FAA fines United for Employee Safety violations
Jun 17, 2011, 12:27 pm
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,324
FAA fines United for Employee Safety violations
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=12825
FAA proposed $584,375 fines for employee safety violations. This is not good enough at all. The Employee should have follow the rules and not try to making another mistaken again in the future.
Good Riddance to UA!!!! 
FAA proposed $584,375 fines for employee safety violations. This is not good enough at all. The Employee should have follow the rules and not try to making another mistaken again in the future.
FORT WORTH – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed to assess a $584,375 civil penalty against United Airlines, Inc., of Elk Grove Village, Ill., for allegedly violating FAA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) regulations for random drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive employees.
Jun 17, 2011, 12:52 pm
#2
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
Originally Posted by N830MH
Good Riddance to UA!!!!
Since it was a press release, from the federal govt. I don't this it is a ToS violation to post the whole release:
Which put the story into context:
FORT WORTH – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed to assess a $584,375 civil penalty against United Airlines, Inc., of Elk Grove Village, Ill., for allegedly violating FAA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) regulations for random drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive employees.
The FAA alleges United failed to perform required pre-employment drug tests and receive verified negative test results before transferring 13 individuals to safety-sensitive positions, as required by FAA and DoT regulations.
The FAA also cited United for allegedly failing to use a scientifically valid method to ensure that each member of the company’s flight crews, all of whom are safety-sensitive employees, has an equal chance of being selected for random drug and alcohol testing each time a selection is made. The FAA warned United at least twice before that the company’s random test selection methods did not give each eligible flight crew member an equal chance of being selected.
“Drug testing is both a critical and a required safety measure that all operators must follow,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.
United Airlines has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
The FAA alleges United failed to perform required pre-employment drug tests and receive verified negative test results before transferring 13 individuals to safety-sensitive positions, as required by FAA and DoT regulations.
The FAA also cited United for allegedly failing to use a scientifically valid method to ensure that each member of the company’s flight crews, all of whom are safety-sensitive employees, has an equal chance of being selected for random drug and alcohol testing each time a selection is made. The FAA warned United at least twice before that the company’s random test selection methods did not give each eligible flight crew member an equal chance of being selected.
“Drug testing is both a critical and a required safety measure that all operators must follow,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.
United Airlines has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.
But honestly, this is not a big deal... DoT fines trucking companies for stuff like this all the time.
IMhO, its especially no big deal because its not that they were not drug testing, rather the method they used to select who would be chosen for random testing. So unless you have employees who know how the selection works out (which *could* happen), it doesn't mean fastair
has been free to hit the bong at lunchtime.As far as the original testing/security issue, it seems the 13 employees were transfers and not new hires, so... is it possible that UA thought thier original test would have been sufficient?
Jun 17, 2011, 2:01 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
Since it was a press release, from the federal govt. I don't this it is a ToS violation to post the whole release:
Which put the story into context:
First, I will NOT give UA a total pass, especially since they had been warned 2X on the random test issue.
But honestly, this is not a big deal... DoT fines trucking companies for stuff like this all the time.
IMhO, its especially no big deal because its not that they were not drug testing, rather the method they used to select who would be chosen for random testing. So unless you have employees who know how the selection works out (which *could* happen), it doesn't mean fastair
has been free to hit the bong at lunchtime.As far as the original testing/security issue, it seems the 13 employees were transfers and not new hires, so... is it possible that UA thought thier original test would have been sufficient?
FORT WORTH – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed to assess a $584,375 civil penalty against United Airlines, Inc.
Warned x 2 was the part that bothered me most.
Jun 17, 2011, 2:28 pm
#4
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
500K is the "proposed" fine. In most instances this is reduced considerably, once UA responds to the proposal (makes corrective actions, pleads pverty, etc.).
IIRC, UA, WN, F9 or another US based carrier had a proposed fine a few years ago... $5, $10 maybe even like $20 million, that was settled for a few hundered thousand.
Jun 17, 2011, 7:25 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
Just adding a caveat....
500K is the "proposed" fine. In most instances this is reduced considerably, once UA responds to the proposal (makes corrective actions, pleads pverty, etc.).
IIRC, UA, WN, F9 or another US based carrier had a proposed fine a few years ago... $5, $10 maybe even like $20 million, that was settled for a few hundered thousand.
500K is the "proposed" fine. In most instances this is reduced considerably, once UA responds to the proposal (makes corrective actions, pleads pverty, etc.).
IIRC, UA, WN, F9 or another US based carrier had a proposed fine a few years ago... $5, $10 maybe even like $20 million, that was settled for a few hundered thousand.
I am no expert in airline operations, but really seems odd to me that a US airline was warned twice about something by the FAA and still ended up getting pinched. I would think it would be in UAs best interest to keep FAA pretty happy.
I am sure it is more complicated than that, but just struck me as an easily avoidable situation.