Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
10-17-2019, 06:41 PM
#1281
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 61
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, 06:53 PM
#1283
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Posts: 203
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.
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.
So, the SAPA reps are implying that the UAL MEC Jumpseat Chairman is being unreasonable. Huh...
An Open Letter To the Professional Pilots of Skywest Airlines
Dear Brother and Sister Skywest pilots,
I would like to make clear that I am representing no opinions other than my own. I am not acting in anyway on behalf of any group, union, or pilot other than myself.
...
In the mid 2000s I was the Jumpseat Chairman for the United MEC. I was working with the individual the Skywest Pilot appointed to handle your group’s jumpseat matters. On a number of occasions, I brought the concerns of the United pilots to him. I clearly articulated the inequities built into the system, and I asked him, as both a professional, a gentleman, and a brother aviator, to consider our concerns and help us correct them in a fair and equitable fashion. I presented several compromise solutions. I was consistently met with a metaphorical palm in the face and told “No.” There was not a shred of consideration given to our concerns. When I would attempt to challenge these inequities in debate, I was on the receiving end of anger and yelling.
I went back to the UALMEC and presented the facts. Our MEC, having been through many challenges, the strike of 1985, union busting, the ousting of a CEO, attempts at employee ownership, etc., had learned to exercise patience and wisdom. While there were some who wanted to challenge the situation, I advocated for and most agreed that patience and the building of relationships was important. This was at a time when Skywest was much smaller. We continued to extend our hands in brotherhood and friendship and welcomed you into our cockpits. That was nearly fifteen years ago.
In 2010 I was elected MEC Vice Chairman of the UALMEC, our union’s number two position. Within months we were inundated with news of a merger between United and Continental. Due to my experience with the Jumpseat Committee, I was assigned to deal with these matters. As we were working with our new soon-to-be Continental pilot brothers and sisters. we had many discussions about harmonizing our jumpseat policies and building an express umbrella with regard to jumpseats.
Once again we reached out to the same individual I had previously worked with at Skywest who represented your jumpseat policies. Once again an attempt was made to bring equity and harmony to our jumpseat relationship with the Skywest pilots. Once again we were met with a palm in the face. Our concerns and requests for discussions were answered with cancelled meetings, exclusion from meetings that the Skywest representative set up with the other UAX regional carriers’ pilot groups, and yelling and threats of jumpseat wars.
Again we presented several reasonable and fair options and compromises in which there were no windfalls for either side, options which would help to build and maintain harmony and brotherhood. Again we were met with a palm in the face, and a strong “No.” In fact, the representative and another from another carrier bragged that they had created a group that they referred to as “The Cartel.” The purpose of this “cartel” was to force the United pilots into accepting inequitable jumpseat priorities.
Dear Brother and Sister Skywest pilots,
I would like to make clear that I am representing no opinions other than my own. I am not acting in anyway on behalf of any group, union, or pilot other than myself.
...
In the mid 2000s I was the Jumpseat Chairman for the United MEC. I was working with the individual the Skywest Pilot appointed to handle your group’s jumpseat matters. On a number of occasions, I brought the concerns of the United pilots to him. I clearly articulated the inequities built into the system, and I asked him, as both a professional, a gentleman, and a brother aviator, to consider our concerns and help us correct them in a fair and equitable fashion. I presented several compromise solutions. I was consistently met with a metaphorical palm in the face and told “No.” There was not a shred of consideration given to our concerns. When I would attempt to challenge these inequities in debate, I was on the receiving end of anger and yelling.
I went back to the UALMEC and presented the facts. Our MEC, having been through many challenges, the strike of 1985, union busting, the ousting of a CEO, attempts at employee ownership, etc., had learned to exercise patience and wisdom. While there were some who wanted to challenge the situation, I advocated for and most agreed that patience and the building of relationships was important. This was at a time when Skywest was much smaller. We continued to extend our hands in brotherhood and friendship and welcomed you into our cockpits. That was nearly fifteen years ago.
In 2010 I was elected MEC Vice Chairman of the UALMEC, our union’s number two position. Within months we were inundated with news of a merger between United and Continental. Due to my experience with the Jumpseat Committee, I was assigned to deal with these matters. As we were working with our new soon-to-be Continental pilot brothers and sisters. we had many discussions about harmonizing our jumpseat policies and building an express umbrella with regard to jumpseats.
Once again we reached out to the same individual I had previously worked with at Skywest who represented your jumpseat policies. Once again an attempt was made to bring equity and harmony to our jumpseat relationship with the Skywest pilots. Once again we were met with a palm in the face. Our concerns and requests for discussions were answered with cancelled meetings, exclusion from meetings that the Skywest representative set up with the other UAX regional carriers’ pilot groups, and yelling and threats of jumpseat wars.
Again we presented several reasonable and fair options and compromises in which there were no windfalls for either side, options which would help to build and maintain harmony and brotherhood. Again we were met with a palm in the face, and a strong “No.” In fact, the representative and another from another carrier bragged that they had created a group that they referred to as “The Cartel.” The purpose of this “cartel” was to force the United pilots into accepting inequitable jumpseat priorities.
Last edited by Groundhog; 10-17-2019 at 06:57 PM. Reason: Reduced quoted text
10-17-2019, 07:00 PM
#1284
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 864
There is a lot of inaccurate information floating around. I have no idea if it is being spread intentionally or not.
10-17-2019, 07:05 PM
#1285
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,888
Time change. And they can again.
10-17-2019, 07:25 PM
#1286
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Did any of you SKW and RAH pilots stop to think that maybe the reason the authorized personnel is in the agreement so high is because UAL management wants it that way? Maybe it is not negotiable because UAL said it’s not. If that’s the case things may get very ugly for SKW and RAH.
10-17-2019, 07:33 PM
#1287
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 102
We had a pilot here at ZW who got denied twice tonight on SkyWest. One on AA for the jumpseat and another as a nonrev on UA. The CA asked the gate agent for the companies of any nonrevs who are trying to get on. He was denied a seat in the back as a nonrev from the CA.
10-17-2019, 07:36 PM
#1288
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
You DO NOT have the right to deny another pilots flight benefits.
10-17-2019, 07:44 PM
#1290
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: UAL Guppy CA
Posts: 233
Please make sure he reports that to your JS committee also, please get the flight number and city pair. Share it here, this is wrong on many levels but denying a non-rev on a UAX flight is asinine.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
