Slashdot Mirror


American Airlines Accidentally Let Too Many Pilots Take Off The Holidays (npr.org)

A glitch in American Airlines' pilot scheduling system means that thousands of flights during the holiday season currently do not have pilots assigned to fly them. From a report: The shortage was caused by an error in the system pilots use to bid for time off, the Allied Pilots Association told NPR. The union represents the airline's 15,000 pilots. "The airline is a 24/7 op," union spokesman Dennis Tajer told CNBC. "The system went from responsibly scheduling everybody to becoming Santa Claus to everyone." "The computer said, 'Hey ya'll. You want the days off? You got it.'"

200 comments

  1. Sounds familiar by amalcolm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they use the same holiday scheduling software as Ryanair?

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    1. Re:Sounds familiar by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no but they were probally both programmed by american code monkeys.

    3. Re:Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they do, that noise you hear is the software company taking the money and running like hell.

  2. Yeah.... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Christmas. That'd be great.

    1. Re:Yeah.... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      I got the memo!

    2. Re:Yeah.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wish my company would let me do that. Ideally on quad pay but I'll take normal remuneration. Otherwise I have to waste some of my precious paid leave on a day I hate and despise anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Yeah.... by slipped_bit · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're having trouble with their Transport Pilot Scheduling (TPS) reports.

    4. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doff my fedora at thee, good sir.
      What was his name?

    5. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is hating Xmas a SJW thing, or did the lack of friends and loved ones in your life make you SJW in an attempt to win friends?

    6. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise I have to waste some of my precious paid leave on a day I hate and despise anyway.

      You know that this makes you sound like whiny little pussy, right?

      Just letting you know that you've left the impression upon me that on the other end of your username is a hate filled nerdy little fuck.

    7. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is hating Xmas a SJW thing, or did the lack of friends and loved ones in your life make you SJW in an attempt to win friends?

      I hate Christmas when I am broke and cannot afford to buy family and friends gifts.....

    8. Re:Yeah.... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Same here. In Belgium it is a family holiday, meaning everybody is with relatives.
      My parents are dead. I have some relatives I do not know on another continent, so the closest is my sister and her kids. Her kids are working in the service industry, so they work. So is her hiusband My sister therefore also works. So I rather work. However ...

      I normally start at 10:00 till 18:30 with an hour break. On those days they will stop at 16:00 (instead of standard 17:00) So I have to come in at 8:30 and with public transport that means two hours less sleep.

      Luckily it is on a weekend this year, so that is good. At least I can sleep in.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Your employer won't pay you for Christmas unless you spend PTO?

    10. Re:Yeah.... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I just make it clear that I'm not interested in giving OR receiving gifts. Folks seem to have no problem with that, and I'm quite comfortable with gathering where presents are flying around and I'm just socializing instead of part of the present frenzy.

  3. United drags passengers off the plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    American drags pilots on. What a lovely industry!!!

  4. Hey ya'll by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Software must have been written by Clem and Bubba Software, Inc.

    1. Re:Hey ya'll by CheechBG · · Score: 1

      My guess is IBM.

    2. Re:Hey ya'll by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, it's Clem's cousin from New York City who wants to try to pretend to be southern but isn't really. If he was, he'd know it's "y'all" and not "ya'll".

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    3. Re:Hey ya'll by husker_man · · Score: 1

      If he was really southern, it'd be all y'all.

    4. Re:Hey ya'll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would that be your guess? What scheduling software does IBM have?

    5. Re:Hey ya'll by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You caught that too? The cynic in me feels that he sees the south as stupid so he uses what he thinks is southern dialect to demonstrate that the computer made a dumb mistake. Too bad he uses it wrong and just looks dumber than had he not said anything.

      Really, as a whole, his statement reads like someone who heard a joke, didn't understand it but tried to use it anyways based on his memory of it.

    6. Re:Hey ya'll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITT: Southern snowflakes.

    7. Re:Hey ya'll by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      The APA is based in Texas, so he wasn't pretending to be a stupid Southerner.

    8. Re:Hey ya'll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software must have been written by Clem and Bubba Software, Inc.

      I think the software is more likely Rajesh and Kumar (and 100's of others).

    9. Re:Hey ya'll by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The Tomasulo scheduler?

      https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/f...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    10. Re:Hey ya'll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Harold was making a White Castle run?

    11. Re:Hey ya'll by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      He's not, though. I'm not sure why you assume that everyone working for them is.

    12. Re:Hey ya'll by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That's our term for you! lol

    13. Re:Hey ya'll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Harold was in the finance department making an outsourcing plan to save money.

    14. Re:Hey ya'll by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes he is. Dennis is born and raised in Texas and works and lives there.

    15. Re:Hey ya'll by Falos · · Score: 1

      Fool! ya'll is slang for "Yes I will"

  5. Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would rewriting this scheduling software in a modern programming language like Rust or Go or Node.js, which make logic and programming errors much harder to introduce, help prevent future incidents?

    1. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Unlikely -- this seems more a bad input than a software bug per se.

    2. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How does those languages prevent programming errors?

      They don't have magic safe guards for if statements to my knowledge

    3. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Funny

      That wooshing sound isn't a 747 engine.

    4. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Rewriting something in another language is just busy-work for nerds. Be that programming or language translation. If we are making so much process on machine learning, we should be able to just recompile a working program into another language (eg emscripten) and never have to learn anything but one language.

      The matter-of-fact thing is, Humans just suck and are slow to do things, and need to be kept busy-waiting or they corrupt the stack.

      Hence the scheduler for AA and Ryanair came to the same conclusion that we need to fire all the humans.

    5. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Funny

      I give your troll about a 4/10.

      You have the required unsubstantiated claim and pretty decent bait, but overall it's not very catchy, mostly because it's almost completely detached from the subject of the parent post. It would have been more effective to first steer the conversation towards your bait, such as with a tie-in line like "The legacy airline software often has major bugs that have been left in because they're too hard to find and fix. I have to wonder if..."

      You also cast your net too wide, by targeting three languages with wide dissimilarities. Just "Rust or Go" would have been more effective as a compiled choice, or "Node.js or Python" would target the interpreted languages, but combining the two without addressing the differences weakens your overall presentation.

      Better luck next article.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would rewriting this scheduling software in a modern programming language like Rust or Go or Node.js, which make logic and programming errors much harder to introduce, help prevent future incidents?

      Only if you use Agile and DevOps.

      Of course, then the planes would just fly themselves.

      For free, after being outsourced.

    7. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Node.js is not a language, it's a way to run javascript server side. Javascript is the language of node.js

    8. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm a former software engineer, now airline pilot.

      Trust me, you NEVER want airplanes to fly themselves. Airplanes have no fail-safe mode. Software can ALWAYS fail even in the most advanced HAL9000. Worst case, if sensors that feed the computer fail, or if power fails, you're shit out of luck and everyone dies.

      Even with pilots in control, the software that helps automate routine tasks fails constantly. I've personally prevented at least a dozen tragedies.

    9. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anti-Rust hatred here at /. is intriguing. It's such a difference from what we see at other tech sites. The people on those other sites, who actually work in Silicon Valley making the software that everybody uses every day, love Rust. But Rust is hated by the failed Perl scripters and K&R C weenies we find here at /.. The failed Perl scripters hate Rust because they can't comprehend it. The K&R C weenies hate it because it makes them even more obsolete than they already are. Meanwhile, the people who actually build the software used today love Rust because it makes them more productive, while eliminating entire classes of bugs. The hatred for Rust here at /. proves it will be successful. Hateful /. commenters have a long track record of successfully hating the best technology, while successfully supporting the worst failures.

    10. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      Now *this* is a great Troll. Maybe we need a +1 Troll mod! I have no opinion on Rust. It seems to be an improvement on C++ although they didn't make the language expressive enough that it could do without a pre-processor. They think that meta programming is a feature (it's not, ever). Given this, I would tend to think that any terribly strong opinions on rust (for or against) would be unwarranted. Maybe I'll get -1 Feeding a troll.

    11. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Languages with more complex expressions like Go, Rust, JavaScript and other C-ALGOL family languages can make it easier to introduce logic bugs. COBOL or REXX would have been the right choice here.

    12. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Think how many lives could be saved if only Congress would pass Safer Navigation Act which mandates autopilots and prevents other companies launching competitors to Google Autopilot incorporating Facebook Mobile Edition For Aviation.

      Only airline pilots unions shills oppose it, and opposing it obviously that means they want people to die!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give your troll about a 4/10.

      Oh, boy. This made my day.

      Have I been missing other troll-grading posts? Or is this a new thing?

      We need a troll pageant!

    14. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Node.js is a very serious heresy. Long live the Holy Binarchy of C/C++! Kill the heretics, language crusade now!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a former software engineer, now airline pilot.

      Trust me, you NEVER want airplanes to fly themselves.

      You would say that.

      I'm waiting for a former airline pilot, now a software engineer to set things straight.

    16. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill the INFIDEL who thinks C and C++ are the same language. Burn the blasphemer who dares put our BELOVED C next to C++ like they were the same language! Down with C++! Down with Objects! Functions pointers FOREVER!

    17. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      The potential killer feature of languages like rust is memory safety through compile time proof.

      Java and it's ilk offer memory safety though use of a garbage collector such that stale pointers are not possible but garbage collectors come at a cost in terms of predicability and playing nice with the rest of the system. C++ tries to provide memory safety though reference-counted smart pointers, but reference counting comes at a high cost so most C++ coders use raw pointers and "references" some of the time. In simple code that is ok but add in polymorphism, event handlers etc and it becomes difficult to be 100% sure what pointers will be invalidated by any given call.

      The big downsides of rust seem to be limited platform support, lack of any ABI stability and the general breakneck pace of development.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    18. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    19. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by lactose99 · · Score: 1
      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    20. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      The Standard Template Library is in no way standard, unlike anything resembling a template, and almost totally opposite of a library.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    21. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would rewriting this scheduling software in a modern programming language like Rust or Go or Node.js, which make logic and programming errors much harder to introduce, help prevent future incidents?

      No, but maybe programming it in a real programming language like LISP, Haskell, or C would do the trick.

    22. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a former airline pilot, but current software engineer. I'm always amazed things work as well as they do. You look at how its implemented and the process that went in to creating it, I'm always surprised anything works at the most fundamental level honestly. Needless to say, I wouldn't trust my life to a piece of software without any sort of oversight.

    23. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I love this guy's videos.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    24. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans occasionally do dumb stuff like scrape a wingtip, drag a tail, etc. Most big disasters of the past involving human error were, at their root, caused by a lack of knowing something relevant to the situation. We've largely addressed that to the point where simple things like fatigue from overwork are leading causes in accidents involving human error now.

      However, automation caused disasters are usally total and fatal to everyone, because when autopilots go crazy it is because their inputs are bad, meaning they literally cannot self correct. Automation/human interface accidents happen because of this too, where the automation systems display erroneous data to a human pilot who in some cases cannot tell the data is wrong until it's too late.

      The thing is, humans correct machines and prevent disasters through dealing with glitches literally every day. Machines help humans fly and alert them to situations needing attention also literally every day. Neither situation ever gets or needs a lot of comment, record, reporting on, etc. It just works and works well.

      But I'd no more trust a machine-only airplane than I'd trust a pilot to hand fly long distances at high altitudes without functioning instruments. Both things can work, but the safety margin simply isn't there.

    25. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Trust me, you NEVER want airplanes to fly themselves. Airplanes have no fail-safe mode. Software can ALWAYS fail even in the most advanced HAL9000. Worst case, if sensors that feed the computer fail, or if power fails, you're shit out of luck and everyone dies.

      Because mechanical parts can never fail, so electronics are automatically less safe? And I'm not an aeronautics expert, but I seem to recall that if a plane loses power, you're pretty screwed anyway.

    26. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put down your Jepp charts and pick up a history book on airline safety. It has never been better, and all due to better automation. You and I both know what causes accidents 90% of the time. CFIT and other navigational errors are a true rarity now. I want a human in the cockpit, but only to monitor and take over ONLY when it's critical. I still think the dog isn't such a bad idea either.

    27. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that if a plane loses power, you're pretty screwed anyway.

      Not really. It only means you are going to land short of your destination.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a troll pageant!

      I am NOT judging the swimsuit competition!

    29. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Rewriting something in another language is just busy-work for nerds.

      Unless the original was written in a language that few people know anymore, in which case it's difficult to find anyone who can maintain that. At that point, a migration strategy might be useful.

    30. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      The failed Perl scripters hate Rust because they can't comprehend it. The K&R C weenies hate it because it makes them even more obsolete than they already are

      I've never used Rust, honestly don't know much about it, so I don't have an opinion on the language itself.
      You, however, make Rust advocates sound like a bunch of hipster douchebags.
      But Ed Tice is right, the parent is a great way to troll. I'd been disappointed with the obviousness of the trolling recently, the satire was way to obvious.

      A good troll is one who you honestly can't tell is serious or not.

    31. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Software can ALWAYS fail even in the most advanced HAL9000

      What you say??? The self-driving car advocates tell me otherwise, as do a number of the utopian visionaries in Silicon Valley.

    32. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The Standard Template Library is in no way standard, unlike anything resembling a template, and almost totally opposite of a library.

      I love good object-oriented languages, but C++ was a horror, a good case study in how not to implement OOP in a non-OOP language.

    33. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Planes can land just fine without power. There's about 5-6 miles of vertical height they can use to glide to safety. If the power loss was due to fuel issues or engine failure, power can be partially restored by deploying the APU (which essentially uses the energy contained in that 5 miles of height they still have) in order to use fancier electronics to help land.

      Even the landing gear is designed to lock into place via gravity alone.

    34. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Aircraft have manual reversion systems.

    35. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self driving cars have "fail safe" options by default. They can just stop. Airplanes can't.

    36. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm a former software engineer, now airline pilot.

      Was the software engineer gig before or after your service as a Navy SEAL?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by jedZ · · Score: 1

      uses the energy contained in that 5 miles of height they still have

      You're thinking about the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that works like a windmill to generate emergency power to operate certain basic electrical and hydraulic systems in order to make a controlled descent possible. The APU (Auxilliary Power Unit) is a small jet turbine (usually inside the tailcone) that is used to power the aircraft on the ground before the main engines are started. The APU burns fuel just like the main engines (just less of it) and provides electrical power rather than thrust.

    38. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction! Yes I was thinking of the Ram Air Turbine.

    39. Re: Would a rewrite in Rust help? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about Rust, but what is this compile time proof? Unless the program is written with some serious constraints, knowing when to free memory is equivalent to knowing whether the program halts or not. (Put a hard stop past one possible free point, and infinite loops past the others. If you know that the memory is supposed to be freed there, you know whether the program halts or not. )

      If it only frees memory when it can prove it's safe, it's being overly conservative, and the memory management leaks.

      It can't be that simply wrong, but I really don't see how this could work.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The original STL was turned into standard libraries that mostly contain templates.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Would a rewrite in Rust help? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yup. All I have to do is say that my favorite languages are C++, Common Lisp, and Perl, and I'm blaspheming against everybody.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low guys (or gals) on the seniority totem pole have their vacations cancelled........... that is usually how most places fix stuff like that.

    1. Re: Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an absurd solution. If my approved vacation was later canceled I would just quit instead. For starters they'd have to refund my expenses, then pay me a multiple of my base rate.

    2. Re:Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Low guys (or gals) on the seniority totem pole have their vacations cancelled........... that is usually how most places fix stuff like that.

      Union contracts makes that slightly more difficult, and the contract also limits bonus payments (to convince them to work during that period) by not allowing the airline to offer more than 150% of the base pay. AA has a number of "reserve" pilots that can be called back in times of overload. However, just having bodies available is not a magic solution, as the FAA requires type certification (you cannot pilot a 787 if you are only qualified on a 737), and any one pilot cannot work more than xxx consecutive hours (so unlike in IT you cannot just put some low seniority PFY in the seat on the help desk and feed them coffee for 24 hours straight).

    3. Re: Simple fix..... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      You wouldn't quit if you were a pilot. Where would you get a new job?

    4. Re: Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Airline pilot economics is a little different than your average IT or development job. You invest years and years in training, and know everything about how the aircraft types you're qualified to operate work. It's also kind of like military experience, in that it's not easily transferrable to jobs outside the industry. Pilots often buy "loss of license" insurance because losing the ability to fly basically means you've flushed all that investment in training and time-in-grade down the toilet. Imagine being an A380 or 777 captain making $250K+ a year flying all over the world, then getting hit by a car or losing your vision.

      So the airline isn't totally powerless in this scenario, but their options aren't good either.

    5. Re: Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are unemployed often I see..

      Personally, I'd be upset with them, but I'd show up as requested and do my job. Mistakes happen. Now if the mistakes start becoming the rule, I'd be looking for another job. However, in the airline industry, giving up your seniority is a big deal...

    6. Re:Simple fix..... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The problem is that with the way the airline industry works, once the "system" approves your bids it is a contractual obligation between both parties.

      It will be fixed, the question is just how much money extra it will cost American.

    7. Re: Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not getting a job that is the issue, it's keeping your seniority. Pilot jobs are easy to get if you have the necessary hours and ratings. What you cannot do though is retain your seniority. Seniority is how you get the routes you would like to fly. Without seniority you get the routes nobody else will take.

    8. Re: Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine being an A380 or 777 captain making $250K+ a year flying all over the world, then getting hit by a car or losing your vision.

      You go on long term sick leave and still make over 6 figures. And the way airlines are hiring right now, any commercial pilot who leaves an airline not due to performance or loss of medical will find a job somewhere else, they will just start over in seniority and pay.

    9. Re:Simple fix..... by sheph · · Score: 1

      Ah, but this is a union shop. So what they'll do is grovel and beg people to work at time and a half. Which is what they are doing and they're close to filling the gap.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    10. Re:Simple fix..... by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      They made an agreement, and now they need to back out of it due to their own fault (they bought the crappy software or misconfigured it). Paying the pilot some money to change plans that they made depending on the promise made to them seems reasonable.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    11. Re: Simple fix..... by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Imagine being an A380 or 777 captain making $250K+ a year flying all over the world, then getting hit by a car or losing your vision.

      You go on long term sick leave and still make over 6 figures. And the way airlines are hiring right now, any commercial pilot who leaves an airline not due to performance or loss of medical will find a job somewhere else, they will just start over in seniority and pay.

      Long term disability insurance tends to cap out at under six figures, or at least it has at the last three employers I have worked for. While my company's plan covers 60% of salary, that caps out at $90k per year so it doesn't actually reach 60% of my salary. It also doesn't account for bonuses which is a significant part of my total compensation.

      A pilot making $250k a year certainly wouldn't be poor if he became too disabled to be a pilot, but he would probably take a $7500+ reduction to his take home pay each month which is no small thing.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    12. Re:Simple fix..... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They made an agreement, and now they need to back out of it due to their own fault

      A contract is a contract, agreement + promise.. You don't get to back out of those, not without a major reputation hit for failing to keep your word and major legal consequences, anyways.

      They'll either need to cancel those flights, find more pilots, or entice some pilots to come to a new agreement;
      probably by offering a huge chunk of change and bidding up that amount until they find pilots willing to accept that much $$$ to switch their vacation time around.

    13. Re:Simple fix..... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      A contract is a contract, agreement + promise.. You don't get to back out of those, not without a major reputation hit for failing to keep your word and major legal consequences, anyways.

      I doubt there would be "major legal consequences." Cancelling a pilot's planned vacation probably isn't going to ruin their life. The airline will have to do something like pay those pilots double their normal pay and reimburse them if they have to cancel hotel bookings, but those costs would be relatively small.

    14. Re:Simple fix..... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I doubt there would be "major legal consequences." Cancelling a pilot's planned vacation probably isn't going to ruin their life.

      They have no ability to do that. The pilot will simply refuse the airline's attempt to cancel their vacation,
      and the airline will still be obligated to pay the pilot based on their contract.

    15. Re: Simple fix..... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      And the way airlines are hiring right now, any commercial pilot who leaves an airline not due to performance or loss of medical will find a job somewhere else, they will just start over in seniority and pay.

      While it's true the Regionals are hiring - So getting a job earning $30K flying from Fargo to North Platte isn't hard - Getting a job at a mainline American "big three" carrier remains extremely competitive and difficult.

    16. Re:Simple fix..... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      A contract is a contract, agreement + promise.. You don't get to back out of those, not without a major reputation hit for failing to keep your word and major legal consequences, anyways.

      I doubt there would be "major legal consequences." Cancelling a pilot's planned vacation probably isn't going to ruin their life.

      And that sort of logic is why they have union to begin with. Contrary to what people think, money issues rarely cause employees to want to unionize. Bad management however is what does it. Management thinking that the only thing workers should ask when they say "jump" is "how high" and other abuse really gets people's hackles up. Tell people their family vacation is cancelled because of some management fuck up for which they must pay for, and all your ex-military Rush Limbaugh listening conservatives will be screaming to unionize so there are rules that management must adhere to. That's how it was at my work anyway.

    17. Re: Simple fix..... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. Doing it would possibly piss off a lot of the pilots, which could have some negative consequences in the future. And definitely don't believe that the airline should be able to just say, "Too bad, you all have to work on Christmas." My only point was that there wouldn't be "major" legal trouble, only whatever remedy is specified in the contract, otherwise liability for compensating the pilots for any money that they lose (e.g. for vacations that they've already booked) plus some amount of punitive damages.

      If both sides act like reasonable adults, though, I would hope they could resolve the issue. If the airline says, "Look, we screwed up, but we don't want to ruin our customers' holidays. If any pilots are willing to cancel their time off, we'll pay you extra," I would like to think that the pilots would do what they reasonably can instead of telling the airline to fuck off just because they can.

    18. Re: Simple fix..... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's not getting a job that is the issue, it's keeping your seniority. Pilot jobs are easy to get if you have the necessary hours and ratings. What you cannot do though is retain your seniority. Seniority is how you get the routes you would like to fly. Without seniority you get the routes nobody else will take.

      I'm not an airline pilot, but what's the difference on what route you take? You're just a big flying bus anyway, who cares?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re: Simple fix..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no pilot shortage.

      There's a shortage of pilots willing to work for less than McDonald's wages.

    20. Re: Simple fix..... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      There's no pilot shortage.

      There's a shortage of pilots willing to work for less than McDonald's wages.

      Kinda sorta. The salaries mean people aren't willing to go to flight school in the first place.

      So yes there's a shortage of pilots, but it's due to the reason you state - Low salaries.

    21. Re: Simple fix..... by suutar · · Score: 1

      Where you get to spend time between flights, I would guess. A lot of routes are long enough that you can't just do both legs of a round trip without a break between, and if you have to overnight, you may prefer to do it in NYC with a good hotel and restaurants than Guam.

    22. Re: Simple fix..... by cfrito · · Score: 1

      Here's some median salary data for United Airlines. Can't say how accurate it may be, but indicates that for the pilot/co-pilot/flight engineer category, the median pay is $118,390. [Do they still have flight engineers at United? Mostly, a phased-out job.] Median means 50% of employees in that category get paid less than that, and 50% get paid more than that. https://www.payscale.com/resea...

  7. It's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought so after Trump's tweet but now it's official. The Yanks are as dumb as the Paddies.

    1. Re:It's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought so after Trump's tweet but now it's official. The Yanks are as dumb as the Paddies.

      they should have employed dogs instead of cats

  8. Merry Xmas Delta by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    American Airlines Accidentally Let Too Many Pilots Take Off The Holidays (npr.org)

    Merry Xmas Delta.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  9. Nightmare before Christmas by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work in the airline industry. This is a huge mess for American...it's not like they can just get some temporary holiday help off the street, and airlines have very few pilots sitting around on reserve. Even with the reserve pilots, who are usually the newbies, they have to match up who's qualified to fly certain equipment, keep track of duty hours, maximum flying hours per month. Having a few key flights cancelled due to crew shortages cascades through the whole system...crew and equipment expected to be in certain places doesn't get there in time, so the onward flights in the schedule can't run either. This is where you see things on CNN showing airport terminals with thousands of people milling around with nowhere to go.

    In a seniority-based system. the least senior pilots are probably going to end up getting their vacation cancelled and paid extra to entice them to not say they're unfit to fly. They're also going to have to pick whose turn it is in IT to be the official scapegoat. Airline scheduling is not an easy thing, but the computers doing the schedule rely on human inputs as well.

    1. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by keltor · · Score: 1

      And in fact my friend over at AA claims it was some issue with the human input aspects that cause the issue rather than a simple code update bug.

    2. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      In a seniority-based system. the least senior pilots are probably going to end up getting their vacation cancelled and paid extra to entice them to not say they're unfit to fly. They're also going to have to pick whose turn it is in IT to be the official scapegoat. Airline scheduling is not an easy thing, but the computers doing the schedule rely on human inputs as well.

      It didn't necessarily give them all vacation, it just didn't schedule the line holders to rotations over that time period. Vacation is certainly bid for a whole year period and not given on a month by month basis (barring any vacation moves of course). But you are definitely right that they wouldn't have assigned enough pilots reserve schedules to cover all of those flights (some of whom might have be senior enough to have Christmas off as a reserve pilot but too junior to hold a line and be off on Christmas so intentionally bid reserve). It wouldn't surprise me if that's how this mess was caught: they realized that they had far fewer reserves than there were open trips (because all the trips were open). But this will definitely be costly for AA. With the union squawking about the 150%, AA will probably end up having to pay 200% (which under certain conditions some airlines already pay that much) and might still have to cancel some flights.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what happens to the passengers who are affected in the US?

      In the EU the airline has to either get you on another flight reasonably close to the cancelled one (in terms of time and location), book you a flight with a different airline or refund you and pay compensation on top.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Refund for the ticket, a travel voucher worth half the ticket price that expires in 12 months, and some flapping lips saying that they're sorry and committed to your travel satisfaction.

      Luckily they spotted this a month out and not just a few days before. Now they'll have most of the twitter angst die down before the holiday travel season starts. Then they'll just face the normal level of angry delayed holiday travelers. Well, less than the normal level, since they'll be flying a lot less planes.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Going OT here, I'm thinking of the "pilot shortage" diatribe that has been going on for decades, even recent AWST had extensive article about this. I was chatting with a pilot who said it isn't a pilot shortage but a pilot pay shortage. He went on to say for someone to get qualified enough to fly the majors, it will cost that person at least $300K. Now with this fiasco, will it address this issue? I remember Capt Sully testifying in front of congress saying before the famous Hudson river landing, him and his wife were dealing with strains of mortgage payments. Other pilots were finding it more difficult earning a decent living.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    6. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      With sign-on and retention bonuses, a regional pilot makes about $50-60k starting out. At a legacy carrier, a 1st-year pilot makes about $70k a year base(can be more if they pick up certain trips, etc). The second year it jumps up to over $100k. As for Sully, well, as a 320 captain (who was most likely topped out pay wise on his aircraft) he was making well over $200k (and had the time to run a side business and had income from that) a year, with extra pay and bonuses/etc likely getting him close to $250K. If he was having mortgage issues then he either had too much of a house or too many houses.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it costs $300K to be qualified enough to fly the majors, isn't servicing that debt almost exactly like paying a mortgage on a second house?

      Add in the hours (long, with overnights) and it's not looking so great as $250K a year sounds.

    8. Re:Nightmare before Christmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every pilot I've ever talked to wouldn't be happy if they weren't flying. The money helps, but it really is a calling.

  10. Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to start then correct the software.

    Not rocket science, geezus.

  11. MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yo Miss Mash, you should write less awkward titles.

    American Airlines Accidentally Let Too Many Pilots Take Off The Holidays

    Putting take off next to pilots makes the reader expect that you are talking about flying the plane. This title is a slang statement to begin with. Once the reader has grasped what you are trying to convey, he scratches his head at how awkwardly you wrote it. Talk about vacation or leave instead of saying "take off."
     
    Also,

    computer said, 'Hey ya'll. You

    this makes NPR look like a bunch of retards, which they essentially are. Starbucks latte sipping snobs who get a new Prius and Macbook Air every year. They can't even spell, but that doesn't matter because they are ABOVE that, far too important to bother with things like spell check and proofreading.

    1. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pun around pilots taking off was the point, the correct nitpick is they should have the word 'for' between 'off' and 'the'.

    2. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Also,

      computer said, 'Hey ya'll. You

      this makes NPR look like a bunch of retards, which they essentially are. Starbucks latte sipping snobs who get a new Prius and Macbook Air every year. They can't even spell, but that doesn't matter because they are ABOVE that, far too important to bother with things like spell check and proofreading.

      Actually, the "Hey ya'll" quote was from the pilots' union spokesman in an interview with CNBC; NPR quoted the CNBC article. Hard to tell who is the retard that didn't know that the proper spelling is "y'all"

    3. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the proper spelling is "y'all"

      Well, I certainly learned something amazing today.

      There is a proper way to say something completely idiotic, like "y'all".

    4. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you find it more correct to say "Hey you guys?" to a group of women or mixed gender? Listen for it because it is exceedingly common in American English used by those that only speak English. I don't hear any of my bilingual friends that English is a second language use the phrase.

    5. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      There is a proper way to say something completely idiotic, like "y'all".

      "Y'all" is a useful word and used daily by millions of people. What is idiotic is a language without a "standard" second person plural pronoun.

      "You" used to be plural, while "thou" was singular. That is why we still write "you are" rather than "you is".

    6. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, "Hey, youse guys!".

    7. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey you guys?"

      No, it's better to say Hi, everybody!

    8. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Hey ya'll"

      You don't really know southern talk unless you know the difference between the following:

      1. "Ya'll"

      2. "Ya'lls"

      3. "All Ya'll"

      4. "All Ya'lls"

      What to they mean?

      1. "Ya'all" is short for "You All" as in a specific small group of people. "Ya'all come on over for dinner!"

      2. "Ya'all's" refers to something a specific group of people own or have. "Bring Ya'll's favorite dish to share!"

      3. "All Ya'all" is inclusive to a whole group. "All Ya'all are welcome! We got plenty of room!"

      4. "All Ya'all's" is plural possessive. "I don't know All Ya'lls names."

    9. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure I know what the problem is.

      Can't they just tell the pilots its a mistake and they are now scheduled to fly....?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Megane · · Score: 3, Funny

      And don't forget the super-plural, "all y'all".

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    11. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Megane · · Score: 1

      That was MPR, not NPR. Learn the difference, it could save your life!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    12. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Depends on their union contract, probably.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    13. Re: MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot y'ens which is "ye ones".

    14. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "You" used to be plural,

      It still can be.

    15. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No, what makes NPR look like a bunch of retards is canceling every rerun of their biggest cash cow, their listeners' favorite weekly program, and trying to erase every trace of its existence, all because some chick suddenly pops up to object to Garrison Keillor hugging her forty years ago.

      NPR is not cancelling a Prairie Home Companion, they're rebranding it. It'll still be created and broadcast the same as it always was, much to the dismay of those of us who like listening to NPR but dislike PHC's community-theater style (and quality) of oh so over-the-top faux folksy charm and preciousness.

    16. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the super-plural, "all y'all".

      Well, it's not like it doesn't have cases where you need to use it, just like in a non-slang setting ...

      nunna y'all / non' y'all -- none of you -- "non' y'all helped paint fence"

      summa y'all / som' y'all -- some of you -- "som' y'all helped paint fence"

      all y'all -- all of you -- "all y'all are still welcome to dinner" .... alternately

      all y'all -- all of your -- all y'all kids like to swim

      There's a couple of variations, but for the most part they exactly match standard English. It ain't rocket science.

      All y'all is perfectly cromulent.

    17. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the reruns of Keillor's version of the show he hosted before retiring, which is still far more popular than the forgettable new version that nobody really cares about. NPR will no longer be rebroadcasting the Keillor episodes. People who remember them and still demand them are guilty of thoughtcrime.

    18. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You people" works really well.

    19. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      "You" used to be plural,

      It still can be.

      Not without ambiguity. If you are with a group, and someone asks "Are you going?", it is unclear if you are being asked individually or as a group. But if someone says "Are y'all going?", the meaning is clear.

    20. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by swillden · · Score: 1

      That is why we still write "you are" rather than "you is".

      Except in African American Vernacular English.

      I'm not sure that is really an inconsistency, though. Had we not lost the explicit second person singular we would be saying "thou art" not "thou is". "Are" has always been the plural present conjugation of "to be", but we had three different singular forms: "I am", "thou art" and "you / ye are". When "thou" became first too intimate to use generally, and then archaic, and we shifted to using "you" for both singular and plural cases we needed to pick a conjugation. You're arguing that we should have adopted the third person singular conjugation, but I don't see any reason that's more appropriate than using the second person plural conjugation, which had the advantage of sounding "right", since "you are" was already a normal, correct phrase.

      Further, I've read speculation that the shift was driven by court language, which lends weight to the choice of "are". A royal "you" to correspond to the royal "we" (though one would rarely say "you" to a monarch). It's easy to see how that would extend into other spheres, such as business, where you might politely address an individual as plural "you" to recognize their status as representative of an organization. From there it's easy to see how over time "thou" would be relegated to purely informal contexts (especially in extremely formal England), and eventually fade away entirely, particularly as class distinctions became fuzzier.

      So, I think "you are" actually makes more sense than "you is" or "you am", the two singular options available. Other than "you art", of course.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Not without ambiguity.

      Yes, you can create contexts where it is ambiguous. You can also create contexts where it is not. Thus, 'you' can still be plural.

    22. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can create contexts where it is ambiguous.

      But "y'all" is never ambiguous, and is superior. Just because you won the civil war doesn't mean y'all get to tell others how to speak English. The South shall rise again!

    23. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      In Australian bogan, y'all is youse, as in "I love youse all".>/p>

      We use "youse" in America too. I have heard it in New Jersey and in Philadelphia.

    24. Re:MsMash Do Be Duh IndoChimp by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      But "y'all" is never ambiguous,

      I didn't say it was. I said that "you" can be plural.

      Just because you won the civil war doesn't mean y'all get to tell others how to speak English.

      Oh, please. Nobody is telling you how to speak English. If you never want to use "you" in a plural context, please don't. Just don't deny that it has one.

  12. Computer doesn't "say" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The computer only "says" what a developer coded in for it to "say", which is based on specification defined by project managers, which comes from corporate management.

    1. Re:Computer doesn't "say" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tested that software before you released it right Cowboy?

  13. They want flying to be miserable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice how every headline seems to be a conspiracy to wean Americans off of air travel by making airlines full of shock and horror stories? Who is pulling the strings here and why? Who is threatened by air travel? Who controls the hedge funds that own these corporations?

  14. trust by guygo · · Score: 1

    And these are the people you trust to take you up to 30,000 feet in an aluminum tube and get back down again safely. Good Luck with that.

    1. Re:trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... these are the ones that make work schedules for those people you trust to take you up to 30,000 feet in an aluminum tube and get you back down again safely. The ones piloting the tube as it plunges through the ether are not the ones that screwed up.

  15. mess by supernova87a · · Score: 0

    Funny though, isn't it, how the pilots' union leaders are turning it into an opportunity to criticize the airline management and milk more $ from them for this mistake.

    They could try to take the cooperative approach and say, "ok, no harm done yet, let's redo the schedule and not have to pay people 150% normal rates for time they would've worked anyway during these mistake days", but no, they're saying that the contract doesn't cover working if not scheduled -- and it's "management's" mess to clean this up. Even if the airline were to reimburse everyone for costs incurred due to this mess, it's amazing that the sides are not cooperating at all. So you suddenly see that you got 2x the vacation you expected, and you're going to say, "hey, that's what the computer says and what my contract says to follow, fuck everyone else".

    IT quickly learns that technology doesn't solve everything.

    1. Re:mess by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Funny though, isn't it, how the pilots' union leaders are turning it into an opportunity to criticize the airline management and milk more $ from them for this mistake.

      They fucked up, stop making stupid excuses.

      They could try to take the cooperative approach and say, "ok, no harm done yet,

      False. People will have already made plans. How do you reimburse them fairly for that?

      let's redo the schedule and not have to pay people 150% normal rates for time they would've worked anyway during these mistake days",

      Fuck that. If the airline is jerking people around, they should have to pay them more.

      but no, they're saying that the contract doesn't cover working if not scheduled -- and it's "management's" mess to clean this up.

      That's right, they caused the problem, and it's their job to fix it. What are the managers good for if they can't manage personnel? Isn't that their job?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:mess by swb · · Score: 2

      Those giant executive salaries? We're told the unicorns who make this money do so because their leadership genius is that good and there's so few of them able to do it.

      And fuck this "we'll cooperate with management" idea. That is the *same* management that would fuck their employees out of a nickel if they could get away with it.

    3. Re:mess by jbengt · · Score: 1

      They could try to take the cooperative approach and say, "ok, no harm done yet, let's redo the schedule and not have to pay people 150% normal rates for time they would've worked anyway during these mistake days", but no, they're saying that the contract doesn't cover working if not scheduled -- and it's "management's" mess to clean this up.

      So the pilots should cooperate with the bastards who cancelled their contracts & pensions through bankruptcy (and are consequently raking in record profits) by letting them cancel vacations without recompense, too? Anyway, the 150% is written into the current contract as a maximum allowable, so the unions have to be involved if 150% doesn't buy enough workers.
      In any event, it actually is the management's mess, not the pilots', and it is the managements responsibility to clean up, regardless of any other considerations. Preventing (or cleaning up) messes like this is one of the main purposes of management.

    4. Re:mess by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Probably because in this world, employee's are treated like crap all the time. I remember when companies did the right thing at least some of the time and employees did favors for bosses in a pinch. Now it is a game and both employee's and employer's try to screw each other at every opportunity. So the question would be, if I am a pilot do I want to be the chump that does the company a favor by working at the same rate when I know the next chance the company gets they will screw me? I know I'll still do stuff for customers gratis, and I also know I am a dying breed of chumps.

    5. Re:mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contact is a contract. It's a legal issue.

      Do you plan on changing the system of law?

      I doubt any of AA's executives gave up their huge kickbacks after they destroyed the company. Until CEOs stop looking out for themselves, you can't expect the people that actually do the work to do the same.

  16. Re:Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to sta by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to start then correct the software.

    Not rocket science, geezus.

    Holiday vacations were most likely already awarded months ago. The glitch didn't give people off, it just didn't assign them any work. And, since pilots are unionized with strong contracts, you can't just say "oops, we screwed up, you're working now".

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  17. "As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We have reserve pilots to help cover flying in December, and we are paying pilots who pick up certain open trips 150 percent of their hourly rate â" as much as we are allowed to pay them per the contract," he told the network

    Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?

    It clearly sucks for the company, because now they've fucked up and should be responsible for paying out however much bonus they need to pay the pilots to entice them to pick up the extra flights.

    It clearly sucks for the workers, because they forego the higher bonus that the company might have paid them. Many of them might have been perfectly willing to reschedule what the computer gave them at 200% or 250% pay.

    Maximum suck would be if the rigidity of the contract prevented them from offering enough, forcing them to cancel flights. That would cost the airlines far more than offering mea-culpa bonus to the pilots and would completely ruin the travel plans of customers.

    Interestingly enough, only 20% of the cost of your flight is salaries. Of that, pilots are probably 5-7% or so (there are many more ground and gate crew per flight than pilots). So even if they had to pay 300% bonuses to get enough pilots to voluntarily do those shifts, that would only be a 10% increase in net costs, bringing their margins for those particular flights from 2.5% to -7.5% (or, making $6 a passenger to losing $10 apiece or so). No matter how you slice it, it's much cheaper for the airline to offer pilot bonuses to compensate for their mistake.

    In a post to its website, the union warned its members that because "management unilaterally created their solution in violation of the contract, neither APA nor the contract can guarantee the promised payment of the premium being offered."

    First off, management asked pilots to volunteer to do those flights in exchange for money. That seems reasonable enough (except of course for the cap on the percentage). Second, I can't imagine that management would promise a premium and then not pay it. That would be an open-and-shut violation of labor law.

    If they really wanted to help, the APA would be organizing the pilots to see how much they would have to be paid to give up the vacation they were promised and then present that to the airline in a package-deal format. Something like "I have 1500 pilots willing to take shifts fro 150% bonus, 2500 for 250% bonus, ..."

    1. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We have reserve pilots to help cover flying in December, and we are paying pilots who pick up certain open trips 150 percent of their hourly rate â" as much as we are allowed to pay them per the contract," he told the network

      Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?

      My guess is the union wants to limit the incentives for pilots flying the maximum hours they are allowed by law in order to get the airlines to hire more pilots. Some statistics I've seen show pilots may fly 900 of the legally allowed hours per month, on average. If the airline could pay enough to get pilots closer to 1000 hours per year they could cut the number of pilots they need. I would hazard it'd take more than a 50% increase to get enough pilots to forgo vacations, etc. since the extra 50% would not make that much of a difference in your annual paycheck for pilots with enough seniority to avoid the less desirable routes the airlines would need to fill.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not every union contract has terms that benefit only one side. Don't forget that pilots make the ultimate judgement call about their fitness to fly. By specifying a maximum bonus, the airline doesn't end up in a bidding war with the pilots, with the pilots as a group staging a sick-out unless they get 10x their pay. So in this very situation, a pilot who was awarded time off but begged to come back could easily say "Sure, I'll do it...for a price." It's a way to limit liability, and even though it makes this tougher to deal with it's a good safety valve. Labor contracts are give-and-take on both sides. For every perk, benefit and favorable work rule the workers get, the company also throws a few things in that go in their favor too.

      People complain about unionized workplaces being inflexible, and it's true that the contract is the contract. But don't forget that every executive in every company has an ironclad employment contract, specifying what perks they get, how much the company has to pay them regardless of performance, etc. Why do you think Marissa Mayer got hundreds of millions for dismantling Yahoo!? I'd definitely work in a unionized environment as opposed to being subject to the whims of HR...at least I could plan my life a little further out than I do these days.

    3. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What actually sucks is that unions exist at all. Unions would be completely unnecessary if the government would stop manipulating labor, currency, and other economic markets.

    4. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      All other things being equal... but they never are. People look at the bottom line and dollars/hour actually worked, not how it's structured. More bonus pay = more flexibility for the airline to decide who, when and how much while the pilots think that even though the base pay sucks they get these sweet 200-250% gigs. Or they feel railroaded because they "have to" take those gigs to get a decent pay. Or that such high overtime lead to pilots taking flights they shouldn't, which can end badly for both sides. It puts more power in the hands of the employer and less for the union while the employees are probably mixed.

      In reality though, I think they're painting themselves into the corner in order to proclaim both to the pilots that we can't pay more and to the customers that they've done what they can. If they actually wanted to I'm sure there's a clause in that agreement where they could agree with the union to temporarily lift that restriction due to exceptional circumstances. I mean if they really said "Okay, we've fucked up big. We're desperate for pilots and 150% is not enough, can we pretty please pay your members more just this once?" I don't really see the union turning them down.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?

      It benefits the company as to the max they will pay. Also remember a contract is an agreement that should have benefits to both parties. The workers via the union probably got something in exchange to agreeing to cap their maximum bonus.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    7. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      So the union wants to limit the ability of the pilots to make lots of extra money in order to increase the number of people they represent? Sheesh, that's cynical even by American labor standards.

      I would agree that it will take more than a 50% increase. And that in normal circumstances, the company would rather hire another dude than routinely pay 200% or 300% bonus. But this is not a normal circumstance, this is a extraordinary fuck up and the obvious thing to do is to pay enough to solve it.

      It seems mutually beneficial for the company to cough up large bonuses and the union to agree that this is exceptional situation.

    8. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my guess is none of you realize that when the airline and union set down to the bargaining table both sides had their propositions laid out, and the max caps all came from the airline side. sure its a "union" agreed to contract, but both parties played their parts in crafting it...

    9. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      If they really wanted to help, the APA would be organizing the pilots to see how much they would have to be paid to give up the vacation they were promised and then present that to the airline in a package-deal format. Something like "I have 1500 pilots willing to take shifts fro 150% bonus, 2500 for 250% bonus, ..."

      Now, THAT ^^^ makes perfect sense.

      So, naturally, it won't happen. // flying to Hawaii for Christmas from Boston on American :-( /// ...maybe

    10. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Not every union contract has terms that benefit only one side.

      Indeed. But my claim was that this benefits zero sides.

      By specifying a maximum bonus, the airline doesn't end up in a bidding war with the pilots, with the pilots as a group staging a sick-out unless they get 10x their pay.

      Sick outs are anyway an illegal labor activity. The APA was fined millions for it.

      It's a way to limit liability, and even though it makes this tougher to deal with it's a good safety valve.

      Indeed. And good safety valves always have an emergency bypass that can be used in rare events.

    11. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Some statistics I've seen show pilots may fly 900 of the legally allowed hours per month, on average.

      A pilot flying 900 hours in a 30-day month is flying 30 hours per day. On average, of course. Some will fly less, some will fly more.

      I'd guess that the monthly limit is more like 240 -- 8 hours, 30 days.

    12. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So the union wants to limit the ability of the pilots to make lots of extra money in order to increase the number of people they represent? Sheesh, that's cynical even by American labor standards.

      Union management is like any management. The more people you have under you, the higher your status. In this case, the more people who have to belong to your union times the amount of money they have to pay for the privilege means more money you control, too. Cynical, maybe, but not outrageously so.

    13. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Opps. Should be per year

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    14. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      900 per year averages less than three hours per day. For an 8 hour duty day, that means flying only every third day. (900/8 is 116). That doesn't make sense. Do you have a cite?

    15. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Opps. Should be per year

      Metric or imperial?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Flight hours only count parking brake to parking brake, if I recall correctly. Crews work more hours and spend time traveling to hubs that don't count as flight hours. Depending on the schedule a pilot could use h=their hours in a few multi day trips, after allowing for required crew rest. Training is also not counted for legal hours flown.

      Cite: https://aviation.stackexchange...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    17. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Opps. Should be per year

      Metric or imperial?

      African or English?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    18. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Link.

      Consider most pilots probably fly multiple times per day, and have to run pre-flight checklists and other prep (and post flight?) responsibilities that wouldn't count as flight time. If you make a two hour flight, you probably also have two hours on other responsibilities. Do that twice a day, and you'd fly 4 hours and be doing other work for 4.

      Some pilots may be on a schedule where they fly something that's in the air less than an hour, even more often, and some pilots probably are on four hour flights from NY to LA then working a short flight from their to fill their a couple of other hours.

    19. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Link.

      A lot of those links, especially the early ones, are "stackexchange", the well-known regulatory agency for flight operations. Not. That's where the 1000 hr/yr number is coming from.

      The FAA, however, has the final say. Eight hours per day, with requirements for rest periods of at least 8 hours. That makes the maximum in a year 2900 hours.

      Of course, nobody will fly that much. No sane employer will require it. But that's the official legal limit.

      That's also flight time, not "being paid" time.

    20. Re:"As much as we're allowed by the contract"??? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      It's 1000, not 2900 per the FAR:

      121.471 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All flight crewmembers.

      (a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule any flight crewmember and no flight crew-member may accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or in other commercial flying if that crewmember’s total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed—

      (1) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;

      (2) 100 hours in any calendar month;

      (3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;

      (4) 8 hours between required rest periods.

      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. sounds like artificial scarcity to inflate prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suddenly we will see new fees to fix this.

  20. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's important for you to go to work and put up the homepage that says the government is closed.

  21. Re:Rare home movie of creimer in school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This user is a Pedobear Troll! Hide your chikdren and goats!

  22. Re:Rare home movie of creimer in school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Chris answers with a typo. Looks like his parents didn't paint him green enough!

  23. Re:Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to sta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously have never worked a union job.

  24. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without creimer, the entire United States (and its possessions such as the Virgin Islands) would grind to a halt!

    ...Wait, does he think they named the Virgin Islands for him?

  25. Re:Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to sta by tsqr · · Score: 1

    Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to start then correct the software.

    Not rocket science, geezus.

    You're right, it's not rocket science. It's pilot union science, where vacation time, once approved, cannot be cancelled. All the airline can do is offer financial incentives (limited by regulations to 150% of normal pay) to entice the pilots to cancel their vacations themselves.

  26. Yeah, hi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, I'm going to need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow? So if you could get here around nine, that'd be great, m'kay? Oh, oh, and I almost forgot. I'm also going to need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too.. yeah.. we, uh, lost some people this week and are sorta having to play catchup. M'kay? Thaaaanks

  27. Deceptive headline by wirelessjb · · Score: 1

    It sounds like the pilots in question will *not* be taking off.

    1. Re:Deceptive headline by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the pilots in question will *not* be taking off.

      Yes, that was the joke intended. Well spotted.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  28. No problem by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure this problem, like most airline problems, is easily solved by throwing money at it. Offer pilots enough money, they will change their plans and fly the plane for you. Might make a dent in American's quarterly profits, however.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  29. Hey, I'll fly one by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    I'll do it. I've got like 1000 hours in Falcon 4.0.

    Where's the switch for the AMRAAMs?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  30. They don't have a human review the time off reques by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what's called 'artificial' intelligence.

  31. In my best Dave Letterman impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (*prepares by turning his back, and fixes hair with his left hand, then turns around to say*)

    You can do that?

  32. The subject headline by DickBreath · · Score: 0

    > American Airlines Accidentally Let Too Many Pilots Take Off The Holidays

    It would lead me to ask: what's wrong with having an excessive number of aircraft departures on the holidays?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  33. I remember Microsoft flight simulator with meigs f by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    I remember Microsoft flight simulator with meigs field can I fly

  34. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey creimer!

    Here is another one that will repeat itself regularly in the future, although not as often as the shit you post, I have to admit :-)

    creimer confuses his Slashdot signature with an animated gif.
    --
    Balena!

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This user is a Pedobear Troll! Hide your chikdren and goats!

  37. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's true enough!

    Creimer came in my cubicle the other day around 1:30 PM to fix my Ethernet connectivity. He had to crawl under my desk to reach the cable and oh my god! While crawling under the desk, he released an unbelievable amount of gas and the whole floor had to be evacuated for the rest of the day.

    An HAZMAT team was requested to approve the condition before we could go in again the next day and entrance was delayed until 10:45 AM.

    3 workers with respiratory problems had to go to the hospital and 1 is still in critical state.

    --
    Balena!

  38. My non-holiday flight was cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a flight next spring, and it was very recently cancelled and rebooked on another flight. Coincidence, I think not?

  39. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are "chikdren", Chris?

  40. Gimli Glider by mhotchin · · Score: 1

    767 ran out of fuel, glided for 17 minutes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  41. Re:I wish I could bid for vacation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pilots are even luckier than that: they don't have to read your awful ebooks or your abysmal "author blog" (distinct from your "author website")...

    Where does someone with so little accomplished get your kind of ego, Chris?

  42. com by antdude · · Score: 2
    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Re:Immediately rescind all holiday vacation to sta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not "union science", it's contract LAW.

    AA management has been killed by bad CEO and executive's decisions. However, they had a contract in place that gave those people big parachutes no matter how badly they screwed all their employees (and passengers). If you want to fix problems like this, start with executive overcompensation, not the pilots who have the hardest job out there. Sure, the company finally made a mistake that benefits the pilots, but you need to consider all the treachery that management is effecting on a daily basis. It's literally 1,000,000,000 : 1.