RG's departure

[Guest Goggles]

There's been a bit of speculation below regarding RG's departure.

I think that it's because RG, being the nice guy that he is, did not go forward with the changes that needed to be made to flight ops because of resistance from supervisors and managers.

So they got a manager from another dept to be responsible for flight ops, who would not be constrained by friendships and other previous baggage.

I think that flight ops management is going to be a lot more autocratic now, with someone making decisions, rather than waiting for a consensus from flight ops meetings.

It doesn't seem likely that he'll be promoted to a higher position, as the press release would have given an indication. RM said that RG is considering various options. If RM wanted him for something else, RM would be considering the options, and not RG.

I expect a lot of changes now, and a lot of feathers are going to be ruffled.

Goggles

[Guest bll_yyc]

Do you mean S.O.P.s might actually start to be enforced ??

Or that Standards might actually mean something once again ??

Instead of being worried about which toes are being stepepd on ??

Please elaborate

[Guest Goggles]

"Do you mean S.O.P.s might actually start to be enforced ??"

"Or that Standards might actually mean something once again ??"

Much progress has been made, IMO, on these issues. There have been a lot of changes, and yes, there is still some resistance, but where I am, it's the exception. I think the logical outcome of a non-consensus type of management is that it's going to be the company way or the highway. You're right, there are a few who still cling to the past.

However, the issues above don't represent a signicant direct cost factor.

What wasn't reformed was the way the company organises route checks and line indocs. A significant amount of resources are allocated to these, mainly in the form of supervisory and training manpower. A lot can be done to cut these costs down by making it more efficient.

For example, route checks are done one-on-one. Why can't a check pilot do two pilots at a time? If this were so, you could cut down the number CP route checks by half.

I hear that it's because many of those involved don't want to. They want a chance to fly the airplane to places they want to go to. That's not the same as riding the jump seat between YYZ-YYC all the time.

Training wise, why is it that when a pilot finishes simulator training, he needs to bump a line pilot who happens to be flying with a training captain, and who then sits at home fully compensated? Why was it not possible to reserve a certain amount of flying for anticipated training requirements, BEFORE the bids were received? Manpower costs for training could be significantly reduced.

We're talking millions here.

I'm not saying that this is the cause of RG's exit. However, this to me is an indication that flight ops didn't reform as it should have.

Goggles

[Fido]

Goggles, your points on route checks and training are valid and have preceded RG by a long time.

There is lots of money to be saved with what you point out.

[inchman]

First, to stay with the subject of the thread, RG was a developmental person. This was taken advantage of some people, especially in other departments.

By the same token, there are many of us know that his style is an excellent way to motivate people. I, for one, will miss his true style of leadership.

As far as line checks are concerned, even though the program needs to be fine-tuned, the current methodology of having check pilots with "reserved" seats already exceeds the savings that a jumpseat rider would produce. And it will get even better.

If you think about it, having someone sit in the jumpseat means you are paying 3 people to operate the flight. Plus, the check pilot has to go flying sometimes for competency, so he will have to displace to do that.

Under the system introduced last summer, the right seat of "due" Captains' pairings (that they are already awarded) is removed from the list for F/O bidding and is reserved for check pilots.

In addition, check pilots have a significant amount of appropriate flying bid for them, which is assigned to F/O's (by ACPA PBS reps, to make sure it at least comes close to their bid wishes) before the rest of the F/O bid is awarded.

There is a lot of improvement necessary to make this system work even better, but it has already reduced displacements by 50%, which is about the level of productivity that jumpseat check rides would produce.

You're right, though, about reserving more flying for line indoc and, in fact, that is already on the agenda for a meeting tomorrow, that will involve check pilots and instructors to make sure that the quality of line checks and instruction are maintained for everyone.

[Guest Goggles]

"If you think about it, having someone sit in the jumpseat means you are paying 3 people to operate the flight. Plus, the check pilot has to go flying sometimes for competency, so he will have to displace to do that."

Check pilots are not there to produce revenue. Their job is to ensure proficiency. Every pilot has to be route checked every year. It follows, then, that a check pilot can't do his primary job effectively if he chooses to fly with captains who operate 20 hour and 4 day pairings all the time. The result is that you need more check pilots, at the rate of one million per every 5 check pilots.

The efficient way of doing things is for a check pilot to check 2 pilots at the same time (each on each sector of a turn around) over a sector that can be done in a day. This way, if he has 7 days of checking available per month, he can process 14 pilots instead of the 2 he does presently. Result? fewer check pilots. Going to interesting destinations is not a part of check pilot competency, IMO. Competency involves flying the aircraft in order expose oneself to the SOP's and maintaining flying skills. Staying aloft for 8 hours at a stretch just to verify chart plotting skills is unwarranted, to put it simply. What really happens in cruise depends on captains who have a responsibility to see that the F/O's are doing their jobs right, and where there is some feedback on captains so that individals can be taken to task on deficiencies. So check pilots need competency: that's 3 take-offs and landings in 90 days; so they could do a Rapidair every month for competency, and check out 12 guys instead of 14. Better than 2 per month.

I do think, though, that check pilots should get more money, to compensate for the intensive nature of the work they're supposed to do.

>You're right, though, about reserving more flying for line indoc and, in fact, that is already on the agenda for a meeting tomorrow, that will involve check pilots and instructors to make sure that the quality of line checks and instruction are maintained for everyone.<

I got bumped off a 25 hour pairing recently because of line indoc. This should have been fixed 8 months ago. I don't think you need a meeting to make it so. Just someone with authority to say "do it!". My reflection on the style of management in the office had to do with this.

Goggles

[inchman]

The only way to do line checks efficiently from the back seat is to build, preselect and assign specific pairings using "superseniority" prior to anyone having a chance to bid on them.

You seem to suggest that the company has violated the contract above, but are suggesting they should now do so to facilitate your suggestion.

You can't have it both ways.

[inchman]

The only way to do line checks efficiently from the back seat is to build, preselect and assign specific pairings using "superseniority" prior to anyone having a chance to bid on them.

You suggest that the company has violated the contract above, but are suggesting they should now just "do it" to facilitate your suggestion.

You can't have it both ways.

And... the present method of doing it is still more efficient than jumpseat check rides.