I said, the FAA couldn't go shouting to everyone that the new regs were because the charter ops didn't like the 'inequity' between the businesses. So what other reason was there for them to use that would pass muster except for making it about safety?

By the way, I'm not saying some good, and yes, safer things have come from 91K. Prospective rest rules would be a major improvement we can all be glad for. Whatever the reason 91K started, it certainly wasn't all bad.

But make no mistake, there was no NEED to improve safety at the fracs. They were, and still are, the safest mode of transport in the aviation industry.

 

[bchjetdrvr]

B 1.9" Said:
Frac was a free for all that needed to be reigned in.

What was that Bob? Can't hear you....what did you say needed to be reigned in?????? A frac you say.



I thought Fracs didn't exist until 2005?

 

[learflyer]

So......did he ever say he wasn't Bob Tyler? I'm a former Flopster (6 yrs). Don't let him get to you. go to his office in cgf and see if he's posting this $hit.

 

[B19 Flyer]

So......did he ever say he wasn't Bob Tyler? I'm a former Flopster (6 yrs). Don't let him get to you. go to his office in cgf and see if he's posting this $hit.

First, the only "$h*t" I see are those that are totally clueless about how an air carrier operates, which is pretty much every union supporter on this page. They take the facts and skew them, no matter how much evidence they are given.

I've given up trying to explain that I haven't any connection to FLOPS, my only interest in this board is because I can't believe how little these folks know about unions and air carrier operation. I guess if you can fly an airplane it means you are an expert on the financial workings behind it.

I'm not Bob Tyler, and I'll tell you something. If he has to deal with these types of personalities in negotiations, I feel really bad for him and all the other employees at the company. It's going to get much worse before it gets better, and those that voted the union in are going to get exactly what they asked for, and those that opposed it might as well find another job because they are up against years and years of discontent.

I've been there and lived it, and I didn't find any peace until I found a company that was non-union. Bob, whoever you are, you have my sympathies.