Cujo665

Probably because you aren't an AAG AA/AE pilot. You're an independent contractor. That has benefits, and it has costs. You benefit from higher pay and much better work rules that any of the three WO. If you want their jumpseat benefit of being WO, then go work there.

Cujo665

First, because AA can make the same argument that Alaska and Jetblue pilots are now carrying AAG passengers as well; and that they don't have to be paid a fee for departure to do so. So, should they come above all of you? Likewise, the AA pilots are carrying their pilots with no FFD, so they should all come ahead of you on those flight too, right?

Most importanty it's because you are making a business argument over who gets the jumpseat. If the unions can make a business argument over jumpseat use, then you can bet the companies will also. When it goes before an arbitrator they will see the pilots using a business interest argument for jumpseat assignment, and will give the company the same consideration.

You're opening a door best not opened.

Put another way; you are arguing for the creation of a new tier on the jumpseat priority list to create a contract carrier tier above other OAL. What that does is say because AAG has a business interest in you getting where you're going, that you should come ahead. That's the argument you are making.
It opens the door to the company making their own business decisions over the jumpseat. Now, many will say "oh wait, we have a contract that says XYZ." I'll then point to the countless arbitrations lost by unions when the company had good basis before an arbitrator to make their case. Being able to show the pilots themselves put business interests into the jumpseat is exactly the opening they need.

Once you've opened the door to company business interests, how long will it be before RAH or somebody changes the rule to say a guy JS to work gets priority above all other JS's both owned and OAL. If more than one are JSing to work, they'll use who's check in time (or even sign-in) is first. There are many permutations I can think of where opening the door to business considerations are going to hurt pilots. Use your imagination, I'm sure management already is.

Edit - no skin in the game. Don't work for AAG or RAH, and I don't jumpseat to/from work. Just an honest opinion from somebody this doesn't even effect. I am however sick of the same argument for the third time in a decade. Different people whining, but the exact same arguments already shot down twice before.

Tring

I said you would have to say “YES” but that’s OK because it appears you get confused very easily with simple concepts, even your own. If you are going to NOT put business interests into the Jumpseat, like you want, then the BUSINESS that sells the tickets (AA) should have NO say on RAH Jumpseats over OAL. AA is OAL to RAH, RAH is OAL to AA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cujo665

Lets be clear, you aren't flying your own routes, for your own airline, selling your own tickets. In essence you're a giant scheduled charter company with three big clients. More commonly called a FFD or CPA carrier.

The clients own the route, the clients provides the passengers for each flight, the clients own the revenue from the flight, and the clients essentially own EVERY seat on the flights.
You want to lower their pilots to a lower position on flights they're paying for?
You're seriously going to try to dictate to them?

Not a smart move.

Cujo665

Looks like you already changed your FOM back in 2019 to lower APA pilots farther down on the priority list. So, what's the problem? Not enough of your Captains going to stick their necks out for your already in writing for 1.6 years policy? or is this wrong?

Airline Pilot Central Forums - View Single Post - (airlinepilotforums.com)

greatmovieistar

I'm just trying to understand your argument. So your position is that jumpseat agreements do not need to be reciprocated as long as the contractor carrier has the advantage over those flying their routes?

My position is that they need to reciprocal. The JS is sacred and a bigger carrier trying to impse their will on a smaller carrier is morally and ethically wrong.

Tring

Sounds like a whole bunch of business you’re trying to inject into this Jumpseat agreement which was supposed to be the main thing you’re against. This makes your argument incredibly weak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cujo665

you seem to be confused that a reciprocal JS agreement means exact same privileges; it doesn’t.
there are many carriers that have JS privileges with other air carriers that are not without restriction in one direction, but not the other. Lots of smaller carriers will fill an empty EAS route flight with jumpseaters in every seat, yet do to their size or structure only get 1 or a few JS on any individual flight. You guys with your fewer planes, fewer seats are already getting the same JS as larger carriers with 3-4 times the fleet size and flying two to three times the available seats on each flight.

Reciprocal JS agreement does not in any way mean the same privileges in both directions. Ask your JS coordinator, they’ll verify that’s accurate.

ACEssXfer

So the remedy that RAH is going to put in place assuming nothing changes is that an AA pilot could lose a JS on an AA branded RAH flight to a UAL pilot if the UAL checks in first?

Pretty wild. Good luck.

Cyio

Yeah this strategy seems destined to fail. I would think that RAH pilots need AA jump seats more than AA pilots need RAH. I could be wrong in that, but even if the case for what RAH pilots is sound, the optics of how it is being handled will certainly **** a lot of people off.\

I get being stuck between a rock and a hard place, I just cant see this ending well if it continues to its logical conclusion.