SWA LGA Captain Fired

[PBRstreetgang]

They don't have a choice, that is their job whether they like it or not. SWAPA will argue the case to the best of their abilities.

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

Due process, means that all the contractual requirements for discipline/termination are met.
Pretty sure totaling the plane and injuring passengers would most likely be a terminable situation though.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Was the captain from the Chicago and Burbank overruns fired?

 

[Capn Butthead]

The MDW captain retired immediately. He was very upset over what happened. Everyone will tell you that he was a class act and a great man. Just got caught in the perfect storm. I wish him the best. I'm not sure about the BUR captain.

 

[FoxHunter]

Due process, means that all the contractual requirements for discipline/termination are met.
Pretty sure totaling the plane and injuring passengers would most likely be a terminable situation though.

If don't want to be held responsible you require a political or upper management position.

 

[JT12345]

Interesting. Hard to say, but a go-around may have been better than trying to save the landing. I am sure she will get her job back though within say 12 months.

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

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

I still have to say that we do not know the whole story yet.

 

[JT12345]

Why is the f/o getting training? Are they going to train him how to wrestle the controls from the captain at low altitude? I'd hope SWAPA would be fighting that before worrying about the captain's job. Of course all of this is speculation as the NTSB has not finished their investigation yet.

This is a typical interview question.

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

Once you call the go around ATC cancels your landing clearance. They do not care if you are the Captain or FO. Now I would find any pilot hard pressed to ask for another landing clearance after a go around is called by a pilot on board, but I suppose it depends on location and time to touchdown. Inside the marker and below 1000' asking for another landing clearance would be nuts.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This job is so easy, and so easy to screw up too.

 

[PCL_128]

They don't have a choice. Unless she doesn't fight it.

Sure they do. The union controls the grievance process. If they don't want to file a grievance, and they have a legitimate reason, they don't have to. Most unions just file any disciplinary grievance to avoid DFR litigation, but they certainly have no requirement to file the grievance if they feel it is without merit.

 

[nwaf16dude]

I have to say I am impressed with the SWA guys closing ranks on this incident. I not heard much if any thing about what happened thus far. Good job guys.

 

[igneousy2]

Sure they do. The union controls the grievance process. If they don't want to file a grievance, and they have a legitimate reason, they don't have to. Most unions just file any disciplinary grievance to avoid DFR litigation, but they certainly have no requirement to file the grievance if they feel it is without merit.

Absolutely not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My prediction is once the real lawyers get a hold of this she will "retire" with a nice little nest egg, with a signed non-disclosure agreement.