US Airways pilots sue for unified contract

Tired of waiting and waiting, and then waiting some more, pilots at US Airways have filed suit to stop the company from integrating the operations of its predecessor companies -- the 'old' US Airways, and America West Airlines -- until a single, fair, unified contract is negotiated for its two pilot unions. A new contract would cover wages, seniority and work rules.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia earlier this week. The union contends that it is illegal to merge the airlines until a single contract is reached between both pilot groups, as is required under the Railway Labor Act and an agreement reached by the parties in September 2005.

An ALPA news release about this matter says:

US Airways plans this weekend to eliminate America West's HP designator code from reservation systems, which means that all flights will be listed as a US Airways flight. The code elimination is in violation of the Transition Agreement negotiated with the two pilot groups that promised that the two airlines would remain separated until a single pilot collective bargaining agreement is reached.

The parties have been negotiating for a year and a half, but US Airways management is continuing to pass bankruptcy-era proposals that ignore the investment that the pilots made in order to keep their airline viable after 9/11. Until a single agreement is reached, the company must operate both airlines separately. Instead, management apparently is trying to reap the benefits of the merger without fulfilling their promise to first get a single, fair pilot contract.

ALPA contends that US Airways is violating their obligation to negotiate a single agreement and asks that the status quo be maintained until then.

"US Airways wants desperately for our pilots to look like, dress like, and act like they work for a merged airline. However, the only road to a real merged airline is through a single contract," said US Airways Master Executive Council Chairman Captain Jack Stephan. "Our pilot group will not tolerate management attaining synergies they haven't paid for or negotiated. Like our passengers, we are frustrated dealing with management’s empty promises and their reluctance to properly merge our airline."

"US Airways continues to drag the merger process on and on, to the detriment of our passengers and our employees," said America West Master Executive Council Chairman Captain John McIlvenna. "Instead of focusing on productive negotiations, management is trying to grab operational efficiencies they can't legally have. Until the America West and US Airways pilots have a fair, single contract, we are far from being one airline."

A Reuters article about the lawsuit, published on CNN Money, quotes US Airways officials who said that the change [in designator code] "was for marketing purposes only but would have no effect on operations - old America West crews would continue to work old America West aircraft and old US Airways crews would fly old US Airways planes."

Wow! Does that statement totally miss the point, or what?!

UPDATE Mar. 3, 2007: A U.S. District Court judge threw out the pilots' complaint at a hearing yesterday, saying that it was "a minor dispute that should be addressed in binding arbitration, not in court." [CNN Money]

Cracked windshields at DIA caused by very fine FOD?

Remember the mysterious event last month when the windshields of more than a dozen aircraft cracked on the same stormy day in Denver? At the time, airport officials said that the cause was "baffling." Now an article in the Denver Post says that 'fine particles' cracked those windshields.

The damaged aircraft belonged to SkyWest, Frontier, and Great Lakes airlines. Six of the planes developed cracks in their windshields during takeoff. One windshield cracked after landing, and two more happened during taxi. Three parked aircraft sustained windshield cracks as well, and one windshield cracked during pushback. One aircraft developed the problem in flight, at 19,000 feet.

It was cold, snowy, and very windy that day. Winds were gusting up to 48mph during the three-hour period when the windshields cracked. NTSB investigator Jennifer Kaiser said that "The only commonality across aircraft type, operator, location, time and phase of flight was the wind and weather."

The Denver Post says:

Cracked windshields on 14 planes at Denver International Airport were caused by "foreign object debris," air safety investigators said Tuesday.

Microscopic analysis of the 21 front and side windshields cracked during a storm revealed fine particles causing pitting that in turn caused cracking, National Transportation Safety Board investigator Jennifer Kaiser said. Only the outer layer of the triple-layer windshields cracked and none of the planes declared emergencies.

Flying sand? Ice pellets? We still don't know. The exact nature of the debris was unable to be determined by investigators.

The age of the glamorous stewardess

If the photo at right catches your eye, you might want to have a look at The Glamour of Flight, a post in blog called Dark Roasted Blend. Blogger Avi Abrams has put together a collection of old photos of cabin crew from the days when everyone everywhere called them 'stewardesses.'

Most of the photos are familiar promotional photos from the likes of PSA and Braniff: mini-skirted and Pucci-clad women posing on or near the aircraft they worked on. A few were new to me. All are a significant part of commercial aviation history -- for better or worse!

Avi says, "There was something in the air in the early years of commercial aviation. Perhaps more excitement, perhaps more glamorous stewardesses... in any case, it's worth savoring once again."

Click here to view The Glamour of Flight.

[Photo Source]

Indonesia wants to ban older airliners

Following a recent string of aviation accidents -- most notably the New Year's Day loss of Adam Air Flight 574, and the more recent damage to another Adam Air plane after a hard landing -- Indonesia is planning to ban local carriers from flying passenger planes that are more than 10 years old. The age limit is intended to improve commercial aviation safety in Indonesia, according to the Indonesian national news agency, Antara.

A Reuters article about this move quotes Indonesia's Transport Minister, Hatta Rajasa, who said, "Our commercial aircraft are 20 years old. We will modernize, rejuvenate our aircraft by enacting an age limit on aircraft of 10 years old." Hatta said that currently the age limit was 35 years or 70,000 landings, Antara reported.

Interestingly, an article published in the International Herald Tribune, and elsewhere, says that the current age limit for planes in Indonesia is 20 years.

It's a little unclear how the new limit on aircraft age would be applied, since Hatta also said that at the time of leasing the plane should be no more than 10 years old, according to Antara. Does that mean that a plane that is, say, 8 years old at the time of leasing will only be allowed to fly for two years? If so, Indonesian carriers will have to start spending a lot more money to acquire much newer planes.

In any case, it's odd that the age of the plane, per se, is being emphasized, rather than the number of cycles (takeoffs and landings) -- usually considered to be a better measure of aircraft 'age.' Perhaps something was 'lost in translation' here between what was first published by Antara and what was published in the English language press?

Perhaps an even more important issue than aircraft age is the quality and frequency of the maintenance performed on airliners. In the end, modernizing and improving maintenance facilities and practices in Indonesia may be a better solution for improving safety than merely modernizing country's commercial airliner fleet.

Pakistani Supreme Court backs older cabin crew

Earlier this month, the Pakistani Supreme Court told Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) to recall 73 women cabin crew who had been suspended "on the grounds that they needed to lose weight and improve their English language skills."

According to an article in the Pakistani publication The Daily Times, six women cabin crew had asked the Court to intervene after PIA management forced them to retire because of their “dull and poor appearance, scars on the face, gap in front teeth and the age factor affecting their looks.” The women asked the chief justice to direct the airlines to renounce the “insulting remarks” and recall them to their duties.

Apparently Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry agreed with the women that their dismissal constituted discrimination. He said that their services should not be terminated for the reasons mentioned in the notices. Chief Justice Chaudhry directed PIA Chairman Tariq Kirmani to explain the “derogatory and insulting” treatment of the women staff by the corporation.

This case exemplifies the kind of age discrimination faced by cabin crew in many places, when airline managements seek to actively recruit younger (and thinner) flight attendants while looking for ways to nudge out older crew. But let's not forget that age and appearance are not the only reasons why this happens. There also is an important economic factor for the airlines. Simply put, the younger, less experienced crew can be paid less.

This surely was an underlying factor in the PIA case. The women's suit noted that PIA was hiring women from Japan, Thailand, Kenya, Russia and Greece in their place, and paying them a fraction of the salary the older crew earned before they were forced to retire.

Lesson: One way or another, it's always about money!

ALPA's 'Blue Ribbon Panel on Pilot Retirement'

Last month, the FAA proposed to change the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots in the U.S. from 60 to 65. As a next step in the legal process, the FAA will publish a 'notice of proposed rulemaking' (NPRM) later this year to amend the so-called  Age60 Rule.

In early February, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) announced that they would form a 'Blue Ribbon Panel' to study the issue and formulate a response to the FAA proposal. A news release on the ALPA website names Capt. Chris Beebe as chairman of the ALPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Pilot Retirement. Six other pilots were named to serve as members of the panel.

The ALPA news release states that the mission of the ALPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Pilot Retirement is to study the long-range effects of potential changes to the FAA Age 60 Rule and to identify issues connected to possible changes to pilot mandatory retirement age. In particular, they will focus on:

• ensuring that ALPA plays a strong role in shaping the future of pilot retirement
• preserving the credibility and effectiveness of ALPA as a public advocate
• building consensus on the issues connected to possible changes to the mandatory retirement age among members of ALPA to the greatest degree possible

"This topic has the keen interest of every airline pilot in the United States," said ALPA's president, Capt. John Prater. "While ALPA's official policy supports the current rule, the fact that the FAA is proposing rulemaking requires serious deliberation.

"Because the rule is likely to change with or without ALPA involvement, our union must use its considerable influence to help shape the final rule to protect our members' interests," Prater continued. "To influence the rule, we need to gather all of the facts about the subject, educate pilot leaders and members about the implications of the pending FAA NPRM, and receive direction from ALPA's governing bodies on how the union should proceed on this important issue."

Great biz-jet video

Someone did a good job of putting together this video on YouTube. Can anyone confirm that all of the aircraft types shown here are actually flown by NetJets?

Three-plane incident at MEM

A report from Memphis newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, republished on Airport Business, tells of a series of errors that caused three planes to land too close together in rapid succession last Tuesday. The separation rules that air-traffic controllers are charged with maintaining apparently were compromised.

According to the news article, this is what happened:

The string of events started shortly after noon when FedEx flight 881 approached for a landing on the center runway.

While still in the air, the pilot reported an auto throttle problem to the tower, which required the plane to slow faster than usual.

When that happened, the plane coming in behind it, a regional jet operated by Pinnacle Airlines, broke the 5 miles of separation the FAA mandates between heavy and small jets.

The FedEx pilot aborted the landing and flew around to try again. As it approached the runway for the second time, the separation between it and another FedEx plane at an adjacent runway was compromised.

"The diagonal separation between those planes should have been 1.5 miles. But because flight 881 again reduced its speed, the separation was reduced to 1.38 miles," [FAA spokeswoman Kathleen] Bergen said.

As both FedEx planes were preparing to land, another regional jet operated by Pinnacle was approaching for landing.

Its 5-mile separation was reduced to 4.86 miles.

"In all three of the operational errors, we had more than 95 percent of the required separation. But our job is not to have loss of any," said Peter Suflaw, head of the air-traffic control union at the tower.