Railway Labor Act Blog

Delta folds when its bluff is called

Delta Airlines announced over the weekend that it refused an offer from the Association of Flight Attendants for an immediate election under the proposed ballot rule pending from the NMB.  Delta refused, arguing that it wanted the election held under the “same standard” used for all employees.

Hmm, Delta has been clamoring for months for an immediate election.  When AFA offers one, under the rule proposed by the NMB that, unless cause is shown to alter it, will be adopted after the close of the comment period, Delta balks.  Now it seems the “immediate election” has to happen under the rule Delta wants.  It claims the “same rule” should apply to the Delta flight attendants.  Well, the proposed rule will be the “same rule” unless the NMB for some reason finds cause to abandon it.  (FYI, the proposed rule is appropriate, within the NMB’s authority under the RLA and should be adopted.)

So, it seems that Delta either wants the election now or it wants to use the same rule.  Both sides should just wait until the “same rule” is in place next year, I guess.

Delta pilots appeal license revocations

The two Delta Airlines pilots whose licenses were summarily revoked by the FAA following an incident in October in which the pilot did not respond to repeated radio contacts from air traffic control have appealed the license revocations.  The crewmembers assert they were distracted by use of their personal laptops in flight to review Delta’s new scheduling program and did not account for an early arrival in Minneapolis created by heavy tail winds from Denver, CO.

The WSJ notes that the pilots are “at odds” over “blame” for the incident.  The first officer on the flight has appealed, in part, based on an argument that the captain did not adequately command the aircraft.   The captain’s appeal makes no mention of  responsibility on the part of the first officer. That isn’t “at odds over blame”, though, and really just shows that the WSJ reporter doesn’t understand command responsibility among pilots.

The captain of an aircraft is the “pilot-in-command”, according to FAA regulations.  That means the captain is responsible for compliance with FAA regulations and the airline’s flight operations manual during flight.  The captain cannot delegate that responsibility, even when, as for example during long international flights, he leaves the flight deck for a time.  (Another pilot will then share the PIC duties, but the overall PIC isn’t relieved of responsibility unless he’s not on duty. Even then, the FAA may contend the PIC responsibility remains.)

So the FO’s appeal simply makes the point that he was not PIC.  That’s obviously true.  But whether that makes a difference from the FAA’s standpoint is another matter.  I suspect the FAA will take the view that when it comes to obvious infractions of FAA regulations or unsafe conditions, a first officer cannot simply defer to the captain.  (That was one of the crew management innovations that came about in the 1980’s following the Air Florida crash in Washington, DC.)

Of course, the FAA’s summary revocation of these pilots’ licenses stands in stark contrast to the  FAA’s slap-0n-the-wrist to American Airlines after the FAA discovered years-long regulatory violations by American in using uncertified subcontractors to repair their aircraft.  Then the FAA (with Wall Street Journal’s hearty endorsement, by the way) considered the violation as “technical” that didn’t actually endanger passenger safety.

Well, guess what, neither did the pilots’ lapse in this instance.  The passengers on the aircraft were never in danger.  The aircraft was in autopilot and, while it deviated from its flight plan, there was never an operational problem with the aircraft.  And don’t say, “something could’ve happened.”  Something could’ve happened to AA’s uncertified parts as well; but the FAA decided based on what actually happened–that the parts technically complied with FAA requirements although they weren’t authorized to be used.

(The argument made by some, that NORAD was about to scramble fighters, says much more about the stupid and irrational security state in which we now live.  Much as does the meaningless circus at TSA lines throughout our airports.  If that is the basis of creating a danger for passengers–one from their own government–it doesn’t pass the laugh test.)

If AA’s repeated, deliberate and years-long violations did not merit any actual suspension from operations, why do these pilots merit immediate and permanent revocation, particularly when neither incident involved “actual danger” to the safety of passengers?

I won’t assert an opinion about the propriety of imposing discipline of some form on the pilots., revocation or otherwise.  The information put in the media is obviously very troubling concerning their level of attention to duties in-flight.  But all the facts are not in the media, making a certain judgment by outsiders unreliable.  Unfortunately, Commissioner Babbitt acted so quickly it raises the question of whether the disciplinary action had as much to do with assuaging the public as rationally judging the incident.  The NTSB appeal process will allow some reasoned consideration on the propriety of the FAA action, at least.

P.S. You might wonder why I call the pilots “Delta pilots” while the WSJ (ever the compliant corporate voice) calls them “Northwest pilots”, but refers to Delta as the company suspending them.  The reason is simple, the DAL and NWA pilots are integrated under one contract and one seniority list.  While Delta may still be operating the Northwest operating certificate, the pilots were found months before this incident (at the request of ALPA and Delta) to be one pilot group for union representation purposes.

That means the use of “Northwest pilots” for purposes of describing the incident, but “Delta Airlines” for purposes of the discipline imposed on them is just phoney PR BS by Delta.  (Since “Northwest” is eventually going away as a trade name.)  And I don’t do BS, PR or otherwise.

Richard Anderson goes to “Rick’s Place”

The executives at Delta Airlines in Atlanta are becoming positively unglued.  For months, Richard Anderson and other execs have complained that the Association of Flight Attendants and International Association of Mechanics weren’t agreeing to conduct a union election by the National Mediation Board among the combined Delta/Northwest flight attendants and ground employees. In the Fall, both the AFA and IAM filed with the NMB to have an election conducted among the combined employees (for flight attendant and ground service employees, respectively.)

Then, the National Mediation Board announced a proposed rule to change its ballot procedures to use the same simple majority of voters standard used in all other elections in our country.  The current NMB rule requires a union to get a majority of all potential voters (as opposed to those actually voting), and has the effect of requiring a union to get a “super-majority” of votes.  The proposed rule is subject to a 60-day comment period with a potential adoption early next year.

Anticipating the NMB proposed rule change, both AFA and IAM withdrew their applications for elections so that they could potentially occur under a more favorable ballot rule.  That withdrawal is permissible under the NMB procedures.  No special permission was required from the NMB for the unions to withdraw the requests.

Then Delta’s execs lost it.

CEO Richard Anderson attacked the Mediation Board directly because it wasn’t jumping quickly enough to do the company’s bidding in holding an election among Delta employees.

Then, after AFA and IAM withdrew their applications for election as allowed under Board procedures, Delta Labor Relations V-P Mike Campbell lost his composure and attacked the IAM:

“The IAM’s action is repugnant, and is nothing more than the continuation of a pattern of stalling resolution of union representation among our work groups. The IAM communicated to Delta employees in early August that it could file for elections for the remaining 20,000 employees ‘within weeks.’ Now, months later, and on the one-year anniversary of our merger, the IAM instead withdraws its application claiming that we are not a single carrier.”

“Repugnant”?  Get a grip.

This is from the same airline (and Labor V-P) who earlier this year defied decades of NMB precedent and tried to manipulate a filing by ALPA (the union of its pilots) to railroad its mechanics, flight attendants and ground employees (not represented by ALPA) out of their right to select a union.  Delta asked the NMB to call elections in those other employee groups even though no union had filed for election and Delta is not permitted under the law to request one.

Delta complaining about manipulation of election procedures reminds one of that shopworn movie line from Casablanca where Claude Rains says he’s “shocked, shocked” that gambling is going on in Rick’s place.

The AFA and IAM used the rules permitted by the NMB to withdraw their applications for election among Delta employees in the hopes of getting a more favorable election rule.  Nothing untoward or unusual about that.  They didn’t require any special permission from the NMB.

Delta on the other hand wanted the Board in January 2009 (which at that time had a Republican majority) to ignore its rules (and the law) and order elections for employee groups who hadn’t asked for them.

“Repugnant”, indeed.

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Study unable to gauge effect of pilot age 65 rule change

Updating earlier posts, the New York Times reported that a recent federal study concluded it had insufficient information to determine the effect on air operations from the December 2007 change in the mandatory retirement age for pilots from age 60 to age 65.  The GAO recommended further study, “It would be prudent and informative to the F.A.A.  and the pilots’ union and the flying public to be able to, at an appropriate time, do an analysis that could be more definitive,” stated its spokesman.

As I noted in this earlier post following the in-flight death of an age 60 Continental Airlines pilot, there doesn’t appear to be statistical evidence supporting a conclusion that people over age 60 have a higher incidence of sudden death.  I’m not surprised GAO found insufficient data at this point.  FAA has not stated if it will develop new reporting requirements targeted to identifying operational performance by pilots over age 60.

Commuter Airlines: Questions of Safety

Andy Pasztor and Susan Carey write in the Wall Street Journal on safety questions surrounding commuter airlines.  They write:

A string of commuter-airline accidents in recent years has put these carriers and their pilots in the spotlight. A February crash near Buffalo, N.Y., took 50 lives after a pilot evidently tried to override an automatic safety feature. In 2006, another commuter-airline plane crashed on takeoff from Lexington, Ky., when the pilots chose the wrong runway, costing 49 lives. In all, seven of the last eight U.S. airliner crashes that resulted in passenger fatalities involved these smaller carriers.

The government mandated a single level of safety across the aviation industry in 1997. Yet lapses, from running low on fuel to letting planes go nearly into a stall, continue to occur significantly more often with the turboprops and small jets of commuter airlines than with the major carriers flying big jetliners.

The commuter airlines, their regulators and even Congress are working on a range of initiatives to turn this around. A key part of the task is figuring out what led to the dismal record. One thing that stands out: Some of the most difficult routes and grueling schedules are flown by pilots with the least experience and training.

Behind that, in turn, are economic pressures, especially a move by major airlines to outsource more flying to carriers with smaller planes and lower costs. Last year, commuter airlines — also called regional airlines — handled 159 million U.S. passengers, up from 82 million in 2001. They flew half of domestic airline flights, carrying one in four U.S. passengers.

Read more here.

Pilot careers caught in downdraft

Susan Carey of the Wall Street Journal reports on the lower career expectations of many new pilots.  Low pay, poor hours and a large amount of debt from flight school training cause some to question their career choice.

Regional airlines thrive as major airlines cut service

USA Today’s David Grossman writes on the expansion of air service by “regional carriers” (almost none of which are actually “regional” anymore) as major airlines cut back service.

Recent pilot incidents exaggerate effects

The USA Today blogs about recent safety incidents involving pilots, including the United pilot caught over the alcohol limit in the cockpit.  It notes the very rare occurrence of such incidents, however.

Execs nest their eggs as employee pensions get gutted

CBS News reports on the pricey pension package enjoyed by executives at companies where employee lost pensions.  Three United executives are featured among the execs.

CEO Glenn Tilton, CFO Frederic Brace and COO Peter McDonald together got $7.6 million worth of retirement benefits in four years – from 2002 to 2006 – and earned a combined $55.5 million compensation, with perks like a car and driver and country club memberships.

United: “Mergers can work”

TheStreet.com reports on UAL President Tague’s most recent speech advocating in favor of mergers.  He argues that the Delta/Northwest merger shows that mergers can be successful in the airline industry.

The jury is still out, however.  Three years ago people were singing Doug Parker’s praises for the US Airways/America West merger.  Today, not so much.

And perhaps in a hopeful sign for United, Continental President Jeff Smisek (who will become CEO in January) stated that Continental may consider again a merger with United based on the outcome o9 the Delta/Northwest merger.

The standard Tague and Smisek apply may differ though. He noted that while Delta has gotten bigger, “they haven’t gotten profitable.”  Oh, that matters?