Jumpseat Battle Brewing - Page 95 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

#941

SilverandSore , 05-30-2021 10:52 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tring

It’s pretty important to have read and know the contents of an agreement before you claim one party is breaking it. If you can’t, then your entire argument is pretty baseless.

I really can’t explain why APA or Local 357 is doing anything because I’m not directly involved. This is why you won’t see me claiming things I don’t know. It keeps the conversation honest but you do you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not the one advocating for a change to the status quo. I’m certainly not going to read a legal agreement and then give my interpretation, I let the union speak for me. APA tells me to continue offering Republic pilots the jumpseat. They specify a scenario where there might be a security threat, in that situation we do not offer a seat. It’s good enough for me. But you do you, fight the good fight bro!

#942

BattMartle , 05-30-2021 10:56 AM

Line Holder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tring

You might be right and you might be wrong. Your entire argument is just hot air and has no real substance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect. Prior practice is generally binding in contract law, especially for as long as it’s been going on.

#943

nAAtive , 05-30-2021 10:58 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatmovieistar

no they haven't, but I wouldn't put it past the children at apa to make up a fib or two to that effect. Just like yesterday when they just lied about rpa pilots bullying gate agents (lol) to enforce the new FOM. They forgot when they spread that lie that the change is not even in effect yet. Must be flow throughs on that council that didn't have any college degree, not very smart.

Because higher priority for Republic pilots necessitates lower priority for the pilots of other carriers, numerous other MEC’s and independent unions have filed letters of protest to this change being sought by the Republic pilots.

Looks like this could potentially be a bad deal for APA pilots if they agree to it.

#944

Tring , 05-30-2021 11:03 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverandSore

Yeah, we’re all only as useful as the information we’re given. We have to do what our Union tells us as well. The security threat thing makes sense. It’s always been a security threat though. I am scratching my head as to why it is only now being disclosed. IDK, maybe you’ve had other communication about it that I’m not aware of.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#945

Tring , 05-30-2021 11:05 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by BattMartle

Incorrect. Prior practice is generally binding in contract law, especially for as long as it’s been going on.

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I am a little happy you put the word “generally” in there to cover yourself though [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#946

sanicom3205 , 05-30-2021 11:11 AM

Eating A Gruben

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatmovieistar

everything seems to be news to you as you obviously don't know that much. I'm not going to explain it to you as you have difficulty retaining information so not worth wasting time. But there are instances on a full flight that if it was you and a Republic pilot for the jumpseat, you would get it and the rpa guy would sit with the fa in the back.

Call me dumb all you want, whatever makes you feel good. I was smart enough to get out of the regional world at least.

You also said you weren’t going to explain it, and then explained it in the next sentence. Thanks for that.

So sometimes you can get an extra pilot on in that specific situation. What happens when a republic fa shows up to jumpseat? Meanwhile, all of our buses have two cockpit jumpseats.

#947

magnus0322 , 05-30-2021 11:15 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverandSore

Asking and denied. There is precedence in this agreement, one party chooses not to change the agreement, case closed. You can't win this one, you simply don't have enough carrot to dangle.

Perfect. We are 100% OAL on each other from here on and that's perfectly ok with me. It's truly petty that AAG pilots would rather lower their priority and hurt themselves than give us a slight bump above OAL but still below every AAG pilot

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk

#948

magnus0322 , 05-30-2021 11:16 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV8R72

We are being asked to jeopardize our agreements with other carriers.

it’s over. APA said no. Get ready to see how AA reacts when they have to lose revenue by giving an A1D to a pilot wrongly denied the jump

AA doesn't own the YX Jumpseat. You do not control priority on an OAL JS. Your choice is fine with me. Welcome aboard.

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk

#949

magnus0322 , 05-30-2021 11:17 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverandSore

Nothing pathetic about it. We’ve been operating under this agreement for years. A change in the agreement where Republic goes higher on a list certainly forces someone (who ends up not being in the jumpseat) to give something up. Sorry you guys feel this way but outside of a new agreement there is nothing you can do except harm yourselves and other commuting pilots. Per my union, I will continue to welcome you guys on my jump seat in the order we have, currently, established.

The order we have is YX pilots are OAL. Your choice makes you OAL on YX now. Welcome aboard.

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk

#950

magnus0322 , 05-30-2021 11:19 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Czervik

What percentages of republic flying are
DL
UAL
AA
?

I don't know the exact breakdown but I'm pretty sure that more than 50% of our flying is AA.

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk