M********2
发帖数: 940 | 1 我想了解更多关于几年前北京(航线)的问题。我那里有更多的故事是 - 因为飞行员为
什么不希望这些路线呢？
事实证明，DFW - 北京航线是超过当前工会合约允许 - 足够长的时间，甚至美国联邦
航空局没有允许它没有一些调整（如船上有额外的飞行员交换在漫长的责任一天）。
因此，在谈判开始......
工会同意飞行路线，并接受较长的值班天，但他们想要一些合同的语言，他们说，将禁
止疲劳和保持其他相对较小的酒店合同语言“到位。
具体来说，工会要求额外的队长，以及标准的额外副驾驶，每个DFW飞往北京。他们说
，他们有关船员疲劳 - 尤其是队长的疲劳。
DFW和北京之间的预计飞行时间在16小时和15-35分钟，没有额外的两名飞行员在FAA授
权的职责一天的船员。联邦法规要求船员随时携带一个额外的飞行员高空飞行超过12小
时（或18小时值班一天），和两个随时额外的飞行员在飞行超过16小时，高举（或20小
时值班日）。 （这不是一个试点合同问题 - 它是联邦政府为所有航空公司授权。）
好吧，我可以告诉，机管局的管理层希望第四强制性试点是第三个副驾驶，但机管局的
飞行员工会要额外的第四个试点是一个队长！工会表示，他们关注的是队长，最终持有
负责剧组的每个成员所作的每个决定，将抵达北京的时候，他们太疲劳。它是安全的，
他们说，有一个额外的队长和一个额外的副驾驶，反对两个额外的副驾驶员。
此外，欧盟希望该公司以保证额外的“休息”的试点之一的头等舱座位，而两个额外的
飞行员正在从飞行甲板上的休息。显然已经有一个额外座位在飞机的船员休息阁 楼，
除了两个“床。”但工会希望有一个额外的座位也都休息的情况下飞行员要花费一些时
间，坐起来，而不是躺在病床。在较短的国际航班上，总有一个座位休息的第三个试点
。所以这是一个先例，飞行员认为这是合理和公平。有时休息的飞行员觉得看书或看电
影，到睡觉前放松的需要，而不是立即卧睡。 （额外的飞行员的整体目的是使每个经
营试点，打破了他们的时间，高高举起，“联邦法规的要求，因此，再次，这是不纵容
- 的休息是必需的，可能有很好的理由）。问题是这些飞行员 把他们的休息吗？工会
要求额外座位（这会少了一个座位卖给乘客达），该公司不想给他们（表面上是因为它
必须来自现有的乘客座位 - 一个座位卖出）。
第三个问题，我读到了互联网接入酒店。似乎相对较小！看到飞行员花费在酒店客房个
月的一半，并在北京，layovers将是漫长的，他们认为这是必要的，以保证免费上网的
layovers飞行员。这显然 是尚未试点合同的一部分。这是额外的飞行员的北京之行的
性质，因为想的东西。
最后，而其他成员的语言可能是一份协议书的一部分，欧盟希望北京机组人员休息座椅
和互联网接入的问题，不只是在一个新的协议信说，他们的合同语言的一部分。此前，
欧盟显然认为他们做了一个妥协，无论是在他们同意的条款，在条款的事实，这是在信
中，没有在合同中，事先新德里协议慷慨。我不知道什么这一切都是。我想知道，如果
工会认为公司侵犯新德里信协议的条款，并有无门（因为它不是合同的一部分），然后
培育了他们的北京建议进一步不信任。 （？）的最后一部分是刚刚猜想！
据我所知，该公司拒绝给予任何工会的要求。他们说，“这将是我们的方式或高速公路
。”飞行员说：“好了，只是让你知道......我们将授权偏离我们目前的合同，如果你
给我们这三样东西。”和该公司拒绝以任何方式作出回应。显然是有一个完整的僵局 -
沉默 - 对双方为达成协议的最后期限的临近。
在僵局中，政府向美联航授予北京航线。
显然，飞行员工会的合同，因为它的存在，已获准到北京的两回合之旅 - DFW到ORD北
京。因此，工会自然同意，从一开始，飞这条路线。但直航是多两国都有利，这是原来
的目标。
据特里马克森;达拉斯晨报，2011年11月4：“任何一方都不眨了眨眼睛，和美国修订了
2006年的应用提供一个一站式的DFW飞往北京的建议，以便将通过芝加哥去的地方会改
变飞行的飞行员。美国运输部结束了美国联合航空公司授予华盛顿飞往北京的航线权威
。“
所以，这是一些有趣的历史。但是，在我看来，双方关闭交易。这就像一个坏的婚姻。
任何一方都将产生。双方将切断他们的鼻子，尽管他们的脸。双方应为惨败归咎于，在
我看来。但由于某些原因，它出现时，工会需要所有的指责。我不相信它是如此片面的。
http://www.city-data.com/forum/dallas/1536047-american-airlines | y****e
发帖数: 23939 | | M********2
发帖数: 940 | 3 you can read the original, like i did ...
【在 y****e 的大作中提到】
: 天哪，还有比这更糟糕的翻译吗？
| a**********m
发帖数: 2098 | 4 where's the original?
it's not in the link you gave at the end of the post
【在 M********2 的大作中提到】
: you can read the original, like i did ...
| M********2
发帖数: 940 | 5 [or search 4 key word "story" in the browser]
I wanted to learn more about the Beijing problem years ago. I figured there
had to be more to the story -- because why wouldn't the pilots want those
routes?
It turns out that the DFW-Beijing route was longer than current union
contracts permitted -- and long enough that even the FAA didn't permit it
without some adjustments (like having additional pilots on board to swap out
during the long duty day).
And so the negotiating began ...
The union DID agree to fly the routes and accept the longer duty days, BUT
they wanted some contract language that they said would prohibit fatigue and
keep other relatively minor hotel 'contract language' in place.
Specifically, the union asked for an additional captain, as well as the
standard additional copilot, on each DFW-Beijing flight. They said they were
concerned about crew fatigue -- particularly the captain's fatigue.
At 16 hours and 15-35 minutes, the projected flight time between DFW and
Beijing put the crew over the FAA-authorized duty day without the additional
two pilots. Federal regulations require crews to carry one extra pilot
anytime the flight exceeds 12 hours aloft (or an 18 hours duty day), and two
extra pilots anytime the flight exceeds 16 hours aloft (or a 20 hours duty
day). (That's not a pilot contract issue -- it's federally mandated for all
airlines.)
Well, from what I can tell, AA's management wanted that fourth mandatory
pilot to be a third copilot, but AA's pilot union wanted the fourth
additional pilot to be a captain! The union said that their concern was that
the captain, ultimately held responsible for each decision made by every
member of the crew, would be too fatigued by the time they arrived in
Beijing. It was safer, they said, to have one additional captain and one
additional copilot, as opposed to two additional copilots.
Furthermore, the union wanted the company to guarantee one first class seat
for the additional 'resting' pilot while the two extra pilots were taking
their breaks from the flight deck. There's apparently already one extra seat
in the airplane's crew rest loft, in addition to the two 'beds.' But the
union wanted an additional seat as well, in case both resting pilots wanted
to spend some time sitting up as opposed to lying down in the beds. On
shorter international flights, there's always a seat for the resting third
pilot. So this is a precedent, and the pilots felt it was reasonable and
fair. Sometimes the resting pilots feel the need to read or watch movies to
unwind prior to sleeping, as opposed to immediately reclining to sleep. (The
whole purpose of the additional pilots is so that each operating pilot can
break up their 'time aloft,' which is required by federal regulations. So,
again, this is not pampering -- the rests are required, and probably with
good reason.) The question was where would these pilots take their breaks?
The union asked for an additional seat (which would have amounted to one
less seat to sell to passengers), and the company didn't want to give it to
them (ostensibly because it would have to come from the existing passenger
seats -- one less seat to sell).
The third issue I read about was internet access in the hotels. Seems
relatively minor! Seeing as the pilots spend half of their months in hotel
rooms, and that layovers in Beijing would be lengthy, they felt it was
necessary to guarantee free internet access to pilots on layovers. This was
apparently not already part of the pilot contract. This was something
additional that the pilots wanted because of the nature of the Beijing trip.
Finally, whereas the additional crew member language could be part of a
Letter of Agreement, the union wanted the Beijing crew rest seat and
internet access issues to be part of their contract language, not merely
stated in a new Letter of Agreement. Previously, the union apparently felt
they made a generous compromise on the prior Delhi agreement, both in terms
of what they agreed to, and in terms of the fact that it was in a letter,
not in the contract. I'm not sure what all of this is about. I'm wondering
if the union felt the company was infringing on the Delhi Letter of
Agreement terms and had nowhere to turn (since it wasn't part of the
contract), and that this then bred further mistrust over their Beijing
proposals. (??) That last part is just conjecture!
As I understand it, the company refused to grant any of the union's requests
. They said, "It'll be our way or the highway." The pilots said, "Okay, but
just so you know ... We'll authorize deviations from our current contract if
you'll give us these three things." And the company refused to respond in
any way. There was apparently a complete stalemate -- and silence -- on both
sides as the deadline for agreement approached.
During the stalemate, the government awarded the Beijing route to United.
Apparently, the pilots' union contract, as it existed, already permitted a
two-leg trip to Beijing -- DFW to ORD to Beijing. So the union naturally
agreed, from the start, to fly that route. But a direct flight was much more
advantageous to both countries, and it was the original objective.
According to Terry Maxon; Dallas Morning News; Nov 4, 2011: "Neither side
blinked, and American amended the 2006 application to provide a one-stop
proposal so that the DFW-Beijing flight would go through Chicago where the
flight would change pilots. The U.S. Department of Transportation wound up
awarding the route authority to United Airlines for a Washington-Beijing
flight."
So, that's some interesting history. But, in my view, both sides shut the
deal down. It's like a bad marriage. Neither party will yield. Both will cut
off their noses to spite their faces. Both should be blamed for the fiasco,
it seems to me. But for some reason, whenever it comes up, the union takes
all the blame. I'm not convinced it was so one-sided.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/dallas/1536047-american-airlines-bankruptcy-your-perspective-west-3.html#ixzz1yCubRpBZ
【在 a**********m 的大作中提到】
: where's the original?
: it's not in the link you gave at the end of the post
| x**********u
发帖数: 673 | | c**p
发帖数: 197 | |
|
