What’s going on at United

Hengelo

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
503
Display Name

Display name:
Hengelo

A email blast from LEC150

(Council 150 is MCO)

“Members of Council 150,

We, your elected ALPA Representatives, feel it is our unfortunate responsibility to draw attention to several very concerning items. These issues have, thus far, been inadequately addressed. They pertain to the very core nature of our chosen profession. Simply put, our Safety Culture is under attack and enough is enough. We can not, in good conscience, continue to wait for our Flight Operations Management team to choose safety over anything else. While their words make for great PR, their actions have not matched those words and have directly led to the unfortunate circumstance in which we presently find ourselves. The “United Next” growth plan has seen a staggering 30% growth in just a few short years. However, that growth has come with strings attached. It has come hand in hand with an orchestrated erosion of our Safety Culture and our profession’s input into it. The FAA has similarly witnessed this and recently stepped in to take substantial action against United Airlines. We have lost the ability to approve new Line Check Pilots, issue type ratings, and have regulator-imposed restrictions on our ability to operate and grow our airline. We will also see an increased FAA presence in our daily operation. We are concerned of the damage already done, and this will be long lasting without an immediate and dramatic course reversal.

Who could’ve seen this coming?

Well, for starters, nearly every pilot. We are the ones who have “skin in the game” on every flight. We are the ones with a pulse on the operation. Our concerns have been continuously brushed aside in favor of activities such as Net Promoter Score modules in CQDL, Pilot Professional Development classes with an emphasis on Company feel-good slides, and APU policing. We’ve had these discussions on our flight decks nearly every trip, along with topics like “forced” Captain upgrades, and the continually decreasing flight experience levels of Captains, including instructors and Line Check Pilots.

Unfathomably, in the midst of our latest issues, a VP of a PR related department chastised one of our Captains via United’s “Bravo” recognition app for providing a safe and successful flight. Why? Because our Captain chose to use his time focusing on his crew, preflight duties and preparing for a safe flight, rather than coming out to the aisles to give his departure announcement. This is, in a nutshell, the root of the issues we face.

While Flight Ops Management has allegedly spoken to the individual to assure that doesn’t happen again, it is indicative of a much larger issue. This individual appeared to be less concerned about the safe operation of a flight, than whether the Captain was contributing to that flight’s NPS score, and likely this individual’s bonus.

When we were made aware of this occurrence, the indignation expressed amongst ourselves was loud and clear. Change is needed. It must come with safety as the primary, if not ONLY focus. Exampled by recent actions, Management seems inclined to continue down their path of removing pilot influence from Flight Operations. No longer do we have the SVP of Flight Ops position. Long serving Chief Pilots are leaving their offices and being replaced with Base Directors or whatever they call them now. Make no mistake, this is a prelude to further removing pilots from managing pilots. Human Resources and Labor Relations have never been as far reaching into pilot disciplinary events as they are today, sometimes bordering on harassment of our pilots.

Where does this leave us? Well, for starters, it leaves us as pilots under more scrutiny than ever before. We all need to reinvest in our Safety Culture and do so with vigor. Encourage each other on the flight decks to STOP when rushed, do your best to limit distractions. WHATEVER IT TAKES.

As professionals, we are great at what we do. None better. However, with new risks, comes a need for increased vigilance on each flight. 99.99% success is simply not good enough. Visitors on the flight deck before departure? Maybe ask the FAs to have them stop up afterwards if you’re not completely finished with your preflight duties. Self evaluate and ask if you’re truly ready to be an LCP or a new CA, or are you just chasing a paycheck? A few weeks at TK and OE will not make you ready if you aren’t already. Communicate with each other openly. Don’t skip probationary reports nor merely check the boxes with “great job”. Insist on good debriefings of appropriate items. These are key elements and tools to defend against risk and maintain a safe operation. Refocus on mentoring not just our new pilots, but each other. We are a half step away from the crisis that has been marching steadily towards us. Its now on our doorstep.

The members of your MEC are engaged with Flight Ops Management. We have provided suggestions for restoring our Safety Culture, though it ultimately remains to be seen if they are finally acted upon. The rapid execution of United Next and its promise of financial windfall has been blindly setting us up for this failure, despite our warnings to them which have previously been brushed aside. Hopefully, the FAA action will open some of their eyes and ears to the pitfalls within the changes they steadfastly pursue. Meanwhile, we all need to manage the new risk environment we operate in. The media, the FAA, and our passengers now have their attention focused upon us, the pilots of United Airlines. Every minor issue will be heavily scrutinized. Stay safe and stay out of the headlines.”
 
There's been a lot of discussion about this and other than one guy in the MCO, there doesn't seem to be anything backing up the assertions. Yes, the FAA is investigating them, but there appears to be a lot of unsubstantiated hyperbole. I got a couple of friends at the Denver tech center (there the ones who would be cut off if you couldn't issue checks and ratings).
 
Pilots bitching about the company management…seems like nothing new…then again normally not shared on a forum.
 
There's been a lot of discussion about this and other than one guy in the MCO, there doesn't seem to be anything backing up the assertions. Yes, the FAA is investigating them, but there appears to be a lot of unsubstantiated hyperbole.
Hyperbole?


I'm an outsider who has no real knowledge of the issues being raised, but it appears that something is going on with United. The recent string of issues seems unlikely to be pure coincidence.
 
The FAA investigation is clearly happening it was reported a couple of days ago, but I'm not sure it's quite as bad as the doom sayer out of the MCO LEC is making it out to be. Yeah, new routes and stuff are on hold now, but much as with the screws put to Boeing, this is likely transitory.
 
Last edited:
There’s better forums to get inside baseball in the 121 industry, but given the experience levels, turnover, and general staffing related issues across that space, I reckon there’s some loose wheels in every shop, they just haven’t made it to the public yet.
 
What common threads do you see tying the incidents together?
I have a number of thoughts on this, but without more information they are all baseless speculation. I think that it will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers.
 
Is it getting close to time to renegotiate the union contract?
 
Here is an article that compares United to the other two.


I bet you didn't know that American ran a 737 off the end of a runway in DFW due to brake failure that was due to a maintenance error.
 
And SWA’s latest on Saturday.


This one a bit bothersome because the crew had already tried it once, knew there was windshear and vis was low, yet still continued as the needles just marched off the indicator.
 
I'm curious why Republic couldn't fly the approach at RVR3500. Visibility minimums are RVR 2400 with Flight Director, which they have, to DA.

Also, autopilot coupled approaches are not authorized on this approach.
 
Could have been higher company imposed mins, like new captain, or other things.
 
Unfortunately not.......
I think the problem at Atlas was their inability to get, and keep, pilots of any any race or gender, not DEI hiring practices.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding of what UAL's CEO said. The 50% goal is for the Aviate Academy, which is a flight school in Arizona, not UAL new-hire classes. They are trying to increase the number of qualified women and persons-of-color applicants by providing Private through CFI training then multiple pathways to gain the experience they'll need to become qualified for UAL. UAL's new-hire classes are still predominantly white males.
 
I think the problem at Atlas was their inability to get, and keep, pilots of any any race or gender, not DEI hiring practices.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding of what UAL's CEO said. The 50% goal is for the Aviate Academy, which is a flight school in Arizona, not UAL new-hire classes. They are trying to increase the number of qualified women and persons-of-color applicants by providing Private through CFI training then multiple pathways to gain the experience they'll need to become qualified for UAL. UAL's new-hire classes are still predominantly white males.
Why do they want to increase the number of any given demographic? Shouldn't the goal to be to attract the most qualified candidates who are the most likely to become capable pilots?
 
Why do they want to increase the number of any given demographic? Shouldn't the goal to be to attract the most qualified candidates who are the most likely to become capable pilots?

How do you determine who is the most qualified to be a capable pilot when someone has zero flying experience?
 
How do you determine who is the most qualified to be a capable pilot when someone has zero flying experience?
I'm not a qualified expert in pilot trainee selection, so I can't say what the best selection criteria are for assessing potential piloting capability (aside from the obvious basic medical and intelligence criteria).

However, as someone who has hired a whole lot of technical staff over many years, I'm fairly certain that demographic metrics are not a reliable indicator of anything other than those demographics.

IMO, the quickest way to move beyond prejudicial employment practices permanently is to leave them out of the process entirely, from start to finish.
 
I think the problem at Atlas was their inability to get, and keep, pilots of any any race or gender, not DEI hiring practices.

Apparently that particular pilot was quitted out of Atlas training, sued for discrimination, and was given a second chance to complete the course.
 
I see.

So trying to attract more people to start flying that are in underrepresented demographics is bad?
Bias and/or discrimination that targets anything other than ability to do the job is both bad and counter-productive.

Tell me, would it be useful to evaluate someone's ability to shoot a basketball free throw as a selector for a ATP pilot's position? Is that any more or less relevant to piloting than their gender or skin color?
 
IMO, the quickest way to move beyond prejudicial employment practices permanently is to leave them out of the process entirely, from start to finish.

Hiring anyone based on anything other than their qualifications is absolutely ridiculous, especially for something as critical as pilots. Ron Schneider has a pretty good bit on this.

I’d love to see the gender and race section go away completely on all apps. I have a friend who applied twice to a particular airline, got the call when he put down non-binary…..
 
Why do they want to increase the number of any given demographic? Shouldn't the goal to be to attract the most qualified candidates who are the most likely to become capable pilots?
They are trying to create more qualified, capable pilots with the Aviate Academy because there are not enough in the pipeline to meet the aggressive growth plans. Nothing in what they are doing changes the hiring or training criteria.
 
Bias and/or discrimination that targets anything other than ability to do the job is both bad and counter-productive.

Tell me, would it be useful to evaluate someone's ability to shoot a basketball free throw as a selector for a ATP pilot's position? Is that any more or less relevant to piloting than their gender or skin color?

You do realize that Aviate is a flight school, right? Like, a money making proposition? And trying to increase your customer base is good for business?
 
You do realize that Aviate is a flight school, right? Like, a money making proposition? And trying to increase your customer base is good for business?
So, how would you feel if they publicly stated that they aren't getting enough white males from middle-class, college educated backgrounds? Would it be OK for them to specifically target that demographic? Why or why not?
 
So, how would you feel if they publicly stated that they aren't getting enough white males from middle-class, college educated backgrounds? Would it be OK for them to specifically target that demographic? Why or why not?

Sure, no prob. It's called marketing towards a demographic to increase their customer base.

Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind about this, so I will defer to the same answer I give my wife we are at an impasse, and that is "yes dear".
 
Hiring anyone based on anything other than their qualifications is absolutely ridiculous, especially for something as critical as pilots. Ron Schneider has a pretty good bit on this.

I’d love to see the gender and race section go away completely on all apps. I have a friend who applied twice to a particular airline, got the call when he put down non-binary…..
It’s not about hiring the qualified candidate. It’s more about enlarging the candidate pool and giving opportunity to people who don’t necessarily have the access to reach the traditional pipeline, which is most often determined by a modicum of family wealth.

This is seen a lot in youth sports, where the top-tier club teams are usually made up of not necessarily the best natural athletes, but those who had access to the pipeline, the coaches, the training, etc. for a decade or more, which helped them become good.

Parental wealth (which is often required for travel, coaches, equipment, extra training, flexibility of transportation, and time off work) is almost the sole driver of the “candidates” seen, not necessarily broader talent. But by the time the athletes reach the point where they’re going to be “hired” (or play college ball, etc), they’re way beyond the people who didn’t have access. However, there are clubs that get donations, grants, etc, and have a mission that caters to broadening access to athletes who don’t have the means or receive the outreach, which is more analogous to what we’re talking about here.
 
They currently have 90% of their pilots from 60% of the population. If they can expand the pool to a much higher percentage, there are hundreds of thousands more people who are legitimate candidates for pilot training, but have very likely never been reached out to in any way to consider flying. All they’re doing is increasing the candidate pool.
 
Back
Top