Showing posts with label American Airlines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Airlines. Show all posts
Friday, April 11, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Open Skies Era Arrives, Labor Fight Begins
From CNN:
The first plane has landed under the "Open Skies" agreement [pdf] between the United States and Europe, heralding what many hope will be a new era in air travel. The Continental Airways flight from Newark to Heathrow touched down under rainy London skies at dawn on Sunday morning. Jeff Smisek, president of Continental, was onboard the flight. He told CNN that Heathrow landing rights had cost the airline $200 million -- but that it had been "money well invested."
"The business traveler wants to come to Heathrow," Smisek told CNN's Richard Quest, who was also on the flight. "We have been locked out of Heathrow for decades and it is the most important business market in the world. We are delighted to be here." Quest said other airlines were already landing at Heathrow, including a US Airways flight from Philadelphia and Northwest Airlines from Minneapolis.
The new deal means that passengers on both sides of the Atlantic will now have more options when it comes to nonstop flights. ..."National boundaries will no longer determined where planes can fly," Quest said before today's flight.
In educational interest, article(s) quoted from extensively.
From AP:
As briefly mentioned in the close of the AP report, in January British Airways announced the creation of a spin-off airline -- called OpenSkies -- that would capitalize on the new aviation agreement. Via AFP:
British Airways on Wednesday unveiled plans for a new airline with daily flights from New York to Europe, taking advantage of last year's EU-US "open skies" deal to free up the key transatlantic market. The subsidiary airline, to be called OpenSkies, will be launched in June and initially use one Boeing 757 passenger aircraft that will operate from New York to either Brussels or Paris Charles de Gaulle airports, BA said in a statement.
The single-aisle plane will cater for up to 82 passengers shared between business, premium economy and economy cabins. The Boeing 757 is normally configured for some 200 seats. BA did not reveal likely ticket prices nor whether OpenSkies would be based on Maxjet, the low-fare business class airline which declared bankruptcy on Christmas Day.
"This is an exciting new venture for us and we're confident that it will be a great success as we build on the strength of British Airways' brand in the US and Europe," BA chief executive Willie Walsh said in a statement. "By naming the airline OpenSkies, we're celebrating the first major step in 60 years towards a liberalised US/EU aviation market which means we can fly between any US and EU destination," he added.
The problem with this exciting announcement, as far as it concerns the employees of British Airways, is that the growth would be outsourced (at a cheaper cost, of course). The issues, as explained by BA's pilot's union, BALPA:
British Airways is launching a new airline called OpenSkies. A very exciting new venture, one that will exploit the upside of ‘deregulation’ (routes being opened to non-national carriers) by flying out of European hubs across to the United States.
It should be a good news story, but it is not turning out that way. British Airways don’t want these British Airways planes to be flown by British Airways Pilots. They want to outsource these jobs.
We understand that ‘Openskies’ can only be successful if the employees initially have salaries and contracts commensurate with a ‘start up’ airline. That is not our issue.
Our issue is the fact that British Airways won’t allow the two pilot groups to be as one. This leads us to believe that the BA management has a different objective. That objective is to divide the pilot workforce and push any further new jobs generated by ‘deregulation’ through this ‘cheaper’ pilot cost base. This has happened in other airlines around the world.
This dispute is about job security. It is about protecting the jobs we train so hard for, the jobs that provide for our families.
BALPA has been working to resolve this issue for almost a year but it seems that British Airways is determined to proceed regardless. The only way in which we can secure the respect of BA’s management – a respect that is in very short supply, despite the job we perform, is to stand firm against such a direct attack. We sincerely hope that this does not lead to strike action, and we will exhaust every alternative means of influence before taking this course of action.
In February, British Airways pilots voted to strike over OpenSkies, and BA management quickly agreed to enter into mediation over the issue. Earlier this month 1,000 picketed at London Heathrow. Via Bloomberg:
About 1,000 pilots and their family members marched toward British Airways' offices near London Heathrow airport, in a protest that lasted two and a half hours, spokesman Keith Bill said today in a telephone interview. Police closed the A4 road to allow access to the pilots.
The British Air Line Pilots Association, or Balpa, has voted to strike in protest of BA's OpenSkies unit, which will fly between Paris and New York starting in June. British Airways wants to recruit pilots for the new business from outside its current pool, and the union says BA will use the subsidiary to force changes to pay and working conditions for all of the airline's flight crews.
"We want the pilots flying to be BA pilots," Jim McAuslan, Balpa's general secretary, said today in a telephone interview as the protest came to an end. "It's about job security, careers and respect."
British Airways Chief Executive Officer Willie Walsh has said the new carrier needs a lower cost base if it's to compete with larger network airlines. OpenSkies is part of the airline's response to a European Union-U.S. agreement that will liberalize trans-Atlantic air travel starting March 31. The airline has given assurances that OpenSkies will not affect the salaries and terms of mainline pilots. OpenSkies will use a single Boeing Co. 757 plane to operate the first Paris-New York service, growing to six planes by the end of 2009.
"British Airways wants to preserve their flexibility -- it wants business passengers for OpenSkies, they're going to be hard won and they need to do it economically," said John Strickland, director of London-based aviation specialist JLS Consulting Ltd. "They seem to have done their best to calm the fears of Balpa, but the union has been influenced by what they've seen in the States."
Indeed, British Airways' OneWorld Alliance partner pilots at American Airlines had an ominous warning of the consequences that may flow from the loss of protective SCOPE clause provisions for BA's pilots if they lose this fight:
Again from Bloomberg:
British Airways is trying to use EU competition law to prevent a strike, according to Balpa. The law gives EU nationals the right to establish businesses in another of the bloc's countries.
Balpa represents about 3,000 of the airline's 3,200 pilots. The Air Line Pilots Association, said it will support Balpa's demonstration this weekend by picketing at U.S. airports including New York's John F. Kennedy International, Washington Dulles, Los Angeles International, San Francisco International and Seattle Tacoma International.
American Airlines Inc. pilots were picketing at the British Airways terminal at John F. Kennedy airport at the same time as the protest march in London took place, McAuslan said.
Dallas Morning News' Terry Maxon offered some insight into a related issue concerning American Airlines and British Airways, both of which have been trying for the past decade to tighten up their relationship through lobbying for antitrust immunity for their OneWorld Alliance codeshare agreement:
As long as American and British Airways lack antitrust immunity for their alliance, I don't think we'll see American offering Executive Club miles on its U.S.-London flights or British Airways offering AAdvantage miles on its U.S.-London flights.
Their application for antitrust immunity would have allowed the two carriers to pool revenues across the North Atlantic, so that they'd get a share of the airfares regardless of which airline carried the passenger. But without immunity, they are competitors on the U.S.-London flights and have no reason to give potential customers an incentive to fly the other carrier.
Having said that, let me point out that the alliance may have a better chance with Open Skies in effect. The big drawback to allowing American and British Airways to cooperate is that BA dominated Heathrow Airport, American was a big player and most other carriers were shut out of the U.S.-Heathrow market.
Antitrust regulators in a 2002 decision said BA and AA could have limited antitrust immunity only if they would agree to surrender enough slots to let competitors operate 16 roundtrip flights a day into Heathrow. Thanks, but no thanks, the two airlines said at the time.
Maxon concludes that BA and AA may eventually revisit an application for antitrust immunity in light of today's opening up of the market to additional competitors. But what will the Open Skies agreement itself mean to passengers? Will it improve service, reduce prices and increase choice for the average consumer? No, says AP:
[A]irlines already struggling with sky-high fuel prices and an economic slowdown see open skies' relaxed route restrictions primarily as a way to attract more of the high-end business and affluent leisure travelers they covet and see as necessary to their financial survival.
British Airways, for instance, is launching a new trans-Atlantic airline to take advantage of the agreement -- aptly named OpenSkies -- but will offer only 30 economy-class seats on each 82-seat plane, with the rest evenly split between first and business class. "There is a move afoot ... to use smaller (airplanes) flown nonstop to push leisure customers by the wayside ... except for those willing to pay far higher prices," said Robert Mann, an independent airline consultant in Port Washington, New York.
As oil has pushed past $100 a barrel, propelling jet fuel prices to record levels, many carriers have cut domestic capacity and moved planes to international routes, where ticket prices -- and profits -- are higher. The open skies agreement appears likely to hasten the shift. While the number of overall flights may increase and some cities will get new service and routes, the vast majority of the new flights will be on the same well-trafficked routes. ...
Open skies may offer travelers more in the way of convenience than savings, but it is likely to help the airlines' bottom lines. Carriers say open skies' biggest benefit is giving them the freedom to quickly make changes to their flight schedules. Many airlines will also launch new code-sharing agreements -- which let them book passengers on one another's planes.
"Liberalization of the trans-Atlantic market allows us to pursue growth opportunities where and when they make commercial sense with less government interference," said John Tague, United's chief revenue officer.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Air Marshals Go MIA on U.S. Flights
On Tuesday, Anderson Cooper 360 covered the issue of the declining number of armed guards devoted to securing the U.S. skies. The investigation was conducted by Drew Griffin, who filed this report:
From CNN:
Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-board, armed federal air marshals, a nationwide CNN investigation has found.
That means a terrorist or other criminal bent on taking over an aircraft would be confronted by a trained air marshal on as few as 280 daily flights, according to more than a dozen federal air marshals and pilots interviewed by CNN.
The Transportation Security Administration flatly denied those reports. Greg Alter, assistant special agent in charge of the federal air marshal program, said the 280 number "grossly understates coverage by an order of magnitude" and that the number is "four digits," but he would not elaborate.
In a post on its Web site responding to the CNN story, the TSA said it would not disclose the number of air marshals flying each day so as not to "tip our hand to terrorists." However, it said, "The actual number of flights that air marshals cover is thousands per day."
In educational interest, article(s) quoted from extensively.
Pilots and federal law enforcement officers interviewed by CNN said they hadn't seen air marshals on board their flights in months -- some saying they had not crossed paths with one in the past six months:
Air marshals who spoke with CNN anonymously in order to protect their jobs are especially troubled by the lack of coverage on flights in and out of Washington and New York, the two cities targeted by the 9/11 hijackers. Marshals, pilots and other law enforcement officials told CNN these flights are protected by far fewer air marshals than in the past. ...
Air marshals told CNN that while the TSA tells the public it cannot divulge numbers because they are classified, the agency tells its own agents that at least 5 percent of all flights are covered. But marshals across the country -- all of whom spoke with CNN on the condition they not be identified for fear of losing their jobs -- said the 5 percent figure quoted to them by their TSA bosses is not possible.
One marshal said that while security is certainly one reason the numbers are kept secret, he believes the agency simply doesn't want taxpayers to know the truth. "I would be very embarrassed by [the numbers] if they were to get out," one air marshal said. "The American public would be shocked. ... I think the average person understands there's no physical way to protect every single flight everywhere," the air marshal said. "But it's such a small percentage. It's just very aggravating for us."
Sources inside the air marshal field offices told CNN the program has been unable to stem the losses of trained air marshals since the program's numbers peaked in 2003 -- and many of those who have left have not been replaced.
CNN was told that staffing in Dallas, Texas, for instance, is down 44 percent from its high, while Seattle, Washington, has 40 percent fewer agents. Las Vegas, Nevada, which had as many as 245 air marshals, this past February had only 47. The Transportation Security Administration is advertising for applicants to fill 50 air marshal positions.
A few stats from the TSA:
On September 11, 2001, the Air Marshal Program consisted of less than fifty armed marshals who, by statute, flew only on international flights flown by U.S. air carriers. The tragic events which unfolded that day demonstrated the need for an expanded law enforcement presence on board American carriers on both foreign and domestic flights.
As a result of the attacks, President George W. Bush ordered the rapid expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Over 200,000 applications were initially received, from which several thousand qualified Federal Air Marshals were selected. Those who were hired came from a diverse background of experience including other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and the military.
Today, Federal Air Marshals serve as the primary law enforcement entity within the Transportation Security Administration and are deployed on flights around the world and in the United States. While their primary mission of protecting air passengers and crew has not changed much over the years, Federal Air Marshals have an ever expanding role in homeland security and work closely with other law enforcement agencies to accomplish their mission.
Currently, air marshals staff several positions at different organizations such as the National Counterterrorism Center, the National Targeting Center, and on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces. In addition, they are also distributed among other law enforcement and homeland security liaison assignments during times of heightened alert or special national events.
The men and women who make up the Federal Air Marshal Service are dedicated, well trained law enforcement professionals, each equipped with the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary keep our aviation system safe and secure.
On average, a Federal Air Marshal:
* Flies 181 days per year
* Flies 15 days per month
* Spends 900 hours in an aircraft per year
* Spends five hours in an aircraft per day
A few more details via the CNN report:
David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance and a pilot himself, said that, based on conversations with other pilots and marshals, he believes the TSA is overstating the number of flights that are protected by a federal marshal.
In his e-mail to CNN, Alter wrote, "In 2007, the Federal Air Marshal Service attrition rate was approximately 6.5 percent, the same approximate average it has been for almost the entire period since the agency's expansion after September 11, 2001." ...
As it turns out, the words "coverage" or "covered" have special meaning when applied to the air marshal service. In his e-mail to CNN, TSA's Alter said, "The Federal Air Marshal Service employs an intelligence driven and risk based approach to covering flights." ...Alter said he uses the term "covered" to mean that a federal marshal is on board.
But air marshals and pilots CNN spoke with say that's not exactly the case. These sources say the marshal service considers a flight "covered" even if a marshal is not on board -- as long as a law enforcement officer or pilot in possession of a firearm is on board, even if that person is flying for personal reasons. The "covered" designation includes pilots armed in the cockpit. ...
The firearms training program for pilots is budgeted at $25 million. And while it is popular among airline pilots, many complain that they have to spend as much as $3,000 of their own money for lodging and meals when they take the course. By comparison, the federal air marshal budget this year is $720 million. But air marshals who spoke with CNN question where the money is going when their numbers are dwindling and fewer than 1 percent of flights are covered on any given day.
"I'm afraid in the past, the only things that have really worked has been to call out the media and say we need people to call their congressman, call their senators and tell them they want better protection, and hopefully the changes will trickle down to us," one marshal said.
If you feel strongly about this issue, please contact your representatives and demand attention to this important matter. Ironically, only days before the CNN report, a US Airways pilot's gun discharged in the cockpit on descent in preparation for landing.
Jefferson George's report in the Charlotte Observer:
The US Airways captain whose gun discharged in the cockpit of a Charlotte-bound flight Saturday is a former Air Force pilot who lives in Pittsburgh. The pilot, James Langenhahn, declined to discuss the shooting Thursday night. "As much as I'd like to talk about it," he told the Observer, "I can't right now."
His name was released, apparently inadvertently, after the Observer questioned the government's concealment of facts on a police report [pdf] of the incident. The in-flight shooting was the first such incident since pilots began carrying guns after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Langenhahn, 55, is part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the Transportation Security Administration. He was stowing the 13-shot, .40-caliber pistol when it discharged -- piercing the cockpit wall and fuselage -- while the plane was preparing to land in Charlotte late Saturday morning, according to the report. Other details released Thursday also indicate that the gun's holster is being investigated in the shooting. Some pilots have criticized the locking holster system for the Heckler & Koch USP pistol as inappropriate for the program that arms pilots. ...
The bullet -- fired at about 11:20 a.m. Saturday -- struck the left side of the cockpit wall and exited the fuselage below a window. The plane, an Airbus A319 en route from Denver, was at an altitude of 8,000 feet and about eight minutes from Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, according to the police report. Along with the captain and first officer, the jet carried three flight attendants and 124 passengers -- none of whom reported hearing the gunshot. ...
In December, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper reported that US Airways pilot Jim Langenhahn organized a barbershop-singing tribute to a World War II veteran. The event was partly in memory of his own father, a parachute rigger in the South Pacific. The article identified Langenhahn as a former Air Force pilot.
In 1999, Langenhahn wrote a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after a deadly American Airlines crash in Arkansas. He urged the FAA to overhaul its rules governing work and rest period for pilots, which he said would make flying safer.
Local WCNC-Charlotte, N.C., broadcast on the incident:
Friday, March 21, 2008
FAA, Airlines Under the Gun
Reporters Christopher Conkey and Andy Pasztor over at the Wall Street Journal set the scene as we take the pulse of today's FAA and the airline industry it's charged with overseeing:
As it addresses concerns over airline inspections, the Federal Aviation Administration faces pressure from Congress and industry to change how it ensures the safety of air travel and how it overhauls the aging air-traffic-control system.
The agency was already dealing with a protracted labor battle, resistance to its congestion-relief initiatives and Democratic opposition to President Bush's nominee to head the FAA. Then, revelations surfaced this month that an FAA supervisor had let Southwest Airlines Co. keep flying older jets even though they had missed required inspections.
The FAA and airlines immediately afterward suggested the issue was a rare oversight. The FAA inspectors' union and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said a wider problem existed.
The agency changed course this week, initiating industry-wide maintenance audits at every airline.
In addition to Southwest, the article goes on to say that US Airways has since underperformed during an FAA spot check of its maintenance records. And, in related news, United announced the grounding of several of its 747s due to maintenance issues yesterday. Soaring fuel costs. Higher ticket prices. Cuts in service. Maintenance issues.
The difficulties mount for the airline industry -- and the FAA.
In educational interest, article(s) quoted from extensively.
First, a look back at the scandal over improper FAA maintenance inspections at Southwest. Associated Press:
More background via Kim Zetter at Wired:
...[T]he FAA has fined Southwest $10.2 million for safety violations that include failing to conduct mandatory inspections and continuing to fly planes that the airline knew hadn't been inspected for fuselage cracks and fatigue. (After Southwest finally inspected the planes it discovered cracks in some of them, yet continued to fly them.) Investigators at the Federal Aviation Administration have also been accused by internal whistleblowers of being too cozy with the airline and failing to provide proper oversight of Southwest.
After the FAA announced its fine, Southwest grounded more than three dozen planes last week to conduct additional inspections -- these involved skin around the plane's windows that Boeing had suggested be inspected in a bulletin released back in 2002. ...
According to the FAA's findings, the airline had flown nearly four dozen jets on more than 59,000 flights before it realized that it hadn't conducted required safety inspections on the planes. Then, even after the airline became aware that it hadn't conducted inspections, it continued to fly 38 Boeing jets on a total of 1,451 flights without checking the planes.
When the airline finally got around to inspecting the planes, it found cracks in half a dozen of them -- including one crack that was nearly four inches long. ...[A] similar fracture caused an Aloha Airlines jet to rip apart in 1988.
Re: UAL, Julie Johnsson at Chicago Tribune reports:
United Airlines pulled aside seven Boeing 747s for reinspection on Thursday after discovering onboard technology that steers the giant aircraft clear of other planes in the air hadn't been maintained according to the Chicago-based airline's standards. ...
United acted after FAA inspectors discovered the Korean firm that handles heavy maintenance on United's jumbo jets had used improperly inspected equipment to test the systems that help the jets avoid midair collisions. The systems are critical given the recent push by regulators to reduce the amount of space between aircraft to help reduce overcrowding in the skies.
The test equipment at a facility operated by Korean Air in Busan, Korea, is used to calibrate the United 747s' altitude and air data computers to the precise level needed to let the planes fly within 1,000 feet vertically of other aircraft, instead of the 2,000-foot vertical separation that used to be the industry standard. ...
Airline maintenance is drawing fresh scrutiny from Congress and organized labor as carriers increasingly shift work to outside vendors, including maintenance shops based overseas. Critics contend that the quality of work is slipping because overtaxed FAA inspectors can't monitor work scattered across many repair stations as effectively as maintenance done in-house by airline workers.
The two unions vying to represent United's mechanics in a special election were quick to criticize the airline and federal inspectors for Wednesday's actions. "The issue is the FAA does not have the ability to monitor these facilities," said Joseph Prisco, president of Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association Local 9 in San Francisco.
Picking it up again with the WSJ:
Attention now is focusing on the agency's process for conducting inspections, the Air Transportation Oversight System, which relies on data submitted by the airlines. The system calls for the agency's roughly 3,000 inspectors to spend more time analyzing industry-provided data than conducting physical inspections. The inspectors' union, passenger groups and some lawmakers say that has essentially abdicated a regulatory role to the industry.
They take information from the carriers, put them into formulas and do very focused inspections," said Linda Goodrich, a vice president of the union that represents most FAA inspectors. "The carrier knows when we're showing up and exactly what we're going after."
Dave Michaels and Terry Maxon of the Dallas Morning News offer a revealing look at the genesis of the Air Transport Oversight System. In the interest of education, I'll quote a healthy passage, but recommend your reading the entire detail-heavy piece:
The FAA began moving away from its confrontational, cop-on-the-beat approach to policing the airlines after the 1996 ValuJet crash in Florida that killed 110 people. Even then, the FAA took blame for going easy on airlines in order to promote commercial aviation.
The FAA was faulted for poor oversight of ValuJet, an airline that grew quickly and farmed out almost all of its maintenance. The agency admitted that it didn't have enough inspectors to monitor the airline. It later prohibited the shipment of oxygen generators in cargo holds, where a fire started that brought down the plane.
"In a system as large as ours, you can't inspect every individual part or flight or airplane," said Andrew Steinberg, a former U.S. assistant secretary of transportation who left the agency this year. "Clearly you need some spot-checking, like there are traffic cops on the highways," he said. "But the basic framework for safety is to make sure the airlines' programs are in place to ensure safety."
The post-ValuJet era introduced big changes.
FAA inspectors now file fewer "enforcements," as investigations bearing sanctions are known. Instead, they're supposed to focus on the most serious risks – ones that cause accidents – by analyzing data provided by the airlines. The airlines are encouraged to self-report regulatory violations. By doing so, the companies can avoid fines. But they also learn lessons that prevent accidents, FAA officials said.
Peggy Gilligan, the FAA's deputy associate administrator for aviation safety, said the approach strikes a balance between enforcement and information sharing, because "we have learned over the years that you can't enforce perfect safety." The equilibrium allows the FAA to "learn lessons before we see risk manifest itself as incidents or accidents," Ms. Gilligan said this week.
Even critics say that new approach, known as the Air Transportation Oversight System, makes sense. With ValuJet, a start-up airline that grew quickly, "it was impossible to get a handle on the enormous amount of stuff going on," Ms. Goodrich said. "We had no way to prioritize the risk."
Read the entire breathtaking piece.
[UPDATE Mar 26, 2008] Another airline, this time American, finds itself grounding its MD-80's for inspections today:
American Airlines canceled approximately 200 flights this morning to reinspect wiring on its fleet of MD-80 aircraft. Inspections take a few hours, and the company is rotating its MD-80 aircraft back into service as soon as they are cleared.
The need for the unscheduled inspections emerged during a Federal Aviation Administration audit of the Fort Worth, Texas-based airline's maintenance records. ... The FAA said today this was not a safety issue and explained that the inspection concerns a wiring bundle in the airplanes' wheel well. The airline is required to secure every one inch, and the aircraft in question may have had the bundles secured every 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 inches.
The FAA is taking extra precautions on the heels of accusations that Southwest Airlines missed, or failed to document, airplane inspections. That prompted the FAA to announce it was proposing a $10.2 million fine against the carrier -- the largest fine ever imposed against a passenger airline.
Last week, the FAA announced a more far-reaching audit to ensure all airlines — more than 100 of them — are complying with maintenance requirements. ... American Airlines said "many inspections have already been completed and the aircraft are currently in service," according to its statement. "We are in the process of completing the inspections on the remaining airplanes and will return them to service on a rolling basis throughout the day."
The company operates 300 MD-80 aircraft, all of which are part of this reinspection. Congress plans to further examine airline inspection issues next month.
From the Associated Press:
Related Posts
American, United Flight Attendants and Post-9/11 Trauma
American Airlines flight attendant note by Damien Stark.
I recently came across the photo above left near Ground Zero for one of the crew members lost that day. The text of the note:
Thank you, Karen Martin, for picking up my trip. I will never forget you and what you did to save my life. I pray you are in peace in the big arms of Jesus and I look forward to when I can thank you personally. With love always, Gerianne. American Airlines Boston flight attendant.
Even those physically clear from immediate danger can cope with survivor guilt. Crew members like Gerianne are not alone. In January, United Airlines settled a lawsuit filed by one of its flight attendants who suffered with post-traumatic stress following the attacks.
Jonathan Saltzman wrote in the Boston Globe:
A former United Airlines flight attendant who narrowly missed being on one of the hijacked jets that crashed into the World Trade Center has settled a federal lawsuit that accused the airline of wrongfully firing her after she was unable to work because of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Deborah Jackson of Plaistow, N.H., had worked for United Airlines out of Logan International Airport for 17 years when the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred, according to the suit. ...Jackson was a regular flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston to Los Angeles and won praise from her employer and passengers, according to the suit. She said in a brief interview last night that she was scheduled to work on that flight the day after the attacks.
After Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, killing many close friends and colleagues, Jackson "suffered extreme guilt, grief, and stress" and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the suit said.
She accepted an offer of a furlough from the airline because it was too difficult to return to work, the suit said.
In August 2005, United notified Jackson that she could return to work and she began her flight attendant recertification process. (All crew members returning from extended leave or furlough are required to complete refresher FAA airplane evacuation and safety equipment training.) Unfortunately for Jackson, fear paralyzed her immediately and she was unable to complete this task. She was ineligible to return to the line.
Continuing:
Her conduct was "contrary to her outstanding performance" before Sept. 11 and illustrated how the disaster had affected her, according to the lawsuit. Jackson repeatedly asked United Airlines to continue her furlough or make other accommodations for her, but the airline refused and wrongfully fired her in November 2005, the suit said.
The following year, she recovered from post-traumatic stress disorder and asked the airline to rehire her, but it would not, said the suit.
In January, United and Jackson were able to reach a private settlement. Another United flight case appeared in 2003. David Shadovitz wrote of the case in Human Resource Executive:
A New Jersey appellate court recently ruled that a flight attendant whose co-workers died on the ill-fated United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pa., on Sept. 11, 2001, was ineligible to collect workers' comp benefits because her resulting post-traumatic stress disorder occurred outside the workplace.
Flight attendant Kim Stroka was originally scheduled to work on Flight 93 from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco on Sept. 11, but decided to take the day off without pay. After learning of the plane crash while at a bowling alley, Stroka became emotionally distraught and was later diagnosed by her psychologist as suffering from PTSD. Stroka applied for workers' comp, but was denied benefits by United, which argued she was not entitled to them because her injury did not occur in the course of her work.
While recognizing the tragic nature of Stroka's injury, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court nonetheless emphasized that an employee must be working or furthering his or her employer's interests at the time of the injury to be eligible for compensation.
Because Stroka was not performing any activity that benefited her employer at the time of the crash and did not suffer any injury while working that led her to develop PTSD, the court concluded that her injury did not occur in the course of her employment. ... In issuing its decision, the three-judge appellate court overturned an earlier ruling of a workers' comp judge, who awarded to Stroka medical and disability payments.
The December 2003 Capehart Scatchard Workers’ Compensation Newsletter [pdf] offered up a few more details in an article written by John H. Geaney, Esq.:
Petitioner began psychiatric treatment on September 24,2001 with Dr. Stephen Clarfield for post-traumatic stress syndrome. She told her doctor that she felt guilty that she was alive, while someone else in her place had been killed.
Petitioner did not return to work and continued to treat on a biweekly basis. She filed a claim petition seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. Petitioner testified that her company provided her with training regarding hijackings. Flight attendants viewed a security video and read a Federal Aviation Administration handbook on how to deal with a hijacking crisis.
The Judge of Compensation found that the petitioner’s stress condition was work-related and awarded medical and temporary disability benefits to the petitioner. As of the time of trial, petitioner was still fearful and was having panic attacks when she would see a runway. United appealed the decision and argued that petitioner’s psychiatric condition did not arise from work. The Appellate Division agreed:Petitioner’s post-traumatic stress syndrome originated not while she was at work, but while she was taking a day off. Nothing happened while she was working which led to her current condition. She was not working at the time Flight 93 crashed, nor at the time she heard the news of the crash. In fact, her reaction to the event occurred because she was not working, not because she was working. If we were to accept petitioner’s argument, off-duty police officers, firefighters, and others whose jobs are inherently risky could seek compensation benefits when a fellow employee was injured or killed while taking that employee’s place. No authority exists to support that position.
This case is an important one because it delineates a line between compensable occupational stress and non-compensable occupational stress.
The newsletter contains a companion review of Supreme Court rulings on such PTSD cases, making it well worth a read [pdf].
Finally, a 20-year Pan Am flight attendant and current 15-year licensed marriage and family therapist, Helen Davey, PhD, wrote a brief Self Psychology paper offering empathetic advice to her former aviation colleagues in the wake of 9/11. In the interest of education and in the hopes that it may help others, I'm excerpting an extended portion of it:
Perhaps if you just pretend that we're sitting on a jumpseat together, doing what flight attendants do best -- jumpseat therapy -- I can offer some ideas about what you might be feeling and why.
Most people are not aware that Pan Am employees endured continuing terrorist attacks since the 1970's, and that we had to live with constant threats as well as the loss of friends. Add to that the pressure of management problems, financial turmoil, airplane crashes, layoffs, Lockerbie, and, finally, the fall of Pan Am, and it adds up to a traumatized work force. Aware of the turmoil that my beloved fellow employees endured, I decided to study trauma through the eyes and hearts of former Pan Am employees. I then wrote my doctoral dissertation on what I learned and titled it A Psychoanalytic Exploration of the Fall of Pan Am. I hope that it might be of some benefit to you in these uncertain and scary times. ...
The symptoms of trauma can sneak up on you in subtle ways, until you finally feel overwhelmed and don't know what hit you. Symptoms vary widely from individual to individual, and can include feelings of hopelessness, indifference, and isolation. Insomnia is common, or the feeling of just wanting to stay in bed under the covers where it's safe. A loss of appetite or the inability to stop eating everything in sight can be experienced, as well as headaches, chest pains, and feelings of intense fear when recollecting the overwhelming event, or putting yourselves in the terrifying place of those who lost their lives, and imagining exactly what it was like for them. And, of course, wondering how you would have handled the same situation yourself. Persistent anxiety, jumpiness, fears, or feeling out of control, and excessive worry over loved ones' safety can be present.
Fundamental to the experience of trauma can be a devastating sense of helplessness. In my study of Pan Am employees, this feeling of powerlessness was a common theme. Sometimes this led to feelings of betrayal and painful disillusionment with Pan Am's management, who were seen as parental figures. However, such anger was not usually felt toward the Pan Am "family" as a whole.
I can see many parallels between the feelings and behaviors of Pan Am employees and those of American Airlines employees now. Are you feeling angry about not having been protected? Some employees turn to unusual behaviors to counteract their helpless feelings. For example, they may become obsessed with gaining as much knowledge as possible about what is happening. Or they may keep their lives "orderly," cleaning out and straightening every nook and cranny in their homes. There are some flight attendants who have not even been able to unpack their bags since September 11.
Others deal with the emotional trauma by a cutting off of emotion, and sometimes pushing those close to them away. Are you feeling numb or not very loving? A particularly traumatizing aspect of September 11 was the inability of so many flight attendants to get home. Many people state that they are less afraid of dying than of again being helplessly stranded so far from home. They are more terrified of feeling those feelings again than they are of actually dying. ...
A traumatized person can feel as if he or she is an alien to the "normal" people around them, a conviction which leads to a sense of alienation and aloneness, that an unbridgeable gulf separates him or her from the understanding of others. Anxiety slips into panic when it has to be born in isolation. Hence, there needs to be a place where painful feelings can be shared. I know that many of you feel that family and loved ones have a hard time understanding what you're going through since September 11, and perhaps you might even feel estranged from your fellow flight attendants, especially if they are not expressing feelings of fear. ...
Flight attendants, in my experience, seem to have a feeling that they should be emotionally invincible, impervious to fears having to do with flying. Many flight attendants have expressed feelings of humiliation to me about such fears, and this shame seems to be as painful as the fear itself. Several flight attendants have expressed thoughts such as "if I were strong or spiritually grounded, I wouldn't be feeling depressed or anxious." Thus, ordinary feelings that many people in a similar situation would experience are felt to be somehow shameful.
Some flight attendants may be feeling more traumatized than others, and this seems important to understand. Just because some people are frightened and unable to fly right now does not mean that they are weak or don't have strong character. The situation is made worse for some people because it represents a retraumatization, a feeling of repetition of a childhood history of trauma which leaves them more vulnerable. ...
People who have already had an experience with trauma while flying are more likely to be retraumatized by the events of September 11. Such trauma can take the form of a major illness on board the aircraft, an aircraft evacuation, an assault on a passenger or crew member, the death of a passenger, an airplane crash, or any perception of serious threat to self, other crew members, or passengers. Many of you may have "gotten right back on the horse" after other incidents, and never really understood its impact on you. So, September 11 may have just compounded an already existing but unrecognized traumatic state.
For example, a dangerous experience with turbulence could easily disturb one's background sense of safety, and revive old feelings about an earlier loss of a sense of control in life, such as the divorce of one's parents. Also, one might expect that any disaster that happens subsequent to September 11 will have a similar retraumatizing impact, as did the crash of Flight 587.
Your most important function at work besides safety has always been to provide passengers with a sense of comfort and reassurance, and a denial of the possibility of death. I am imagining you offering "coffee, tea, or immortality," and that's an extremely difficult task when you're feeling at risk yourself. It's important that each one of you be able to find a place within a relationship for your disturbing experiences and feelings, rather than having to bear them alone, and to recognize that there is nothing inherently shameful about these painful experiences and fears. Shame only contributes to keeping feelings hidden and makes you emotionally isolated. I urge you to tell each other how you're really feeling.
Getting together in small groups to talk can be extremely helpful. Leaning on your religious or spiritual faith can be of great comfort. Symptoms of trauma do improve with time and talking about it. If, however, you continue to experience symptoms after reaching out to family or friends or faith, then it's time to seek out the help of a professional therapist.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Record Fuel Prices Inching Ticket Prices Skyward
For an industry with razor-thin margins, rising fuel costs can and do further pressurize current airline-labor negotiations.
Labor took large wage and benefit cuts during the state-of-emergency days following 9/11; many labor groups undoubtedly feel they deserve richer contracts this time around to make up for those difficult, but necessary, "pull together for the team" losses.
But air travelers are feeling their own pump pinch.
While airline employees can expect to see a more forceful pushback from management as the cost of fuel soars, customers will have to make peace with more expensive ticket prices and fewer air service options.
Ellen Creager says it best over at the Detroit Free Press:
More pain.
Northwest Airlines hiked its fares as much as $50 on Sunday, matching last week's hikes at five other U.S. carriers, Bloomberg News reports.
The cause, of course, is high jet fuel prices.
United Airlines hiked its fares Friday, followed by American, Delta, US Airways and Continental. Now, Northwest joins the crowd.
Sadly, the hike is just more pressure on Americans to vacation near home this summer. With high-season airfares between the U.S. and Europe running about $1,200 to $1,500 round trip this year, the dollar in free-fall against world currencies and gasoline headed for $4 a gallon, the backyard is looking better all the time.
And I'm the travel writer.
Bleak news. Witty messenger.
Priceless...
[UPDATE Mar 21, 2008]: More bad news on the upcoming travel season from Adrian Schofield at Aviation Week:
The latest FAA Aerospace Forecast proves once again how quickly fortunes can change in the U.S. airline industry. A year ago, the FAA's prognosticators foresaw healthy growth in airline demand in Fiscal 2008. Now they believe domestic traffic growth will sputter almost to a standstill as weakening market conditions hit home.
"We're seeing a definite pause in growth," FAA Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell says. "We didn't see [the pause] in last year's forecast, . . . but this year it's pretty clear - we're talking flat growth in operations and slow growth in passengers." Sturgell does stress, however, that while the near term looks bleaker, the longer-term outlook remains "vibrant."
The headline numbers from the FAA's annual forecast - which extends to 2025 - support Sturgell's comments. Overall traffic on U.S. carriers is expected to rise by 2.9% in Fiscal 2008, down markedly from earlier projections of a 4.2% increase. Domestic traffic will be hurt particularly badly: Last year's forecast predicted growth of 3.4% for 2008, but the new forecast sees growth slowing to just 0.6%.
Sturgell points to a "series of cascading events" as the cause of the forecast downgrade. Chief among these are oil prices continuing their climb past $100 a barrel, coupled with the U.S. economy's apparent slide into recession.
The FAA is hardly alone in revising its projections. The International Air Transport Assn. in December slashed its global airline profit forecast due to the expected economic slowdown, and another downward revision is anticipated in the next few months. U.S. airlines - even traditional growth engines like Southwest Airlines - have also begun scaling back their capacity plans for this year.
Ah, the days of breezy $200 fares to Europe. AA ad from '87:
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Northern Star Column on 9/11 Reverberations
As a nontraditional student attending NIU as a journalism major, I began writing for the Northern Star last year. My first column ran on September 21, 2007 and reflected on the still-raw residual fear some have held onto in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The inspiration for the piece was an incident that had taken place only weeks earlier on board an American Airlines flight taxing out to the runway for take-off. A woman traveling with her children refused to fly with a group of Middle-Eastern men and demanded the plane be returned to the gate so that she could remove herself and her children from what she felt was a dangerous situation.
It created quite a stir. Here's a snippet:
Seven Middle Eastern men gather in the departure lounge of a recent American Airlines flight bound for Chicago.
It’s late in San Diego, nearing the 11 p.m. departure time for Flight 590 and passengers are anxious to get going. A 35-year-old homemaker traveling with her two children observes the dark-skinned men. They’re talking to one another – not in English – and it makes her uneasy. ...
In 1998, author Gavin de Becker published a best-seller called “The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals that Protect us from Violence.” Written before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the book directed people to tap into their sixth sense for protection against threats of violence.
de Becker claims that our “personal solution to violence” will come from within us. If we learn to follow our gut instincts, or “brilliant internal guardian,” then we can keep our loved ones and ourselves safe and free from harm.
But what happens when members of society become too fearful? Can we trust our intuition if we live in a culture of pervasive fear?
Please read the rest.
For many Americans, the reverberations of 9/11 are still felt six-plus years beyond that dark day. This will hardly be the last such encounter, I'm afraid.
[In previous years, I've shared my experiences and feelings of 9/11 online. In 2004, I described the day as it unraveled for me in my little corner of the world...and many, many others -- some for the first time -- shared theirs in return. In a 2005-photo essay you can return with me to the site of the still-smoldering Ground Zero, three weeks after the attacks, when me and my crew mates journeyed to pay our respects to those lost.]
Friday, March 14, 2008
Welcome to Airline 911
Welcome to my new research project, Airline 911: The Business and Psychology of Aviation, Labor, and Travel in Times of Change.
Why this blog?
Let me explain what I aim to do with this space in the days and weeks ahead. While Airline Biz Blog, Airline World, and The Airline Blog offer great coverage of industry news from a variety of angles, and while there are flight attendant (the always top notch Cabin Crew News) and pilot (now that's an office!) blogs aplenty, Airline 911 will focus on the changes taking place in the field following the events of September 11.
The focus will be on the human side of things, as well as the business side. I'll dip into some of the more personal aspects of post-9/11 airline life while weaving together a broader narrative of the effect so much change (much of it out of their control) has on the people and companies that are doing their best to survive and thrive in this new normal.
As a former 15-year flight attendant I care a lot about the airline industry (that's me to the right on my final work trip in October 2001). As the wife of a pilot, and one whose best friends are still flying to this day, I'm still very much a part of the airline family.
After September 11, with the support of my husband, I decided it was time to unpack my suitcase for good and turn in my crew badge and cockpit keys.
My choice wasn't made out of fear.
It was a moment to branch out for me personally and professionally. I haven't yet regretted the decision, although I do miss certain elements of being a line holder based out of places like Chicago-O'Hare, Miami-International, and JFK-International (ah...the days where I easily knew what books were the bestsellers and what were the latest fashion trends!).
In the face of 6,000 flight attendant layoffs (at AA alone), it gave my husband and me some comfort to know that we helped save one more junior crew mate's job.
On September 11th, we changed and America changed.
Even more so, every airline employee's life changed that day. And I dare say the events of that day hurt even more especially at United Airlines and American Airlines. How does anyone move on after seeing their "office" (our airplanes) used in such traumatic ways to such destructive ends?
And yet, we stand...and so many still soar.
Since that last day in uniform, I've branched out into new media development. Along the way, I've become a seasoned online writer (blogging at Daily Kos since 2004 and at my own PTSD Combat: Winning the War Within journal since 2006) as well as author of the book Moving a Nation to Care: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and America's Returning Troops.
After 2 1/2 years of advocating for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the issues that they face when returning home, I'm excited to begin this new project.
Getting my airline wings on graduation day fulfilled a dream of mine that began after my first cross-Atlantic flight in 1972.
My next dream encompasses a return to my roots, again; this time writing about the rapid changes that have taken place in the industry I love so much.
The coming years are going to be pivotal years for customers, crew, airlines and unions -- in some ways even more so than those faced in the immediate period following 9/11.
I'm looking forward to sharing the ride with you.
Pillow, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
