Originally Posted by EWR764

In that case, I guess you can point to the specific aspects of the manuals, procedures and training protocols that were changed from their pre-merger United state and how those changes contributed to the safety concerns for which the bulletin was intended to address?

Absent some facts in support, another anecdotal generalization is just flamebait. We are talking about a group of professional pilots, and while some post-merger changes came down that were disruptive to procedures many had become accustomed to and familiar with, the assertion that they made the operation less safe is difficult, if not impossible to substantiate. For example, what is the pre-merger point of comparison? Just that legacy United pilots felt more comfortable doing things the way they had since new-hire training?

I'm not disputing that post-merger changes were made to a number of aspects of flight operations, I know there were, but I think it's a bit irresponsible for a lay person to conclude that they made an operation (which carries tens of millions of passengers per year) measurably less safe on the basis of informal discussions and an internal company communication directed to pilots.

Lest we forget the fairly sensationalist news piece that spurred the discussion...

Originally Posted by LASUA1K

Are you a pilot? Truth is truth. Training is less than what it once was. Nothing wrong about that. Manuals were changed, new policies were brought. If anything, more training was needed, not cuts.

You can continue to attack, but fact is fact. Unless you have more inside knowledge than I do, you should probably talk to some pilots of both sCO and sUA.

Less training is never good, and downgrading certain standards is not good.

I feel perfectly safe flying UA. The old UA went above and beyond what Boeing or Airbus or the FAA said. Drastic changes were made for sUA pilots, lot's of pilots are changing fleet type, extra training is needed not less.

Not everything sUA was bad as some here try to claim. sUA did some things better, and some things worse, Pilot training is one that leans toward sUA.

Originally Posted by EWR764

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, nor am I trying to attack you... I am familiar with a lot of what's been changed, what's different, and the way line pilots feel about how things have been carried out since the merger (overall... not very good). My issue is with blanket, general statements that would tend to misinform rather than enlighten readers of a frequent flyer forum. With respect to safety, that is an issue that can be rapidly blown out of proportion and taken out of context by a lay person. That said, you'll notice I am not going out of my way to defend the pre-merger Continental flight training philosophy.

Without going into great detail, calling it a matter of sCO vs. sUA is just a gross oversimplification of what is a rather complex situation, which is influenced by many post-merger factors that are neither organically CO nor UA...

Originally Posted by freshairborne

Smisek only knows what his little people in Flight Ops tell him, except for the part about the money. Our training has always been predated upon a certain ratio of pass/fail. I'm paraphrasing when I say that if more than 99% of trainees pass, they reduce the training until it drops to 98% because it's cheaper to retrain a few than "overtrain" all of us.



Training in exCO facilities with exCO instructors is vastly different than PMUA everything. And PMUA training has been recognized worldwide in the commercial aviation community as the best on the planet.

FAB

Originally Posted by LASUA1K

In the case of the pilots, sCO came in and went with there standards over sUA's.

Originally Posted by BB2220

You hear this all the time in almost every department on both sides. A policy changes and a sCO guy says "sUA is taking over". A sUA guy see the same policy and says "sCO is taking over". What both sides failed to realize is that most policies are brand new to both sides.

Originally Posted by nerdbirdsjc

The legacy CO procedures are quite safe. CO used, with very minor exceptions, Boeing's operating manuals and procedures manuals verbatim, flying its aircraft according to manufacturer specifications.

Originally Posted by bocastephen

Plus 1 - the claim that CO flight training and operational procedures are somehow less safe or thorough than PMUA is hyperbolic. Mistakes are made by pilots every day, regardless of their former employer - why? Because pilots are human beings, not autobots.

Originally Posted by freshairborne

And PMUA training has been recognized worldwide in the commercial aviation community as the best on the planet.

FAB

Originally Posted by apodo77

It's downright ridiculous IMO.

Originally Posted by apodo77

Care to provide proof?
No dog in the fight just always entertained by the UA vs CO dynamic on here.

Originally Posted by LASUA1K

No mea culpa. UA exceeded the manufacturers requirements.

Not saying sCO did it wrong, sUA had more training. Nothing false. sUA pilots were given new procedures, it takes time to get used to change and more training is needed.

I feel safe on sUA or sCO.

Originally Posted by transportprof

I wonder how much the company's dynamic crew scheduling contributes to the problems? On Sunday, I was on a flight where one of the cockpit crew arrived 15 minutes before we pushed back from the gate. Presumably the other had done the walk around and some other pre-flight checks, but once everyone was boarded we sat another 10 minutes until the pilot or co-pilot boarded, then the cockpit and cabin doors closed, and then we pushed back.

I wonder how much time for briefing and teamwork there was in the cockpit before takeoff on that flight? We landed quite safely in YVR, I must add.