FUD at Flight Options

[B19 Flyer]

Are you actually arguing that the ASAP program is a bad thing!!?!!
I guess we should submarine the NASA report also.

You are truly a management tool, among other things.

Didn't read the post did you?

Clueless, totally clueless.

The union is jeapardizing the much needed and valued ASAP program at American Airlines.

Clueless, totally clueless.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Youre well past your self imposed 10 minute allotment on these boards for today. In fact I think youve used it up for the next 2 weeks. While youre still here though how about responding to the moderator who called you out for what you are? Everyone here knows youre a scab and a snake might as well fess up.

Another one that doesn't have a clue...

I responded to that, you didn't read the response.

Clueless, totally clueless.....

 

[CA1900]

Didn't read the post did you?

You didn't read the article you posted, did you?

The union is jeapardizing the much needed and valued ASAP program at American Airlines.

No, American's management is jeopardizing the much-needed and valued ASAP program by using those reports for disciplinary action. You can't encourage self-disclosure of safety problems if you're going to discipline them for the content of those reports.

 

[realityman]

You don't understand the industry, how it got there or what it takes to manage it.

You're clueless.

Still not addressing a single thing in my post. That's alright. I don't blame you. It's hard to address the issues I've brought up when you don't have a valid argument.

I've been in the fractional industry 11 years. How about you? I think I've experienced more, seen more, heard more, and followed more about it than you ever will.

Clueless: A really bad movie and an even worse response to an argument. Did we expect anything more from B19?

Folks, it seems B19 is getting frustrated. Perhaps now he'll go "help" the guys over at JetBlue in the 121 forum.

 

[fischman]

You don't have a clue, do you?

I'm using facts, you are using opinion.

3 items highlighted by the FAA in the official NPRM summary.

One of those three was safety.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You're clueless and you gotta stop sniffing that union glue.

You don't understand the industry, how it got there or what it takes to manage it.

You're clueless.

Implementing rest rules in February 2005.

No cost for safety?

Clueless, totally clueless.

Clueless, totally clueless...

Didn't read the post did you?

Clueless, totally clueless.

The union is jeapardizing the much needed and valued ASAP program at American Airlines.

Clueless, totally clueless.

Another one that doesn't have a clue...

I responded to that, you didn't read the response.

Clueless, totally clueless.....

B19, do you take 5 minutes in the morning to admire yourself in the mirror? :laugh:

Let me guess, your mother didn't breastfeed you, and daddy never gave you his approval? That is why you kiss management's a$$ now! Always seeking approval from an authority figure. :erm:

Not many friends in high school? :0

Not to many friends who REALLY like you now are there? :bawling:

Do you know what they call it when you are right and the rest of the world it wrong? DELUSIONAL. You are nuts. Seriously. You are out of your mind and require medication. :nuts:

Your arrogance is just..... Wow!!!

 

[1po'dpilot]

Yes SCAB

It is everyone else that is clueless, and you who are enlightened! LMAO... Hmmm seems like someone struck a nerve. Ah well Bobbyboy go cry on F & H's shoulder you're not gonna find one here.

 

[WabiSabi]

Implementing rest rules in February 2005.

No cost for safety?

Clueless, totally clueless.

I'm not at all surprised that you are unable to provide an intelligent reply to my, or anyone else's post. Instead, all you come up with is "clueless"? Yeah, there's substance for you. Unless you can reasonably respond point by point (at least a few of them) then you're just a babbling troll.

Babble on Bob, babble on!:laugh:

 

[B19 Flyer]

You didn't read the article you posted, did you?


No, American's management is jeopardizing the much-needed and valued ASAP program by using those reports for disciplinary action. You can't encourage self-disclosure of safety problems if you're going to discipline them for the content of those reports.

The article states that the union is trying to move away from what the other 98% of the programs across the company use.

That means that the union (APA) is trying to make changes to what the rest of the industry (including other unions such as ALPA) considers a successful program.

Union at fault, not management.

Read the article.

Clueless, just clueless.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Still not addressing a single thing in my post. That's alright. I don't blame you. It's hard to address the issues I've brought up when you don't have a valid argument.

I've been in the fractional industry 11 years. How about you? I think I've experienced more, seen more, heard more, and followed more about it than you ever will.

Clueless: A really bad movie and an even worse response to an argument. Did we expect anything more from B19?

Folks, it seems B19 is getting frustrated. Perhaps now he'll go "help" the guys over at JetBlue in the 121 forum.

FAA highlights three specific items for 91K regulation.

One is safety.

Enough said.

 

[B19 Flyer]

I'm not at all surprised that you are unable to provide an intelligent reply to my, or anyone else's post. Instead, all you come up with is "clueless"? Yeah, there's substance for you. Unless you can reasonably respond point by point (at least a few of them) then you're just a babbling troll.

Babble on Bob, babble on!:laugh:

You stated there was no cost for safety.

I listed one specific item that is very expensive to implement.

Enough said.

Only a clueless individual would say there was no cost for safety.

 

[CA1900]

That means that the union (APA) is trying to make changes to what the rest of the industry (including other unions such as ALPA) considers a successful program.

That's because the "rest of the industry" does not discipline pilots for the content of their ASAP reports. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

 

[realityman]

FAA highlights three specific items for 91K regulation.

One is safety.

Enough said.

And you still haven't addressed why they also made changes to the 135 regs (less stringent).

I'm not the one who is clueless here.

Nice try though.

I also really enjoy how YOU post an article that tells how MANAGEMENT wants to take a program that, industry wide, is NOT used for pilot discipline, and use it for discipline. When the union fights this unorthodox use of the ASAP program, it's the union that's causing the problem?

Oh wow! Your arrogance is almost a living thing of its own!

 

[B19 Flyer]

That's because the "rest of the industry" does not discipline pilots for the content of their ASAP reports. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Good gawd, I'll make it easy for you:

The article states:

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.

Jeesh.... you guys don't like to read facts, do you?

 

[realityman]

PS- Aren't your 10 minutes up for today?

 

[B19 Flyer]

And you still haven't addressed why they also made changes to the 135 regs (less stringent).

I'm not the one who is clueless here.

Nice try though.

I also really enjoy how YOU post an article that tells how MANAGEMENT wants to take a program that, industry wide, is NOT used for pilot discipline, and use it for discipline. When the union fights this unorthodox use of the ASAP program, it's the union that's causing the problem?

Oh wow! Your arrogance is almost a living thing of its own!

My arrogance is your perception of "reality" and your inablity to read, comprehend and understand the industry.

FAA singled out THREE ITEMS.

ONE IS SAFETY.

Simple, isn't it?

In 1997 Part 119 changed 135 too in the name of safety, want to include that also?

The accident that drove the Part 119 changes also drove PRIA... which was the beginning of this conversation.

 

[B19 Flyer]

PS- Aren't your 10 minutes up for today?

Enjoying lunch...

 

[CA1900]

Good gawd, I'll make it easy for you...
Jeesh.... you guys don't like to read facts, do you?

Wow, you're being extra-thick today.

Let's throw some more facts from this article on which you're so focused:

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.

Do you understand that part? I bolded it, as you clearly seemed to have missed it.

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.

ASAP was designed to enhance safety by gathering previously-unavailable information from the crews involved, without fear of discipline. If you hang the crews with that information, you're putting politics ahead of safety. That's exactly what AA is doing.

American has disregarded that little detail, and is disciplining pilots anyway, completely undermining ASAP.

Airline officials counter that discipline is extremely rare when ASAP reports have been filed...

It shouldn't be rare if they respected the program and its influence on safety. Discipline should be nonexistent when ASAP is involved. If you want the crews to be open and honest and improve safety, you don't put them on the defensive when they submit a report in good faith.

Directly from the FAA's guidance on establishing an ASAP:

Under an ASAP, safety issues are resolved through corrective action rather than through punishment or discipline...

An ASAP provides a vehicle whereby employees of participating air carriers and repair station certificate holders can identify and report safety issues to management and to the FAA for resolution, without fear that the FAA will use reports accepted under the program to take legal enforcement action against them, or that companies will use such information to take disciplinary action. These programs are designed to encourage participation from various employee groups, such as flight crewmembers, mechanics, flight attendants, and dispatchers.

American is violating the spirit and intent of the program. They're the people making this political, not the union.

 

[realityman]

Well, enjoy your lunch. I gotta go.

I guess I'll just have to concede that my 11 years in this industry count for nothing. And your, uh, how many years in the FRACTIONAL industry?, trump mine and everyone else's.

By the way, part 119 may have changed 135, but did it make it more lenient? Because that's what the FAA has done this time around. Now why would they do that? Seems that might be compromising safety in the charter world.

In fact, considering that this whole conversation is centered around the FAA's concern for the FRACTIONALS, and the SAFETY and STANDARDIZATION of the FRACTIONALS (according to you), I'm wondering why the FAA dragged part 135 into it at all? What did charter rules have to do with 91K and fractional operations?

Still trying to say it was all about safety, and wasn't a politically motivated thing?

Okay, you live in your world, I'll live in mine (you know, the one that addresses the real questions head-on).

Heading out to try and make the fractional world just a little bit safer for the next week.:beer:

 

[fischman]

Looks like B19 doesn't like to face reality...

 

[B19 Flyer]

Too funny....

Wow, you're being extra-thick today.

Let's throw some more facts from this article on which you're so focused:

Do you understand that part? I bolded it, as you clearly seemed to have missed it.



ASAP was designed to enhance safety by gathering previously-unavailable information from the crews involved, without fear of discipline. If you hang the crews with that information, you're putting politics ahead of safety. That's exactly what AA is doing.

American has disregarded that little detail, and is disciplining pilots anyway, completely undermining ASAP.
It shouldn't be rare if they respected the program and its influence on safety. Discipline should be nonexistent when ASAP is involved. If you want the crews to be open and honest and improve safety, you don't put them on the defensive when they submit a report in good faith.

Directly from the FAA's guidance on establishing an ASAP:

American is violating the spirit and intent of the program. They're the people making this political, not the union.

You are saying that a program that works successfully for 98% of the unions and industry suddenly isn't good for the union at American and it's all management's fault.

I guess 98% of the industry must be just wrong.

Of course, I'm constantly being told that 66% of the FLOPS pilots is a majority, but 98% isn't for the union at American.


Clueless.... just clueless....

 

[B19 Flyer]

Looks like B19 doesn't like to face reality...

I work non-union.

All I face is reality because nobody speaks for me.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Well, enjoy your lunch. I gotta go.

I guess I'll just have to concede that my 11 years in this industry count for nothing. And your, uh, how many years in the FRACTIONAL industry?, trump mine and everyone else's.

By the way, part 119 may have changed 135, but did it make it more lenient? Because that's what the FAA has done this time around. Now why would they do that? Seems that might be compromising safety in the charter world.

In fact, considering that this whole conversation is centered around the FAA's concern for the FRACTIONALS, and the SAFETY and STANDARDIZATION of the FRACTIONALS (according to you), I'm wondering why the FAA dragged part 135 into it at all? What did charter rules have to do with 91K and fractional operations?

Still trying to say it was all about safety, and wasn't a politically motivated thing?

Okay, you live in your world, I'll live in mine (you know, the one that addresses the real questions head-on).

Heading out to try and make the fractional world just a little bit safer for the next week.:beer:

You do understand that eligible on-demand
is only authorized by an operations specification and isn't blanket converage to a 135 carrier, right? There are experience and specific procedure requirments that go with the paragraph.

Clueless.... just clueless.....

 

[WabiSabi]

You stated there was no cost for safety.

I listed one specific item that is very expensive to implement.

Enough said.

Only a clueless individual would say there was no cost for safety.

Now that is just stupid. You're merely attempting a straw man argument to bolster your idiotic claims. Show me where I stated that there was no cost to safety. I pointed out how FLOPS management determined that the cost of safety was too high so they shortened the circadian low period for their convenience. Again, please, show me where I said that there was no cost to safety. I'll help you. You won't find it. What I said was;

"Safety has absolutely nothing to do with cost structure you moron."

(I added the underline just now) Then I said;

Safety does not incorporate cost structure, it is the other way around.

hmmm BOB, it looks like I did acknowledge that there's a cost to safety.....not that it has anything to do with the context of the discussion which is the contribution of safety by unions. I have debunked your argument by showing you how the IBT is well ahead of the safety department at FLOPS. Again, I'm not surprised that you cannot respond intelligently.

You are either doing a lame job of altering context to bolster your contentions or you have a severe reading comprehension problem.....probably both.

Enough said.

Yes SCAB, I agree with you here. You have babbled more than enough.

 

[Fozzy]

You didn't read the article you posted, did you?


No, American's management is jeopardizing the much-needed and valued ASAP program by using those reports for disciplinary action. You can't encourage self-disclosure of safety problems if you're going to discipline them for the content of those reports.

Thank you CA!
What Bob does not understand is there would/will never ever be an ASAP, or a NASA reporting system if the pilots can get disciplined for the reports. He like most management pukes think safety, learning from mistakes, etc, can be equated to the bottom line.
He thinks the Union should bow to management. Folks that don't even fly for a living, just sitting behind a desk screwing up day in a day out. And what is the worse thing they can screw up. Oh ya the bottom line. But now they are messing with safety. Management is the ones in this situation that is using ASAP as a tool in upcoming negotiations.

............and safety be damned. Fools

 

[400pilot]

You do understand that eligible on-demand
is only authorized by an operations specification and isn't blanket converage to a 135 carrier, right? There are experience and specific procedure requirments that go with the paragraph.

Clueless.... just clueless.....

Yeah....that's common knowledge and doesn't address his point. In other words, so what?

 

[fischman]

I work non-union.

All I face is reality because nobody speaks for me.

The only time you "face" reality is when you are sitting on the other side of a negotiating table with a Union rep.

You are DELUSIONAL and in serious need of therapy and/or medication.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

This thread is out of control. You've got one guy saying "It's the victim who's responsible for the rape!" And a hundred people yelling at him for being a moron. It really is amusing.

I wonder if B19 isn't some dork who thinks it's funny to insist that "up is down" and then watch everybody get their panties in a wad.

 

[B19 Flyer]

This thread is out of control. You've got one guy saying "It's the victim who's responsible for the rape!" And a hundred people yelling at him for being a moron. It really is amusing.

I wonder if B19 isn't some dork who thinks it's funny to insist that "up is down" and then watch everybody get their panties in a wad.

Why would you think "up is down" when I place the specific language in a post?

The 91K NPRM stated safety was one of the 3 items.

The news article stated that the American program was successful and used by 98% of the carriers. The union wants to move away from a proven successful program.

And you've got to be kidding me to think that safety isn't part of an air carrier cost structure.

What is not right about any of these 3 items?

 

[B19 Flyer]

Pria

This thread is out of control. You've got one guy saying "It's the victim who's responsible for the rape!" And a hundred people yelling at him for being a moron. It really is amusing.

I wonder if B19 isn't some dork who thinks it's funny to insist that "up is down" and then watch everybody get their panties in a wad.

This thread started because a memo was put out to let pilots know about changes to the PRIA process.

I still don't understand why informing pilots about these changes would cause an issue, and I understand even less as to why ANY pilot would not want to know about the FAA issuing an interpretation that could affect a pilots career.

 

[400pilot]

The 91K NPRM stated safety was one of the 3 items.

So? You are either ignoring or completely missing his point.

The news article stated that the American program was successful and used by 98% of the carriers.

Specifically, it stated:

"Remember that 98 percent of the ASAP programs in the industry are almost identical to our program with our pilots," Nolen said.

"Almost identical"....other ASAP programs, including ours at Options, does not discipline pilots at all from any ASAP report as long as the act was not intentional.

The union wants to move away from a proven successful program.

No they don't. This is a flat out lie. They want to continue to use the ASAP program, but they don't want pilots disciplined if they file a report. That article clearly states that.

And you've got to be kidding me to think that safety isn't part of an air carrier cost structure.

Once again, you are ignoring or missing the point. For all of the large operators, we already had all of those "safety" procedures and positions, if not more, filled. There was no added cost at the change. As far as added cost from rest, we all already had that in place as well. Same cost structure.......that was the argument. Also, the rest of the industry is irrelevant. None of us were talking about the rest of the industry when you tried to create a straw man by saying everything prior to 2005 was irrelevant.