Don't blame the flight attendants...

...and don't tick them off, either!

I don't know how many readers of Aircrew Buzz also are regular viewers of CNBC, the cable TV business news channel. Those who do not watch CNBC -- and in particular the morning show called Squawk on the Street -- might not be aware of the the small firestorm that erupted last Friday morning over some disparaging comments made on the air about flight attendants.

The commentators on Squawk on the Street were discussing the on-board 'a la carte' beverage sales program just launched by US Airways. Under the new plan, passengers must pay for all beverages served, including soft drinks, coffee and tea. Near the end of their discussion, CNBC's Mark Haines and David Faber engaged in what appeared to be unscripted banter that included condescending remarks about flight attendants.

Here is the link to the video clip of the offending broadcast on CNBC on Aug. 1, 2008.

Many flight attendants, including some from US Airways, did see and hear the broadcast. So did officials at the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), the union that represents them. As one person from AFA told me, "Feathers were ruffled." Trust me when I say, that is an understatement!

The leadership of AFA's US Airways Master Executive Council (MEC) promptly circulated the link to the video clip, along with the email addresses of the CNBC reporters whose off-the-cuff comments had drawn the flight attendants' ire, and posted the information on the MEC website as well. Apparently the response generated over the past several days was significant: the firestorm grew as large numbers of flight attendants, from US Airways as well as other airlines, sent emails to CNBC in protest.

This morning CNBC ran another segment about this issue. To his credit, CNBC's David Faber apologized on the air for his comments last Friday. He also gave Mike Flores, President of AFA's US Airways MEC, an opportunity to explain the flight attendants' point of view about the airline's a la carte on-board sale of beverages, which they oppose. Faber and Flores also discussed flight attendants' general frustration with the current state of the airline industry, and in particular, the difficulties entailed in their constantly having to apologize to passengers for the reduction in services they have available to offer (among other things).

Here is the link to the video clip of the follow-up broadcast on CNBC on Aug. 5, 2008.

For the record, flight attendants at US Airways and America West are not in favor of the new a la carte on-board sale of beverages, and they have made their reasons clear in a press release issued by AFA the day before the program was launched. In the union's press release, the flight attendants state that they are "adamantly opposed to this unprecedented decision due to lack of proper planning and poor notification to passengers."

P.S. to CNBC - I noticed that, although the story discussed on the air was about US Airways, the title on the web page for the Aug. 1, 2008 video clip reads, "Another Great Airline Idea - United Airlines will charge for in-flight beverages, with CNBC's Erin Burnett & David Faber" (emphasis added by me). Please -- let's not give any ideas to UAL.

Boeing delivers first 737-700 with carbon brakes to Delta

A Boeing Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft was delivered to Delta Air Lines last week -- the first of 10 aircraft of that type that Delta has on order from Boeing. The new aircraft is the first of its type to have carbon brakes, rather than the older style steel brakes. Boeing announced that it earned certification last week from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for the new carbon brakes designed for the Next-Generation 737. The brakes are supplied by Messier-Bugatti.

Carbon brakes weigh 700 pounds (320 kg) less than high-capacity steel brakes for Next-Generation 737-700, -800 and -900ER (Extended Range) airplanes; and 550 pounds (250 kg) less than standard-capacity steel brakes for Next-Generation 737-600s and -700s. According to Boeing, their reduced weight contributes to reductions in associated fuel burn and CO2 emissions, depending on airline operations. The combination of lighter-weight carbon brakes with drag- and emissions-reducing Blended Winglets on Next Generation 737s is expected to improve operating and fuel efficiency simultaneously.

[Photo Source]

Airbus A380 requires new 'super' wake separation category

Now that the new Airbus A380 'superjumbo' aircraft has begun to fly in U.S. airspace, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) has issued an Operations Bulletin to inform pilots about the new wake separation category that the world's largest airliner has ushered in, requiring separation greater than that required behind the 'heavy' category.

Operations Bulletin 2008-05 issued by ALPA on August 1, 2008, notes that A380 pilots will use the designation 'super' after their call sign while in the airport terminal area. Air traffic controllers will not be allowed to apply visual separation standards to any aircraft following an A380 and will not issue a visual approach to the pilots of any aircraft following an A380.

The FAA separation standards for aircraft following an A380 are:

• En route: Small, large, and heavy behind an A380 - 5 miles
• Terminal: Small, large, and heavy behind an A380 - 10, 8, and 6 miles respectively

The ALPA bulletin points out that movement of the A380 both on the ground and within the terminal area may result in significant delays.

Pilots should report wake turbulence encounters involving any aircraft by filling out a NASA ASRS form and/or via their airline's Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP).

Emirates Airline began scheduled Airbus A380 service to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) on August 1. Other airlines are expected to begin A380 service to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) in the near future.

The Economic Realities of Flight Attendants' Jobs

Among the present day realities for most airline flight attendants, especially in the United States: They are working for longer duty periods, and are allotted shorter rest periods. They have fewer amenities to offer their passengers, and they work with fewer crew on board to share the workload during flights. They receive lower pay and fewer benefits than they did a decade ago, yet top executives at most U.S.-based carriers continue to receive huge monetary bonuses.

The video below was produced by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, the union representing American Airlines flight attendants, but its message reflects the realities of cabin crew jobs across the airline industry.

Have a look:



(If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on YouTube.)

Fatal crash of East Coast Jets charter in Minnesota

A chartered business jet (registration number N818MV) operating as East Coast Jets Flight ECJ 81, crashed this morning, July 31, 2008, near Degner Regional Airport, Owatonna, MN. On board the aircraft were two pilots and six passengers, all of whom died. The aircraft was completely destroyed.

Brad Cole, President of East Coast Jets, confirmed that the accident aircraft, a BAe 125 (AKA Hawker 800a) was operated by his company. He identified the two crew members as Clark Keefer of Bethlehem, PA and Dan D'Ambrosio of Hellertown, PA. News reports said that both pilots and five of the passengers perished at the scene of the accident. The sixth passenger died at a hospital a short time later.

In his statement, Mr. Cole said that the aircraft was chartered from East Coast Jets by Revel Entertainment to transport employees to Owatonna, MN from Atlantic City, NJ. According to Cole, the aircraft had departed from Lehigh Valley International Airport, Allentown, PA early this morning for a repositioning flight to Atlantic City International Airport before departing for Minnesota.

A news report about the accident in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune quoted witnesses who said that the aircraft "apparently landed on the 5,500-foot runway and either couldn't stop or tried to take off again." A witness on the ground said the plane tried to get airborne again before crashing wing first into a nearby cornfield.

Local media reports say that "severe storms" had passed through the Owatonna area earlier in the morning. MyFox Twin Cities said that wind gusts of 72 mph were reported in Owatonna around 8:35 a.m., but added that the severe weather seemed to "wrap up" shortly before 9AM.

"By the time it's believed the plane went down, the winds were down to 5 to 10 miles per hour out of the south," MyFox Twin Cities reported. The accident occurred between 09:30 and 10:00 local time.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) dispatched a team to the accident site. They arrived at the crash scene late this afternoon. Several news reports this evening mentioned that the cockpit voice recorder and a flight management system already had been recovered from the wreckage and sent to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C.

The Star Tribune has published a collection of still photos of the accident scene.

Condolences to the families, colleagues and friends of Clark Keefer and Dan D'Ambrosio, and to the families and friends of the passengers who died in this accident.

[Photo Source]

United Airlines' shocking lawsuit against its own pilots

by B. N. Sullivan

Yesterday United Airlines made a shocking announcement: they have filed a lawsuit in federal court against their own pilots. The suit alleges that the pilots' union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and certain individual pilots, deliberately organized "unlawful job actions that resulted in hundreds of flights being canceled and impacted thousands of customers and employees."

From the United Airlines press release about the suit:

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against ALPA and four named pilots for organized sick leave abuse in opposition to the company’s plan to reduce its fleet size and furlough pilots and to pressure United into renegotiating terms of a collective bargaining agreement that remains in effect through 2009. The lawsuit also seeks an end to a public campaign of intimidation that discourages pilots from picking up additional flying, effectively engaging in a slowdown.

This lawsuit is beyond belief, and the press release announcing it is disgraceful.

Let's get this straight. There is a labor contract in force between United Airlines and its pilots, but the airline is bringing suit, complaining not that the pilots are in violation of their contract, but because they are working according to the rules of the contract. A refusal by some pilots to pick up additional flying -- that is, working on what had been scheduled as their contractually legal days off -- is construed as a slowdown? Nope, I don't buy it. It sounds to me like the problem is poor manpower planning.

Aside from what is apparent on the surface -- that the pilots are not obligated to pick up extra trips -- there are other factors at work here as well. In short, United Airlines has done little in recent years to inspire the confidence of its employees, or to motivate them to work above the requirements of their contracts out of the goodness of their hearts.

Here we have an airline which, during its bankruptcy, begged its pilots and other line employees to agree to huge concessions in pay and benefits. They agreed to the concessions in order to save the airline and their jobs. In addition to having their salaries greatly reduced, their company-funded retirement plans were sacrificed and replaced with paltry pensions administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Then, after emerging from bankruptcy, top company executives were (and continue to be) awarded huge bonuses, while line employees' pay concessions have not been restored.

It is well known that the airline is flying crews at, or close to, the maximum number of hours allowed by FAA rules, with allotted rest time -- particularly on multi-day trip layovers -- at or close to the legal minimum. Yet United Airlines is formally complaining that some pilots are refusing to pick up extra trips, i.e., flying on what should be their days off.

In fact, pilots and flight attendants alike say that they are tired all the time, and feel pressed to show up for work even when they don't feel well. To quote a buzz phrase I hear all the time, "Crews are sick and tired of being sick and tired."

Now United Airlines is preparing to furlough close to a thousand pilots in conjunction with retiring 100 aircraft as a capacity reduction move. ALPA has been negotiating with United Airlines since before the furlough announcements to try to lessen the impact of the capacity reduction on pilot livelihoods, but the talks yielded "meager progress," according to union officials.

To my knowledge, there is no provision for trading contractually accrued sick leave time for monetary compensation upon furlough. So who would be surprised if some pilots -- knowing that they are about to be furloughed -- are taking off some time that is due them by the terms of their contract? (Who knows: they may even be using some of their accrued sick days to search for a new job!)

United Airlines has launched an unfair publicity campaign against its pilots by publicizing the lawsuit it has filed, knowing full well that the pilots would not be able to publicly present an immediate rejoinder. It is apparent that most news media reports about the suit are relying solely on publicity supplied by the airline. Since the pilots' union is named as a party to the lawsuit, ALPA officials have had to refrain from commenting on the details of the suit pending a review of the legal case by the union's attorneys.

United's flight attendants, who are not a party to the suit, are not subject to these constraints. They have issued a public response, condemning the airline's lawsuit against its pilots. In a statement to the press, the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), the union representing United Airlines flight attendants, accused airline management of "a very serious attack on employees by issuing an inaccurate and misleading media statement concerning the pilots at United Airlines."

Greg Davidowitch, President of AFA's United Airlines chapter said:

"This latest union-busting tactic is condemned for what it is: a corrupt attempt to distract workers and travelers of United Airlines from the failures of current executives. Their actions add nothing to the debate over the future of our airline, but instead serve to further inflame an already poisonous labor relations atmosphere.

"The notion that any frontline employee of United Airlines is responsible for the failures of United executives is laughable. Not content to destroy labor relations, and to destroy the passenger experience, the geniuses that run this airline have also destroyed shareholder value in the past year. With all the major metrics of corporate performance at an all-time low, current management has lost its reason to continue in charge of the airline."

Mr. Davidowitch called the United Airlines lawsuit against its pilots a "new low in labor relations." I certainly agree.

First flight of the new PiperJet

Piper Aircraft's new prototype six-passenger single-engine turbo-fan aircraft, the PiperJet, has made its first flight. With Piper Test Pilots Dave Schwartz and Buddy Sessoms at the controls, the craft took off for the first time from Piper headquarters in Vero Beach, FL, late yesterday morning, July 30, 2008. The PiperJet is the first pure, jet-powered, turbofan design in the company’s 71-year history.

For its historic first flight, the plane remained aloft for an hour, reaching a maximum altitude of 10,000 feet and a speed of 160 KTAS as per the flight test plan. According to the manufacturer, the PiperJet is powered by a single Williams FJ44-3AP engine rated at 3,000 pounds of thrust. In the PiperJet application, the engine is de-rated to approximately 2,400 pounds of thrust.

"The FADEC control on the Williams engine greatly reduces pilot workload, allowing greater focus on controlling and navigating the PiperJet," said Schwartz. "Pushing the single power level full forward for takeoff results in a smooth but rapid buildup of thrust and acceleration."

A company news release about the PiperJet's first flight says:

With completion of first flight, the PiperJet has begun a 50 hour initial flight test program to expand the envelope and further investigate the aerodynamic configuration and basic flight performance. Piper test pilots expect to retract the landing gear on the PiperJet’s next flight, after which they will make several more flights to expand the high-speed envelope, eventually reaching 360 KTAS. Envelope expansion will also include higher operating altitudes, up to a maximum of 35,000 feet.

Deliveries of the PiperJet are anticipated to begin in 2011. According to John Becker, Piper’s Vice President of Engineering, the company plans to have the aircraft certified in the Normal Category under FAA Part 23 and applicable foreign certification standards.

"It’s designed to be flown by a single pilot and will be RVSM Certified. Moreover, its innovative design includes ample baggage space and class-setting useful load," Becker said. "The PiperJet will be certified to a maximum operating altitude of 35,000 feet, well above the weather while combining performance with the latest safety technologies and features."

Piper plans a public unveiling of the PiperJet for existing and prospective customers and the news and aviation media in late August or early September at the Piper factory in Vero Beach, FL, during which Piper test pilots will demonstrate the PiperJet’s full flight capabilities.

Meanwhile, you can have a preview with this short video of the PiperJet's first flight, and you can visit the PiperJet website for more photos, and information about the new aircraft's specifications.

[Photo Source]

Air Canada Airbus A319 incident at Denver

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued its preliminary report about an incident at Denver last week involving an Airbus A319 aircraft, operated by Air Canada. Judging from the description of events provided by the NTSB, it sounds as though the crew had one very frustrating afternoon.

The aircraft (registration number C-FYJP), operating as Air Canada Flight ACA1042, was departing Denver International Airport for a scheduled passenger flight to Toronto's Pearson International Airport on the afternoon of July 23, 2008. According to the NTSB report, the captain heard a "whistling noise" during the takeoff roll. Suspecting an unsecured window, he rejected the takeoff. The aircraft taxied back and a second takeoff was initiated.

Here's what happened next (quoting from the NTSB report):

Gear retraction, which was delayed to allow the brakes to cool as a result of the previous rejected takeoff, was normal.

When the flaps were retracted, an F-LOCKED message was received. An emergency was declared.

When the airplane was configured for landing, the following messages were illuminated: RIGHT UNLK ON PANEL; L/G DISAGREE; L/G NOT DOWN. A go-around was made and dispatch and maintenance were contacted.

It was later determined that the landing gear was down and locked, and a flaps 3 landing was made on runway 16R. There was a noticeable vibration on the right side of the airplane, and minimal braking was used to slow the airplane on the 16,000-foot runway. Inspection revealed the right inboard tire had failed.

After discussions with the cabin crew and some passengers, indications were that the tire failed at rotation on the second takeoff. Rubber fragments were found on the right side of the runway at the 6,000-foot mark.

There were no injuries reported among the two cockpit crew, three flight attendants, and 94 passengers on board at the time of the incident.

Sounds like that airplane just didn't want to leave Denver!