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.....

 

[hammer2]

Good point. I think it would then hold up in court,if you had the money and time. but this will continue until 135 mirrors 91k. Does anybody know when this will happen? I'm looking foward to finally understanding and enjoying rest.

 

[400pilot]

As luck would have it, I witnessed this unfold. I was riding in the Atlantic van when the fired pilot was picked up from his hotel. He was pretty pissed off at the time, and for good reason. Here is what happened (according to him):

1. They were assigned a duty-on period of 1000 local at the FBO for a 1330 trip.
2. The captain said that they discussed it between them and decided to go out around 1200 because the plane was already fueled and ready. They could be airborne shortly if they had too.
3. Just after 1000, dispatch called and assigned them a recovery trip. He then tried to get ahold of his copilot (who was actually another captain), but was unable to. He called his room, called his cell, went to his room, etc.
4. The captain went out to the airport to get the plane ready. The ended up leaving around 1330 on their original trip.

The captain was definitely not for the union. He referred to the other captain as "one of these hard-core union guys who won't answer his phone" and complained about the practice because we "are a charter outfit, not an airline."

At Options, we are not required to answer our phone before the duty-on period, and a majority of us do not. This, according to scheduling, is why they put us on duty at the FBO. They were supposed to be on duty at the FBO and were not.

 

[Diesel]

That explains it. They were supposed to be on duty at the fbo but they weren't. Figuring they could be airborn in 15 min and might as well stay at the hotel.

That makes a lot more sense. Still interesting story though because they didn't go after the FO.... he wasn't at the airport either. I think this was the straw that broke the camels back. Of what I don't know.

Where is NJW's card when you need it?

 

[gunfyter]

Thats a horse of a different color. Knew there had to be more...

 

[jetwash]

I heard the same about the Captain before this happened but needed someone else to verify it.
I am am not saying it is true but there has been some talking going around for a while. I was also told he was fond of OT when others were not doing it.


It looks management is out to weed out a few higher paid pilots.

 

[Phoenix]

The Rest Of The Story

As luck would have it, I witnessed this unfold. I was riding in the Atlantic van when the fired pilot was picked up from his hotel. He was pretty pissed off at the time, and for good reason. Here is what happened (according to him):

1. They were assigned a duty-on period of 1000 local at the FBO for a 1330 trip.
2. The captain said that they discussed it between them and decided to go out around 1200 because the plane was already fueled and ready. They could be airborne shortly if they had too.
3. Just after 1000, dispatch called and assigned them a recovery trip. He then tried to get ahold of his copilot (who was actually another captain), but was unable to. He called his room, called his cell, went to his room, etc.
4. The captain went out to the airport to get the plane ready. The ended up leaving around 1330 on their original trip.

The captain was definitely not for the union. He referred to the other captain as "one of these hard-core union guys who won't answer his phone" and complained about the practice because we "are a charter outfit, not an airline."

At Options, we are not required to answer our phone before the duty-on period, and a majority of us do not. This, according to scheduling, is why they put us on duty at the FBO. They were supposed to be on duty at the FBO and were not.

Most of this is accurate but there are a couple of other facts that have been missed.

This all happened on the change form Daylight Savings Time. The PIC miscalculated the correct duty on time and extrapolated 1100 local from the duty on time given in Zulu. It actually was a 1000 duty on as stated above.

Now the sequence of event that lead to the problem is as follows

Duty on time as sent by OCC 1000 local duty on.
First scheduled flight was 1330 local
PIC miscalculates duty on time as 1100 local.
PIC, without approval changes hotel departure time to 1200 local
OCC calls PIC at 0930 local with recovery trip
PIC answers phone and accepts flight without contacting SIC
PIC is unable to contact SIC and proceeds to the airport.
SIC shows is in lobby of hotel at 1200 local to go to airport
SIC turns on phone and sees calls and emails from PIC
SIC proceeds to airport
SIC arrives at airport at 1230 local
OCC cancels recovery flight and reverts back to original schedule

What could have prevented the whole cluster****.

1. PIC accurately calculate duty on time
2. PIC not change without approval show time
3.PIC not answer his phone while in rest

Simple, had PIC just done as the union has asked all of our pilots to do none of this would have happened. While I do not think that this event in and of itself rose to the level of dismissal, there were other factors in the pilots history that came into play. Had we a grievance and System Board in place he would have retained his job. Until we are successful in our pursuit of a contract we are all at will employees.

I spoke to the SIC and he was not gloating or exhibiting any other despicable behavior regarding the entire incident. To the contrary, he was very sorry that this pilots had been asked to resign. Regardless of what "KSU" says this was not the fault of the SIC, he did exactly what he was expected and instructed to do.

Now You Know The Rest Of The Story.

 

[Ultra Grump]

Regardless of what "KSU" says this was not the fault of the SIC, he did exactly what he was expected and instructed to do.

Except for being contactable from the scheduled duty-on time of 1000L.

 

[Phoenix]

Except for being contactable from the scheduled duty-on time of 1000L.

What you missed was that the PIC had incorrectly told the SIC that the duty on time was 1100 local.

 

[Diesel]

Do SIC's not get their own brief on their pagers?

 

[FR8DOG777]

Do SIC's not get their own brief on their pagers?

Yes provided it isn't broken for the last 3 months. The turn around time for the piece of equipment that our company wants to rely solely on for communication is sub par.

 

[Ultra Grump]

What you missed was that the PIC had incorrectly told the SIC that the duty on time was 1100 local.

Actually, I didn't miss that. a) He has his own pager and brief, correct? b) That doesn't explain his being uncontactable at 1100L, does it? Why did he show up at the hotel lobby at 1200L and only then turn on his phone to see the calls and emails?

The SIC is not blameless in this.

 

[dime line]

But at the end of the day he was fired for this. I remember a couple of Legacy Pilots taxing into another Legacy (about 5ft of wing into the tail of the other one), and 10million later for a new wing, PIC busted to Sic for a while and poof still here.

So the crime doesnt fit the punishment

 

[Rubber Ducky]

crew rot firing

Now that they've fired one of us for not showing up at the fbo for our punishment crew rot stby at fbo duty, I guess they'll have to fire the other 730 of us.

 

[ToTheStars]

The OCC should not be able to put a trip on an aircraft until both the PIC & SIC accept the trip.

Two green lights. If they haven't been accepted by both pilots, the OCC should call the pilot that has not accepted the trip.

It's about time the OCC used the system correctly and quit putting the burden of hunting down the SIC on the PIC.

Now with all that said, the program managers don't can a good pilot for one such event. At least the good ones don't. Usually there is a pattern of bad behavior.

 

[XShipRider]

But at the end of the day he was fired for this. I remember a couple of Legacy Pilots taxing into another Legacy (about 5ft of wing into the tail of the other one), and 10million later for a new wing, PIC busted to Sic for a while and poof still here.

So the crime doesnt fit the punishment

It was a female. FLOPs probably didn't want the wrongful term' suit brought
by a female. Bad publicity and all that rot.

This event happened shortly after my impromptu departure from FLOPs.
There was talk then that she must have had pic's of exec's with small
farm animals*.

*Posted for humorous intent only. No reference to persons living or dead intended. No
animals were harmed in the creation of this post.