NetJets Strike Vote Fails

[El Chupacabra]

I have been scheduled to exceed crew day and or 10 hrs in 24 a number of times. I don't think they have an effective way to track it at CMH. You have to track it yourself and when you bring it up to scheduling they act surprised. Oh schitt whatta we do now?

some times if you look at your line last day you will wonder how you can do your last trip and still get home. We can't get you home unless you volunteer to go over 14 hours. Ok? Not Ok.

you know the tail you were flying on hours ahead of time. Does not mean I know the tail I will fly or trip I will do 45 minutes from now.

 

[Sarka]

I did a little research and if PMVULB AvMgr is referring to the flight I looked into that had an incident similar to the one he described, then just about everyone that posted an opinion here should get all the facts before playing the blame game. I could be wrong, but I did find a case that seems to fit the bill.

The flight I found was originally scheduled to go non-stop from SFO to NY (upgrade request to a CX). The crew originally assigned had a short west coast trip prior to the one PMVULB AvMgr is referring to, but were still legally scheduled to complete their duty line well within their 14 hours of duty (this included a 90 minute pre-flight, 1 hour turn, and 90 minute pad of duty at the end of the scheduled flight).

From reading the case notes, it appears that due to weather conditions (winds, etc.) that the CX was unable to complete the SFO-NY leg without making a fuel-stop. Normally, the ten can easily fly coast-to-coast without a fuel-stop, but in some cases (due to weather, DAPP, etc.) they are not. It appears that this was the case this day which is pretty rare. Usually, this is not discovered until Dispatch runs the actual numbers given the current weather conditions sometime prior to the actual flight. This usually occurs a few hours prior to the actual flight, but in some cases is not done until just prior to the flight for a number of reasons. It appears that in this case, the fuel-stop requirement was not discovered until shortly before the scheduled takeoff (1 to 1.5 hours). It was determined that given the additional fuel-stop and slower flight speeds (longer time to complete both legs) due to winds, the original crew could not complete the entire trip within the 14 hour crew day.

Looking at the flight demand for the day and looking at the schedule it appears that there were no other CX crews available on the west coast that would have had the duty to complete the entire trip either (with fuel-stop) as it was scheduled to depart late in the day. As usual, it was a heavy demand day with limited resources available. It appears that the stop was then scheduled through CMH because that is where we had an available crew to complete the trip. The first leg of the trip actually departed shortly after the scheduled departure time and took longer than scheduled (most likely due to weather/winds). It does not appear to have been delayed at all due to anything the pilots did or did not do. I'd have to say that by looking at the info I have available, PMVULB AvMgr has made some bad assumptions concerning the pilots performance of their duties. However, it does appear that you were not given a complete picture of why your flight did not go as planned either.

I'd have to say that some of the pilots here have placed some blame in areas that seem to be misplaced also. While we always try to accomodate each owner's request while maintaining all the rules and regulations, there are always some un-forseen possibilites/problems that can make the best made plans go south. While we try to build in some contingency plans for such situations (hot spares, early or extended crew duty times, etc.), not every situation can be planned for. I'm sure if you look into most cases, there are some reasonable causes to most problems. In this case, it appears that weather (which neither pilots, scheduling, dispatch, owner services, etc. can control or predict) played a big part in the flight not going as scheduled. I do believe that things could have been communicated better, though.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Wsc Cx

it appears that due to weather conditions (winds, etc.) that the CX was unable to complete the SFO-NY leg without making a fuel-stop.

Are you saying that there is a set of conditions (other than the pressurization system being MEL'd) that would make the CX not be able to non-stop eastbound from SFO to NY and have destination plus alternate plus :45? I cannot beleive that. Please some X pliot, show me those numbers! I know those things break alot, but can't make SFO to NY with WX, wow.

Ace

 

[El Chupacabra]

climb gradient out of VNY. I could not load fuel enough.

I think there is a departure out of SFO with a gradient that might affect how much fuel you can load. Also Ace is correct. Some MELs could limit Flight level to a point that fuel flow is too high.

 

[Hogprint]

SARKA found out:

First of all, great job on the research Sarka! It seems to fit the bill. I will agree, the different departments are spring loaded to point the finger in the others direction when things go wrong.

then just about everyone that posted an opinion here should get all the facts before playing the blame game.

I do hope though you were including Avmgr in this? After all he did cast the first stone.

I'd have to say that by looking at the info I have available, PMVULB AvMgr has made some bad assumptions concerning the pilots performance of their duties. However, it does appear that you were not given a complete picture of why your flight did not go as planned either.

This is the problem. We work in a fluid environ. This is a case of having to roll with the punches. Everyone seems to have covered their bases for a safe flight. Where was the breakdown? It was not communicated to the owner. In light of the genial tone of this post, I will not lay blame, but we all know someone dropped the ball here. I have posted before that owners are telling us they are not being told the whole truth at best and outright lied to at worst about this kind of mix up. I don't understand why we would ever put ourselves in this position?!

In this case, it appears that weather (which neither pilots, scheduling, dispatch, owner services, etc. can control or predict) played a big part in the flight not going as scheduled. I do believe that things could have been communicated better, though

Well Avmgr....you have your explanation. If I were you I'd be pretty steamed that I had to get it through an Internet chat board. I'm sure you've seen this sort of thing in your 33yrs of top flight management though. The net is after all the wave of the future!

Oh, about those apology's you spoke of. I think the pilots and schedulers, would appreciate them.

 

[Sarka]

climb gradient out of VNY. I could not load fuel enough.

I think there is a departure out of SFO with a gradient that might affect how much fuel you can load. Also Ace is correct. Some MELs could limit Flight level to a point that fuel flow is too high.

I was not directly involved with this flight (not working that night), but it does appear that the aircraft was MEL'd after the first leg into SFO that limited altitude/range. The case notes are a little vague as to the reason for the fuel-stop. Just says a fuel-stop was required.

I do hope though you were including Avmgr in this?

Yes, I was including everyone that did not have all the facts.

Where was the breakdown? It was not communicated to the owner.

Bingo!

 

[dukeofdub]

Strike vote?

.... so when will we hear about the counting of the strike vote?

 

[CMHTroll]

Vote count this weekend?

"89% is a good start with the election of an MEC that is working for the pilots. We just need to get the rest of the 11% to see the big picture here. Make no mistake the strike vote WILL pass. If you vote not to strike you are only hurting yourself. Come on trolls, what do you have to say? What will be your spin on a 100% strike vote? Oh, you won't want to touch that one because you can't divide the pilot membership on that one."

Duke, we look forward to a 100% strike vote this weekend. You guys will need the shot of solidarity, as it seems to be a little less than what you expected. Of course if the vote is less than 89%, which voted the MEC in, then I guess you will be on a slide to loss of confidence, which is understandable as your MEC is still following a path of bad faith bargaining. Granted they have said they will look at the books, but they won't use the facts for their basis in bargaining. It was that concept that got us in abeyance and will be their (and your) recess unless they change their ways. So we look forward to that 100% strike vote this weekend. I have been saving up to buy a lot of beer if it hits 100.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Duke, we look forward to a 100% strike vote this weekend. You guys will need the shot of solidarity, as it seems to be a little less than what you expected. Of course if the vote is less than 89%, which voted the MEC in, then I guess you will be on a slide to loss of confidence, which is understandable as your MEC is still following a path of bad faith bargaining. Granted they have said they will look at the books, but they won't use the facts for their basis in bargaining. It was that concept that got us in abeyance and will be their (and your) recess unless they change their ways. So we look forward to that 100% strike vote this weekend. I have been saving up to buy a lot of beer if it hits 100.

How would you define "bad faith negotiations" Troll?

Do you have examples of how Olsen has engaged in bad faith negotiations with NJA? Specific examples?

I also think the fellows you bet beer on regarding the strike vote are a bit slow. Why would they accept a bet that would only yield a win based on 100% success. Every democratic group of people (pilot group in this case) will have some that agree and some that disagree.

We'll see what the final result is. It will be high me thinks.

Regardless of the outcome though the important thing is that the voice of the pilots was heard. It's more than I can say for most other employee groups at NJA. They are forced to take what scraps they are given.

Also, regardless of the outcome of the strike vote (a measure of whether the pilots would LIKE to strike) the vote itself changes nothing regarding abeyance.

Both sides will still be on hold. The company will still be
hemorrhaging cash like the Kitner boy in the water at the beach in Jaws 1.

The pilots will be sitting here in relative stasis. In the coming weeks a total of 98% of pilots will be making Captain's pay. NJA pilots
have stabilized themselves financially as best as possible to weather the storm.

The company will continue to try and cover the schedule with selloffs and by squeezing all aspects of the schedule, exerting pressure on pilots, etc.

What we have here is a good old-fashioned standoff.

It'll be nice if both sides can ever get back to focusing on business. Until then... let it burn I suppose. Whatever.

 

[CMHTroll]

You are correct.

I agree that the vote will come in but not as high as you think. Common bet is between 69 and 76%. But you are correct it would be great to get back to business and stop the foolishness

I agree that the vote will come in but not as high as you think. Common bet is between 69 and 76%. But you are correct it would be great to get back to business and stop the foolishness so everyone can get back to serving the Owners.

Both sides will be on hold until the Union finishes it analysis of the Company books, (an unnecessary delay if they had done it 6 months ago.) And as far as the hemorrhaging money, the pilots seem to be the major factor in that equation. With added DINF and other foolishness the Company is forced to have more sub-contract to cover the demand. Less money to pay crew with in the future. Looks like you are causing some self-inflicting wounds.

As you say a standoff. I just hope your MEC gets it and doesn't force it into a recess. Your MEC is in control of that situation all they have to do is bargain in good faith.