Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
10-17-2019, 02:43 PM
#1261
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 290
Heres a little info from the other side for you guys. It might help you see the position SKW is in (probably wont change your mind), but maybe you can see how we got to this mess. This is what was discussed at the SAPA call today.
UALPA sent over the new jumpseat priority agreement for SAPA to sign. One of the main sticking points was the "United authorized personnel" was listed as a must ride. Now, we all mostly know that this is reserved for high up management, but UALPA wouldnt say who actually qualified for this spot. In SAPAs eyes, if they sign over that concession, United now has the ability down the road to put whoever they want for any reason in that jumpseat over our people and under must ride. I know you say they will never abuse that, but there is no way to know what they will do years down the road. Giving away must ride basis for your jumpseat gives away all control SKW has over their own jumpseats.
Now our jumpseat rep called UALPA and said, "hey we dont really agree with this, and we would like to come in and talk about it so we can find a mutually agreeable solution." UALPA rep said "don't show up at my office unless you sign the agreement." SAPA said "well we just want to talk so we can figure this out." "Dont show up unless you have the signed document." So they didn't show up.
Now the denying of the jumpseats based off of the FOM is under the condition that the gate agents are using the new software to sort the priority. If they send down a JSer based on the new priority, and it should have been the other pilot based on the priority of the SKW FOM, now you can see where the violation of the FOM is. I'm not sure if they are using the new IT yet to sort, so I'm not sure if it would actually be a violation now, but that's where the SAPA reps stand.
My opinion: the jumpseat shouldn't be used as a bargaining tool. I don't agree in denying jumpseats unless the FOM is changed to exclude UAL and UAX pilots, because then the crews hands are tied. But it sounds like UALPA in no way was willing to negotiate anything and wanted to have complete control over the SKW jumpseat. Once you give something up you can never have it back.
The SAPA reps said that we would sign the agreement if they took the "united authorized personnel- must ride" out of the agreement. Why is UALPA so set on having that in there?
UALPA sent over the new jumpseat priority agreement for SAPA to sign. One of the main sticking points was the "United authorized personnel" was listed as a must ride. Now, we all mostly know that this is reserved for high up management, but UALPA wouldnt say who actually qualified for this spot. In SAPAs eyes, if they sign over that concession, United now has the ability down the road to put whoever they want for any reason in that jumpseat over our people and under must ride. I know you say they will never abuse that, but there is no way to know what they will do years down the road. Giving away must ride basis for your jumpseat gives away all control SKW has over their own jumpseats.
Now our jumpseat rep called UALPA and said, "hey we dont really agree with this, and we would like to come in and talk about it so we can find a mutually agreeable solution." UALPA rep said "don't show up at my office unless you sign the agreement." SAPA said "well we just want to talk so we can figure this out." "Dont show up unless you have the signed document." So they didn't show up.
Now the denying of the jumpseats based off of the FOM is under the condition that the gate agents are using the new software to sort the priority. If they send down a JSer based on the new priority, and it should have been the other pilot based on the priority of the SKW FOM, now you can see where the violation of the FOM is. I'm not sure if they are using the new IT yet to sort, so I'm not sure if it would actually be a violation now, but that's where the SAPA reps stand.
My opinion: the jumpseat shouldn't be used as a bargaining tool. I don't agree in denying jumpseats unless the FOM is changed to exclude UAL and UAX pilots, because then the crews hands are tied. But it sounds like UALPA in no way was willing to negotiate anything and wanted to have complete control over the SKW jumpseat. Once you give something up you can never have it back.
The SAPA reps said that we would sign the agreement if they took the "united authorized personnel- must ride" out of the agreement. Why is UALPA so set on having that in there?
10-17-2019, 02:49 PM
#1262
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Heres a little info from the other side for you guys. It might help you see the position SKW is in (probably wont change your mind), but maybe you can see how we got to this mess. This is what was discussed at the SAPA call today.
UALPA sent over the new jumpseat priority agreement for SAPA to sign. One of the main sticking points was the "United authorized personnel" was listed as a must ride. Now, we all mostly know that this is reserved for high up management, but UALPA wouldnt say who actually qualified for this spot. In SAPAs eyes, if they sign over that concession, United now has the ability down the road to put whoever they want for any reason in that jumpseat over our people and under must ride. I know you say they will never abuse that, but there is no way to know what they will do years down the road. Giving away must ride basis for your jumpseat gives away all control SKW has over their own jumpseats.
Now our jumpseat rep called UALPA and said, "hey we dont really agree with this, and we would like to come in and talk about it so we can find a mutually agreeable solution." UALPA rep said "don't show up at my office unless you sign the agreement." SAPA said "well we just want to talk so we can figure this out." "Dont show up unless you have the signed document." So they didn't show up.
Now the denying of the jumpseats based off of the FOM is under the condition that the gate agents are using the new software to sort the priority. If they send down a JSer based on the new priority, and it should have been the other pilot based on the priority of the SKW FOM, now you can see where the violation of the FOM is. I'm not sure if they are using the new IT yet to sort, so I'm not sure if it would actually be a violation now, but that's where the SAPA reps stand.
My opinion: the jumpseat shouldn't be used as a bargaining tool. I don't agree in denying jumpseats unless the FOM is changed to exclude UAL and UAX pilots, because then the crews hands are tied. But it sounds like UALPA in no way was willing to negotiate anything and wanted to have complete control over the SKW jumpseat. Once you give something up you can never have it back.
The SAPA reps said that we would sign the agreement if they took the "united authorized personnel- must ride" out of the agreement. Why is UALPA so set on having that in there?
UALPA sent over the new jumpseat priority agreement for SAPA to sign. One of the main sticking points was the "United authorized personnel" was listed as a must ride. Now, we all mostly know that this is reserved for high up management, but UALPA wouldnt say who actually qualified for this spot. In SAPAs eyes, if they sign over that concession, United now has the ability down the road to put whoever they want for any reason in that jumpseat over our people and under must ride. I know you say they will never abuse that, but there is no way to know what they will do years down the road. Giving away must ride basis for your jumpseat gives away all control SKW has over their own jumpseats.
Now our jumpseat rep called UALPA and said, "hey we dont really agree with this, and we would like to come in and talk about it so we can find a mutually agreeable solution." UALPA rep said "don't show up at my office unless you sign the agreement." SAPA said "well we just want to talk so we can figure this out." "Dont show up unless you have the signed document." So they didn't show up.
Now the denying of the jumpseats based off of the FOM is under the condition that the gate agents are using the new software to sort the priority. If they send down a JSer based on the new priority, and it should have been the other pilot based on the priority of the SKW FOM, now you can see where the violation of the FOM is. I'm not sure if they are using the new IT yet to sort, so I'm not sure if it would actually be a violation now, but that's where the SAPA reps stand.
My opinion: the jumpseat shouldn't be used as a bargaining tool. I don't agree in denying jumpseats unless the FOM is changed to exclude UAL and UAX pilots, because then the crews hands are tied. But it sounds like UALPA in no way was willing to negotiate anything and wanted to have complete control over the SKW jumpseat. Once you give something up you can never have it back.
The SAPA reps said that we would sign the agreement if they took the "united authorized personnel- must ride" out of the agreement. Why is UALPA so set on having that in there?
Do you really believe management is 100% truthful?
Maybe they want that clause changed for free SkyWest management travel?
(you can always bump someone at a cost)
10-17-2019, 02:59 PM
#1264
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,871
So now, all of a sudden, they don't have a problem with the "priority" they were beating their chests about? Talk about backpeddling and trying to save face over one sentence. That's laughable.
10-17-2019, 03:05 PM
#1265
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: UAL Guppy CA
Posts: 233
It's one of your guys that said the denying captain would be eating crow when the jumpseat request got a seat in first class.
Yes if someone who could get a seat nonrev in the back and instead listed for the jump his name would be reported as trying to intimidate me to make a point.
Yes if someone who could get a seat nonrev in the back and instead listed for the jump his name would be reported as trying to intimidate me to make a point.
10-17-2019, 03:12 PM
#1266
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 864
A jumpseat agreement is between the airlines' managements. Not between a union and pilot association.
10-17-2019, 03:16 PM
#1267
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
It seems like this is being exposed as SGU types wanting the jumpseat.
10-17-2019, 03:18 PM
#1268
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 864
Now the denying of the jumpseats based off of the FOM is under the condition that the gate agents are using the new software to sort the priority. If they send down a JSer based on the new priority, and it should have been the other pilot based on the priority of the SKW FOM, now you can see where the violation of the FOM is.
The changes are only on UAL and UAX-E flights.
10-17-2019, 03:32 PM
#1269
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: Reclined seat
Posts: 629
Not what these pilots said for the denial. Both said that it's a violation and they could get in trouble.
10-17-2019, 03:33 PM
#1270
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 290
They already are listed in the FOM as must ride on SKW metal. I don’t think that’s what this is about. It’s about not giving UAL the right to must ride on SKW jumpseats which seems reasonable to me. Idk I just want this to be over and don’t want to deny anyone a jumpseat.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
