What's up at the ol' airline?

The answer: same thing that's up at every other airline.

The journalists that get paid to write about this stuff will tell you that American Airlines shouldn't be flying planes around. (The rhetoric looks good/attracts attention for headlines, leaders, Google hits, etc..) Based on recent (and, admittedly, dismal) on-time statistics alone, that conclusion is ridiculous, unsupportable and irresponsible conjecture.

If you were to accurately identify maintenance issues and their ensuing effects at the other major airlines, you would see a statistical tie, based on averages of  aircraft hours and average passenger air miles flown or scheduled.  Because American Airlines management is in the middle of a sizable labor dispute with the Allied Pilots Association, the pilot's union, every hiccup becomes newsworthy and the normally transparent components of running an international airline become opaque and, ultimately, distracting.

Every pilot can point to any piece of journalism (professional or otherwise) and pick out the fouled nomenclature and inaccurate recounting.  Most of these journalists don't have the experience or patience to source the material in order to simply honor the truth.  (Politicians seem to be equally as challenged...hence factcheck.org..but that is an enormous digression best saved for another rant..) Some get close and some just offer opinions, which cannot be rejected because it is, simply (and merely), opinion.  As we know, opinions aren't necessarily encumbered with fact.  Strictly speaking, opinions don't have to be.  But, to respect an opinion, the reader should have a working knowledge of the truth and then decide if it's worthy of consideration (and changing their own opinion).

The truth here is that problems exist at all airlines.  The issues at American have little to do with aviation safety or compromised public risk.  As I tell my passengers, airline flying is a safe venture because we have very specific rules and procedures in place.  These lines, in most cases, are clearly drawn and the consequences that follow are, essentially, binary.  In all other cases, the outcomes are based on subjective evaluations, derived by experience and judgement and ending with the captain's decision.  It is this very subjectivity that is getting so much attention.

Negotiations Resume

In an effort to move towards the mutual goal of running a thriving international airline with the newest fleet of jets (more than 500 on order from Boeing and Airbus), intense negotiations between management and the pilot union will resume this week.  This 11th hour revelation is welcomed news for the company, the employees and, most importantly, the passengers.

My charge is to insure your safety, strive for your comfort and accomplish this in a timely way.  This is what you asked of me when you traded your credit card number for an airplane ride. This is exactly what you will find on my jet.

The Times, They Are a-Changin'

Dylan (Bob) was (is) so right.

The pilots of American Airlines are approaching a waypoint.  This is a point in legal and nautical space where a course, as yet to be selected, will be taken.  Dynamic environments require planning, consideration and intentionality. Procrastination is not an option.  For those who want to wait and see what happens, I recommend geology.

Since this vote will determine the course of our airline after August 8th, 2012, the choice is pivotal.  It is also binary.  We have to decide whether to accept the tentative agreement (TA) the union (Allied Pilots Association) has approved and sent to the membership for ratification or reject it and let the bankruptcy court decide our initial fate.  The choice is really simple.  If a member believes that there is more on the table that can be brought to the pilots in the form of another agreement, that pilot will vote no.  If a pilot believes that approving this deal is better than the consequences of a TA rejection, which would probably include: contract abrogation by the court, extended time frame for re-negotiations and confidence that this agreement will allow American Airlines to compete effectively with the competition while securing benefits not included in the consequences of contract abrogation, that pilot will vote yes.

The pilots are frustrated and angry.  Some see a 'no' vote as a message to management that enough is enough.  We gave hundreds of millions with our concessionary vote in '03 and management has wasted our money and run us into the ground (which, in any aviation sense, is a really bad idea).  Others see this as a realistic path to health and prosperity based on where we are (vs. where we were).  The industry has changed and the competition has figured that out. We either change with the environment or become part of the pantheon of airlines that exist only in the forms of memorabilia, fables, and stories from the good ol' days.

The younger pilots with impaired seniority may reject this TA because they have other options overseas.  The older/senior pilots might reject this because they believe their "seats" to be safe (with more on the table and nothing to lose). Everyone else might see the pay raises, seat protection, retirement protection and 13.5% equity stake as two in the bush and vote yes to ratify the agreement.  In any case, it seems that some votes are based on anger and some votes based on objective consequences.

Many have called for a new management team.  Many would love to see Bob Crandall's return to an AMR leadership role.  Bob Crandall believes that the pilots must accept this TA.  If A equals B...

Regardless, the best vote, yes or no, is the one that is based on prudence and pragmatism.  It's perfectly valid to be angry at management failures and mistakes now in the past, but the valid vote is based on the objective flow chart.  This is how we fly airplanes.  This vote for our collective futures should be handled with equal and due consideration.

Unintelligently Designed Republicans

It's getting worse and worse: Devo. The current election cycle is proof positive that evolution is culling the intelligence from the current republican primary process.  It would be, how can I put this gently...inhumane.. of any being with any creative ability whatsoever to intentionally create politicians that are as insulting to the American electorate as the cast of clowns currently in the media spotlight.  So, ID just can't be a player here (or anywhere else because..well, let's save that for another day). With over thirty people on the New Hampshire ballot as candidates for President..of the United States... (okay, some of them want to make it a legal requirement to brush your teeth..which, actually, might have some merit), it may behoove the good people of New Hampshire to take a serious look at some of the folks that were not invited to the debates.

But, let's take a snapshot of the players still standing.  (I just don't have the heart to pick on the ones that have bailed out..tempting as it might be.) As a given, let's just say that the one thing they have in common is pandering.  They have all changed their positions to match what they think the audience du jour wants to hear.  Okay; flip-flop, flip-flop, whatever it takes to put me on top.  One millionaire likes firing people and says he created about fifty times as many jobs as he actually has. (By the way, the President can't fire elected officials...which truly is a shame.) In an effort to dilute and erase his own egregious acts, another millionaire admits mistakes while not taking responsibility for his own hypocrisy, all the while using semantics to cover the millions he raked in doing exactly what he is now accusing his rivals of doing.  And then there's the guy who wants to turn the government upside down, clean the slate and alienate every ally the US has (left), while being eleven years past normal retirement age.  If he were there for two terms (I'll wait for the laughing to cease...).....he'd be 84 when he started writing his memoirs, assuming he could remember where he left his pen.  Then there's the genius (millionaire) who can't answer a question without asking a question (instead of inserting an answer) and thinks that clear moral certitude comes directly from a supreme being and ethics are right or wrong...because he (the candidate) said so.  Can't ya just see it?  "Kids, clean the dishes and Newt, launch the nukes... why? because I said so, that's why.."  And then there's the guy that wants to eliminate three government agencies, just as soon as gets around to remembering which ones they are, and now makes a joke about it.  This is the same guy that insists on vaccinations for all women but thinks that outlawing texting is too invasive in people's lives.

This country doesn't need any one of these guys.  We need, rather, the world needs a few really smart people to ramp up the debate.  There should be a brilliant opponent to the incumbent of every political race because it's the discussion that elevates the process and educates the people.  It makes the debaters better and smarter and willing to change positions because they...yes, with any luck at all, they evolve. After all, it's only natural.

The outcome in New Hampshire won't change the winner of the nomination.  It would be refreshing, however, if the candidates went to South Carolina with the idea that there are no easy answers. 9-9-9 ideas are insulting, shortsighted, unsophisticated and are merely naive concepts of the truly complex matrices that are integral to a country that is way too large for bumper sticker slogans.