Tech | July 26, 2011 | 25 comments

U.S. Airways Captain Escorted from Airport After Declining to Fly

source: http://www.thestreet.com/story/11196015/1/us-airways-captain-escorted-from-airport.html?puc=...

Image
EthicalVegan
US Airways Captain Escorted From Airport


By Ted Reed 07/25/11 - 12:00 PM EDT



CHARLOTTE, N.C. TheStreet) -- The battle between US Airways(LLC) and its pilots over the airline's safety culture is continuing, this time focused on an incident in which a captain declined to fly a transatlantic flight.

On June 16, captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot, was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330, which can carry nearly 300 passengers, on a flight from Philadelphia to Rome. But she declined to fly because of failures of both the auxiliary power unit, a backup source of electrical power, and the "hot battery bus," a primary source of electrical power.

After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late.

In seeking to publicize the incident, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association took out a full-page advertisement in Friday's edition of USA Today. The ad proclaimed that US Airways put "revenues first, safety second.

"The intimidation of flight crews is becoming commonplace at US Airways, [which] works to maximize their revenues by pushing their employees to move their airplanes regardless of the potential human cost," said the text. The ad referred readers to a website, www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst.

In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.

"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."

Union spokesman James Ray said that initially, Wells could not possibly fly the airplane because it lacked cockpit electrical power, but a chief pilot nonetheless encouraged her to fly. He said the incident symbolized US Airways' desire to enhance on-time performance and revenues. "This is not just an isolated incident," he said. "It has been going on on a daily basis, and is the kind of practice we've been fighting for a number of years now."

Airline spokesman John McDonald said the incident is under investigation. He said "the fact that [Wells] was escorted off the property had nothing to do with safety," but declined to elaborate. Ray said the airplane sat at the gate for five hours -- without air conditioning -- during the maintenance process, until finally Wells decided that passengers should be allowed to disembark.

On the aircraft's public address system, she explained the situation to passengers and reminded them to stay near the gate, Ray said. It is possible that a gate agent interpreted Wells' remarks or later conversations with passengers to be critical of the airline, leading to the sequence of events in which she was escorted from the airport.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Culture,   Random,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Airlines,  Pilots,  Airline Safety,  u.s. airways,  1 more
  3.     
    |

25 comments // U.S. Airways Captain Escorted from Airport After Declining to Fly

  • Leen61
    • +2
      Leen61  

    • Excellent and obviously the right decision by the pilot. She wasn't going to fly a plane that would've put people's lives in danger. She has a soul, unike US Airways. Here's a clip from the Ed Show about what is going on behind the scenes at the airlines.

    • 10 months ago
  • Dan_no
    • 0
      Dan_no  
    • Leen61:

      For some reason, the Federal Government (via the FAA) issued a statement (you can read it a bit further down in this discussion) stating that there was no safety issue.

      The USAPA is in litigation with itself and US Airways because the USAPA cannot agree internally on its own seniority list. If this was such a huge safety issue, the question one must ask is why it wasn't brought to the public's attention on June 17? Why did the union wait until a month later to bring it to people's attention via a paid advertisement when involving the media via a press release or news conference on June 17 would have accomplished the same thing - for far less money?

    • 10 months ago
  • Leen61
    • +1
      Leen61  
    • Dan_no:

      For one, ever since the W years, the FAA has been made up of aviation industry insiders who of course will cover up any airline wrong doing if they have the chance. If you would ever see the Frontline documentary about what US Airways and other airlines that also use commuter airline planes, you would see just how corrupt the FAA is and how dangerous commercial flight has become. The union probably knew exactly what they were up against when this issue arose. A press release to who? The MSM who are in cahoots with every corporate big wig there is? I doubt the story would've gotten the slightest bit of traction. It had to be done this way IMO.

    • 10 months ago
  • Dan_no
    • 0
      Dan_no  
    • Leen61:

      My final comment on this. Obviously the news media DID pick up on this - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Therefore, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe bringing it to someone like the Charlotte newspaper, NYT, USA Today, or even this new outlet would have given it some traction.

      By the way, I learned of the article on this site from a link on MSNBC - so it appears that they are not in cahoots with this particular corporate big wig.

      I do not believe commercial flight is dangerous. I've witnessed too many auto accidents compared to a clean slate in my many travels by air each month to believe otherwise.

    • 10 months ago
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • Dan_no
    • 0
      Dan_no  
    • figgdimension:

      You may want to understand the FAA's response to the incident before you believe the propaganda in this article, most of which was culled from a paid advertisement (sponsored by the pilot's union) in the USA Today last Friday.

    • 10 months ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Dan_no:

      Why don't you explain it to us?

      This is how I feel about it. The default response to a pilot saying an aircraft is unsafe to fly should be to immediately unload the passengers and schedule them for other flights. Then take the plane off the tarmac so it can be thoroughly gone over to deal with the safety issues the pilot raised.

      We really need to default on the side of safety on this one.

    • 10 months ago
  • Dan_no
    • 0
      Dan_no  
    • PoliticalAmazon:

      Certainly. Here is what the FAA had to say about this incident (which is posted a bit further down in this same discussion).

      The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our (the FAA) information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator's approved maintenance program. We (the FAA) found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.

    • 10 months ago
  • figgdimension
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +1
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • OMG! PEOPLE, the worst future is already upon us! The unbridled corruption and blatant disregard for human life and welfare in government and the corporate world are waving from the top of flagpoles everywhere! We must resist this aggression against us now, fast, and hard. It's not going away unless WE clean house of every dust bunny and cobweb! NOW! Just in case it's not too late...

    • 10 months ago
  • squarethecircle
  • CalgarC
  • Dan_no
    • 0
      Dan_no  

    • The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our (the FAA) information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator's approved maintenance program. We (the FAA) found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.

    • 10 months ago
  • Mark701
  • Dan_no
    • 0
      Dan_no  
    • Mark701:

      Nope, it doesn't. If one interviewed the passengers on hand at the time, one could have a basis for understanding what was involved from an unbiased source. As it stands, all you have is labor and management battling back and forth. Both sides' stories are to be taken with a grain of salt and the truth lies somewhere in between.

      I believe the FAA to be unbiased in this case. Therefore, I lean toward accepting their discussion of what took place. Unfortunately, the FAA's conclusion tends to favor management's response to the incident and labels the union's attack as simply an attack.

      An added dimension is the fact that the pilot union wants a contract with the airline. However, the pilot union is in disagreement with itself on how to handle its own seniority issues between the former America West pilots and those employed by the bankrupt US Airways (which was purchased by America West). I understand that the company is more than willing to get a contract in place, but knows that it will be sued by the union regardless of which seniority list proposed by said union it accepts. What a place to be in... you lose no matter what you do!

    • 10 months ago
  • chew_chew
    • +1
      chew_chew  

    • The first pilot refused to fly, and a second crew also refused to fly. I'm thinking whatever was causing the problems was enough to make me not want to fly on that plane, too... until appropriate repairs had been made.

      Additionally, this is how I would WANT pilots and crews to handle a situation if they have questions about the safety of the equipment.

    • 10 months ago
  • DavidYates
    • +3
      DavidYates  

    • I used to be a school bus driver in Los Angeles. Before every trip the bus had to be inspected by the driver and if any discrepancies were found such as cracked windows, air leaks in the brake line, gauges that didn't work, low tire pressure or anything that could conceivably cause a safety problem, the driver had to reject that bus and it could not be used. Obviously, the safety of the students came first. Surely, this is the case in the aircraft walk-around inspection. No pilot with whom I would want to fly would take off with safety issues unresolved. When pilots become managers or administrators, their priorities can change. This is not to say that they want to compromise safety, but they also have divided loyalties to the bottom line and their jobs depend on their willingness to make compromises they probably wouldn't make if they were flying the plane. This is human nature. It happens when drivers become dispatchers or doctors become insurance company executives or hospital administrators or constitutional law professors become president. It's a systemic problem that has to be dealt with by third parties such as unions or government regulators or voters. Without these third party entities, the system runs amok. The state of Wisconsin comes to mind.

    • 10 months ago
  • jsayler
    • +3
      jsayler  

    • The issues of safety should never be slighted--neither by the crew nor by the airline. FAA regulations must be strictly adhered to and improved.

    • 10 months ago
  • remanns
  • jsayler
  • TrishR
    • +1
      TrishR  

    • What risk are we more willing to assume - that US. Airlines might lose some money because they had to pull a plane out of rotation so it can be repaired, or a bunch of people ending up vaporized in a cornfield?

    • 10 months ago
  • EthicalVegan
  • TrishR
  • Milieu
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos