New Chief Pilots at ASA

[Tarzan]

Knock yourself out bro! Personally, I don't think you'll get too far with it, but it would be fun to watch.

I don't think I will either but when it's 95 degrees out an we have a deferred pack, I'm willing to give it a go.

 

[ohplease!]

I don't think I will either but when it's 95 degrees out an we have a deferred pack, I'm willing to give it a go.

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

 

[Plainsman]

Last year took a pos plane single pack to GSO. FAA inspector in the back. After we got up to Greensboro he came up and asked us who was making the decisions up here, and why we took a plane we knew was broken on a hot afternoon. Said he was writing up the captain. Don't know what happened after that night but I sure wouldn't take one now. It's your neck on the line if someone passes due to heat exhaustion. Besides what if you took an airplane with a dead apu and you had a post shut down engine tail pipe fire. If that were to happen the faa would fault you for taking an airplane without an operable apu. Company has become better about taking planes with dead APUs but guys and girls got to stand there ground if one is down and it is warm, in the 200 at least.

 

[Tarzan]

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

Ahhh Sensei, you are truly wise. I am but worm excrement in my level of knowledge.

Good point. I try to avoid conflict whenever I can and generally do well at it. But I can't see getting into an airplane and having the cockpit temps get to over 42C. It is unsafe when it gets to that level and I will not do it again if I can help it.

 

[Speedtape]

See what I mean?

You have to find the right guy who will stand up for you. If not, you have to go the other route and hope it doesn't get kicked up to SH. That guy is a menace-he has never flown the line in any rj (except for a round-trip every now and then to CHA,) and doesn't understand or care how hot it gets-his butt won't be on the plane.

I know someone who SH tried to browbeat into taking a non-apu plane to an outstation in Texas with no ground air conditioning and the OAT at the ETA was 97 degrees!

-Unacceptable!

Well, this is an age old issue. Let's run through the drill, again.

Who is the Pilot-In-Command?
As the Pilot-In-Command you are charged with not only performing your duties in compliance with the FARs. but also operating the aircraft in a safe manner that protects the well-being of your passengers and protects the aircraft and cargo. Remember, your well being is also important in that cockpit.

If there is a deferral on an aircraft that compromises the safe operation of those passengers due to conditions that jeopardize their safety or well being, (ie., high outside or inside temperatures) then you would be careless and derelict in your duties as a Pilot-In-Command to operate that aircraft. It may not pass the test of "What would a reasonable person do?" As a trained professional, carrying passengers for hire, you have a higher standard to meet in the reasonable test issue. If someone is injured as a result of your action/decision, such as heat stroke, heart attack, or dehydration, you will be held personally liable. Again, Who is the Pilot-In-Command?

If you know your job, you don't need to get the Chief Pilot's approval or opinion, or for that matter, anyone else's. They are not the Pilot-In-Command! If you are a people pleaser, then you have signed up for the wrong job.

Sometimes it's hard to take the position of being right. However, if you are consistent, and use the "reasonable person test," you will never be disciplined. Sometimes, it just takes steadfastness and reasonable justification. Sometimes, you have to stand tall.

I carry a small temperature thermometer in my flight bag for this purpose in the summer time, as I followed that practice of another older, wiser pilot. If they want carry animals when the temperature is above 85 degrees outside, and your air cylce machine is not achieving something better than that, why would you carry people? And the temp is always hotter in the cockpit, why would you subject yourself to unsafe conditions?

 

[CFI2766]

Doesn't seem like it's your decision then.

This is absolutely the WORST advice I've ever heard with regard to the operation of an airliner.

This is the same thing as saying that the captain has the final say on busting minimums on an approach, disregarding W&B, ignoring duty time regs; you name the bad idea, if it's the captain's (dispatcher's, company's, or even flight attendant's) final word, you have to go along with it as a First Officer. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Above all, if the Captain, who is both the legal and correct PIC for flight, (read: not the FO), makes a decision that is in accordance with part 121, or 91 if appropriate, that is per the FOM and OM, and makes plain good sense, it is your job and duty to support that captain and be a professional in every way. Within these paramaters, if you, as an FO, intentionally choose not to support that captain, you are more dangerous than the captain who makes poor decisions.

All that being said, it is your job to speak up when you perceive a safety, regulation, or procedural issue. If you speak up about a valid safety issue, and are ignored, it is your job as an FO to prevent an accident. If that takes refusing a flight, so be it.

If I were to receive company discipline for refusing such a situation, it would get ugly. First off, I'd have a chat with the chief pilot and attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. If that failed, then it would be time to have a chat with the safety reps for what ever collective bargaining entity I would be affiliated with at the time. Barring that, welll, there's a good reason that KATL is within sight of the Atlanta FSDO.

Bottom line, FOs support valid orders from Captains. If any of the three parts of that statement are in disagreement, do what ever it takes to prevent an accident.


(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

 

[CFI2766]

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

This is good advice, IMHO.

If the situation deteriorates to the point where you can not resolve it in the cockpit, CRM is not working for that crew.

Deferred packs are an unpleasant gray area. However, recent events with airliners full of people being stuck on closed ramps making the headlines should give flight crews more latitude, this summer, at least, when making decisions about taking an airplane with less than optimal environmental control systems.

 

[Tarzan]

(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

When the White Dragon does something that causes you to mess your pants?

 

[CFI2766]

When the White Dragon does something that causes you to mess your pants?

Easy now, you might turn this into another race thread...

 

[Speedtape]

(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

Sorry, I had to search. Thanks for pointing that out. It should clarify the issue at hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The NTSB and the FAA use definitions for accidents and incidents that are described below. Note that there are several terms in the definition of an accident that also have specific meanings when used by the FAA and the NTSB. AirSafe.com is focused for the most part on fatal events, a term that has a specific definition in this site but one that is not defined and used in the same way by the NTSB, FAA, or any other civil aviation regulatory body.

Accident
As defined by the NTSB, this is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft where as a result of the operation of an aircraft, any person (either inside or outside the aircraft) receives fatal or serious injury or any aircraft receives substantial damage. The occurrence is also not caused by the deliberate action of one or more persons and that leads to damage or injury. The NTSB definition, which is also used by the FAA, divides accidents into four categories:

1. Major - an accident in which a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was destroyed, there were multiple fatalities, or there was one fatality and a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
2. Serious - an accident in which there was either one fatality without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft, or there was at least one serious injury and a 14 CFR121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
3. Injury - a nonfatal accident with at least one serious injury and without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft.
4. Damage - an accident in which no person was killed or seriously injured, but in which any aircraft was substantially damaged.

 

[79%N1]

This is absolutely the WORST advice I've ever heard with regard to the operation of an airliner.

This is the same thing as saying that the captain has the final say on busting minimums on an approach, disregarding W&B, ignoring duty time regs; you name the bad idea, if it's the captain's (dispatcher's, company's, or even flight attendant's) final word, you have to go along with it as a First Officer. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Above all, if the Captain, who is both the legal and correct PIC for flight, (read: not the FO), makes a decision that is in accordance with part 121, or 91 if appropriate, that is per the FOM and OM, and makes plain good sense, it is your job and duty to support that captain and be a professional in every way. Within these paramaters, if you, as an FO, intentionally choose not to support that captain, you are more dangerous than the captain who makes poor decisions.

All that being said, it is your job to speak up when you perceive a safety, regulation, or procedural issue. If you speak up about a valid safety issue, and are ignored, it is your job as an FO to prevent an accident. If that takes refusing a flight, so be it.

If I were to receive company discipline for refusing such a situation, it would get ugly. First off, I'd have a chat with the chief pilot and attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. If that failed, then it would be time to have a chat with the safety reps for what ever collective bargaining entity I would be affiliated with at the time. Barring that, welll, there's a good reason that KATL is within sight of the Atlanta FSDO.

Bottom line, FOs support valid orders from Captains. If any of the three parts of that statement are in disagreement, do what ever it takes to prevent an accident.


(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

Wow. I got your blood pressure up, I guess. I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.

It is the Captain who has the sole responsibility for the aircraft, crew, passengers and cargo. Busting mins or flying into a level 5 is a different matter, and it is indeed the FO's responsibilty to ensure these things do not happen. Operating a legal and airworthy aircraft that may or may not be too hot is more subjective, and the capain is the one charged with determining this. The FO can, and in my case is expected to offer his opinion as part of the crew, but I assure you he/she will not be getting the phone call from the director of ops or chief pilot to explain it. If you want to make your own decision because you disagree and walk off the flight then have at it. You will do your own explaining. AM I saying FO's should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? No, absolutely not. But I stand by my original statement that it is not your decision, because it is not. My FO told me last week how I needed to or had to tell flight control we would refuse the a/c after a roundtrip without an APU. But, guess what, clouds rolled into ATL and the outside temps cooled to about 25C. We parked at a jetbridge with ac, and I figured we were going off the north side and it would be a short taxi. Taking his opinion into consideration (and the FA) I decided to continue with the plane to try to keep some sort of scheduling integrity. Maybe you would have done different. But, the parameters set in our FOM were not met, Flight Control said it would take a long while to get a change in a/c, and that was my decision. It was not a democracy....but you keep on thinking that it is.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Whoa slow down everyone. If we are not careful this thread my turn into one of substance that we can all learn from.

Good discussion for once around here.

 

[CFI2766]

Wow. I got your blood pressure up, I guess. I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.

It is the Captain who has the sole responsibility for the aircraft, crew, passengers and cargo. Busting mins or flying into a level 5 is a different matter, and it is indeed the FO's responsibilty to ensure these things do not happen. Operating a legal and airworthy aircraft that may or may not be too hot is more subjective, and the capain is the one charged with determining this. The FO can, and in my case is expected to offer his opinion as part of the crew, but I assure you he/she will not be getting the phone call from the director of ops or chief pilot to explain it. If you want to make your own decision because you disagree and walk off the flight then have at it. You will do your own explaining. AM I saying FO's should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? No, absolutely not. But I stand by my original statement that it is not your decision, because it is not. My FO told me last week how I needed to or had to tell flight control we would refuse the a/c after a roundtrip without an APU. But, guess what, clouds rolled into ATL and the outside temps cooled to about 25C. We parked at a jetbridge with ac, and I figured we were going off the north side and it would be a short taxi. Taking his opinion into consideration (and the FA) I decided to continue with the plane to try to keep some sort of scheduling integrity. Maybe you would have done different. But, the parameters set in our FOM were not met, Flight Control said it would take a long while to get a change in a/c, and that was my decision. It was not a democracy....but you keep on thinking that it is.

Sarcasm, joke, mood-lightening attempt at humor:

What makes you think my blood pressure is up? Did you entrap me on an aircraft with sub-standard air conditioning in Atlanta in May? :laugh:

I agree with 99.9% of what you said in the immediate, above post. And, frankly, I think you missed my point; probably my fault for not communicating clearly.

Therefore:

1) In a situation with a deferred pack, given the parameters listed above, it is absolutely the captain's call, and IMO, the correct call to take the flight.

2) I take a very dim view of FOs telling the Captain how to do their job or what decisions to make. In the situation that you spelled out mid-post, it's the FO who needs some education on how CRM is supposed to work. Ideally, some quiet words from an experienced captain behind closed doors should do the trick. Granted, there are FOs that this will not work with. In that case, Pro Stans should have a discussion with the individual. If no results, then there are other ways to deal with the situation. Clearly, it is the Captain's job and prerogative to make the final decision.

3) I think perhaps that my post gave you the impression that I'm solely addressing operations of an RJ with a deferred APU. That really wasn't my intent. You are right, though: your post did strike a nerve with me. Not very often, but I have worked with captains who have had an over sized view of both their capabilities and their decision making abilities to the point of compromising the safety of the flight. (If I had to guess, I would speculate that the number of these Captains is roughly equal to the number of FOs who would wrongly think that it is their job to tell the Captain how to do his/hers. In either case, it is not a pleasant pairing.)

Now then, the statement "Doesn't seem like it's your decision then" implied to me a misunderstanding of the FO's role in the cockpit, for the reasons I've already posted.

For reference, if a passenger dies on a flight, at any point after they have boarded the aircraft with the intention of flight, it is an accident that must and will be reported to the NTSB, and therefore, the FAA. It doesn't matter if you haven't taken off yet, much less if you haven't even closed the cabin door. If the passenger dies, provided it wasn't an aggravated homicide situation, the Feds (NTSB/FAA) will get involved.

If there is any divergence at all from FOM mandated SOPs, you can bet that the flight crew, BOTH the Captain and the FO, will be held accountable. Frankly, the company as well as the investigating agency will be closely looking at the SOPs to determine if fault can be placed on the flight crew. An FO assuming the position that it was entirely the Captain's decision, and therefore liability from a regulatory, and even legal, standpoint, is just plain incorrect.

Thus, the 0.1% where I disagree with you is your line about a democracy. It most certainly is: I won't be a part of a situation where the Captain is making a decision that clearly, intentionally jeopardizes passengers, crew, aircraft, or cargo. I do have a vote, it is with my feet. If necessary, I will walk away. What are you going to do, operate the flight single pilot?

If I'm right, and it wouldn't get to this point unless I was sure that I was, then we'll all have a sit down in the new chief pilots' office to discuss the situation. If I'm wrong, I'll live to find another job at a company that doesn't put me in this situation.

Yeah, I can live with that.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Besides what if you took an airplane with a dead apu and you had a post shut down engine tail pipe fire. If that were to happen the faa would fault you for taking an airplane without an operable apu.

Then they would need to fault Bombardier too for allowing it as an MEL.

 

[Smacktard]

Kind of funny all this talk about RJs getting too hot. ASA flew bandits, dash-7s, brazilias, ATRs etc, all with zero or close to zero in the 'cool air' department and yet those were fine to operate in the summer out of ATL. But jeeez, step in to an RJ and watch the temps go into the 30's and all of the sudden it's a health hazard.

 

[buscap]

Kind of funny all this talk about RJs getting too hot. ASA flew bandits, dash-7s, brazilias, ATRs etc, all with zero or close to zero in the 'cool air' department and yet those were fine to operate in the summer out of ATL. But jeeez, step in to an RJ and watch the temps go into the 30's and all of the sudden it's a health hazard.

Just me, but I've flown the ATR and the CRJ. Defered APU RJ worse than a single pack ATR in similar conditions. ATR Recirc fans made the difference.

 

[buscap]

Wow. I got your blood pressure up, I guess. I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.

It is the Captain who has the sole responsibility for the aircraft, crew, passengers and cargo. Busting mins or flying into a level 5 is a different matter, and it is indeed the FO's responsibilty to ensure these things do not happen. Operating a legal and airworthy aircraft that may or may not be too hot is more subjective, and the capain is the one charged with determining this. The FO can, and in my case is expected to offer his opinion as part of the crew, but I assure you he/she will not be getting the phone call from the director of ops or chief pilot to explain it. If you want to make your own decision because you disagree and walk off the flight then have at it. You will do your own explaining. AM I saying FO's should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? No, absolutely not. But I stand by my original statement that it is not your decision, because it is not. My FO told me last week how I needed to or had to tell flight control we would refuse the a/c after a roundtrip without an APU. But, guess what, clouds rolled into ATL and the outside temps cooled to about 25C. We parked at a jetbridge with ac, and I figured we were going off the north side and it would be a short taxi. Taking his opinion into consideration (and the FA) I decided to continue with the plane to try to keep some sort of scheduling integrity. Maybe you would have done different. But, the parameters set in our FOM were not met, Flight Control said it would take a long while to get a change in a/c, and that was my decision. It was not a democracy....but you keep on thinking that it is.

If you are on the 50 with 50 pax, you were wrong.

If you were on the 50 with 20 pax, no big deal.

700 or 900, no big deal.

Each case is different. It's four-striper sheeeet.



As for the FO refusing to fly???...???

And the FO had better speak his/her mind.

But as for refusing to fly a legal aircraft, which the Captain is willing to fly, well boys and girls, that is putting your job on the line.

Clearly state your concerns to the Captain. Then it's three-bags-full and a salute.

Because....it is a legal aircraft. And it's the Captain's judgement call.

Just be sure you know the hand you are playing.


As for me. I have never lost this argument. Just say no.

 

[WWEfan]

MESA SUCKS!

Can't believe we got to page 4 without this required post.

 

[ohplease!]

If you are on the 50 with 50 pax, you were wrong.

If you were on the 50 with 20 pax, no big deal.

700 or 900, no big deal.

Each case is different. It's four-striper sheeeet.



As for the FO refusing to fly???...???

And the FO had better speak his/her mind.

But as for refusing to fly a legal aircraft, which the Captain is willing to fly, well boys and girls, that is putting your job on the line.

Clearly state your concerns to the Captain. Then it's three-bags-full and a salute.

Because....it is a legal aircraft. And it's the Captain's judgement call.

Just be sure you know the hand you are playing.


As for me. I have never lost this argument. Just say no.

legal does not mean SAFE....and safe does not always mean legal...

If an FO has legitimate concerns about the safety of a flight FOR ANY REASON and he/she does not at the very least speak up, they are legally and morally responsible.

It happens every day at every airline....some crew flies around in a plane with some "minor" issue and writes it up when they are getting off on their last leg (home or overnight).

there are plenty of little "legal" things that in NO WAY affect safety

then there are plenty of "UNsafe" things that are perfectly legal

Its the CA's decision but its the FO's responsibility to break the link in the chain and stop the unsafe operation if they are aware of it...CRM folks.

I expect my FO's to speak up. If I get my feathers ruffled, too bad. thats my problem. If someone on the crew is uncomfortable FOR ANY REASON we need to talk about it....maybe I've missed something.

If you get in "trouble" for being safe, I'll go stand on the CP's desk on your behalf.....

P.S.- legitimate= use common sense and if you're not sure, ask someone about it....call me I'll at least give you another opinion

 

[bailout]

now i know you are crazy. fl is a nice dude, but come on, he was worthless as a cp. did you ever actually go to him for anything? he was usually knee deep researching corvettes, great to talk to, hope you just didnt need anything. i will take the current bunch anyday over the old group. sure they had hours, but what the heck did that do for us?

i like the fact that these current guys know the airplane, and fly more than i ever saw the others. fl and rc didnt even have medicals for years. bd's uniform is the only thing that looked like it had 20,000 hours.

i have heard sh called a lot of things, never angry. dont know him any more than rgt and seeing him in the lounge, but he doesnt strike me as mean.

hours mean nothing, what you do matters. for the first time in years i feel the cps are there because they are smart and able. not just due to the fact that they have 20,000 hours.

I havent been there in a few years so I can't comment on the new ones, but FL was BY FAR the best there was back a few years ago. He always had a line out his door with people waiting, as he was the only one who helped us. Comparing him to the newer ones isnt exactly fair if you werent around years ago. So maybe from todays point of view he may not be as good as you want, but dont say he wasnt ever good.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

In the summer time, no apu no go. End of story.
Some people just need to grow a pair!

 

[crj567]

I havent been there in a few years so I can't comment on the new ones, but FL was BY FAR the best there was back a few years ago. He always had a line out his door with people waiting, as he was the only one who helped us. Comparing him to the newer ones isnt exactly fair if you werent around years ago. So maybe from todays point of view he may not be as good as you want, but dont say he wasnt ever good.

Crjskipper just sucks up to whomever is in charge at the moment... I have peronally seen FL go to great lengths to help out pilots who were in the line of fire of power-hungry freakshows like ND (remember that ass-hat they named the plane after?)

Anyhow-FL was (and still is) the very best we ever had. I don't give two craps whether a CP can state the FOM or the contract chapter and verse-I just would like to deal with someone who will treat pilots reasonably.

FL was the best at doing his job in a reasonable manner. I never saw him power-tripping or getting all crazy on anyone. The man obviously had health problems as a result of all the stress doing such a great job brought him, and we should all be very grateful for his service to us pilots.

-The man had his priorities in order, and I don't give two craps what crjskipper thinks about it-he will just go and suck up to whomever may be in charge next!

-No one respects a butt-kisser, skippy-but hey-that's just how you roll.....

 

[crjskipper]

that tells me alot about you 567. like i said, fl is a nice guy, terrible cp. did you ever fly with him as an fo? i did, and lets just say he is a nice guy. and i dont need to kiss anyones butt, i typically dont need the cps, but when i have gone there i expect a certain level of, lets just say, intelligence.

but once again, im sure fl was just the kind of cp you needed.

 

[blesko]

that tells me alot about you 567. like i said, fl is a nice guy, terrible cp. did you ever fly with him as an fo? i did, and lets just say he is a nice guy. and i dont need to kiss anyones butt, i typically dont need the cps, but when i have gone there i expect a certain level of, lets just say, intelligence.

but once again, im sure fl was just the kind of cp you needed.

Fly a r/t with SH........end of story

 

[crj567]

that tells me alot about you 567. like i said, fl is a nice guy, terrible cp. did you ever fly with him as an fo? i did, and lets just say he is a nice guy. and i dont need to kiss anyones butt, i typically dont need the cps, but when i have gone there i expect a certain level of, lets just say, intelligence.

but once again, im sure fl was just the kind of cp you needed.

Your post tells me everything I need to know as well-that you are an idiot!

I never shadow the door of the CPO as a rule-(I have never-in my career had to go and see any of them for a "carpet dance" if that is what you are trying to imply.) When I had a pay issue or a scheduling problem FL straightened it out for me and did the same for everyone else I know. I have been shuffled off by other CPs who didn't care to do their job, but FL always was helpful and knowledgeable.

Go kiss up to someone who cares. I am sure SH is awaiting your application for the new opening. SH will sure be happy to have another suckup a-hole in the barn.....

 

[DrunkIrishman]

CRJSkipper-

Talk all the sh$t you want about Fred, but when I needed my paycheck issues resolved he always took care of it!

 

[wms]

CRJSkipper-

Talk all the sh$t you want about Fred, but when I needed my paycheck issues resolved he always took care of it!

And if you refused an airplane for a safety reason or refused to fly when scheduling was trying to coerce you to violate the FARs, he had a spine and backed you up rather than take the easy way and take the company's side.

However, I think we have a good CPO now. They know the rules and have a good relationship with the GO. They are able to help you by working with mgmt rather than against them. That speaks well for the new culture at ASA.

 

[crj567]

I am not bashing the new guys... They seem O.K.

Fred did a great job during the most difficult of times, and it really pisses me off to see him trashed by anyone.

Fred didn't play favorites, he didn't only stand up for DFW guys. Fred was a very reasonable person and would totally stand up any pilot who was in the right.

I sure can't say the same about "C.P. intern," or a few others I could think of, but Fred was reliable and always helpful. People tend to forget about ND and a couple of other G.O. freakshows who loved to try and jack with people-and attempt to ruin their careers. Fred saved a lot of people a lot of trouble by keeping stuff off ND's desk.

-You could never ask for a better CP. Maybe skippy got told off by Fred one day (he would do that if someone was a retard and screwed up,) but as for me and absolutely everyone I know well who has worked for this place, we all loved Fred!

-You simply could not ask for a better guy in that position.

 

[Speedtape]

And if you refused an airplane for a safety reason or refused to fly when scheduling was trying to coerce you to violate the FARs, he had a spine and backed you up rather than take the easy way and take the company's side.

However, I think we have a good CPO now. They know the rules and have a good relationship with the GO. They are able to help you by working with mgmt rather than against them. That speaks well for the new culture at ASA.

This last paragraph indicates that you may be out of touch. We MAY have a good CPO office now--the jury is still out and the cows have not come home. What rules do they know? They MAY know the same rules YOU and I are suppose to know. When you don't know the rules that you are suppose to know, you basically yield power to someone else--maybe, a CP. The CP should have a good relationship with the GO, they work for the G.O. and were ordained by the d.o.--and they jump through his hoops and deliver his message. They don't work with managment--they are management, or their pawns--Geesh! New culture? It's more like a new honeymoon--one we have been on before and the CPO has nothing to do with it. They have no power--they work for Julius Caesar!

 

[Speedtape]

I am not bashing the new guys... They seem O.K.

Fred did a great job during the most difficult of times, and it really pisses me off to see him trashed by anyone.

Fred didn't play favorites, he didn't only stand up for DFW guys. Fred was a very reasonable person and would totally stand up any pilot who was in the right.

I sure can't say the same about "C.P. intern," or a few others I could think of, but Fred was reliable and always helpful. People tend to forget about ND and a couple of other G.O. freakshows who loved to try and jack with people-and attempt to ruin their careers. Fred saved a lot of people a lot of trouble by keeping stuff off ND's desk.

-You could never ask for a better CP. Maybe skippy got told off by Fred one day (he would do that if someone was a retard and screwed up,) but as for me and absolutely everyone I know well who has worked for this place, we all loved Fred!

-You simply could not ask for a better guy in that position.

Did you issue a disclaimer with your testimony? I am glad you had such a fine experience. However, apparently, there are others who may disagree and may have had different experiences.

CP's go through Seasons. It always starts out like Springtime and ends like Winter! Most of them look like the Presidents at the end of their term--wore down and low, very low in the opinion polls. I guess it has something to do with dealing with that 4% of Pilots that have been notorious all their lives, and becoming callous as a result of the figurative beatings that they take from those who will not let them make decisions. The money must be good--but giving up your soul is too much of a cost.