Location: ORD, collecting parking tickets on the ///M3
Programs: UA 2K
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1KChinito
I notice lately, more and more ATC and sometimes first officers converse with each other without airline designation before the flight number. i.e. Instead of saying united 1174, they say 1174 without united.
Sometimes instead of saying altitude at one three thousand, they say thirteen thousand. I thought the whole idea of saying one three thousand is not to be confused with thirty thousand.
Is that just slopping practice or commonly accepted practice?
My thought on this fwiw is that in places like ORD, where you have a often times VERY busy approach controler, most of the planes are in a narrow range of altitude and speed, so its furthur unliely that 13k could be confused for 30k.. as it would really stick out.
Is that just slopping practice or commonly accepted practice?
It's sloppy, but very common. Sticking to by-the-book phraseology takes more effort than most pilots are willing to give. Most just go with "what (usually) works". I try very hard to be the exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmos M
My thought on this fwiw is that in places like ORD, where you have a often times VERY busy approach controler
That's exactly when sticking to the recommended phraseology is most important as you'll have very few misunderstandings or request to repeat.
ATC is graded on their phraseology and will be retrained, and possibly disciplined, if they frequently stray. There is no such oversight over us pilots with regard to phraseology. The pilots who train and check us are no better, on average, than the pilot population as a whole.
(Hopefully) Everyone is entitled to a pet-peeve, or two. Radio phraseology is mine.
Question for you guys ... I had to fly MESA the other day (and yes, it was as bad as expected unfortunately) and had an interesting experience on the CRJ 200. It was an "almost" full flight but the FA moved passengers forward to free up the last couple rows and then brought up about 9 pieces of the green tagged luggage (the carry on they take at planeside) into the cabin and stored it in those empty rows and strapped onto those seats.
The comment the FA made was that if they hadn't done so, they would've had to kick off some passengers. That doesn't make sense to me at all. I spoke with a 767 pilot briefly today during his commute and he mentioned that the bags brought into the cabin didn't "count" and that's why they were able to get away with it.
Can someone explain how the w&b work in this situation and how the extra luggage wouldn't have just been left behind (NOT what I would want, FWIW) and the passengers fly as is versus no bags AND no passengers. Thanks.
Question for you guys ... I had to fly MESA the other day (and yes, it was as bad as expected unfortunately) and had an interesting experience on the CRJ 200. It was an "almost" full flight but the FA moved passengers forward to free up the last couple rows and then brought up about 9 pieces of the green tagged luggage (the carry on they take at planeside) into the cabin and stored it in those empty rows and strapped onto those seats.
The comment the FA made was that if they hadn't done so, they would've had to kick off some passengers. That doesn't make sense to me at all. I spoke with a 767 pilot briefly today during his commute and he mentioned that the bags brought into the cabin didn't "count" and that's why they were able to get away with it.
Can someone explain how the w&b work in this situation and how the extra luggage wouldn't have just been left behind (NOT what I would want, FWIW) and the passengers fly as is versus no bags AND no passengers. Thanks.
That's true, that's how they do it with United Mainline too. Not sure of the computations involved with the W&B issues, but the plane was out of balance in the aft CG range. Thus, they moved passengers up, then took cargo out of the hold where it is counted and moved it upstairs into the passenger compartment where the carry-on isn't counted. Just a way around the issue without leaving bags behind IMO. The plane wasn't out of limits weight wise, but in an aft CG cargo wise.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
That's true, that's how they do it with United Mainline too. Not sure of the computations involved with the W&B issues, but the plane was out of balance in the aft CG range. Thus, they moved passengers up, then took cargo out of the hold where it is counted and moved it upstairs into the passenger compartment where the carry-on isn't counted. Just a way around the issue without leaving bags behind IMO. The plane wasn't out of limits weight wise, but in an aft CG cargo wise.
It was the FAs comment that still confuses me though ... why would passengers be kicked off if they didn't move the bags up versus just leaving some of the bags behind to follow. (again, NOT something I'd want to have happen to my bag, but UAX has been known to do this w/o consideration for the impact to the passenger)
It's sloppy, but very common. Sticking to by-the-book phraseology takes more effort than most pilots are willing to give. Most just go with "what (usually) works". I try very hard to be the exception.
I agree with you. I think the examples given are sloppy, and I try very hard not to make those mistakes, although I hear them pretty regularly.
It was the FAs comment that still confuses me though ... why would passengers be kicked off if they didn't move the bags up versus just leaving some of the bags behind to follow. (again, NOT something I'd want to have happen to my bag, but UAX has been known to do this w/o consideration for the impact to the passenger)
Carry-on baggage is included in the weight of the passenger, so if a bag is in the cabin, it effectively disappears.
When I worked at UAX, we would occasionally leave both passengers and their bags behind, since they didn't want to separate passengers and bags and develop an overload of bags at one station. Not sure if that's the right policy, since it always seemed to make sense to me to get people to their destinations, but that's how it was sometimes done.
No, not really, at least not from that statement. Why would people dislike unions more because they dislike SCABS?
Because you (not you but the collective you) seem unable to separate actions from people. If you are unhappy and dislike the fact someone goes to work when you don't want them to thats your right, dislike (oh and to be fair I think "dislike" is way watered down here) their actions but it carries so much further where now someone who went to work to feed their family becomes a pariah.
When the supermarket strike was going on in CA they would yell and scream, often very nasty things, at customers trying to buy food, and the people working there, wow I heard some whoppers of stories. The SCAB scarlet letter then follows the workers forever, aparaently there's still some SCAB list from the 80's of UA pilots.
The mantra is always management isn't treating "us" right, but if you disagree with someone you have no problem dehumanizing them and treating them like crap. To hate (now that's a better term) someone for working is just pathetic. For a "brotherhood" you seem very willing, ready and able to throw some members of your "family" to the curb, then back your car over them.
Programs: UA 1K (thanks to UCBeau and Lucky), RCC, Fallen Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 287
You would have to work in an environment where there is a union to understand what goes on. I worked in that area for 37 years and I personally think that unions are a necessary evil, and that in a lot of work areas they protect the weak. That is not the case of ALPA. Someone has to be there to negotiate your benefits-the company does not give you increases in your benefit package out of the kindness of their heart. When you are working along side someone who crosses the picket line, they are in effect saying I come first, instead of how can "we" get a better deal. They don't go without while you do, and yet they end up getting the same raise, etc. that you went out on strike to try and accomplish. That is why a scab is NEVER forgiven.
__________________
I may be getting older, but I refuse to grow up....
Programs: AS MVP (withering away due to insane fares), UA, AA, AGR, NPS passport, Costco Exec
Posts: 5,179
My thoughts on unions:
I understand why unions were necessary in the years following the Industrial Revolution, but in today's society, I question the place that unions have.
I worked in union job on a railroad. Realistically, the pay was almost too high for the job I did and the benefits and guarantees were second to none. It was a great job, and even though the work could become a bit menial at times, it would make for a well-paying career. (The only reason I left that job is that it interfered with my ability to finish college.)
Without the protection and negotiating power of the union, though, I'm not sure that wages and benefits would drop substantially. They were motivated to try to keep their employees, since in that area there were a lot of other blue-collar jobs that paid just as well (maybe better), and they didn't want to constantly have to fight to hire good workers. (It was tough for the railroad to find new employees, since, like pilots, the schedules are so irregular and not conducive to family life.)
Unfortunately, unions create an us-versus-them culture, even on my railroad, where management had a vested interest in not losing employees. That creates a dependency on the union to protect them from the "evil" management, and the vicious cycle only gets stronger. Without a union, employees still hold the power of choice: they are free to leave a poorly-run company for a better-run company or do something like attend community college to learn skills to find a better job. The place I'm employed at now pays pretty well even without a union, as after many years of high turnover, they finally learned the value of keeping happy employees rather than having to train new ones every few months.
Unfortunately, I think airline employees have traded away the employees' traditional chief bargaining pawn by painting themselves in the corner with the seniority system, which limits their ability to move around and find other jobs. Under the seniority system, unions become necessary to protect the employees, since the employees hold no threats against the employer unless they're banded together.
The only problem with this train of thought, though, is that it seems to have been agreed here that the seniority system is the best way to run a large airline. So unless someone can come up with an effective alternate system that also allows employees to leave without giving up the entire life they've earned themselves, I think the situation isn't likely to get any better, unfortunately.
It's sloppy, but very common. Sticking to by-the-book phraseology takes more effort than most pilots are willing to give. Most just go with "what (usually) works". I try very hard to be the exception.
That's exactly when sticking to the recommended phraseology is most important as you'll have very few misunderstandings or request to repeat.
When I fly (light GA a/c) I also try to stick proper phraseology for just this reason. I've read too many reports where poor phraseology has contributed to bigger problems. 99.999% of the time it isn't a factor. You just don't want to complicate issues when all hell is breaking loose. But for channel 9, I wouldn't get bent out of shape if someone isn't using proper phraseology.
BTW, regarding the wrist bands, I'm with the anti-Tilton bandwagon. Just from my experience, the FA's that wear them have seem to the most lackadaisical and bitter attitudes so I tend to associate the two. But that has just been my experience.
This thought came to me yesterday while flying IAH-DEN. Is there any airport that pilots generally dislike flying into/out of? I imagine DEN must fall into the more enjoyable places because of the seeming ease which planes come and go - few (if any) ATC, lots of runways, fairly open airspace around the airport, etc.
I'm a new hire FA and can't really get any straight answers. I often have to go in for the 2 person and I'm not really sure what to say. Some of the pilots seem nice and willing to talk for the 5 or so minutes I'm up there, but then others don't even make eye contact or say hello. I'm wondering, is there a general rule about us interacting.
fly MESA the other day (and yes, it was as bad as expected unfortunately) and had an interesting experience on the CRJ 200. It was an "almost" full flight but the FA moved passengers forward to free up the last couple rows and then brought up about 9 pieces of the green tagged luggage (the carry on they take at planeside) into the cabin and stored it in those empty rows and strapped onto those seats.
