Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
All UAX carriers will be denying jumpseat to UAL mainline pilots on 8/31/08 >

All UAX carriers will be denying jumpseat to UAL mainline pilots on 8/31/08

Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

All UAX carriers will be denying jumpseat to UAL mainline pilots on 8/31/08

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-30-2008, 10:20 AM
  #51  
Furlough line holder
 
andy171773's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: CRJ2, ATR, CRJ7, E145, 737
Posts: 1,845
Default

All they have to do is tell Captains to go to the gate before push to see if there are any jumpseaters, and rectify it that way.

This is going too far in my opinion, and will only strain the mainline/regional relationships further.
andy171773 is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:23 AM
  #52  
Line Holder
 
PoBugSmasher's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: ERJ 145 Right
Posts: 76
Default Please tell me this is BS....

I hope this is some sort of joke. What the hell is this industry comming to when a few pilots, try to abuse their influence (anonomously I might ad), to start a jumpseat war? Good luck, to all the UAL/UAX folks affected by this. Use your heads, keep your cool, do the right thing, and run an honest show, despite management's ineptitude.

The sad part is that the solution to all of this seems simple.....Don't use the damn software until it's fixed (if ever). UAL needs to issue a memo, an e-mail or whatever to the Gate Agents. Tell them to simply use a piece of paper and a pen and make a jumpseat list. It ain't that hard. This is how we used to handle all of our non-revs and jumpseaters years ago, at America West, and it worked just fine. The solution to every problem is not neccesarily a freakin' software upgrade. I'm sure the Gate Agents are pretty sick of being in the middle of this ****ing match too.
PoBugSmasher is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:27 AM
  #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
G-Dog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: ERJ 170
Posts: 737
Default

Originally Posted by HSLD
This seems highly suspect, I'm going to wait to see the letter released from the respective MEC's as an update via code-a-phone or web site post at alpa.org.
I can tell you that the letter was placed on our pilot(not company) website at RAH. The post was made by one of our Jumpseat coordinators. In fact, the coordinators from all three certificates put there names to it.
G-Dog is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:32 AM
  #54  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 787
Default

What the hell is this industry coming to when pilots can't get seats on their own company's aircraft? What the hell is this industry coming to when I was left by an AA mainline flight that had 15 seats available (against the will of the captain) because AA restricts offline listings (when my airline doesn't). How is it fair that unlimited AA system pilots can ride on my plane but I can't ride on their plane?

This isn't pilots vs. pilots, this is UAX pilots standing up to UAL mgmt for something the UAL mainline pilots are incapable or unwilling to take care of themselves. Have some honor if you're a UAL mainline pilot and call your union rep.
nicholasblonde is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:38 AM
  #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pilotpip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 2,934
Default

Short of the C/D gates at IAD one of us has to go print the release anyway. Going to the gate desk isn't that hard.

I'm totally opposed to this on many levels. The computer system needs to be fixed but this isn't the way to accomplish it.
Pilotpip is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:40 AM
  #56  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: CRJ 200/700 FO
Posts: 28
Default

Why was the system changed a month or so ago in the first place? What was so wrong with the old system (UAX carrier, then UAL, then other UAX?)
rememberaloha is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:45 AM
  #57  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 31
Default

The jumpseat coordinators have been trying to correct this problem over a year...

UAL management agrees to correct the software with UAL MEC approval...

UAL MEC refuses to honor the agreement and will not approve the correction...
Thinking man is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:48 AM
  #58  
Che Guevara
 
ToiletDuck's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
Remember, these folks have been asking nicely for several years. The UAX pilots who are pushing for this have obviously ALREADY been denied jumpseats on their own airplanes, numerous times.

I don't like it either, but it sure looks to me like UA started it by attempting to punish certain regioanls by putting their priority below mainline and below OTHER regionals on their own airplanes.

If UA pilots wanted priority access to RJ jumpseats, they should have kept the RJ's in their scope and the pilots on their list...you can't have it both ways.
Rick there are some fine examples of what happens when a regional thinks it can push a mainline into doing anything. They sign our checks and those seats aren't ours. Doesn't matter how much we wish they were in the reality of things UAL pays for every seat on that aircraft. The pilots have nothing to do with this. Saying UAL "started it" makes it seem like some kind of justified slap fight. What do you think UAL will do once a couple flights get canceled and their already bad situation in today's market is made worse? Do you expect some sort of sympathy out of them then? Do you think we'll get the UAL flying up for grabs? Maybe, maybe not. If there's any lesson to be learned from Comair and XJT it's you don't walk around thinking you have the ability to make your codeshare do anything. You ask. If they say no then you ask again. You keep asking till it happens. You don't bring a management issue to a pilot level. RAH is praying they'll take more of our birds. If we "stick it to them" we aren't exactly giving them a reason to put more eggs in our basket.

I could care less who started what. This is absolutely the worst way to go about it. No regional should go against it's codeshare and no action should be taken against anyone on the pilot's behalf without it being put to vote. People that support this need to sit down and think of what complications it could cause down the road. What if that guy's sitting across from you during an interview one day? Right now this is the regional trying to retaliate against UALs management by using their pilots. You have any idea what their pilots could do to us? It goes both ways and they definitely have the bigger stick.

Worst idea ever and if I get denied a jumpseat because of something a select few did without my pilot groups vote then I'd flip a lid.
ToiletDuck is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:50 AM
  #59  
Line Holder
 
PoBugSmasher's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: ERJ 145 Right
Posts: 76
Default

Originally Posted by Thinking man
The jumpseat coordinators have been trying to correct this problem over a year...

UAL management agrees to correct the software with UAL MEC approval...

UAL MEC refuses to honor the agreement and will not approve the correction...
Sounds like ALPA National needs to get a handle on the UAL MEC....
PoBugSmasher is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:56 AM
  #60  
APC co-founder
 
HSLD's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Default

Originally Posted by G-Dog
I can tell you that the letter was placed on our pilot(not company) website at RAH. The post was made by one of our Jumpseat coordinators. In fact, the coordinators from all three certificates put there names to it.
Thanks for the verification - good luck to all of us.
HSLD is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sr. Barco
Regional
89
09-15-2013 07:22 PM
RockBottom
Major
17
08-04-2007 06:25 AM
Sr. Barco
Major
34
07-31-2007 01:01 PM
nw320driver
Major
15
11-17-2006 07:45 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices