Terminations at Flight Options

[RTRHD]

This can't be good for FLOPS

Aviation International News | Raytheon Aircraft on the block again

 

[GVFlyer]

I still don't get it. This captain was canned for what?

Even an "at will" employee would have little problem winning a wrongful termination law suit in this case as it has been presented.

Even non-union employees have to be fired "for cause". What was the cause?


GV






~

 

[gunfyter]

FLOPS not included in sale of company

 

[GVFlyer]

Raytheon has been on the block for quite a while. I commented on this previously in the Raytheon Sale? thread.


In late April 2001, Nick Chabraja, General Dynamics CEO and former lawyer, met with Hansel E. Tookes II, then Chairman and CEO of Raytheon Aircraft for the ostensible purpose of buying the business segment.

Hansel the Second, a [FONT=arial, helvetica]Harvard grad, [/FONT] is son of Florida A&M legendary athletic director Hansel E. "Tootie" Tookes, and[FONT=arial, helvetica] is a former [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]U.S. Navy [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]P-3 Orion pilot[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica], United Airlines pilot and father to would be MTV "Real Life" participant and neurosurgeon Hansel E. Tookes III. He also has a mustache.

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]When Nick said, "Hansel what's it going to take for me to go home with this airplane company?" Hansel replied, "Well Nick, how does $2.2 billion sound?"

Several days later, when Nick quit laughing, he announced that [/FONT] General Dynamics would buy corporate jet manufacturer Galaxy Aerospace, jointly owned by Israel Aircraft Industries and the Pritzker family, for $330 million in cash, plus an additional $315 million by 2006, contingent upon Galaxy Aerospace sales.


GV

 

[152SIC]

Thanks Gunfyter!

Quite eye-opening and informative.

 

[Diesel]

Anybody else still confused???

 

[RTRHD]

Anybody else still confused???

I thought it was just me.

 

[gunfyter]

Yes. We obviously do not have the whole story. Seems unjustified by what we are told.

In the past at NJ we got the address to someone who was terminated before the Holidays and mailed money to them to get through the holiday. Just a suggestion.

Some had eventually got their job back....

 

[Diesel]

I just don't understand why they didn't go after the FO. The captain was being the good company boy.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[beechjetpilot1]

the company thinks there are too many pilots. They have been trying to get people to quit for months so they don't have to lay-off anyone. Their plan has not worked how they thought, so now they are going after highly paid pilots in the large cabin fleet, and highly paid captains in other fleets to lean out the crew roster. There is a steady stream of "cuyahoga 1 arrivals" into cgf right now for many people. Some of the people did things wrong, and others are there to be intimidated. Flops pilots are in a fight, and management wants to send a message, get rid of some higher paid pilots, and generally punish the pilot force for voting in our union. I agree that there is more to the story for this one pilot...something doesn't make sense, however, the bigger issue is Flops management using strong armed tactics to try and silence the pilot group and force them to get on their bandwagon.

 

[Diesel]

Firing the most senior pilots really is the wrong way to go. Most of your A team pilots come from the higher up senior ranks because they were there when the company started to grow and feel they have some ownership from it. Firing an FO who's only got a couple of years with the company and has no ties with the place while makes less financial sense scares the herd a whole heck of a lot less.

 

[hammer2]

Yes I am sure.

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html

United States Court of Appeals​

For the First Circuit​

No. 99-1888​

AVIATORS FOR SAFE AND FAIRER REGULATION, INC.,​

Petitioner,​

v.​

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,​

Respondent.​

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF​

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION​

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,​

Circuit Judges.​

John M. Edwards with whom John C. Blessington and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief for petitioner.​

Charles W. Scarborough, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent.​

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Aviators for Safe and Fairer Regulation, Inc. ("Aviators"), is a trade association of about fifty on-demand air charter companies. It brings this case to challenge a so-called notice of enforcement policy issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") that purports to interpret, and to express its intent to enforce, a preexisting regulation governing how much rest pilots or other flight crewmembers must get between flight assignments.​

Air charter companies furnish "air taxi" service to customers on demand rather than on a scheduled basis. The FAA regulates such companies under Part 135 of its regulations, 14 C.F.R. pt. 135 (2000). The regulation at issue in this case, id. ? 135.267(d), was adopted in its current form in October 1985 and aims to ensure that pilots have adequate rest for purposes of air safety, see 49 U.S.C. ?? 40101(d), 44701(a)(4)-(5) (1994 & Supp. II 1996). It states, in relevant part, that each flight assignment to unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews "must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment." 14 C.F.R. ? 135.267(d).​

The term "rest" is not defined in the regulation. On several occasions, the FAA sought to refine the term through rulemaking but those efforts were abortive. (1) Then, on June 15, 1999, without prior notice or rulemaking proceedings, the FAA issued a "notice of enforcement policy." The notice said that it was merely reiterating the FAA's "longstanding interpretation of its regulations" concerning rest requirements and continued in pertinent part:​

[T]he FAA has consistently interpreted the term rest to mean that a flight crewmember is free from actual work from the air carrier or from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. Thus the FAA previously has determined that a flight crewmember on reserve was not at rest if the flight crewmember had a present responsibility for work in that the flight crewmember had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment.​

If I were the Captain forced to resign... FLOPS would be hearing from my lawyer. Fired for not being able to contact a crewmember who was in Required 135/91K prospective Rest? I don't think so.

.I agree with you 100%, and I don't want to get into a pissing contest. The problem seems to be with the POI . Flops operates soley 135, and I'm sure they have some sort of fatigue clause, eg can't work to tired sorry.. Going back to bed, see ya. Which if you read foot note 2, and you have to read the whole petition to get a more clear picture, we to have a right to turn down a duty assignment, wouldn't be smart but we can. We now can be considered duty-to-be-available. Which any head of a flight department can talk his ole buddy POI into hosing Mr. Aviator while on rest. You do not have to answer the phone, nor do you have to accept the assignment, that is how my 2nd grade educated mind reads this footnote---Pertinently, the FAA notice says that the crewmember must be "free . . . from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise." 64 Fed. Reg. 32176, 32176 (1999). By contrast, in the duty-to-be-available scenario, it is much less clear that the crewmember has a "present responsibility for work" since the assignment can be declined.

 

[jpilot]

The rest of the story

This Captain was "finally" fired for a bogus reason. He should have been canned some time ago with many letters in his file from other pilots who felt he was unsafe.

I hate to see anyone fired or asked to leave but from what I've been told it should have happened alot sooner.

 

[hammer2]

starting to make sense

 

[gunfyter]

Hammer,

Since he was fired... or made to resign... I would take that as Proof they can't argue he had the right to refuse the trip.....